N5 Westport to Bohola Road Project Route Selection Report Volume 1 Main Text

Transcription

1

2

3 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Volume 1 Main Text Document No: /RSR Made:... Barry Corrigan Checked:... Morgan Hart Approved:... Jim Thorpe Revision Description Made Checked Approved Date 0 Draft Work in Progress BC MH JET 21 st January Approval Issue EPC MH JET 2 th March Final Issue EPC MH JET 20 th March 2009 Ref: Final Report March 2009

4

5 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Volume 1 Main Text Table of Contents Chapter 1 Non-Technical Summary Introduction Recommendations Scheme Objectives Need for Scheme Background Constraints First Public Consultation (PC1) Engineering Parameters Initial Assessment of Options Public Consultation No Planning & Socio-Economic Impact Route Assessment Comparison of Alternative Routes Economic Assessment of Route Options Public Consultation No Development of the Preferred Route Chapter 2 Introduction Extent of the Scheme Scheme Objectives Purpose of the Report Structure of the Report Chapter 3 Need for the Scheme Introduction Ireland National Development Plan Transport The National Spatial Strategy Regional, County and Local Development Plans Plans and Programmes of the National Roads Authority Chapter 4 Constraints Study Introduction Defining the Constraints Study Area Public Consultation No Collection of Environmental Data Existing Road Network Accidents and Safety Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page i

6 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Chapter 5 Engineering Parameters National Design Standards Horizontal Design Standards Vertical Design Standards Junction Design Standards Side Roads Standards Access to Private Land and Houses off Type 2 Dual Carriageway Chapter 6 Route Corridors Initial Assessment of Options Node and Link Numbering System Route Corridors Under Consideration Chapter 7 Public Consultation No Introduction Methodology Analysis of Individual Responses Discussion Amendment to Route Corridors Following Public Consultation No Chapter 8 Planning and Socio-Economic Impact Introduction The Receiving Environment Mayo County Development Plan Potential Effects of the Proposed Development Predicted Impacts on Planning and Socio-economic Chapter 9 Route Assessment Impacts on People Flora, Fauna and Fisheries Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Landscape and Visual Agricultural Land Use Engineering Assessment Geological and Hydrogeological Assessment Cost Estimates Traffic Functionality and Economic Benefits Traffic Safety Accessibility and Social Inclusion Integration Chapter 10 Comparison of Alternative Routes Methodology Decision 1 Node A to Node B via route 1.0, 1.1 or Impacts on People Flora, Fauna and Fisheries Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Agricultural Land Use Landscape and Visual Engineering Assessment Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page ii

7 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Geological and Hydrogeological Cost Estimates Traffic Functionality & Economic Benefits Traffic Safety Accessibility and Social Inclusion Integration Appraisal Balance Sheet Decision 2 Node B to Node C via route 1.0, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, or 1.5A Impacts on People Flora, Fauna and Fisheries Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Agricultural Land Use Landscape and Visual Engineering Assessment Geological and Hydrogeological Cost Estimates Traffic Functionality & Economic Benefits Traffic Safety Accessibility and Social Inclusion Integration Decision 3 Node C to Node D via route Appraisal Balance Sheet Decision 4 Node D to Node F via route 3.2 or 3.2A Impacts on People Flora, Fauna and Fisheries Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Agricultural Land Use Landscape and Visual Engineering Assessment Geological and Hydrogeological Cost Estimates Traffic Functionality & Economic Benefits Traffic Safety Accessibility and Social Inclusion Integration Appraisal Balance Sheet Decision 5 Node G to Node I via route 3.1, 3.3 or 3.1B Impacts on People Flora, Fauna and Fisheries Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Agricultural Land Use Landscape and Visual Engineering Assessment Geological and Hydrogeological Cost Estimates Traffic Functionality & Economic Benefits Traffic Safety Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page iii

8 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Accessibility and Social Inclusion Integration Appraisal Balance Sheet Decision 6 Node I to Node M via route 3.1, 3.1A or Impacts on People Flora, Fauna and Fisheries Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Agricultural Land Use Landscape and Visual Engineering Assessment Geological and Hydrogeological Cost Estimates Traffic Functionality & Economic Benefits Traffic Safety Accessibility and Social Inclusion Integration Appraisal Balance Sheet Decision 7 Node H to Node J via route 3.4 or Impacts on People Flora, Fauna and Fisheries Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Agricultural Land Use Landscape and Visual Engineering Assessment Geological and Hydrogeological Cost Estimates Traffic Functionality & Economic Benefits Traffic Safety Accessibility and Social Inclusion Integration Appraisal Balance Sheet Decision 8 Node N to Node Q via route 4.5 or Impacts on People Flora, Fauna and Fisheries Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Agricultural Land Use Landscape and Visual Engineering Assessment Geological and Hydrogeological Cost Estimates Traffic Functionality & Economic Benefits Traffic Safety Accessibility and Social Inclusion Integration Appraisal Balance Sheet Decision 8 Node N to Node Q via route 4.5 or Impacts on People Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page iv

9 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Flora, Fauna and Fisheries Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Agricultural Land Use Landscape and Visual Engineering Assessment Geological and Hydrogeological Cost Estimates Traffic Functionality & Economic Benefits Traffic Safety Accessibility and Social Inclusion Integration Appraisal Balance Sheet Decision 8 Node N to Node Q via route 4.5 or Impacts on People Flora, Fauna and Fisheries Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Agricultural Land Use Landscape and Visual Engineering Assessment Geological and Hydrogeological Cost Estimates Traffic Functionality & Economic Benefits Traffic Safety Accessibility and Social Inclusion Integration Appraisal Balance Sheet Decision 11 Node F to Node H directly via route 3.5 or via node G following routes 3.2 and Impacts on People Flora, Fauna and Fisheries Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Agricultural Land Use Landscape and Visual Engineering Assessment Geological and Hydrogeological Cost Estimates Traffic Functionality & Economic Benefits Traffic Safety Accessibility and Social Inclusion Integration Appraisal Balance Sheet Decision 12 Node D to Node G via node E following routes 2.0 and 3.1 or via node F following routes 3.2 and 3.2A Impacts on People Flora, Fauna and Fisheries Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Agricultural Land Use Landscape and Visual Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page v

10 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Engineering Assessment Geological and Hydrogeological Cost Estimates Traffic Functionality & Economic Benefits Traffic Safety Accessibility and Social Inclusion Integration Appraisal Balance Sheet Decision 13 Node M to Node P directly via route 4.3 or via node N following route 4.5 and 4.4B Impacts on People Flora, Fauna and Fisheries Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Agricultural Land Use Landscape and Visual Engineering Assessment Geological and Hydrogeological Cost Estimates Traffic Functionality & Economic Benefits Traffic Safety Accessibility and Social Inclusion Integration Appraisal Balance Sheet Decision 14 Node T to Node V directly via route 5.0 o via node U following route Impacts on People Flora, Fauna and Fisheries Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Agricultural Land Use Landscape and Visual Engineering Assessment Geological and Hydrogeological Cost Estimates Traffic Functionality & Economic Benefits Traffic Safety Accessibility and Social Inclusion Integration Appraisal Balance Sheet Decision 15 Node P to Node U via node S following route 5.3A and 5.3 or via nodes R and T following routes 4.3, 5.0 and Impacts on People Flora, Fauna and Fisheries Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Agricultural Land Use Landscape and Visual Engineering Assessment Geological and Hydrogeological Cost Estimates Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page vi

11 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Traffic Functionality & Economic Benefits Traffic Safety Accessibility and Social Inclusion Integration Appraisal Balance Sheet Decision 16 Node O to Node U via nodes P and S following routes 4.6, 5.3A and 5.3 or via nodes R and T following routes 4.1, 5.0 and Impacts on People Flora, Fauna and Fisheries Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Agricultural Land Use Landscape and Visual Engineering Assessment Geological and Hydrogeological Cost Estimates Traffic Functionality & Economic Benefits Traffic Safety Accessibility and Social Inclusion Integration Appraisal Balance Sheet Decision 17 Node K to Node V via nodes L, O, P, S and U following routes 3.4, 4.1, 4.6, 5.3A, 5.3 and 5.2 or via nodes R and T following routes 4.2 and Impacts on People Flora, Fauna and Fisheries Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Agricultural Land Use Landscape and Visual Engineering Assessment Geological and Hydrogeological Cost Estimates Traffic Functionality & Economic Benefits Traffic Safety Accessibility and Social Inclusion Integration Appraisal Balance Sheet Decision 18 Node M to Node S via nodes N and P, following routes 4.5, 4.4B and 5.3A, or via nodes N and Q following routes 4.5, 4.7 and back to Impacts on People Flora, Fauna and Fisheries Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Agricultural Land Use Landscape and Visual Engineering Assessment Geological and Hydrogeological Cost Estimates Traffic Functionality & Economic Benefits Traffic Safety Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page vii

12 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Accessibility and Social Inclusion Integration Appraisal Balance Sheet Decision 19 Node G to Node L via node I following routes 3.1B and 4.1 or via nodes H, J and K following route Impacts on People Flora, Fauna and Fisheries Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Agricultural Land Use Landscape and Visual Engineering Assessment Geological and Hydrogeological Cost Estimates Traffic Functionality & Economic Benefits Traffic Safety Accessibility and Social Inclusion Integration Appraisal Balance Sheet Decision 20 Node D to Node P via nodes E,M and N following routes 2.0, 3.0, 4.5 and 4.4B or via nodes F, G, I,M and N following routes 3.2A, 3.2, 3.1B, 3.1A, 4.5 and 4.4B, or via nodes F, G, I, L and O following routes 3.2A, 3.2, 3.1B, 4.1 and Impacts on People Flora, Fauna and Fisheries Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Agricultural Land Use Landscape and Visual Engineering Assessment Geological and Hydrogeological Cost Estimates Traffic Functionality & Economic Benefits Traffic Safety Accessibility and Social Inclusion Integration Appraisal Balance Sheet Decision 21 Node P to Node V via nodes S and U following routes 5.3A and 5.3 or via nodes R and T following routes 4.3 and Impacts on People Flora, Fauna and Fisheries Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Agricultural Land Use Landscape and Visual Engineering Assessment Geological and Hydrogeological Cost Estimates Traffic Functionality & Economic Benefits Traffic Safety Accessibility and Social Inclusion Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page viii

13 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Integration Appraisal Balance Sheet Description of the Emerging Preferred Route Route and Node Links Appendix 10.1 Network Statistics Scenarios A, B, C & D Network Statistics Scenario E Network Statistics Chapter 11 Traffic Predictions, Economic Assessment and Road Safety Introduction Input Data COBA National Parameters COBA Results Road Safety Conclusion Chapter 12 Public Consultation No Introduction Methodology Analysis of Individual Responses Discussion Chapter 13 Development of Preferred Route Introduction Section 1 (N59 to Knockbrack) Section 3 (Claggarnagh East to Gortnafolla) Section 5 (Carrownaraha to Eastern tie-in at Clooneen) Chapter 14 Recommendations Volume 2 Figures (Volume 2 is bound separately) Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page ix

14 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Chapter 1 Non-Technical Summary 1.1 Introduction The proposed commences to the North of Westport at the tie in to the N59 Westport to Newport Road. The preferred route continues eastward bypassing Castlebar to the south of the town before continuing to a tie in with the N26 to the west of the village of Bohola before rejoining the existing N5 to the east of Bohola. The for this project details the process of determining the Preferred Route for this scheme. This Non Technical Summary describes in brief the route selection process involved in determining the Preferred Route for the N5 Westport to Bohola Scheme. The recommendations with regard to the Preferred Route are presented first with a summary of the route selection process following. The itself has been prepared in 2 volumes, namely: Volume 1 Volume 2 Main Text Figures This is Volume 1 and describes the route selection process for the N5 Westport to Bohola Road Project. Volume 2, which contains the A3 figures, presents the graphical information as described in this document. 1.2 Recommendations As a result of the Route Selection Process it is now recommended that: The route, as shown on Drawing No. 71 of Volume 2 of this report be adopted as the Preferred Route. The Preferred Route's alignment location is as follows; The preferred route commences on the N59 Newport Road, north of Westport and in the townland of Deerpark East. The route advances eastwards eastward along the route of the old railway line before it connects with and utilises an existing section of road, located within the IDA industrial estate. The route crosses the Lodge Road before it connects with a roundabout in the townland of Monamore. A southern link to the existing N5 is provided here while the mainline route advances eastwards, travels north of Sheean, before it merges with and utilises part of the previous N5 Westport-Castlebar road scheme. The route runs parallel with and north of the existing N5 until its approach to Lough Lannagh. At this location the route diverges from the previous scheme and crosses Lough Lannagh on the approximate footprint of its existing causeway. The route crosses the existing N5 at Derrylea and continues around, and to the south of, Castlebar. It crosses the railway at two locations, the N84 and N60 and continues northwards before it joins with the existing N5 to the east of Castlebar at Aghalusky. The route utilises the footprint of the existing N5 for approximately 4.5km as it advances eastwards towards Ballyvary before it crosses over the Castlebar and Manulla Rivers. The route then heads to the south of Ballyvary before it joins the route of the previous Ballyvary to Bohola Scheme. The route runs south of the existing N5 before it intersects the proposed N26, approximately 1.5km west of Bohola. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 1

15 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance The route then crosses the N5 progresses north of Bohola before it terminates on the existing N5 at Clooneen, located east of Bohola. The proposed N5 Carriageway should be a Type 2 Dual Carriageway, except: o o To the west of Knockranny near Westport where a reduced single carriageway should be adopted. To the east of the proposed N5/proposed N26 intersection where a standard single carriageway cross section should be adopted to tie into the existing N5. Junctions will be provided where the Preferred Route intersects the national primary and secondary network and also where the route intersects and/or diverges with the existing N5. The existing N5 carriageway between Castlebar and east of Turlough is to be widened online to accommodate the new proposed Type 2 Dual Carriageway. Where possible Local and Regional Roads crossing the proposed N5 will be bridged. Where this is not feasible a road will be closed and linked to another road or, if appropriate, a left-in left-out junction may be provided. The planning referral corridor will be revised and refined to reflect the Preferred Route. The preliminary design of and preparation of EIS and CPO documents will be in accordance with NRA Project Management Guidelines and Statutory Guidelines. Carry out more detailed cost benefit analysis of Preferred Route and complete the Project Appraisal Balance Sheet. 1.3 Scheme Objectives The scheme objectives are set out in the National Development Plan as part of the Strategy for National Roads, i.e.: to improve the reliability of the road transport system by removing bottlenecks, remedying capacity deficiencies and reducing absolute journey times and journey time variance; to improve internal road transport infrastructure between regions and within regions, contribute to the competitiveness of the productive sector and foster balanced regional development; to facilitate better access to and from the main ports and airports with the main objective of offsetting the negative effects of peripherality; to contribute to sustainable transport policies, facilitating continued economic growth and regional development while ensuring a high level of environmental protection; and to help achieve the objectives of the Government s Road Safety Strategy in relation to the reduction in fatalities and serious injuries caused by road accidents. 1.4 Need for the Scheme The existing N5 between Westport and Bohola carries both long distance traffic from the east of the country to Castlebar and Westport and significant regional inter-urban traffic flows between Castlebar, Westport, Ballina and Newport with the section through Castlebar providing the regional connections to Claremorris, Ballinrobe and Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 2

16 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance beyond. The result is significant traffic congestion, particularly at peak hours. The high flows together with sections of poor alignment and frequent junctions with Local, Regional and National Roads, together with significant road frontage and access has resulted in a numerous recorded accidents and a relatively poor road safety record. The development of the N26 scheme from Ballina, to support the National Spatial Strategy for Castlebar and Ballina to act as Linked Hubs will concentrate additional traffic onto the N5 at Bohola which led to the development of the previous N5 Ballyvary Bohola scheme to provide a good connection between the N26 and the N5. Similarly, the N60 proposals will only exacerbate the current congestion within Castlebar if the N5 is not addressed at the same time. The fundamental need for the scheme is to provide a high quality link along this section of the National Primary Road. The proposed project is a declared objective of all of the following planning policies: The National Development Plan, ; Transport 21; 1.5 Background The National Spatial Strategy; Regional, County and Local development/area plans, and Plans and programmes of the National Roads Authority. Previously, four road projects had been independently developed by the Mayo National Roads Design Office between Westport and Bohola. The original four road projects were the N5 Westport Castlebar Road Project, the N5 Castlebar Bypass, the N5/N59 North Westport Relief Road and the N5 Ballyvary Bohola Road Project and all had been developed by the Mayo National Roads Design Office, on behalf of Mayo County Council and the National Roads Authority. The previous separate schemes were developed as single carriageway offline improvements of the N5. In early 2007 the NRA introduced a new road type, the Type 2 Dual Carriageway, targeted at roads with traffic flows of between 12,000 20,000 AADT. The combines the previous schemes and develops them into a single continuous scheme of largely Type 2 Dual Carriageway standard. 1.6 Constraints Initially a constraints study was undertaken to gather data that would be used in the development of potential routes. The general principle that was used to define the extents of the study area was that it should be large enough to include all reasonable route options, but that it should not be excessively large as to entail collection of a large amount of information for such an extensive study area. Where areas had been defined in previous Constraints Studies and route selection stages along the scheme, these finding were first scrutinised to determine if the findings were still valid for the entire scheme and adopted where applicable. However, before any work was undertaken on collecting data for the constraints study it was decided to divide the study area into distinct sections so that information would be more easily manageable and to allow for any future fast tracking of sections Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 3

17 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance of the overall scheme. The full scheme has been divided into 5 sections as listed below: Section 1 covers the area from the N59 tie-in to the townland of Doon approximately 5 km east of Westport. Section 2 covers the townland of Doon to Ballymacrah approximately 2 km west of the Castlebar Inner Relief Road. Section 3 covers the townland of Ballymacrah to the west of Castlebar to a point approximately 2km east of Castlebar. Section 4 covers the area from east of Castlebar to approximately 1.5km east of Ballyvary. Section 5 covers the area from east of Ballyvary to the Scheme termination point on the existing N5 east of Bohola. This data collection focused on determining the constraints including physical, environmental and engineering constraints, which exist and could affect the location, design and progress of the scheme. 1.7 First Public Consultation (PC1) The first Public Consultation (PC1) was undertaken during April 2008 and presented the Constraints Study Area for the proposed road project. No responses to the public consultation were received either by post or Engineering Parameters The anticipated standard for the new road will be a combination of varying road types along its length, Table 1.1 below summarises the road types:- Table 1.1 Road Type & Design Speeds Scheme Section Road Type Design Speed Westport (N59) to Roundabout East of Westport at Monamore Roundabout East of Westport at Monamore to N26 Intersection N26 Iintersection to tie-in with N5 at Clooneen Reduced Single (7.0m) Carriageway Type 2 Dual Carriageway, Divided Lane (2x7.0m) Carriageway Standard Single (7.3m) Carriageway S2 85 kph 100 kph 100 kph Junction type will vary along the N5 and will depend on the road type. In general, on Type 2 Dual Carriageway sections the following junction types are permitted:- (i) (ii) (iii) Roundabouts, Compact Grade Separated Junctions & Left in / Left out junctions. 1.9 Initial Assessment of Options A number of initial route options were developed based on information recorded in the Constraints Study and taking into account the preferred route corridors from each of the previous four schemes. The previous preferred route corridors have been Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 4

18 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance protected from planning since the completion of the previous route selections and as such formed the basis for the initial route assessment. Further route options were investigated based on the engineering and environmental constraints and the most promising routes were identified on the basis of site visits. The development of alternative routes was limited by the amount of ribbon development along the existing road network Public Consultation No. 2 Public Consultation No. 2 was undertaken between September 2008 and October 2008 with the public consultation exhibitions being held from the 9 th of September 2008 to the 12 th of September The objectives of the consultation were to: Present the route corridor options to the public Inform them of the process and programme for the project Invite submissions on these options Gather local information, which may not be known to the design team. The displays consisted of background information on the scheme, the project programme, a cross section of a typical Type 2 Dual Carriageway and the Route Corridors on Discovery Series mapping at a scale of 1:50,000. Aerial photography with the Route Corridors displayed was also available at the consultation. Following the week of exhibitions, the exhibition material was put on display at the Mayo National Roads Design Office, the Westport Civic Offices, the Ballyvary Post Office and Bohola Post Office from 15 th September to 3 rd October. These displays were available for inspection, but not attended by the project team. A total of 116 people attended the consultation exhibitions over the four days. The highest number (42) attended in Bohola on 12 th September and the lowest (14) in Westport on 9 th September. Throughout the consultation process the staff at the exhibitions endeavoured to obtain as much local information as possible. One of the key pieces of information gathered at the consultation was that of agricultural holdings, whereby boundaries were marked on the aerial photography and the landowner s details were also recorded. All individual submissions received were evaluated and the information they contained was recorded and considered as part of the route selection process Planning and Socio-Economic Impact The proposed development will have a positive effect at a national and regional level. It will improve capacity deficiencies on the existing road network at peak hours and reduce journey times for those situated in the affected area. Internal road infrastructure will be improved between the western region and other regions throughout the country and contribute to competitiveness and balance of regional development within the western region. The proposed development will enhance accessibility to the region from Dublin and the Midlands and will encourage economic growth through the need for enhanced amenities and by providing greater accessibility to the local markets for existing and start-up businesses. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 5

19 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance At local level there will be some disruption associated with construction activities, however this should be mitigated by the longer term benefits associated with reduced traffic congestion and improved access to facilities as a result of the proposed development. All lands required for the construction of the proposed road will be compulsorily acquired by Mayo County Council. The principal socio-economic benefit of the proposed scheme is the enhancement of the links from the wider Westport Castlebar Bohola corridor to major centres within Ireland and the major ports and airports. The creation of a dual carriageway will improve the accessibility of all towns and industry served by the corridor. The impact of the proposed scheme on the rural areas is likely to be indirect, arising from the further development of the towns, notably Westport and Castlebar, rather than directly from the road itself. However, there could be pressure for development, especially commercial activities, in the immediate vicinity of the proposed junctions and these, if permitted, could have a profound impact on local rural areas, leading to investment and possibly employment, but also significant loss of identity and character. The sustainability of developments at junctions, if permitted, will require careful consideration Route Assessment The route options assessments were undertaken in line with the NRA Project Appraisal Guidelines under the headings of. Environment Economy Traffic Safety Accessibility and Social Inclusion Integration Environment In the assessment of the Environment and the Economy these were subdivided further. Under the Environmental Assessment this was subdivided into the following assessments: Impacts on People o o o o o Noise and Air Environment, Community Severance, Community Facilities, Number of Properties within the Route Corridor (Acquisition), Planning Permissions Granted within Route Corridor. Flora, Fauna and Fisheries Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Agricultural Land Use Landscape and Visual Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 6

20 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Economy Under the heading of Economy the assessment was subdivided as follows: Engineering Assessment o o o o o Route Lengths Junctions Bridges Earthworks Construction Impacts Geological and Hydrogeological Estimate Costs Traffic Functionality & Economic Benefits Traffic Safety The overall primary purpose of the scheme is to replace a length of road with poor alignment and junction standards with one designed to the latest standards for safety on high volume high speed roads. As such all route options considered produce similar improvements in safety. Accessibility & Social Inclusion Accessibility is divided into, impact on vulnerable groups and impact on deprived geographic areas. The objective of the scheme in these respects is avoid any impact on vulnerable groups and at the same time meet the objectives of the following policy documents in their aims to revitalise The Western Region: National Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans Integration Under integration the scheme was assessed in terms of compatibility with transport, land use, geographical and government policy integration. In most cases the route options were similar due to all the route options having similar aims within the scheme and similar geographical locations Comparison of Alternative Routes Node and Link Numbering System In order to facilitate the comparison of different options, the scheme was divided into five sections numbered 1 to 5 from west to east used to evaluate the constraints for the scheme. Within each section, each route was divided into a number of links. Nodes were established where route options merged or diverged and at the start/end points of each section. Each node link was considered separately in both engineering terms and environmental impact. The effects were aggregated within each Section and then within each route option. New route options could be generated easily by aggregating different node links. The location of each node is shown on Drawing 67 Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 7

21 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance in Volume 2 while Table 9.1 in Chapter 9 of this Report lists the node links which form each of the routes within Sections 1 to Route Selection The comparison of different route options is carried out on the basis of the Department of Transport Project Appraisal Balance Sheet. Alternatives are ranked with respect to Environment, Economy, Safety, Accessibility and Social Inclusion, and Integration. Each of these criteria is given a score on a 7 point scale, as follows:- +3 Highly Positive +2 Moderately Positive +1 Slightly Positive 0 Neutral -1 Slightly Negative -2 Moderately Negative -3 Highly Negative Having assessed the 41 route elements between nodes A-V, the large number of route options that arise from the potential combinations of route elements were reduced by a process of elimination. The first stage of this was to select the best route between any two sequential nodes. Ten such two node decisions were identified, as follows (see Drawing 67 in Volume 2). Decision 1 Node A to Node B via route 1.0, 1.1 or 1.2 Decision 2 Node B to Node C via route 1.0, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 or 1.5A Decision 3 Node C to Node D via route 2.0 Decision 4 Node D to Node F via route 3.2 or 3.2A Decision 5 Node G to Node I via route 3.1, 3.3 or 3.1B Decision 6 Node I to Node M via route 3.1, 3.1A or 3.3 Decision 7 Node H to Node J via route 3.4 of 3.6 Decision 8 Node N to Node Q via route 4.5 or 4.7 Decision 9 Node N to Node P via route 4.4A or 4.4B Decision 10 Node P to Node S via route 4.6 of 5.3A The Appraisal Balance Sheets that led to the selection of a single Emerging Preferred Route between these discrete nodes are described in Sections 10.1 to of Volume 1 of this report. Having identified an Emerging Preferred Route element between any two nodes, the alternative routes for each of these elements were discounted, leaving the reduced number of route options illustrated on Drawing 68 in Volume 2. The next stage was to select the best route between common points that involved options that passed through intermediate nodes, but where the relative traffic benefits could be assessed on the basis of a simple comparison of the overall route lengths. The following such decisions were identified (see Drawing 68 in Volume 2). Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 8

22 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Decision 11 Decision 12 Decision 13 Decision 14 Decision 15 Decision 16 Node F to Node H directly via route 3.5 or via node G following routes 3.2 and 3.4 Node D to Node G via node E following routes 2.0 and 3.1 or via node F following routes 3.2 and 3.2A Node M to Node P directly via route 4.3 or via node N following routes 4.5 and 4.4B Node T to Node V directly via route 5.0 or via node U following route 5.2 Node P to Node U via node S following route 5.3A and 5.3 or via nodes R and T following routes 4.3, 5.0 and 5.2 Node O to Node U via nodes P and S following routes 4.6, 5.3A and 5.3 or via nodes R and T following routes 4.1, 5.0 and 5.2 Decision 17 Node K to Node V via nodes L, O, P, S and U following routes 3.4, 4.1, 4.6, 5.3A, 5.3 and 5.2 or via nodes R and T following routes 4.2 and 5.0 Decision 18 Node M to Node S via nodes N and P following routes 4.5, 4.4B and 5.3A or via nodes N and Q following routes 4.5, 4.7 and back to 4.5 The Appraisal Balance Sheets that led to the selection of the single Emerging Preferred routes between these discrete nodes are described in Sections to of the main report. Following these Emerging Preferred Route elements and discounting the alternative routes for each of these elements led to the final route options illustrated on Drawing 69 in Volume 2 of this report. The final stage was to select the between the routes shown on Drawing 69. The remaining route options between nodes D and P are at varying distances from Castlebar and as such required specific traffic modelling to estimate the relative traffic benefits. Similarly the remaining route options between nodes P and V involve different journey lengths for Castlebar-Dublin and Castlebar-Ballina traffic, and therefore required specific traffic modelling. The three final decisions to be made were therefore as follows (see Figure 69 in Volume 2): Decision 19 Node G to Node L via node I following routes 3.1B and 4.1 or via nodes H, J and K following route 3.4 Decision 20 Node D to Node P via nodes E, M and N following routes 2.0, 3.0, 4.5 and 4.4B or via nodes F, G, I, M and N following routes 3.2A, 3.2, 3.1B, 3.1A, 4.5 and 4.4B or via nodes F, G, I, L and O following routes 3.2A, 3.2, 3.1B, 4.1 and 4.6 Decision 21 Node P to Node V via nodes S and U following routes 5.3A and 5.3, or via nodes R and T following routes 4.3 and 5.0. As a check two other routes using previously rejected elements were also compared over the full length P to V, via nodes S and U but this time following routes 4.6, 5.3 and 5.2 and finally via nodes R, T and U via routes 4.3, 5.0 and 5.2. The Appraisal Balance Sheets that led to the selection of the single Emerging Preferred routes between these discrete nodes are described in Sections and of the main report. The result of these three final decisions led to the identification of a single overall Emerging Preferred Route from node A to V, as illustrated in Drawing 70 in Volume 2. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 9

23 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance 1.14 Economic Assessment of Route Options Networks In order to establish the order of magnitude of relative economic benefits of different route options network statistics were extracted for the different routes as follows:- Scenario A: A to B via route 1.2, B to C via route 1.5A, C to D via route 2.0, D to E via route 2.0, E to M via route 3.0, M to N via route 4.5, N to P via route 4.4B, P to S via route 4.6, S to U via route 5.3 and U to V via route 5.2. Scenario B: A to B via route 1.2, B to C via route 1.5A, C to D via route 2.0, D to F via route 3.2A, F to G via route 3.2, G to I via route 3.1B, I to M via route 3.1A, M to N via route 4.5, N to P via route 4.4B, P to S via route 4.6, S to U via route 5.3 and U to V via route 5.2. Scenario C: A to B via route 1.2, B to C via route 1.5A, C to D via route 2.0, D to F via route 3.2A, F to G via route 3.2, G to I via route 3.1B, I to O via route 4.1, O to P via route 4.6, P to S via route 4.6, S to U via route 5.3 and U to V via route 5.2. Scenario D: A to B via route 1.2, B to C via route 1.5A, C to D via route 2.0, D to F via route 3.2A, F to G via route 3.2, G to H to J to K to L via route 3.4, L to O via route 4.1, O to P via route 4.6, P to S via route 4.6, S to U via route 5.3 and U to V via route 5.2. Scenario E: A to B via route 1.2, B to C via route 1.5A, C to D via route 2.0, D to F via route 3.2A, F to G via route 3.2, G to I via route 3.1B, I to M via route 3.1A, M to N via route 4.5, N to P via route 4.4B, P to R via route 4.3, R to T via route 5.0 and T to V via route 5.0. These network statistics fed into the final route option decisions, As more data became available it was then possible to test these five route options using the more rigorous cost benefit analysis software COBA In undertaking the Phase 3 Route Selection assessment the following data was input into COBA: Traffic flow data (AADT); Link characteristics; and Junction data. Scheme costs Scheme Costs The total cost for each scheme is outlined below estimated at 2008 quarter 4 prices (Incl. VAT): Scheme A Scheme B Scheme C Scheme D Scheme E m m m m m Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 10

24 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Table 1.4 below outlines the breakdown of the construction cost between 2008 and Table 1.4 Percentage Breakdown of Construction Costs by Year Costs % Year Planning & Design Land & Property Archaeology Advance Works Main Contract Construction Main Contract Supervision Residual Network COBA National Parameters An Irish version of the COBA programme has been developed which incorporates economic and traffic parameters from the NRA Project Appraisal Guidelines. These parameters have been developed specifically for the assessment of Irish road schemes. (Refer to the NRA Project Appraisal Guidelines Appendix 6 National Parameters Value Sheet for a full description of all values.) In addition, the following scheme-specific data is relevant: COBA Results The opening year of the scheme is 2014; 30 year evaluation period ( ); Traffic flows input as 2014 AADT; Construction period (including Planning & Design) For each scheme two assessments were undertaken, one to assess high traffic/economic growth (High Growth) and one to assess low traffic/economic growth (Low Growth). This section outlines the COBA results as follows: Net Present Value (NPV); Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR); and Internal Rate of Return (IRR) The High Growth and Low Growth results are outlined in Table 1.5 and 1.6 below, respectively. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 11

25 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Table 1.5 NPV, BCR and IRR for the High Growth Scenario Net Present Value (NPV) Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Scheme A m % Scheme B m % Scheme C m % Scheme D m % Scheme E* m % *Emerging Preferred Route Table 1.6 NPV, BCR and IRR for the Low Growth Scenario Net Present Value (NPV) Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Scheme A 9.024m % Scheme B m % Scheme C m % Scheme D m % Scheme E* m % *Emerging Preferred Route Conclusion Overall Scheme B, C and E provide significant Net Present Values and Internal Rates of Return well in excess of the 4% cut off for both high and low growth scenarios. Schemes A and D perform quite poorly in comparison. These results confirm the previous Decisions 19, 20 and 21 except that Decision 20 previously anticipated that Route B would perform better than Route C in terms of COBA based on the large difference in terms of construction costs between Route B and C and therefore in terms of Economy. When the difference in terms of Economy is removed between Scheme B (Route D - F - G - I - M - N - P) and Scheme C (Route D - F - G - I - L - O - P) the Decision 20 balance sheet for these two options is equal. However the expressed public preference to maximise the use of existing N5, together with the initial cost savings in terms of construction that this route achieves confirms, that Route D - F - G - I - L - O - P remains the preferred option Public Consultation No. 3 Following from Public Consultation No. 2 (PC2) and the route selection process which determined the Emerging Preferred Route, Public Consultation No. 3 (PC3) was undertaken between December 2008 and January 2009, with the public consultation exhibitions being held from the 10 th of December 2008 to the 12 th of December The objectives of this consultation were to: Present the Emerging Preferred Route to the public Further inform the public of the process and the programme for the project Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 12

26 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Invite submissions on the Emerging Preferred Route Gather local information including land ownership, which may not be known to the design team. Answer questions from the public Consider and review the information received. As with PC2, a publicity campaign was undertaken by Mayo National Roads Design Office (MNRDO) and Mayo County Council prior to the consultation. The exhibitions were then held at the following three locations: Westport Westport Civic Office 10 th December 2008 Castlebar Macalla Hall, Lough Lannagh Holiday Village 11 th December 2008 Ballyvary Ballyvary National School 12 th December 2008 The displays information on the scheme consisted of the following. Aerial Photography for the scheme showing the Emerging Preferred Route OS Mapping showing the Route Corridors and Options as shown at Public Consultation No. 2 (PC2) Plans showing the Emerging Preferred Route and known landownership Information for comment A total of 365 people attended the consultation exhibitions over the 3 days, overall public attendance at PC3 was significantly higher than at PC2 where only 116 people attended over 4 days. Information regarding landownership was obtained along with comments from attendees regarding the route. Those wishing to make a written submission was requested to do so by the closing date of the 16 th January A total of 85 individual responses were received, with main issues raised as follows. Concerns over crossing point and impacts at and near the N60 The change from Route 3.2 to 3.2A at Black Lough between PC2 and PC3 and the resulting impacts Impacts on agriculture including requests for underpasses, access, drainage, accommodation works Severance of lands Environmental impacts on properties due to proximity of route noise and air quality Landowners wanting the scheme to be moved away from their lands Lands will be sterilised including a freeze on planning permissions and zoning issues Impact on health and safety of community at Ballyvary Access issues at Lodge Road, Islandeady and the Abbeybreaffy Nursing Home adjacent to the existing N5 near Turlough. Questions relating to the need for the scheme and sustainability of road transport Impact on Castlebar Golf Course Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 13

27 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Of the issues raised in the submissions received the majority related to the route alignment changes near Black Lough along with the impacts at the N60 crossing point in Section Development of the Preferred Route Data was received as a result of the PC3 exercise and further design work was undertaken resulting in 11 changes to the alignment of the Emerging Preferred Route of up to 60 metres in some cases. Following the development of the Emerging Preferred Route, the Preferred Route was presented to Mayo County Council and adopted as the Preferred Route at the Council meeting, held on the 9 th of March Details of the Preferred Route along with changes from the Emerging Preferred Route are shown on Drawing No. 71 of Volume 2. Following the adoption of the preferred route, the scheme will progress to the Preliminary Design Phase. As part of the preliminary design and further phases of the route development, the route will be subject to changes due to further studies and refinement. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 14

28 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Chapter 2 Introduction 2.1 Extent of Scheme The scheme under consideration starts just north of Westport at the tie-in point of the earlier N5-N59 Westport Northern Relief Road merging with the existing N59 Westport to Newport Road. The scheme advances eastward, to the north of the existing N5, before crossing the existing N5 and bypassing Castlebar to the south before extending to the tie-in point of the earlier N5 Bohola to Ballyvary study just east of the village of Bohola. 2.2 Scheme Objectives The scheme objectives were set out in the National Development Plan as part of the Strategy for National Roads, i.e.: to improve the reliability of the road transport system by removing bottlenecks, remedying capacity deficiencies and reducing absolute journey times and journey time variance; to improve internal road transport infrastructure between regions and within regions, contribute to the competitiveness of the productive sector and foster balanced regional development; to facilitate better access to and from the main ports and airports with the main objective of offsetting the negative effects of peripherality; to contribute to sustainable transport policies, facilitating continued economic growth and regional development while ensuring a high level of environmental protection; and to help achieve the objectives of the Government s Road Safety Strategy in relation to the reduction in fatalities and serious injuries caused by road accidents. 2.3 Purpose of this Report The purpose of this report is to present the technical and environmental evaluation of the options presented in Public Consultation No. 2 (September 2008) and the process by which an emerging preferred route was selected. The report also describes the public consultation process and the method by which the Preferred Route was developed. The general requirements of this are outlined in the National Roads Project Management Guidelines, Phase Structure of the Report The has been prepared in 2 volumes namely: Volume 1 Volume 2 Main Text Figures This is Volume 1 and describes the route selection process for the N5 Westport to Bohola Road Project. Volume 2 which contains the A3 figures presents the graphical information as described in this document. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 15

29 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Chapter 3 Need for the Scheme 3.1 Introduction The existing N5 between Westport and Bohola carries both long distance traffic from the east of the country to Castlebar and Westport and significant regional inter-urban traffic flows between Castlebar, Westport, Ballina and Newport with the section through Castlebar providing the regional connections to Claremorris, Ballinrobe and beyond. The result is significant traffic congestion, particularly at peak hours. The high flows together with sections of poor alignment and frequent junctions with Local, Regional and National Roads, together with significant road frontage and access has resulted in a numerous recorded accidents and a relatively poor road safety record. The development of the N26 scheme from Ballina, to support the National Spatial Strategy for Castlebar and Ballina to act as Linked Hubs, will concentrate additional traffic onto the N5 at Bohola. This led to the development of the previous N5 Ballyvary Bohola Road Project to provide a good connection between the N26 and the N5. Similarly the proposals to upgrade the N60 will exacerbate the current congestion within Castlebar if the N5 is not addressed at the same time. The fundamental need for the scheme is to provide a high quality link along this section of the National Primary Road. The compatibility of the proposed project with existing policies and plans is set out in the following sections: The National Development Plan, ; Transport 21; The National Spatial Strategy; Regional, County and Local development/area plans, and Plans and programmes of the National Roads Authority. 3.2 Ireland National Development Plan In January 2007, the Government published the Ireland National Development Plan (NDP) following the expiration of the NDP. The current NDP seeks to achieve the objectives set out in relation to National Roads in both the National Spatial Strategy and Transport 21. Among the General Goals of the NDP are: Decisively tackle structural infrastructure deficits that continue to impact on competitiveness, regional development and general quality of life and to meet the demands of the increasing population; Integrate regional development within the National Spatial Strategy framework of Gateway cities and Hub towns to achieve the goals of economic growth in the regions and provide for major investment in the rural economy; The NDP also states The Hubs identified in the NSS are also generally located on key transport corridors between the Gateways and will therefore benefit from ongoing investments under the NDP and Transport 21. To drive the process of strengthening the Hubs, it will be vital that national investment is partnered with local vision and Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 16

30 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance leadership and the attraction of private investment. For example, good local planning added to urban renewal initiatives have transformed the central areas of many Hubs, encouraging significant and subsequent private investment in retailing and commercial activities. In the NDP, Castlebar is identified as a Hub, and Castlebar Ballina are identified as Linked Hubs. The NDP includes the N5 as part of its development strategy for National Primary Roads. It requires that major improvements be carried out to the N5 including the N5 Westport-Longford Road, which is a Strategic Corridor Link to the East/West Road Corridor. 3.3 Transport 21 Transport 21 is a capital investment framework under the National Development Plan through which the transport system in Ireland will be developed, over the period 2006 to This framework will address the twin challenges of past investment backlogs and continuing growth in transport demand. The projects and programmes that make up Transport 21 aim to: increase accessibility making it easier for everybody to get to and from work, school, college, shopping and business. ensure sustainability recognising that a modern transport system must be sustainable from an economic and environmental perspective. expand capacity addressing existing deficiencies and providing for future growth. increase use - managing the transport network and seeking to increase the use of public transport enhance quality improving safety, accessibility, integration, reliability, speed and comfort. Transport 21 is made up of two investment programmes a national programme and a programme for the Greater Dublin area. The main objectives of the national programme are: to create a high quality, efficient national road and rail network consistent with the objectives of the National Spatial Strategy; to provide for a significant increase in public transport use in provincial cities; to strengthen national, regional and local public transport services; to enhance safety and security facilities at the regional airports. The total estimated cost of implementing Transport 21 is 34 billion in current cost terms. The 34 billion investment package is comprised of: 26 billion to be provided from the Exchequer and 8 billion from Public Private Partnership funded projects; 18 billion will be invested in the national roads programme, while 16 billion will be provided for public transport projects and for regional airports; the National Programme will receive about 20 billion and the Greater Dublin Area Programme about 14 billion. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 17

31 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance The following paragraphs are taken from the N5 Dublin to Westport and Castlebar section of the Transport 21 website: This road is intended to provide a high quality link between the strategically important towns of Westport and Castlebar and Dublin. Already major sections of this route have been upgraded, from Dublin to Longford, to motorway or high quality dual carriageway standard. Journey times have been substantially reduced along the route while safety has also noticeably improved. In the recent past major improvements have been delivered in the quality of the existing roadway and work continues to improve the overall standard and safety of the route. Further work scheduled or underway for the N5 includes the bypasses of Ballaghadereen, Longford, Strokestown, and major improvements on the Castlebar/Westport section of the route. 3.4 The National Spatial Strategy This National Spatial Strategy for Ireland (NSS) is a twenty year planning framework designed to achieve a better balance of social, economic, physical development and population growth between regions. Its focus is on people, on places and on building communities. Through closer matching of where people live with where they work, different parts of Ireland will for the future be able to sustain: a better quality of life for people a strong, competitive economic position and an environment of the highest quality. Castlebar is located in the West Region of the NSS which covers the Galway-Mayo- Roscommon Counties. It has been selected as a Linked Hub with Ballina as they are strategically located within the West. These towns contain complementary functions and capabilities that point towards a capacity to energise wider areas through integrated and co-ordinated development. The NSS states that Castlebar and Ballina, as Hubs, will:...perform important roles within the national structures at the regional and county level. Critical factors will include improvements in regional accessibility through advanced communications infrastructure, by road and public transport and through the regional airport in Knock. It also states that: Linking the Midlands Gateway with Castlebar-Ballina through up-graded road, public transport and communications links also has the potential to benefit a number of other towns, including Roscommon, Castlerea, Ballyhaunis and Claremorris. 3.5 Regional, County and Local Development Plans The current development plan for Mayo is the Mayo County Development Plan (CDP), and relates to the whole of the county of Mayo excluding the Town Council Areas of Ballina, Castlebar and Westport. The plan recognises that the Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 18

32 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance peripheral nature of the county in national and international terms is exacerbated by major infrastructural deficiencies particularly in relation to strategic road connections. One of the key issues of the County Development Plan is the Strengthening of the infrastructure base and prioritising the delivery of key strategic roads. The CDP also states that It is the policy of the Council, in conjunction with all statutory agencies, to assist in the provision of a high quality road network to appropriate capacity and safety standards, to cater for the economic and social development of the County. and to protect the capacity and safety of the National Road network in the County and to support the National Roads Authority policy statement on Development Management and Access to National Roads (2006). The CDP states furthermore that It is an objective of the Council to encourage the completion of improvements to the three National Primary Routes: the N5, N17 and N26 to their entirety. Whilst also stating The peripherality of the County, in national and international terms, is exacerbated by major infrastructural deficiencies, particularly in relation to strategic road and rail connections, telecommunications and energy. These infrastructural deficiencies are a major inhibiting factor in terms of the social and economic development of the County and quality of life in general. The Castlebar Town Council Development Plan 2004 is the current plan in operation in the town of Castlebar, and is in respect of the former Urban District Council area. The Town Council Area has been extended and the Castlebar & Environs Development Plan has been adopted. However this is subject to a Ministerial direction which requires the plan to be re-considered within certain constraints. The draft plan reserves the corridor of the preferred route for the N5 identified in the previous Castlebar Ring Roads Project. The current development plan in Westport is the Westport Development Plan 2003 and the policies and objectives in the plan are in relation to the whole of the Urban District of Westport with the exception of Roman Island. Westport also has a number of local plans which are presented in the plan entitled Westport Local Area Plans for South Westport, Westport Environs and Roman Island, A new draft plan entitled Westport Town & Environs Draft Development Plan 2009 is currently under review. The new draft plan takes into account the Local Area Plans for Roman Island, South Westport and Westport Environs (2005) to produce a comprehensive development plan for Westport town and environs. These plans reserve a corridor for relief roads around the east side of Westport including the N5/N59 North Relief Road. 3.6 Plans and Programmes of the National Roads Authority In July 1998 the NRA published the NRA National Road Needs Study (Road Needs Study). In Annex 4: Schedule of Improvement Needs it identifies the N5 Westport Castlebar Route as Backlog requiring a Wide 2 Lane standard road. The term backlog refers to those routes not included in the Operational Programme for Transport which with projected traffic growth would not be capable of delivering 80kph (50mph) average inter-urban speed by the end of The Road Needs Study stated that improvement of this route to a Wide 2 Lane would provide a Level of Service D at the design year of Part of the N5 from Castlebar to Charlestown is identified as Phase 3 requiring implementation within the period, with a recommended road type as standard single carriageway. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 19

33 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Chapter 4 Constraints Study 4.1 Introduction The Constraints Study was carried out during the early stages of the planning of the project (April October 2008) with the objective of gathering as much background information relating to the study area as possible. This data collection was focused on determining the constraints including physical, environmental and engineering constraints that exist and could affect the location, design and progress of the scheme. The Report recorded the collection of data to the end of October Environmental and engineering constraints were researched and recorded. The size of the scheme, approximately 40 kilometres in length, and extent of the initial study area resulted in a staged approach to data collection. 4.2 Defining the Constraints Study Area The general principle that was used to define the extents of the study area was that it should be large enough to include all reasonable route options, but that it should not be excessively large as to entail collection of a large amount of information for such an extensive study area (refer Drawing 01). The following sections provide a brief description of how the study area was refined Section 1 A strategic decision was taken that in Section 1 the proposed road should connect to the N59 on the northern side of Westport. For this reason the area within Westport and the area to the south of the town were excluded. The constraints study area around Westport largely followed the draft emerging preferred route of the N5/N59 North Westport Relief Road allowing some 200 metres to the north for adjustments and modifications in the route selection process. Generally a 200 metre corridor was allowed in Section 1 centred on the previously protected route with an increased Study Area at both ends. At the western end the area was increased to allow for consideration of alternative tie in locations to the N59. On the eastern end a 200 metre corridor to the south of the protected route (N5 Westport to Castlebar Road Project) was allowed and the study area was extended to allow for consideration of route options north of the cairn at Sheean, approximately 3km to the east of Westport Section 2 The study area remained to the north of the existing N5 throughout a large part of Section 2 while excluding a small area between the existing N5 and the protected route between Doon and Dooleague. This decision was taken following a review of the Constraints and Route Selection studies undertaken on the previous N5 Westport to Castlebar Road Project. Routes to the south of the N5 were significantly disadvantaged by the number of properties and particularly by the railway line which would require two crossings. As stated above the constraints study area remained north of the N5 until just west of the National school at Islandeady on the existing N5 where it crossed over the N5 and followed the line of the N5 and the LP710 Derrywash Road with a 200 metre buffer allowed for a route to the south of the LP710. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 20

34 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance To the north of the existing N5 the study area was constrained by two major factors which when combined greatly restrict the possibility of a bypass being located on the northern/western side of the town. These were: (i) (ii) The requirement to provide a bypass of Castlebar requiring connectivity with both the N84 Ballinrobe Road and the N60 Claremorris Road, both to the south of Castlebar; and Islandeady Lough and Lough Lannagh. For the purpose of considering any options just north of the Preferred Route of the N5 Westport to Castlebar Scheme a 200 metre band to the north of the alignment was allowed Section 3 During the Route Selection phase of the previous Castlebar Ring Road Project, route options to the north and south of Castlebar were assessed. This concluded that a national road bypass of Castlebar should be located to the southeast of the town while the northwestern section of the ring road should form part of the regional road network and remain an objective of Mayo County Council. The Constraints Study Area was developed to reflect this strategic decision which allowed for connectivity to both the N60 and N84 national routes which would not be possible with a northern bypass. Section 3 had a large number of infrastructural constraints including: Railway line N5 National Primary Road N84 & N60 National Secondary Roads R373 Regional Road Residential and industrial clusters Planning zoning of Castlebar Town and Environs Castlebar Golf Club on the Belcarra Road Castlebar lakes Although these were constraints in designing route options it was considered that they should be designed around rather than automatically excluded from the initial Constraints Study Area. Another consideration in developing the Constraints Study Area in this section was that this scheme needed to allow for a potential future connection with the proposed N60 Castlebar to Claremorris Road Scheme to the southwest of Castlebar. The initial Constraints Study area had two distinct parts in this section. The first followed the alignment of the previously developed N5 Westport to Castlebar Scheme from the proposed roundabout on the existing N5 at Ballymacrah to its terminus on the Castlebar Inner Relief Road. This part was defined by the railway line to the south and a 200 metre corridor to the north of the previous alignment. The second part of Section 3 followed the alignment of the previously proposed Castlebar Ring Road Project (South) with a 200 metre corridor on its northern edge. The NRA Peer Review highlighted concerns that the cross section, junction strategy and proximity to zoneable lands were not consistent with the need to provide a high quality road serving the national road traffic. Therefore the initial constraints study Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 21

35 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance area allowed a much larger study area to the south with its most southerly point being 200 metres south of the LP710 Derrywash Road. From this point the study areas southern boundary traversed north easterly across the N84 to the N60 just south of Breaffy, which allowed for any route options on the southern side of Breaffy to be considered. The study area around Castlebar did not extend any further than just south of Breaffy as traffic studies showed that approximately 8 of traffic on the N5 is travelling to Castlebar and therefore the desire line of traffic should not be too far south of the town Section 4 Section 4 covered the area between the east side of Castlebar and the east side of Ballyvary. From the point where the proposed Northern Ring Road of Castlebar proposes to connect with the existing N5, the northern boundary of the study area was 200m north of the existing N5. Routes any further north would have departed too far from the desire line which is east of Bohola to south of Castlebar. There was little need to investigate routes to the north of the existing N5 as this is a recently constructed road to the south of the previous N5, which has little frontage and therefore could be upgraded to facilitate the construction of the proposed scheme, should a route in this location be favoured. Also throughout the western part of Section 4 the Castlebar River meanders just north of the N5 to a point where it joins with the Manulla River (part of the River Moy csac) to form the Toormore River. Ribbon development along the old N5 (Turlough Road) particularly in the area between Turlough and Castlebar would have posed a significant constraint to any route options in this area. At the point where the existing N5 crosses the Castlebar River and swings northwards the Constraints Study area increased in area northwards by approximately 500 metres to allow for route options to the north of Ballyvary. At this location the study area was restricted to the north by the castle and cillín at Corraun. This was a complex section of the study area with any route requiring crossings of the Toormore and Straide River, the N58 and the railway line. Extensive development north of the existing N5 along all of the north south local roads meant that route options were restricted to either south of the cillín, or at least a kilometre further north, at which point the route would be too far away from the overall desire line which passes south of Ballyvary. The southern boundary of the Constraints Study area had less defined features to follow with the majority of features running north south including the railway line, rivers and most local roads. The ground is relatively flat through this section with few topographical and physical constraints. The N60 Claremorris Road has a large amount of ribbon development as far as Breaffy. The southern boundary was identified to the east of Breaffy House and Breaffy GAA grounds, where it traversed in a north easterly direction across the alignment of the proposed N60 Castlebar to Claremorris Scheme and continued past Cappavicar Lough as far as the eastern end of Section 4 in the townland of Doohana. The boundary through here reflected the desire line of the traffic whilst also avoiding areas of high ground further south Section 5 Section 5 is the most easterly section covering the section from east of Ballyvary to east of Bohola and the termination of the scheme. Similar to Section 4 most of the watercourses and roads traverse the study area in a north-south direction and as such did not provide a distinct boundary either north or south of the existing N5. The main constraints within this section were the archaeological constraints, watercourse crossings, the R321, the connection to the proposed N26 Ballina to Bohola Stage 2 Road Scheme and the tie-in to the existing N5 east of Bohola. The northern Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 22

36 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance boundary allowed for routes to be developed from Ballyvary to Bohola north of the N5. The study area allowed for an almost direct route from the townland of Capparanny just north of the point where the existing N5 deviates from the previous N5 north of Ballyvary and Bohola to the scheme termination point at Clooneen on the existing N5. The southern boundary largely followed the line of the boundary in Section 4 to just south of Bohola where it deviated slightly to increase the area around Bohola and the tie-in to the existing N5. This followed the methodology of suiting the desire line for traffic and avoided areas of high ground further south and continued in a north easterly direction. 4.3 Public Consultation No. 1 Public Consultation No. 1 was undertaken in April The consultation involved the presentation of information on the scheme through an advertisement in the following local newspapers: Western People The Mayo News The Connaught Telegraph The Constraints Study brochure was circulated to the local representatives by staff of the Mayo County Council NRDO at meetings with the Ballina, Swinford, Castlebar and Westport council and staff. The Constraints Study was advertised in the local papers on the 8 th and 9 th April and copies of the consultation brochure were placed at the following public buildings: Mayo County Council Offices, The Mall, Castlebar Westport Town Council, Civic Offices, Altamount Street, Westport Ballyvary Post Office Bohola Post Office Comments were invited from the public by 2nd May 2008, with responses to be submitted to the Project Engineer, at the NRDO offices. An address was also established specifically for any responses or submissions - N5WestportBohola@regdesign.com. The Constraints Study brochure and the newspaper advertisement are included in Appendix Collection of Environmental Data Considerable data collection was carried out and is recorded in the individual chapters and figures of the Constraints Report. The data included information on: engineering and topography including major utilities crossing the study area geology and hydrogeology socio-economic data from the Census of Population and County Development Plans flora, fauna and fisheries, obtained from the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) database and from satellite imagery archaeology and cultural heritages using NPWS files and Record of Monuments and Places(RMP). Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 23

37 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance land use and agriculture landscape and visual aspects. Full details can be found in the Constraints Study Report. 4.5 Existing Road Network Existing Road Network The study area has a road system ranging from National Primary and Secondary roads to a network of regional and local roads. The existing National Primary N5, Dublin to Westport route runs from Bohola to Westport within the constraints area and passes through the town of Castlebar. The National Secondary N59 commences south of Sligo Town near Ballysadare and runs west into County Mayo through Ballina and proceeds via Bangor and Newport to Westport. It then runs in a southerly direction towards Galway City. The N59 is connected to the N5 in Westport Town centre and, via Clifden, provides a direct link with Newport which is situated approximately 12 km north of Westport. The National Secondary N84, Galway to Castlebar route runs in a northerly direction through Ballinrobe towards Castlebar where it is joined at a signalised junction in Castlebar Town by the N60. The N60, Castlebar to Roscommon route partially travels through the eastern study area in a south-easterly direction through the localities of Kilkenny and Breaghwy and is linked to the N84 and the N5 in Castlebar Town. The final National Secondary road in the study area is the N58 which connects the N5 with Ballina in the north of the county via the N26. The N58 connects to the existing N5 in the village of Ballyvary. Regional roads serving the study area include: R310 Castlebar to Pontoon R311 Castlebar to Newport R321 Bohola to Kiltimagh R330 Westport to Partry R373 Castlebar to the N Proposed Road Network Proposed N60 The N60 Castlebar to Claremorris project commenced in 2000 with a Study Area being identified. Following public consultation, a Constraints Study Report was published in January Route Options were presented for public consultation in May 2001, and the Preferred Route was presented to the public in September The, presenting the process of selection of the Preferred Route, was presented to the public in November 2001.The Preferred Route corridor (25km) was adopted by Mayo County Council and is sterilized from planning. The scheme is awaiting approval to proceed to Phase 4, Preliminary Design. The proposed N5 Westport to Bohola Scheme should allow for a connection to the proposed N60 in all engineering assessments. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 24

38 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Proposed N26 The existing N26 National Primary Road links Ballina and North Mayo to the N5 National Primary Road. The existing N26 passes through the towns of Foxford and Swinford, and caters for traffic from Ballina/north Mayo/west Sligo to Dublin and the east of the county. The N58 National Secondary Road also serves the area, running between Foxford and the N5 at Ballyvary, and caters for traffic between Ballina/north Mayo/west Sligo and Castlebar/Galway and the south of the county. The proposed N26 will bypass Foxford and link with the existing N5 just west of Bohola. The scheme was designed as a Type 2 Dual Carriageway and is 19 km in length. The Preliminary Design has been carried out, and an Oral Hearing into the CPO and EIS was held on the 19th. February The scheme is currently awaiting a decision from An Bord Pleanála. 4.6 Accidents and Safety NRA National Accident Database Road accident data has been obtained from the NRA National Accident database for the fourteen year period 1990 to 2004 inclusive. The results are shown diagrammatically on Drawings of Volume 2 for the following categories of personal injury accident; Fatal Serious Injury and Minor Injury. Statistics of damage only accidents are not generally available because they are not comprehensively reported to the Gardaí Analysis of Observed Accidents for the Study Area Analysis of the observed accident data on the sections of N5, N60, N84, N58, N59 and all other roads within the study area, over the fourteen year period 1990 to 2004 inclusive, revealed 93 personal injury accidents of which; 5 were fatal accidents; 30 were serious injury accidents; and 58 were minor accidents. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 25

39 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Chapter 5 Engineering Parameters 5.1 National Design Standards The design standards for the scheme are the National Roads Authority s Design Manual for Roads & Bridges (the NRA DMRB). In particular, the following standards from the NRA DMRB are important at the route selection stage: NRA TD 9 NRA TD 10 NRA TD 27 And to a lesser extent: NRA TD 16 NRA TD 40 Road Link Design Road Link Design for Type 2 & Type 3 Dual Carriageways Cross Sections and Headroom Geometric Design of Roundabouts Layout of Compact Grade Separated Junctions NRA TD Geometric Design of Major/Minor Priority Junctions and Vehicular Access to National Road In addition the Advice Note NRA TA 43: Guidance on Road Link Design provides useful background information in conjunction with NRA TD Horizontal Design Standards As set out in Chapter 3 the standard for the new road is to be a combination of varying road types along its length, Table 5.1 below summarises the proposed road types:- Table 5.1 Road Type Scheme Section Westport (N59) to Roundabout East of Westport at Monamore Roundabout East of Westport at Monamore to N26 Intersection N26 Intersection to tie-in with N5 at Clooneen Road Type Reduced Single (7.0m) Carriageway Type 2 Dual Carriageway, Divided Lane (2x7.0m) Carriageway Standard Single (7.3m) Carriageway S2 Initial traffic flow information was compared with the nominal Capacity for Level of Service (LOS) D for each road type as defined in Table 4 of NRA TD 9/07. Table 5.2 gives the estimated AADT in the design year compared to the nominal Capacity given in TD9. Details of the proposed road cross sections for each road type are shown on Figure 02 in Volume 2 of this report Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 26

40 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Table 5.2 Traffic Flows Scheme Section Westport (N59) to Roundabout East of Westport at Monamore Roundabout East of Westport at Monamore to N26 Intersection N26 Intersection to tie-in with N5 at Clooneen Approx. Traffic Flow (AADT) Road Type Nominal Capacity (AADT) Table 4 of TD 9 6,900 Reduced Single 8,600 12,100 to 25,200 Type 2 Dual Carriageway 20,000 11,400 Standard Single 11,600 A consistent road type is highly desirable from Westport to the N26. An initial review of the expansion factors used in the traffic modelling suggests that a Type 2 Dual Carriageway will provide adequate capacity over this full length. However more detailed capacity and economic analysis will be required to confirm this at Preliminary Design Stage. Table 5.3, below, sets out the proposed design speeds for each section of the scheme as established from the layout characteristics and alignment constraints for each section of the scheme, and the use of Figure 1 of NRA TD 9/07. Table 5.3 Design Speeds Scheme Section Westport (N59) to Roundabout East of Westport at Monamore Roundabout East of Westport at Monamore to N26 Intersection N26 Iintersection to tie-in with N5 at Clooneen Design Speed 85 kph 100 kph 100 kph During the route corridor investigations larger than minimum radii were used wherever possible. However, scattered ribbon development and other constraints throughout the Study Area meant that radii were restricted in many places. The Desirable Minimum radius has been achieved in all sections of the proposed N5 Mainline. Along the N59 to N5 Link Road, radii for two steps below desirable minimum for 85kph has been used on the immediate approach to proposed roundabout junctions where speeds will be reduced. 5.3 Vertical Design Standards Vertical alignment standards for the route corridors have been based on the need to provide at least Desirable Minimum crest and sag curvatures in accordance with NRA TD 9/07. Such a provision will ensure that Desirable Minimum stopping sight distances are achieved. Table 5.4 shows the allowable maximum and minimum gradients. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 27

41 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Table 5.4 Maximum and Minimum Gradients for Type 2 Dual Carriageway Gradient Comment Maximum Gradient 4% Desirable maximum gradient Absolute Maximum Gradient Normal Minimum Gradient Absolute Minimum Gradient 5% One step relaxation on maximum gradient used at isolated locations where required 0.5% Normal minimum grade (at rollovers for the application of superelevation a higher minimum is required). 0.3% May be used in areas of flat ground where over the edge drainage is used. 5.4 Junction Design Standards Junction type will vary along the N5 with varying road type. In general, on Type 2 Dual Carriageway sections the following junction types are permitted:- (iv) (v) (vi) Roundabouts, Compact Grade Separated Junctions & Left in / left out junctions. In addition Priority Junctions, with ghost islands where necessary, are permitted on the Standard Single and Reduced Single sections. The junction type will be selected at preliminary design stage and will depend upon the cross section of N5, the minor road classification and the predicted traffic flows and turning movements. 5.5 Side Roads Standards At this stage in the project it has been assumed that public side roads will generally be bridged over or under the mainline route where it is necessary or extinguished where there is no significant adverse impact or community severance. A review of the side road strategy will be undertaken at preliminary design stage. 5.6 Access to Private Land and Houses off Type 2 Dual Carriageway Access to private lands and houses off the Type 2 Dual Carriageway will be avoided by diverting either the house access or access tracks onto the local road network. By limiting the number of accesses onto the new proposed Type 2 Dual Carriageway the overall safety of the road will be improved. Where access cannot be gained to private land or houses via local roads or access tracks consideration may be given to the use of a left in / left out junctions. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 28

42 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Chapter 6 Route Corridors 6.1 Initial Assessment of Options A number of initial route options were developed based on information recorded in the Constraints Study and taking into account the preferred route corridors from each of the previous four schemes. The previous preferred route corridors have been protected since the completion of the previous route selections and as such formed the basis for the initial route assessment. Further route options were investigated based on the engineering and environmental constraints and the most promising routes were identified on the basis of site visits. The development of alternative routes was limited by the amount of ribbon development along the existing road network. 6.2 Node and Link Numbering System In order to facilitate the comparison of different options, the scheme was divided into five Sections numbered 1 to 5 from West to East. Section 1 covers the area from the N59 tie-in to the townland of Doon approximately 5 km East of Westport. Section 2 covers the townland of Doon to Ballymacrah approximately 2 km West of the Castlebar Inner Relief Road. Section 3 covers the townland of Ballymacrah to the West of Castlebar to a point approximately 2km East of Castlebar. Section 4 covers the area from East of Castlebar to approximately 1.5km East of Ballyvary. Section 5 covers the area from East of Ballyvary to the Scheme termination point on the existing N5 East of Bohola. Within each section, each route was divided into a number of links. Nodes were established where route options merged or diverged and at the start/end points of each Section. Each node link was considered separately in both engineering terms and environmental impact. The effects were aggregated within each Section and then within each route option. New route options could be generated easily by aggregating different node links. The location of each node is shown on Drawing 67 in Volume 2 while Table 9.1 lists the node links which form each of the routes within Sections 1 to Route Corridors Under Consideration Introduction The route corridors included in the Public Consultation No. 2 are shown on Drawings 03 to 09 of Volume 2 and are described below. Where a preferred route was previously established this was the first route examined in each section Route Corridors in Section 1 Route Corridor 1.0 Previous Preferred Route Route Corridor 1.0 follows the protected corridor developed in the previous N5 N59 Road Project. The Route Corridor commences at the existing N59, at Creggaunnahorna, north of Westport. The Route Corridor runs north of Deerpark Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 29

43 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance East and through the IDA industrial estate. The Route Corridor crosses the existing Lodge Road and N5 twice in Derrygorman and Dooncastle, finishing at a common terminus point for Section 1 at Knockbrack. Route Corridor 1.1 Route Corridor 1.1 commences at the existing N59, at Creggaunnahorna, north of the start terminus point of Route 1.0. The Route Corridor runs north of Deerpark East and is coincident with Route 1.0 through the IDA industrial estate and to the common end terminus point at Knockbrack. Route Corridor 1.2 Route Corridor 1.2 commences at Deerpark East south of the start terminus point of Route 1.0. The route is coincident with Route 1.1 from the section north of Deerpark East to the common end terminus point at Knockbrack. Route Corridor 1.3 Route Corridor 1.3 commences at a proposed roundabout on Route Corridor 1.0 North of Sheeroe. The route passes north of the existing N5 through through Monamore, Drummindoo, Sheean and Doon, finishing at the common terminus point for Section 1 at Knockbrack. Route Corridor 1.4 Route Corridor 1.4 commences at the local road in Monamore (L-1805) bifurcating from Route 1.0. The Route Corridor runs north of Route Corridor 1.3 through Monamore, Drummindoo and Sheean before rejoining Route Corridor 1.3 through Doon and finishing at the common terminus point for Section 1 at Knockbrack. Route Corridor 1.5 Route Corridor 1.5 bifurcates from Route Corridor 1.4 in Monamore north of Drummindoo. The Route Corridor runs north of Route 1.4 through Drummindoo, Sheean and Doon, finishing at the common terminus point for Section 1 at Knockbrack Route Corridors in Section 2 Route Corridor 2.0 Previous Preferred Route Route Corridor 2.0 commences at the common terminus point for routes in section 1 at Knockbrack. The Route Corridor follows the corridor previously protected by the N5 Westport to Castlebar Road Project. The Route Corridor runs north of, and parallel to the existing N5 through the townlands of Kilbree Lower, Drumneen, Dooleague, Claggarnagh West and Claggarnagh East. The Route Corridor passes south of Islandeady and Islandeady Lough, through Annagh before crossing Lough Lannagh. It enters Pheasanthill before terminating at the existing N5 at Ballymacrah. Based on a review of the previous route selection studies for the Westport to Castlebar scheme and the constraints posed by the Loughs at Islandeady and Lannagh, the Westport to Dublin Rail line and the nature of the ribbon development in Section 2, no other routes were proposed through Section 2 to be presented at Public Consultation 2. (Route Corridor 3.2 which is a variation of Route 2.0 which passes south of Lannagh Lough is discussed as part of Section 3). Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 30

44 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Route Corridors in Section 3 Route Corridor 3.0 Previous Preferred Route Route Corridor 3.0 commences at the terminus point of Route Corridor 2.0 at Ballymacrah. The Route Corridor follows the corridor previously established as the preferred route for the southern section of the Castlebar Ring Road. Route Corridor 3.0 bypasses Castlebar to the south and east of the town. From Section 2 to the existing N84 the Route Corridor passes through the townland of Ballymacrah and Ballynaboll South, crosses the railway line in Knockaphunta, north of Cloondeash and along the border between Cloonagh and Aghdrinagh. From the existing N84 to the existing N60 the Route Corridor passes through the townlands of Lisnageeha/Antigua, Lisnakirka/Milebush and Knockrawer. The Route Corridor crosses the Dublin Westport Railway Line directly after crossing into Knockrawer. From the existing N60 to the tie in with the existing N5 the Route Corridor passes through the townlands of Drumconlan, Rinshinna, and Moneenbradagh. The Route Corridor runs to the east of a quarry at Moneenbradagh tie-ing into the existing N5 in the north west of Aghalusky. Route Corridor 3.0 is extended through Clogher along the existing N5 from the previous preferred route to the end of Section 3 in Clogher south of the village of Turlough. Route Corridor 3.1 Route Corridor 3.1 commences at the terminus point of Route Corridor 2.0 at Ballymacrah. The Route Corridor generally runs to the south and east of the previous preferred route. From Section 2 to the existing N84 the route passes through the townland of Ballymacrah and Ballynaboll South, crosses the railway line in Knockaphunta, the north corner of Cloondeash and through Aghdrinagh. From the existing N84 to the existing N60 the route passes through the townlands of Lisnageeha/Antigua, Lisnakirka/Milebush, Balloor, Shanvally and Drumleheen. The Route Corridor crosses the existing N60 west of the village of Breaffy. The Route Corridor crosses the Dublin Westport Railway Line in the townland of Shanvally. From the existing N60 to the tie in with the existing N5 the route corridor passes through the townlands of Doogary, Carheens, Liscromwell and Aghalusky. The route joins the existing N5 at the border of Aghlusky and Liscromwell and is coincident with the existing road to the end of Section 3 in Clogher, south of the village of Turlough at a terminus point common with that described in Route Corridor 3.0 above. Route Corridor 3.2 In order to examine a more direct Route Corridor, connecting Route Corridor 2.0 and the corridors further south of Castlebar, Route Corridor 3.2 commences in Section 2 at Claggarnagh East. The Route Corridor runs north of the existing N5 through the townlands of Claggarnagh East, Annagh, Cloonkeen and Pheasanthill. The Route Corridor then crosses the existing N5, crossing from Pheasanthill to Derrylea and Cloonkeen crossing the railway line before passing through Derrycoosh, Derrynashask, Derrinlevaun Cloondeash and rejoining Route 3.1 in Aghadrinagh west of the existing N84. Route Corridor 3.3 Route Corridor 3.3 commences at Aghadrinagh, the route is a bifurcation of Route 3.1 at the existing N84. From the existing N84 to the exising N60 the route passes through the townlands of Lisnageeha/Antigua, Lisnakirka/Milebush, Balloor, Hawthornlodge, Cottage and Drumleheen. The Route Corridor crosses the existing N60 west of the village of Breaffy. The Route Corridor crosses the Dublin Westport Railway Line in the townland of Hawthornlodge. From the existing N60 to the tie in Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 31

45 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance with the existing N5 the route corridor passes through the townlands of Doogary, Carrownurlaur, Carheens, Cloontybaunan, Breandrum /Windsor and Clogher. The route ties into the existing N5 in Clogher and continues along the existing N5 to Gortnafolla, south of the village of Turlough at a terminus point common with that described in Route Corridor 3.0 above. Route Corridor 3.4 Route Corridor 3.4 commences at Aghadrinagh, the route is a further alternate bifurcation of Route 3.1 at the existing N84. From the existing N84 to the existing N60 the Route Corridor passes through the townlands of Drumneen, Curry and the northern boundaries of Derryool and Cornamarrow. The route runs south of the village of Lightford through Drumminracahill, Ballykill Upper, Ballykill Lower, Ahanroe, Pollanaskan, Lisgowel and Demesne. The Route Corridor crosses the existing N60 east of the village of Breaffy. From the existing N60 the Route Corridor passes through Roemore and Ballinvoash terminating at Derrynacross. This Route Corridor also includes a link road from Ballinvoash to the existing N5 at Aghalusky east of Castlebar (the point where Route 3.0 ties into the N5). The link road route corridor passes through the townlands of Lisnaran, Derrynamraher, Carheens, Liscromwell and Aghalusky. Route Corridor 3.5 Route Corridor 3.5 is a link joining Routes 3.2 and 3.4, avoiding the large loop to the north through the townland of Aghadrinagh. The route bifurcates from Route Corridor 3.2 at Derrynashask and passes through Derrinlevaun, Cloondeash, Cloonsunna, Creeragh, Derrynaskeagh, Drumkeaghta, Drumneen, Curry and Derreenmulroy. The route corridor terminates at Derryool where it joins Route 3.4. Route Corridor 3.6 Route Corridor 3.6 bifurcates from Route 3.4 at Derryool. The Route Corridor passes through Derryool, Cornamarrow, Drumminracahill, Ballykill Upper and Ballkill Lower before rejoining Route 3.4 at Ahanroe Route Corridors in Section 4 Route Corridor 4.1 Route Corridor 4.1 commences in Section 3 at Drumaleheen where Route Corridors 3.1 and 3.3 are coincident. Route Corridor 4.1 crosses the existing N60 to the west of Breaffy passing through the townlands of Drumaleheen, Carrownurlaur, Carheens, the southern tip of Breandrum/Windsor, Derrynamraher, Derrynacross, Ballinvoash, Cappavicar North, Lugnavaddoge, Lugganashlere, the southern tip of Monumentpark, Gortlahan, Ballygommon, Killeen and Bellavary Atticahill and Carrownaraha. The route crosses the Ballina-Dublin Railway Line directly after crossing into Ballygommon. The Route Corridor runs south of the existing N5, the forested areas in Erriff & Gortnafolla and the village of Bellavary. The Route Corridor finishes in Carrownaraha south of the existing N5. Route Corridor 4.1 also includes a link road to the existing N5 at Aghalusky east of Castlebar. The link road route corridor commences at the southern tip of Breandrum/Windsor and is coincident with the link road route corridor described as part of Route Corridor 3.4 above. Route Corridor 4.2 Route Corridor 4.2 commences in Lisgowel and runs further to the south than Route Corridor 4.1. The Route Corridor passes through Lisgowel, intersecting the existing N60, and through Carrick Hill, Drumdoosh, Cappavicar South, Keelkill, Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 32

46 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Lugnavaddoge, Lugganashlere, Lecarrow, Mayhenna, Keeloges Old, Ballygommon, Kileen, Bellavary, Atticahill and Carrownaraha. The Route Corridor runs east of Breaffy, north west of Keeloges through to south of Bellavary. The Route Corridor finishes in Carrownaraha south of the existing N5 at a terminus point common with that described for Route Corridor 4.1 above. Route 4.2 also includes a link road to the existing N5 at Aghalusky east of Castlebar. The link road route corridor passes through Keelkill, Cappavicar South, Ballinvoash, Lisnaran and Derrynamraher where it intersects Route Corridor 3.4. From its intersection with Route Corridor 3.4 the link road from Route Corridor 4.1 is coincident with the link road route corridor described as part of Route Corridor 3.4 above. Route Corridor 4.3 Route Corridor 4.3 commences at the common terminal point of Route Corridors 3.0, 3.1 & 3.3 at Clogher, south of the village of Turlough. The route runs north of the forested areas in Erriff & Gortnafolla but crosses a quarry in Gortnafolla and passes south of the village of Bellavary. The Route Corridor passes through the townlands of Drumdaff, Gortlahan and Ballygoman, the southern tip of Laghtavarry, Killeen, Bellavary, Atticahill and Carrownaraha. The route passes through a quarry in Gortnafolla, crosses the Manulla River in Gortlahan, and then crosses the Ballina- Dublin Railway Line before crossing into Ballygommon. The Route Corridor finishes in Carrownaraha south of the existing N5 at a terminus point common with that described for Route Corridor 4.1 above. Route Corridor 4.4 Route Corridor 4.4 commences at the common terminus point of Route Corridors 3.0, 3.1, 3.3 & 4.3 at Clogher, south of the village of Turlough. The route corridor continues along the existing N5 to Knockanour where it bifurcates from the existing N5 to go east through the townlands of Drumdaff, Laghtavarry, Bellavary, Knockavrony and Carrownaraha. The route runs north-east of the forested areas in Erriff & Gortnafolla before crossing the Manulla River in Gortlahan, the Ballina- Dublin Railway Line and then runs south of the village of Bellavary. The Route Corridor finishes in Carrownaraha south of the existing N5 at a terminus point common with that described for Route Corridor 4.1 above. Route Corridor 4.5 Route Corridor 4.5 commences at Knockanour where it bifurcates from Route Corridor 4.4. The route runs through the townlands of Capparanny and Laghtavarry, crosses the N5 into Toormore West and passes through Corraun, Bellavary, Breandrum, Redhill, and Carrowroger The Route crosses a number of rivers including the Castlebar River, the Toormore River and Strade River. The route crosses the Ballina-Dublin Railway Line to the west of Bellavary and the existing N58 directly north of Bellavary. The Route Corridor runs north of the N5 from where the N5 and the Route Corridor intersect and north of the village of Bellavary. The Route Corridor terminates in Carrownacross north of the existing N5. Route Corridor 4.6 Route Corridor 4.6 commences at Ballygommon where it bifurcates from Route Corridor 4.1. The route passes through the townlands of Ballygommon, Killeen, Bellavary, Knockavrony and Redhill, and criss-crosses the border of Carrowconnell & Carrowroger. The Route Corridor passes south of the village of Bellavary and crosses the existing N5 in Knockavrony before finishing in Carrownacross at a common terminus point with Route Corridor 4.5 above. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 33

47 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Route Corridor 4.7 Route Corridor 4.7 commences at Capparanny where it bifurcates from Route Corridor 4.5. The route runs through the townlands of Capparanny, Toormore West, Toormore East and Corraun. The Route crosses the, Toormore River north of the existing N5 and the Ballina-Dublin Railway Line to the west of Bellavary. The Route Corridor terminates in Bellavary where it rejoins Route Corridor 4.5. The Route Corridor runs north of the N5 and of the village of Bellavary Route Corridors in Section 5 Route Corridor 5.0 Previous Preferred Route Route Corridor 5.0 commences at the common terminus point of Route Corridors 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 & 4.4 at Carrownaraha south of the existing N5. The route follows the corridor previously protected by the N5 Ballyvary Bohola Road Project from Knockatemple to Clooneen. The Route Corridor runs south of the existing N5 through the townlands of Knockatemple, Rathrowan, Carroward and Bohola. The route crosses the existing N5 crossing from Bohola to Barleyhill and then runs north of the existing N5 through Barleyhill and Clooneen rejoining the existing road at the common terminus point for routes in Section 5 in Clooneen. The route runs north of the village of Bohola. Route Corridor 5.1 Route Corridor 5.1 has not been used. Route Corridor 5.2 Route Corridor 5.2 commences at Knockatemple where it bifurcates from Route Corridor 5.0. The route runs south of the existing N5 through the townlands of Knockatemple and Rathrowan. The route crosses the existing N5 crossing from Rathrowan to Lisgormin and then runs north of the existing N5 through Carrowgowan, Bohola and Barleyhill before rejoining the existing N5 at the common terminus point as described above. The Route Corridor runs north of the village of Bohola. Route Corridor 5.3 Route Corridor 5.3 commences in Carrownacross at the common terminus point of Route Corridors 4.5 & 4.6. The Route Corridor runs north of the existing N5 through the townlands of Carrownacross, Grallagh and Lisgormin. The Route Corridor terminates directly after crossing into Carrowgowan where it joins Route Corridor 5.2. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 34

48 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Chapter 7 Public Consultation No Introduction Public Consultation No. 2 was undertaken between September 2008 and October 2008 with the public consultation exhibitions being held from the 9 th of September 2008 to the 12 th of September The objectives of the consultation were to: Present the route corridor options to the public Inform them of the process and programme for the project Invite submissions on these options Gather local information, which may not be known to the design team. This chapter records the consultation process and presents an analysis of the responses received. 7.2 Methodology Publicity A publicity campaign was undertaken by Mayo National Roads Design Office (MNRDO) and Mayo County Council prior to the consultation. The consultation was advertised in the following papers: The Western People, The Connaught Telegraph, The Mayo News. Advertisements were also broadcast on Mid-West radio from 4 th September 2008 to 12 th September Dates and Venues On Monday 8 th September 2008, the day prior to the public exhibitions, a preview was held in Castlebar for the elected members and officials of Mayo County Council, Westport Town Council and Castlebar Town Council. This was followed by a press conference on Tuesday September the 10 th in Castlebar. The exhibitions were held at four locations throughout the study area. The four venues were: Westport Westport Civic Office 9 th September 2008 Castlebar Macalla Hall, Lough Lanna Holiday Village 10 th September 2008 Ballyvary Ballyvary National School 11 th September 2008 Bohola Bohola Community Centre 12 th September 2008 The displays consisted of background information on the scheme, the project programme, a cross section of a typical Type 2 Dual Carriageway and the Route Corridors on Discovery Series mapping. Drawings RSR-01 to RSR-09 contained in Volume 2 of this report show the Constraints Area, Typical Cross Sections and Initial Route Options presented at PC2. Aerial photography with the Route Corridors displayed was also available at the consultation. The Constraints Study Report along with a laminated set of A1 Constraints Drawings was available for inspection at the consultation. Each venue was attended by a number of staff from Mayo National Roads Design Office, and ROD-FM. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 35

49 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Following the week of exhibitions, the exhibition material was put on display at the Mayo National Roads Design Office the Westport Civic Offices, the Ballyvary Post Office and Bohola Post Office from 15 th September to 3 rd October. These displays were available for inspection, but not attended by the project team Attendance A total of 116 people attended the consultation exhibitions over the four days as shown in Table 7.1. The highest number (42) attended in Bohola on 12 th September and the lowest (14) in Westport on 9 th September. All attendees were asked to sign a register and were handed the information brochure, map inserts and questionnaire. The brochure, maps and questionnaire are included in Appendix 7.1. Table 7.1 Attendance at Public Consultation No. 2 Exhibitions Location Daily Attendance Westport 9 th Sept Castlebar 10 th Sept Ballyvary 11 th Sept Bohola 12 th Sept Total Feedback and Information Throughout the consultation process the staff at the exhibitions endeavoured to obtain as much local information as possible. One of the key pieces of information gathered at the consultation was that of agricultural holdings, whereby boundaries were marked on the aerial photography and the landowner s details were also recorded. The information gathered at the consultation was reviewed and distributed to the relevant specialist or design team member Questionnaire Responses The closing date for receipt of submissions was 10 th October However all submissions received were recorded and taken into consideration if possible. A total of 179 responses were received. Many of the responses received were accompanied by letters and further information. Of these 179 responses, not all included completed questionnaires while some included individual letters and submissions from action groups Action Groups In addition to the individual responses, submissions were received from a number of resident/action groups. Each of these groups produced arguments against particular routes while a number of submissions included reports from specialist agronomy, engineering, environmental & planning consultants. Two separate petitions were also included with some of the responses. The two petitions included 15 & 24 signatures against particular route options. 7.3 Analysis of Individual Responses All individual submissions received were evaluated and the information they contained was recorded. Where letters were received without questionnaires the details were recorded including any comments made. Any submission with Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 36

50 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance information relating to any specialist topic was copied to the relevant specialist or design team member, e.g. agriculture, landscape, planning, archaeology, flora, fauna and fisheries, etc. A summary of the results can be seen in Table 7.2 to Table 7.5. A total of 179 responses were received including the copies of the same letter from the various action groups. Not all questions were answered by all respondents, so the results have been calculated on the basis of the numbers of answers to each question. Table 7.5 shows the ranking of the issues based on the percentage of responses that considered the issue was either important or very important. Clearly environmental issues are of major concern together with the impact on people living near the route corridor or affected by demolition. Value for money and Effect on Tourism were ranked as the least important issues in the choice of route corridor. Other issues suggested for consideration included: Impact on Agriculture, Impact of Noise Pollution, Health & Safety of Community, Impact on residential areas/proximity to dwellings, Effect on Quarry Developments. Table 7.2 Need for the scheme? Question Yes No Unsure Total Are you in favour of the proposed scheme? 13 (1) 103 (77%) 18 (13%) 134 (10) Table 7.3 Would you be a regular user of the proposed scheme? Question Yes No Total Would you be a regular user of the proposed scheme? 51 (42%) 71 (58%) 122 (10) Table 7.4 In your opinion, how important in relation to the project are the following? Issue Very Important Important Least Important Improvement in traffic conditions 25 (29%) 43 (49%) 19 (22%) 87 Improvement in road safety 51 (59%) 25 (29%) 10 (12%) 86 Impact upon the community 91 (95%) 4 (4%) 1 (1%) 96 Best value for money 24 (27%) 30 (34%) 34 (39%) 88 Effect on business 40 (45%) 27 (3) 22 (25%) 89 Effect on tourism 20 (27%) 27 (37%) 26 (36%) 73 Total Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 37

51 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Issue Very Important Important Least Important Conservation of archaeology 56 (64%) 25 (28%) 7 (8%) 88 Conservation of flora and fauna 58 (63%) 27 (29%) 7 (8%) 92 Impact on landscape 85 (88%) 8 (8%) 4 (4%) 97 Responses over 75% have been shown in bold text. Total Table 7.5 How the issues ranked in importance Issue % Important or more Improvement in traffic conditions 78% Improvement in road safety 88% Impact upon the community 99% Best value for money 61% Effect on business 75% Effect on tourism 64% Conservation of archaeology 92% Conservation of flora and fauna 92% Impact on landscape 96% Responses over 75% have been shown in bold text. 7.4 Discussion The consultation exercise informed the public of the route corridors under consideration. The material provided, at the exhibitions, and in the brochure and maps, seemed to be clearly understood. The project team obtained a considerable amount of information from the public both directly at the exhibitions and through the submission of the questionnaires and letters. The analysis of the questionnaires showed that only ten percent of people agreed in principle with the need for the scheme, compared with 77 percent against (13% unsure). This response needs to be balanced with the large body of work leading to the national, regional and local strategies which all support the need for the scheme as described in Chapter 3. The main issues raised by the respondents were: Severance of farms, communities and local roads; New road not required/existing road capable of dealing with current traffic flows; Upgrading the existing N5 was preferable to a new alignment. Valuable information was collected which has assisted in the route selection process. 7.5 Amendment to Route Corridors Following Public Consultation No. 2 Following Public Consultation No. 2 a number of amendments were made to the routes corridors under consideration. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 38

52 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Route Corridor 1.5A Following receipt of further information regarding existing residential property constraints, an alternative, Route Corridor 1.5A was developed. Route Corridor 1.5A commences at a common point with Route Corridor 1.5. The route runs south of Route Corridor 1.5 through Drummindoo. The Route Corridor crosses Route 1.5 as it crosses into Carrownaclea and then runs north of Route 1.5 through Sheean and Doon where it terminates and merges with Route Corridor 1.5. Route Corridor 3.2A As land ownership and agricultural usage information became available, an alternative, Route Corridor 3.2A was developed in order to compare routes north and south of Black Lough. Route Corridor 3.2A commences in Section 2 at Claggarnagh East at a common start point with Route Corridor 3.2. The Route Corridor runs north of the existing N5 but south of Black Lough through the townlands of Claggarnagh East and Annagh where it terminates by merging with Route Corridor 3.2. Route Corridor 3.1A As land ownership information became available, an alternative, Route Corridor 3.1A was developed to follow the land boundary patterns more closely. Route Corridor 3.1A bifurcates from Route Corridor 3.1 in Liscromwell and runs through Liscromwell and Aghalusky terminating where it rejoins Route 3.1 on the existing N5 at Aghalusky. Route Corridor 3.1B Following Public Consultation No. 2 it became apparent that the route selection process needed to facilitate separate consideration of the issues at the east and west ends of the link between Nodes G & I. To facilitate this, a new link combining Route 3.1 at the west end and 3.3 at the east end was developed. This is referred to as Route 3.1B. Route Corridor 4.4A Route Corridor 4.4 ran through a football pitch south of Bellavary and as such would have caused a severe community impact. As a result, an alternative, Route Corridor 4.4A terminating at Node P was developed.route Corridor 4.4A follows the alignment of Route Corridor 4.4 through the townlands of Drumdaff and Laghtavarry before terminating in Killeen where it ties into the intersection point of Route Corridors 4.3 & 4.6. Following from the development of the Alternative Route Corridor 4.4A, Route Corridor 4.4 will no longer form part of the route assessment process. Route Corridor 4.4B Following the development of Route Corridor 4.4A an alternative Route Corridor 4.4B between nodes N & P was developed. Route Corridor 4.4B commences at the Knockanour where it bifurcates from Route Corridor 4.4 and the existing N5 to go east through the townlands of Drumdaff, Laghtavarry and Killeen. The Route Corridor runs south of Corridor 4.4A. Route Corridor finishes at a terminus point at Node P in common with that described for Route Corridor 4.4A above. Route Corridor 5.3A Route Corridor 5.3A is an extension of Route Corridor 5.3 into Section 4 and provides an alternative Route Corridor between Nodes P and S. This alternative was Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 39

53 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance developed in order to avoid a significant length of an embankment of up to 9m with consequent effects on agronomy. Route Corridor 5.3A commences in Atticahill where it bifurcates from Route Corridor 4.6. The Route Corridor runs through the townlands of Atticahill, Knockavrony crosses the existing N5, Redhill and Carrowconnell. The Route Corridor terminates directly after crossing into Carrownacross where it joins Route Corridor 5.3. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 40

54 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Chapter 8 Planning and Socio-Economic Impact 8.1 Introduction This chapter outlines the socio-economic profile of the study area. This includes the planning framework and details of the principal centres of population affected by the development. Also included in the study is an overview of present rural and urban areas. 8.2 The Receiving Environment The most recent population figure for County Mayo was recorded in the 2006 Census of Population. The Mayo County Development plan shows this figure as 123,648 persons, an increase of over 5% on the 2002 figure. This increase is due in large part to the economic prosperity throughout the country over the past decade or so and has been maintained from the 5.3% population increase experienced from 1996 to Economic activity within the county, especially around the major towns, namely Ballina, Castlebar and Westport has also remained steady. The populations in and around the two major towns in the Study area reflects this as shown in Table 8.1. Table 8.1 Major Population Centres (combined urban and rural areas) in Study Area (Mayo CDP ) Geographic Area Persons 2002 Persons 2006 Pop. Change Castlebar Urban and Rural 23,239 24,630 1,391 Westport Urban and Rural 21,576 22, County 117, ,648 6,202 Table 8.2 Populations by DED Geographic Area Persons 2002 Persons 2006 Pop. Change Percentage Pop. Change Castlebar Urban Castlebar Rural (part) Castlebar Rural (part) Westport Urban Westport Rural Clogher Islandeady Cloonkeen Kilmeena Bohola Bellavary Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 41

55 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Table 8.2 Populations by DED Contd. Geographic Area Persons 2002 Persons 2006 Pop. Change Percentage Pop. Change Breaghwy Manulla Turlough Strade % Meelick Toocananagh As seen in Table 8.2 all of the Electoral Divisions with the exception of the two urban areas (Westport and Castlebar) have experienced population increase since the 2002 census. These range from 1.4% and 1.7% in the rural areas to 20.7% in Castlebar Rural DED. In the current County Development Plan there are proposals to continue the design and construction of major road schemes along the national routes within the county. The current plan identifies the N5, National Primary Route, within the context of ongoing improvements. The specific objectives referred to in the plan are as listed in Table 8.3 below. It is an objective of the Council to encourage the completion of improvements to the three National Primary Routes: the N5, N17 and N26 to their entirety. Major schemes on the N5 will include Westport Castlebar and the Swinford bypass to the County Boundary (including the Ballyvary Swinford by-pass). Major schemes on the N17 will include Knock Airport to the Mayo/Sligo County boundary (including Charlestown by-pass) and other schemes, as finance becomes available. Major schemes on the N26 will include Ballina-Bohola including Foxford bypass. It is an objective of the Council to encourage the continuance of the route option from Bohola to Kiltimagh to the N17 Knock by-pass and link north Mayo to the Western Corridor Route. It is an objective of the Council to encourage the completion of the National Primary Road proposals listed in Table 8.3 below: Table 8.3 List of Road Improvements Objective Route Proposal NP2 N5 Commence land acquisition and construction of Westport Castlebar section NP4 N5 Commence design and land acquisition for Castlebar by-pass NP5 N5 Commence design and land acquisition for Westport Northern Relief Road NP7 N5 Design of Ballyvary Swinford by-pass section including Bohola Bypass Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 42

56 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Table 8.3 List of Road Improvements Contd. Objective Route Proposal NP9 N5 The examination of converting the existing N5 to an enhanced cross-section incorporating by-passes. NP National Primary NS National Secondary 8.3 Mayo County Development Plan The following section from the Mayo County Development Plan describes the economic and employment growth in the area in the recent past and discusses the potential for further growth. Economic activity in Mayo has grown significantly in recent years, much of which has been influenced by the dramatic national growth in the economy over the same period. It is estimated that employment increased in Mayo by over 22% between 1996 and 2002, significantly higher than the growth rate of 8.7% between 1990 and The overall number of people on the Live Register decreased by 1 between 2003 and An examination of numbers employed in each broad industrial group in 2002 shows the dominance of the service sector, which employed up to 56% of those employed in the County. The growing importance of the service sector was counterbalanced by the continuing decline in the numbers employed in agriculture with the 2002 Census showing only 11% employed in this sector compared to 22% in Fifteen per cent were employed in manufacturing industry in Previous trends have indicated that a small number of the largest firms in the County account for a significant proportion of those employed in this sector suggesting a heavy reliance on a small number of larger manufacturing establishments. However, Mayo has less large establishments (and foreign-owned plants) than would be expected for its population base. Mayo only has about 24% share of all foreignowned plants in the West Region in comparison to Galway, which has a 64% share. Mayo s peripherality and lack of a large-scale urban centre place it at a disadvantage in terms of attracting outside investment. Its infrastructure inadequacies continue to reinforce these weaknesses. Due to the needs of the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) sector and the aspirations of the NSS, the most likely location for future FDI investment will be in or close to the gateways, hubs and linked hubs. The role of education and research facilities in locations such as Galway in attracting investment is noted in the Regional Guidelines and in this regard the research and development role of Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology (GMIT) in Castlebar should be rigorously supported and promoted as a key element in attracting investors into the County. Although agriculture remains an important part of the local economy, its share of economic output and employment continues to decline. Alternative opportunities must be created that will create employment opportunities in alternative or additional rural enterprises to supplement farm incomes and regenerate the rural economy. * (Source - Appendix 1 Mayo County Development Plan ) Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 43

57 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance 8.4 Potential Effects of the Proposed Development The proposed development will have a positive effect at a national and regional level. It will improve capacity deficiencies on the existing road network at peak hours and reduce journey times for those situated in the affected area. Internal road infrastructure will be improved between the western region and other regions throughout the country and contribute to competitiveness and balance of regional development within the western region. The proposed development will enhance accessibility to the region from Dublin and the Midlands and will encourage economic growth through the need for enhanced amenities and by providing greater accessibility to the local markets for existing and start-up businesses. At local level there will be some disruption associated with construction activities however this should be mitigated by the longer term benefits associated with reduced traffic congestion and improved access to facilities as a result of the proposed development. All lands required for the construction of the proposed road will be compulsorily acquired by Mayo County Council. 8.5 Predicted Impacts on Planning and Socio-economic The principal socio-economic benefit of all of the options proposed is the enhancement of the links from the wider Westport Castlebar Bohola corridor to major centres within Ireland and the major ports and airports. The creation of a dual carriageway will improve the accessibility of all towns and industry served by the corridor. The impact of all options on the rural areas is likely to be indirect, arising from the further development of the towns, notably Westport and Castlebar, rather than directly from the road itself. However, there could be pressure for development, especially commercial activities, in the immediate vicinity of the proposed junctions and these, if permitted, could have a profound impact on local rural areas, leading to investment and possibly employment, but also significant loss of identity and character. The sustainability of developments at junctions, if permitted, will require careful consideration. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 44

58 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Chapter 9 Route Assessment This section of the discusses the results of the route options assessments that were undertaken during the period of September 2008 to December The routes which were assessed were:- Section 1 Routes 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 &1.5A Section 2 Route 2.0, Section 3 Routes 3.0, 3.1, 3.1A, 3.1B, 3.2, 3.2A, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5 & 3.6 Section 4 Routes 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4A, 4.4B, 4.5, 4.6 & 4.7, Section 5 Routes 5.0, 5.2, 5.3 & 5.3A The route options assessments were undertaken in line with the project NRA Project Appraisal Guidelines under the headings of. Environment Economy Traffic Safety Accessibility and Social Inclusion Integration In the assessment of the Environment and the Economy these were subdivided further. Under the Environmental Assessment this was subdivided into the following assessments: Impacts on People Flora, Fauna and Fisheries Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Agricultural Land Use Landscape and Visual Under the heading of Economy the assessment was subdivided as follows: Engineering Assessment Geological and Hydrogeological Estimate Construction Costs Traffic Functionality & Economic Benefits 9.1 Impacts on People Introduction Each of the route corridor options were assessed in terms of their impact on people living or working near the route corridors. These impacts were recorded under the following headings: Noise and Air Environment, Community Severance, Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 45

59 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Community Facilities, Number of Properties within the Route Corridor (Acquisition), Planning Permissions Granted within Route Corridor Assessment Methodology The data available for carrying out the assessment included: Ordnance Survey Discovery mapping at 1:50,000 scale Ordnance Survey 1:1000 scale mapping, where available Ordnance Survey 1:2500 scale mapping, where available Ordnance Survey 1:5000 scale mapping, where available Ordnance Survey 6 inch to 1 mile mapping Aerial survey photography (flown in 2004 & 2006) On-site surveys by the project team Planning Registers Noise and Air Environment The comparison between the route corridors was carried out on the basis of estimates of the number of properties within 300 metres each side of the centreline of the route corridor. The numbers within distance bands of 100m, 200m and 300m were recorded together with the total within the 300 metres band. This assessment was in accordance with the NRA Guidelines on the Treatment of Noise and Vibration on National Road Schemes, Rev 1 October 2004 and Stage 1 Assessment described in the UK Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1 (Air Quality) and Part 7 (Noise). The method provides a reasonable basis for the comparison of the air quality and noise impacts of the various options at the route selection stage. The reduction in traffic on the existing road network, particularly the existing N5, will result in a reduction in noise levels and improvement in air quality at properties close to the main roads. The impact of these changes has not been included at this stage as all route options will result in similar improvements on the existing roads. Where the proposed route follows the route of the existing N5 adjacent properties have conservatively been treated as if this were a new route when in fact these properties are already exposed to the noise and air quality impacts of the existing road. Consequently route options which utilise the route of the existing N5 will have a reduced impact relative to alternatives with similar numbers of adjacent properties. The results of this assessment are recorded in Table 9.1 at the end of this chapter Community Severance The level of impact on communities close to, or bisected by, each route option have been identified and are listed in Table 9.1 at the end of this chapter. However the community severance is not severe on any of the route options as, in general, the existing road network will be maintained by the provision of overbridges or underbridges crossing the new road. Moderate impacts have been identified at Balloor where one route divides a housing development and at Windsor where the access to the N5 is restricted to left in, left out. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 46

60 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Community Facilities Community facilities were identified by windscreen surveys and those within 300 metres of the edge of the route corridor are included in Table 9.1 at the end of this chapter Properties within the Route Corridor Properties within the 100 metre wide route corridor were identified from the aerial photography and by windscreen surveys. Residential and non-residential properties have been recorded separately in the tables Planning Permissions Information on planning permissions granted in the last five years within the study area was obtained from the Mayo County Planning Department. Any plots where planning permission had been granted and at least part of which were within the 100 metre wide route corridor were recorded and included in the tables. Refer to drawings No. 23 to 28 in Volume 2 of this report for details Section 1 Impacts Table 9.1 shows the impacts for each of the route corridors in Section 1. Between Nodes A and B, Route 1.0 has the highest number of properties within 300 metres of the corridor, 227 no. compared to 138 for route 1.1 and 210 for route 1.2. Route 1.0 also passes within 100m of a site with planning permission for a proposed housing estate while Routes 1.1 and 1.2 pass within m of the site. Route 1.0 (between Nodes A-B) has significantly more properties within 100 metres of the corridor than the other routes (31 no. compared with 23 and 22 respectively). However the community severance is not severe as, in general, overbridges or underbridges will be provided to maintain the local road network and all route options within Section 1 are considered as having a minor impact on community severance. Between Nodes B-C Route 1.0 again has the highest number of properties within 300 metres of the corridor and is only one property better than Route 1.4 on properties within 100 metres. Between Nodes A-B no houses are to be acquired, however Route 1.0 affects 3 planning permissions and a housing estate. Between Nodes B and C Route 1.0 affects no planning permissions, with Route 1.3 affecting 9 and Routes 1.4 and 1.5 both affecting 7 planning permissions and all three routes requiring 2 houses to be acquired. A variation of Route Option 1.5, 1.5A was developed which affects fewest properties within the 300m (42 no.) and 100 metre corridors (12 no.) and affects only 1 planning permission. The only community facilities affected in Section 1 are Westport GAA pitch whjch is directly impacted and a gaelscoil which is adjacent to but not directly impacted by all of the route options between nodes A-B. There are no facilities affected between nodes B-C. All of the routes would provide significant traffic reduction within Westport Section 2 Impacts Table 9.1 shows the impacts of the route corridor in Section 2. Route Option 2.0 is the only route option within section 2 for reasons previously discussed. The majority of route option 2.0 is from node C-D but it also contains the beginning of nodes D-E and is therefore discussed within Section 2. There are no planning permissions or community facilities affected within Section 2 and only one house has to be acquired Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 47

61 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance between nodes D-E. In total there are 35 properties within the 300 metre corridor but only 2 within 100m from node C-D and none from D-E. As in Section 1, community severance is considered as minor due the connectivity being provided by overbridges and underbridges. All of the routes would provide significant traffic reduction within Castlebar Section 3 Impacts Table 9.1 shows the impacts for each of the route corridors in Section 3. There are a significant number of houses within 300 metres of most of the routes as Section C includes Castlebar, the county town of Mayo. Route 3.0 from node E-M has the most (158 with 39 of those within 100 metres) as this is the longest single route element and also is the closest to the town. Route Option 3.3 between nodes G-I and I-M also affects a significant number or properties within 300 metres, 99 and 55 respectively, whilst along with Route 3.0 also has the most properties within 100 metres with 18 and 28 respectively. Routes 3.3, 3.1 and 3.1A will all require the acquisition of one house from node I-M, as would Route 3.0. However Route 3.0 is significantly worse in terms of affecting planning permissions with 15 no. affected whilst Route 3.3 from node I-M is the next worst route in this section, affecting 6 planning permissions. The only community facility affected within this section is Castlebar Golf Course which is impacted by both route 3.3 and 3.1B from nodes G-I. Community severance is considered as minor for all route options except Route 3.1 and 3.1A from node I-M which is rated as creating moderate community severance near Windsor on the assumption that access to the N5 would be restricted to left-in and left-out. All of the routes would provide significant traffic reduction within Castlebar Section 4 Impacts Table 9.1 shows the impacts for each of the route corridors in Section 4. Although mostly rural in character, some of the routes in Section 4 affect quite a large number of properties as many of the routes are longer than in some of the other sections. Route Option 4.2 from nodes K-R and routes 4.5 and 4.7 from nodes N-Q affect a significant number or properties within 300 metres, 88, 45 and 63 respectively. Two of these routes 4.2 (K-R) and 4.7 (N-Q) also affect the greatest number of properties within 100 metres, 19 and 11 respectively. Route 4.2 (K-R) affects most planning permissions, 6 no. with route 4.3 affecting 4 no. between nodes P-R. All of the routes are considered as creating only minor community severance while route 4.3 (M-P) and 4.5 (M-N) are considered to have a positive impact on community facilities by serving Turlough House. No other community facilities are affected by any of the route options in Section 4. All of the routes provide significant traffic reduction to along the existing N5 at Ballyvary Section 5 Impacts Table 9.1 shows the impacts for each of the route corridors in Section 5. Route Option 5.2 (T-U) has the greatest impact and requires the acquisition of 2 no. residential properties. In terms of planing permissions granted Route 5.2 (T-U) and 5.0 (T-V) both affect 2 no. planning permissions whilst route 5.0 (R-T) also affects one planning permission. Three route options affect significant numbers of Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 48

62 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance properties within 300 metres; 5.3A (P-S), 5.3 (S-U) and 5.0 (T-V), 33, 31 and 32 respectively, whilst Route 5.3A also has the most properties within 100 metres with 8 no. All of the routes are considered as creating only minor community severance while none of the routes impact on any community facilities. All of the routes provide significant traffic reduction along the existing N Flora, Fauna and Fisheries Introduction This section looks at the impacts of the route corridor options on the ecology of the area. It draws on the recent Constraints Study and previous ecological studies undertaken by Natura Environmental Consultants for proposed N5 upgrades and the proposed Castlebar Ring Road. The objective of this study is to advise on the relative impacts of the route corridor options on flora, fauna and fisheries, and hence to inform the route corridor selection process with the intention of minimising the overall impact on ecological sites and watercourses. Refer to drawings No. 43 to 48 in Volume 2 of this report for details of the sites of ecological value Methodology Constraints Stage Information on habitats, flora and fauna were collated following a desk study of the standard ecological literature. Of particular value were the Constraint Study Reports and s for the North Westport Relief Road, Castlebar Ring Road Project and the Ballyvary-Bohola Road Project. The N5 Westport to Castlebar Road Project EIS (2003) was also reviewed. In addition, information held by National Parks and Wildlife Services (Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government) on the designations within the study area and species identified within 10km grids of the area were accessed. Aerial photographs were used to determine the land use types typical of the study area. A number of specialist statutory and non statutory bodies were invited to provide information and/or comment on the proposal. The Constraints Report culminated in the identification of a number of sites and watercourses of potential ecological value within the Study Area. Route Selection Stage At the route selection stage, the study focussed primarily on the route corridors within Sections 1-5 of the proposed scheme. Updated aerial photographs were used to confirm and map the ecological sites identified by the previous studies. A simple description and evaluation of each ecological site along the route corridors was made based on the previous studies and a series of on-site field surveys undertaken in early Autumn The potential impacts were then assessed on the basis of the ecological value of the site and the scale of the likely impact. Areas of intensive farmland were generally not considered as they contain few habitats of importance for flora or fauna Assessment Criteria This report follows the Guidelines for Assessment of Ecological Impacts of National Road Schemes published by the National Roads Authority 2004; revised March 2006). Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 49

63 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance All ecological sites were assessed according to the criteria for site evaluation outlined in Appendix These are summarised as follows: A B C D E Ratings for ecological sites and fisheries waters Internationally important Nationally or regionally important High value, locally important Moderate value, locally important low value, locally important The significance of the impact of a route option on an ecological site or watercourse was then assessed on the basis of criteria outlined in Appendix 9.2.2, and summarised below. This is taken as a combination of the importance (ecological value) of the site and the extent of the likely impact on that site. Severe negative Major negative Moderate negative Minor negative Not significant Existing Environment General Description Scheme impacts and abbreviations used -ve severe -ve major -ve mod -ve minor Neutral The study area is primarily comprised of undulating land with drumlins. To the east towards Ballyvary and Bohola the ground rises becoming steeper and more defined in nature. Fast flowing streams and degraded moorland are common in this area. Land use in the area is dominated by agriculture. Accordingly the dominant habitat type is poor improved damp and wet grassland with Soft Rush. Hedgerows of varying sizes are found throughout the study area and often are continuous to form field boundaries. There remains a minor patchwork of wetter sites which are made up of cut over raised bogs, and occasional fens and ponds. The southern point of Islandeady Lough and Lannagh Lough lie within Section 2 of the scheme. These loughs hold good stocks of Brown Trout and are important angling amenities. There is very little deciduous woodland in the area, although patches of hazel scrub and wet bog woodland do occur. There is a significant stretch of plantation conifer woodland to the east of Ballyvary. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 50

64 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Designated Sites for Conservation Only one designated site occurs within the study area. The River Moy candidate Special Area of Conservation (csac) is a freshwater river system which forms part of the River Moy catchment (see Drawing No in Volume 2). A brief site description and a summary of the main conservation interests provided by NPWS, including rare and protected species is included as Appendix in this report. This site comprises almost the entire freshwater element of the Moy and its tributaries. The system drains a catchment area of 805 sq. km. Apart from the Moy itself, other rivers included within the site are the Deel, Bar Deela, Castlehill, Addergoole, Clydagh and Manulla on the west side and the Glenree, Yellow, Strade, Gweestion, Trimogue, Sonnagh, Mullaghanoe, Owengarve, Eighnagh and Owenaher on the east side. The underlying geology is Carboniferous Limestone for the most part though Carboniferous Sandstone is present at the extreme west of the site with Dalradian Quartzites and schists at the south west. Some of the tributaries at the east, the south of Lough Conn and all Lough Cullin are underlain by granite. The site is a candidate SAC selected for alluvial wet woodlands and raised bog, both priority habitats on Annex I of the E.U. Habitats Directive. The site is also a candidate SAC selected for old oak woodlands, degraded raised bog and Rhynchosporion, all habitats listed on Annex I of the E.U. Habitats Directive. The site is also selected for the following species listed on Annex II of the same directive Atlantic Salmon, Otter, Sea and Brook Lamprey and White-clawed Crayfish. The rare Narrow-leaved Helleborine (Cephalanthera longifolia), protected under the Flora Protection Order, 1999, occurs in association with the woodlands. Also found in these woodlands is the snail (Acanthinula lamellata), associated with old natural woodlands. The Moy system is one of Ireland s premier salmon waters and it also encompasses two of Ireland s best lake trout fisheries in Loughs Conn and Cullin. The Moy is highly productive in salmonid nursery terms. The site is also important for the presence of three other species listed on Annex II of the E.U. Habitats Directive, namely Sea Lamprey (Petromyzon marinus), Otter (Lutra lutra) and White-clawed Crayfish (Austropotamobius pallipes). The Sea Lamprey is regularly encountered in the lower stretches of the river around Ballina, while the otter and crayfish are widespread throughout the system. In addition, the site also supports many more of the mammal species occurring in Ireland. Those which are listed in the Irish Red Data Book include Pine Marten, Badger, Irish Hare and Daubenton s Bat. Common Frog, another Red Data Book species, also occurs within the site. Rare Plants There are no known records of rare plants or species protected under the Flora Protection Order (1999). Watercourses, Fisheries and Protected Aquatic Fauna The study area is dissected by a large number of streams and rivers many of which are known to possess significant salmonid and fishery interest. Similarly it is considered that the Habitats Directive Annex II species Otter, White-clawed Crayfish and Sea and Brook Lamprey occur or potentially occur throughout these catchments. As such, each watercourse is considered as having ecological value and the Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 51

65 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance assessment of impact in this instance is based simply upon number of watercourses crossed. Ecological Sites A short description of each of the ecological sites identified is presented in Table below and should be read in conjunction with Drawing No in Volume 2. Table Summary Description and Evaluation of Ecological Sites Site Code EV1 EV2 Site Description Old railway embankment with scrub woodland (hawthorn, ash, gorse, ivy, bramble). Narrow strip of planted woodland (conifers, birch) grading into gorse scrub on the adjoining drumlin slope Site Evaluation EV3 A complex of willow scrub, wet grassland, swamp and marsh. C EV4 Gorse and willow scrub becoming wet grassland. D D D Table Summary Description and Evaluation of Ecological Sites Contd. Site Code Site Description Site Evaluation EV4 Gorse and willow scrub becoming wet grassland. D EV6 Planted mature trees around a residential property. E EV7 Wet grassland with gorse scrub D EV8 Improved and Wet grassland with occasional willow scrub E EV9 EV10 EV11 EV12 A large area comprised of a complex of wet heath with occasional bog pools. Dry heath occurs on rocky outcrops. The area is bordered by wet grassland. Are of overgrazed degraded upland heath showing succession to wet acid grassland in places. Small area of wet heath / blanket bog vegetation dominated by Purple-moor Grass Two areas of cut over bog with an area of wet grassland between the two. Some blackthorn scrub EV13 Wet Grassland dominated by soft rush E EV14 High Quality cut-over bog, part of larger hydrological unit C EV15 EV16 EV17 The south eastern shore of Islandeady Lough wet grassland, calcareous fen and wet woodland. Contains a range of uncommon species including Grass of Parnassus and Marsh Helleborine. Extensive area of lake margin vegetation primarily reed swamp (Phragmites australis dominated) and fringing wet woodland. EV18 Marsh and wet grassland on southern shore of Lough Lannagh D EV19 A large area of Cut over bog with bog woodland C EV20 Cut over bog and bog woodland being encroached upon by new housing developments C D D D C C D Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 52

66 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Site Code EV21 EV22 Site Description An extensive area of wetland in a valley lying between two areas of open water. Habitats present include fringing reed swamp and extensive areas of wet woodland (willow, alder, ash) Site Evaluation EV23 Wet grassland with hedgerows E EV24 Semi-natural habitats around a small lake reedswamp, marsh, cutover bog and scrub EV25 Wet grassland with small area of cut-over bog D EV26 Flooded area with reed swamp becoming wet grassland D EV27 Wet grassland with small remnant of cut-over bog. Some birch scrub. D EV28 Large area of cut-over bog with bog woodland and conifer plantation C EV29 EV30 Planted mature trees around dwelling, include cypress and exotic conifers. Open water, reed swamp and fen. Border on the east is birch scrub, to the west the site is elevated and becomes wet grassland EV31 Small area of cutover bog with bog woodland D EV32 V33 EV34 Wet woodland, fringes planted as conifer and become improved grassland Mature and immature Plantation deciduous woodland and parkland related to Breaffy House EV35 Mature deciduous plantation beech, oak, scots pine, sycamore also related to Breaffy House. EV36 EV37 Wet improved grassland with mature deciduous woodland a hazel scrub. Understorey heavily grazed Wet grassland with Purple-moor Grass, birch woodland and gorse scrub EV38 Small remnant of cut over bog with bog woodland D EV39 Mixed hedgerow and scrub hawthorn, ash, ivy, bramble. D EV40 Mixed species rich hedgerow along disused track as EV39 D EV41 Low lying wet grassland related Tuckers Lough D EV42 EV43 Large area containing a complex mosaic of habitats blanket bog, dry heath, lakes and gorse scrub. Small area of mature deciduous woodland Ash, Sycamore, Hazel, Hawthorn, Willow EV44 Small copse of mature deciduous woodland understorey grazed. E EV45 Small copse of mature deciduous woodland understorey grazed E EV46 Mature woodland with Hazel understorey to the north, willow scrub to the south EV47 Small copse of mature deciduous woodland E EV48 Remnant of deciduous woodland with conifer plantation, and willow/alder scrub EV49 Significant area of wet woodland alder, woodland C EV50 Reed swamp and wet grassland associated with the small ponds D B C E C D D C D D C D D D Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 53

67 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Site Code EV51 Site Description Open water/pond with reedbed swamp, wet grassland and willow scrub Site Evaluation EV52 Wet woodland and scrub (birch) with some conifer D EV53 Strip of riparian woodland C EV54 Semi-natural mature deciduous woodland oak, ash, beech, hazel. C EV55 Agricultural Grassland with significant treelines and groupings of mature trees EV56 A remnant of cut over bog with bog woodland D EV57 Improved wet grassland with small areas of deciduous woodland E EV58 Wet grassland and willow scrub related to the river floodplain D EV59 Small area of wet grassland E EV60 Natural basin with open water, reed swamp and willow carr. Rise sharply to the east becoming agricultural grassland; and rises gently to the south becoming scrub woodland. V61 Small area of rush dominated wet grassland E EV62 EV63 Rush dominated improved wet grassland with alder treeline forming field boundary Un-managed wet grassland dominated by meadowsweet and soft rush EV64 An area of willow/alder woodland along a small stream valley D EV65 EV66 EV67 EV68 Large area of wet grassland with hawthorn hedgerows and occasional tree lines A broad area of wet grassland with occasional willow scrub and hawthorn hedgerows. A large continuous area of wet grassland heavily grazed but relatively unimproved. EV69 Cut-over Bog with bog woodland C EV70 Small area of remnant bog woodland (Birch dominated) D EV71 Cut over bog with substantial area of bog woodland C Overview of Route Corridors The scheme is divided into five distinct sections (see Drawing No. 1 in Volume 2). Section 1 Westport (Drawing No. 43) This section consists of the urban area of Westport and its environs and is surrounded by agricultural land. A number of ecological sites are recorded within this section, although only one (EV9 a large area of wet heath) is considered to be of high local value. The remaining sites are all small and of only moderate or low local value. These include areas of wet grassland and scrub woodland. Section 2 Westport to Castlebar (Drawing No. 44) Section 2 is primarily low lying agricultural farmland dominated by pasture and the associated improved grassland. The western half of this Section is confined to a D E C E D D E D Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 54

68 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance narrow study area and includes three sites of ecological value all of which are defined as moderate or low local ecological value. The eastern half of Section 2 passes to the south of Islandeady Lough and must bridge the narrow southern strip of Lannagh Lough. This stretch contains a complex of wetland habitats from the lakeshores to bogs and marsh. The ecological sites within this area are of either high or moderate local value. The rivers and lakes in this area are known to support populations of salmon and lamprey and therefore are of ecological significance. Section 3 Castlebar (Drawing No. 45 & 46) This area, to the south and east of Castlebar, is predominantly low lying and is dominated by improved agricultural grassland. The habitats present in this area are all related to the low lying, wet nature of the area. There are a number of expanses of cut-over bog, good quality fen and associated ponds and lakes all classified as high value, locally important. There are also significant areas of very wet grassland. The watercourses within this section, such as the Castlebar River, are recognised as important for salmonid angling and possess important areas of spawning and nursery habitat. Section 4 Castlebar to Ballyvary (Drawing No. 47) Section 4 covers the largest stretch and is primarily comprised of mildly undulating agricultural lands. It contains a large number of sites of ecological value. These include areas of mature deciduous woodland and scrub woodland, an area of wet woodland, areas of open water with reed bed swamp and willow and wet grassland with willow scrub. Significantly this Section includes the crossing of the River Moy csac and its associated riparian habitats. All the tributaries in the area should be considered as containing and supporting populations of the Annex II species Otter, White-clawed Crayfish and Lamprey species. Section 5 Ballyvary to Bohola (Drawing No. 48) This area consists mainly of farmland with low hills and valleys. The primary habitat present is heavily dominated by improved wet grassland of negligible nature conservation interest. However to the east of the Section there are a number of areas of relatively unimproved wet grassland and three areas of cut-over bog with bog woodland which are considered to be of moderate to high local value. The watercourses form part of the River Moy catchment and are considered as highly productive salmonid sites. The potential for the Annex II species, Otter, Lamprey and Crayfish must be considered Assessment of Impacts The proposed scheme is divided into five distinct sections. Each section is further divided into sub-sections within each of which a number of route options have been assessed. Due to this complexity this examines each section and sub-section independently. The report thus lays out each of these assessments separately (See Chapter 10) and the ecological assessment, based on the NRA guidelines for assessing impact significance (Appendix 9.2.2), of each specific subsection is contained within these individual assessments. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 55

69 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance For each sub-section, the severity and significance of the likely impacts on ecological sites is taken as a combination of the importance or rating of the site and the extent (taken as length or area impacted) of the likely impact. This follows the NRA Guidelines for assessing impact significance. In determining the severity of the impact it is assumed that the general mitigation measures described below will be implemented. This is particularly important in the case of watercourses. The assumption used is that all main rivers will be bridged by single span structures. The impacts will be primarily temporary and will involve only a small part of the watercourse and so will emerge as minor negative impacts, depending on the rating of the watercourse. Where culverts are to be used on minor watercourses it is assumed that they will be designed in such a way as to maintain the natural channel and flow regime Mitigation of Impacts The following general mitigation measures are proposed. Route specific mitigation measures have not been proposed at this stage. Ecological Sites Permanent impacts on ecological sites can only be fully mitigated by avoidance. Temporary impacts on these sites will be mitigated by taking appropriate measures to minimise damage to land adjacent to the area of take during construction. Watercourses All watercourses should be crossed in such a way that will not damage fish habitat (e.g. fish spawning and overwintering areas) and will not obstruct the passage of fish, macroinvertebrates or otters. Detailed planning and design of all watercourse crossings will be carried out in consultation with the Western Regional Fisheries Board and the North Western Regional Fisheries Board. Where appropriate, NPWS will be consulted in relation to requirements for protected freshwater species listed in Annex II of the EU Habitats Directive. All major watercourses should be bridged by single span structures. As no works will be constructed within the river channel, this will mitigate any permanent impacts. Other watercourses will be bridged or culverted. Where culverts are used, these structures should be designed in such a way that natural stream channel characteristics (channel dimensions, flow regime and substrate) are preserved, and the passage of fish is facilitated in all but extreme flow conditions. Bottomless culverts have the least impact on watercourses and should be used in preference to other types of culvert. Where bottomless culverts are not being used, box culverts with a stepped bottom profile should be used to maintain a minimum depth of water and to provide a suitable ledge for the passage of mammals. Pre-cast concrete should be used in preference to cast-in-place concrete as this will help to eliminate the risk of contamination to all forms of aquatic life. Temporary impacts during construction should be mitigated by sensitive construction techniques. Riparian and bankside habitats should be rehabilitated following construction. Siltation of watercourses should be minimized by the appropriate use of settlement ponds, silt traps and bunds. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 56

70 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Rating A B C D E Appendix Site Evaluation Scheme* Qualifying Criteria Sites designated (or qualifying for designation) as an SAC 1 or SPA 2 under the EU Habitats or Birds Directives. Undesignated sites containing good examples of Annex I priority habitats under the EU Habitats Directive. Major salmon river fisheries or major Salmonid (salmon, trout or char) lake fisheries. Sites or waters designated or proposed as an NHA 3 or Statutory Nature Reserve. Undesignated sites containing good examples of Annex I habitats (under EU Habitats Directive). Undesignated sites containing significant numbers of resident or regularly occurring populations of Annex II species under the EU Habitats Directive or Annex I species under the EU Birds Directive. Major trout river fisheries. Water bodies with major amenity fishery value or commercially important coarse fisheries. Sites containing semi-natural habitat types with high biodiversity in a local context and a high degree of naturalness, or significant populations of locally rare species. Small water bodies with known salmonid populations or with good salmonid habitat. Sites containing any resident of regularly occurring populations of Annex II species under the EU Habitats Directive or Annex I species under the EU Birds Directive. Large water bodies with some coarse fisheries value. Sites containing some semi-natural habitat or habitat locally important for wildlife. Small water bodies with some coarse fisheries value or some potential salmonid habitat. Any waterbody with unpolluted water (Q-value rating 4-5). Artificial or highly modified habitats with low species diversity and low wildlife value. Water bodies with no current fisheries value and no significant potential fisheries value. (*Source: National Roads Authority (2006). Guidelines for the assessment of Ecological Impacts on National Road Schemes.) 1 SAC Special Area of Conservation 2 SPA Special Protection Area 3 NHA Natural Heritage Area Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 57

71 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Impact Level Severe Negative Major Negative Moderate Negative Minor Negative Appendix Criteria for Assessing Impact Significance* A sites Internationally Important Any permanent impacts Temporary impacts on a large part of a site Temporary impacts on a small part of a site B sites Nationally Important Permanent impacts on a large part of a site. Permanent impacts on a small part of a site Temporary impacts on a large part of a site Temporary impacts on a small part of a site C sites High value, locally Important Permanent impacts on a large part of a site Permanent impacts on a small part of a site Temporary impacts on a large part of a site D sites Moderate value, locally Important Permanent impacts on a large part of a site Permanent impacts on a small part of a site E sites Low value, locally Important Permanent impacts on a large part of a site Neutral No Impacts No Impacts No Impacts No Impacts Permanent impacts on a small part of a site Minor Positive Moderate Positive Major Positive Permanent beneficial impacts on a small part of a site Permanent beneficial impacts on a small part of a site Permanent beneficial impacts on a large part of a site Permanent beneficial impacts on a small part of a site Permanent beneficial impacts on a large part of a site Permanent beneficial impacts on a large part of a site (*Source: National Roads Authority (2006). Guidelines for the assessment of Ecological Impacts on National Road Schemes.) Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 58

72 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance SITE NAME: RIVER MOY SITE CODE: Appendix SITE SYNOPSIS of River Moy csac This site comprises almost the entire freshwater element of the Moy and its tributaries including both Loughs Conn and Cullin. The system drains a catchment area of 805sq. km. Most of the site is in Co. Mayo though parts are in west Sligo and north Roscommon. Apart from the Moy itself, other rivers included within the site are the Deel, Bar Deela, Castlehill, Addergoole, Clydagh and Manulla on the west side and the Glenree, Yellow, Strade, Gweestion, Trimogue, Sonnagh, Mullaghanoe,Owengarve, Eighnagh and Owenaher on the east side. The underlying geology is Carboniferous Limestone for the most part though Carboniferous Sandstone is present at the extreme west of the site with Dalradian Quartzites and schists at the south west. Some of the tributaries at the east, the south of Lough Conn and all Lough Cullin are underlain by granite. There are many towns adjacent to but not within the site. These include Ballina, Crossmolina, Foxford, Swinford, Kiltimagh and Charlestown. The site is a candidate SAC selected for alluvial wet woodlands and raised bog, both priority habitats on Annex I of the E.U. Habitats Directive. The site is also a candidate SAC selected for old oak woodlands, degraded raised bog and Rhynchosporion, all habitats listed on Annex I of the E.U. Habitats Directive. The site is also selected for the following species listed on Annex II of the same directive Atlantic Salmon, Otter, Sea and Brook Lamprey and White-clawed Crayfish. On the slopes and rising ground around the southern shores of Loughs Conn and Cullin, Oak woodlands are seen. Sessile Oak (Quercus petraea) is the dominant tree with an understorey of Holly (Ilex aquifolium), Hazel (Corylus avellana) and Birch (Betula pubescens) with some Ash (Fraxinus excelsior). Additional species are associated with the lakeshore such as the whitebeam (Sorbus rupicola), Aspen (Populus tremula), Silver Birch (B. pendula) and the shrubs Guelder Rose (Viburnum opulus), Buckthorn (Rhamnus catharticus) and Spindle Tree (Euonymus europaeus). The ground flora is usually composed of Bilberry (Vaccinium myrtillus), Wood Rush (Luzula sylvatica), Wood Sorrel (Oxalis acetosella), Buckler Ferns (Dryopteris aemula and D. dilatata), Hard Fern (Blechnum spicant), Cow-wheat (Melampyrum spp.) and Bracken (Pteridium aquilinum). The rare Narrow-leaved Helleborine (Cephalanthera longifolia), protected under the Flora Protection Order, 1999, occurs in association with the woodlands. Also found in these woodlands is the snail (Acanthinula lamellata), associated with old natural woodlands. On higher ground adjacent to the woodlands is blanket bog with scattered shrubs and trees on the drier areas. The rocky knolls often bear Juniper (Juniperus communis) or Gorse (Ulex europaeus), with some unusual rare herb species such as Intermediate Wintergreen (Pyrola media) and Lesser Twayblade (Listera cordata).within the site are a number of raised bogs including those at Kilgarriff, Gowlaun, Derrynabrock, Tawnaghbeg and Cloongoonagh. These are examples of raised bogs at the north-western edge of the spectrum and possess many of the species typical of such in Ireland, including an abundance of Bog Asphodel (Narthecium ossifragum), Carnation Sedge (Carex panicea) and the moss Campylopus atrovirens. Some of the bogs include significant areas of active raised bog habitat. Well developed pool and hummock systems with quaking mats of bog mosses (Sphagnum spp.), Bog Asphodel (Narthecium ossifragum) and White Beaked-sedge (Rhynchospora alba) are present. Many of the pools contain a diversity of plant species, including Bogbean (Menyanthes trifoliata), the bog moss Sphagnum cuspidatum, Campylopus atrovirens, Common Cottongrass (Eriophorum angustifolium), Great Sundew (Drosera anglica) and occasional Lesser Bladderwort (Utricularia minor). Several of the hummock forming mosses (Sphagnum fuscum and S. imbricatum) which occur here are quite rare in this region and add to the scientific interest of the bogs within the overall site. Depressions on the bogs, pool edges and erosion channels, where the vegetation is dominated by White Beaked-sedge (Rhynchospora alba) comprise the habitat Rhynchosporion. Associated species in this habitat at the site include Bog Asphodel, Sundews, Deergrass (Scirpus cespitosus) and Carnation Sedge. Degraded raised bog is present where the hydrology of the uncut bogs, has been Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 59

73 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance affected by peat cutting and other land use activities in the surrounding area such as afforestation and associated drainage and also by the Moy arterial drainage. Species typical of the active raised bog habitat are still present but the relative abundance of them is different. A typical example of the degraded habitat, where drying has occurred at the edge of the high bog, contains an abundance and more uniform cover of Ling Heather (Calluna vulgaris), Carnation Sedge, Deergrass and sometimes Bogmyrtle (Myrica gale). Occurring in association with the uncut high bog are areas of wet regenerating cutover bog with species such as Common Cottongrass, bog mosses and Sundew, while on the drier areas, the vegetation is mostly dominated by Purple Moor-grass (Molinia caerulea). Natural regeneration with peat-forming capability will be possible over time with some restorative measures. The open water of Loughs Conn and Cullin is moderately hard with relatively low colour and good transparency. The phytpoplankton of the lake is dominated by diatoms and blue-green algae and there is evidence that the latter group is more common now than in former years. This indicates that nutrient inflow is occurring. Arctic Charr (Salvelinus alpinus) appear to have disappeared from the lake over the same period of time. The changes in Lough Conn appear to represent an early phase in the eutrophication process. Stoneworts still present include Chara aspera, C. delicatula and Nitella cf. opaca. Other plants found in the shallower portions are the pondweeds. Where there is a peat influence Intermediate Bladderwort (Utricularia intermedia) is characteristic while Water Lobelia (Lobelia dortmanna) often grows in sand. Narrow reedbeds and patches of Yellow Water-lily (Nuphar lutea) occur in some of the bays. Drainage of the Moy in the 60s lowered the level of the lakes, exposing wide areas of stony shoreline and wet grassland, which are liable to flooding in winter. This increased the habitat diversity of the shoreline and created a number of marginal wetlands, including fens and marshes. Plant species of note in the lake-margin include Heath Cudweed (Omalotheca sylvatica), Great Burnet (Sanguisorba officinalis) and Irish Lady s-tresses (Spiranthes romanzoffiana). These three species are listed on the Irish Red Data list and are protected under the Flora Protection Order Other habitats present within the site include wet grassland dominated by Rushes (Juncus spp.) grading into species-rich marsh in which sedges are common. Among the other species found in this habitat are Yellow Iris (Iris pseudacorus), Water Mint (Mentha aquatica), Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) and Soft Rush (Juncus effusus). Grey Willow (Salix cinerea) scrub and pockets of wet woodland dominated by Alder (Alnus glutinosa) have become established in places throughout the site. Ash (Fraxinus excelsior) and Birch (Betula pubescens) are common in the latter and the ground flora is typical of wet woodland with Meadowsweet (Filipendula ulmaria), Angelica (Angelica sylvestris), Yellow Iris, Horsetail (Equisetum spp.) and occasional tussocks of Greater Tussock-sedge (Carex paniculata). Small pockets of conifer plantation, close to the lakes and along the strip both sides of the rivers, are included in the site. The Moy system is one of Ireland s premier salmon waters and it also encompasses two of Ireland s best lake trout fisheries in Loughs Conn and Cullin. Although the Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) is still fished commercially in Ireland, it is considered to be endangered or locally threatened elsewhere in Europe and is listed on Annex II of the Habitats Directive. The Moy is a most productive catchment in salmon terms and this can be attributed to its being a fingered system with a multiplicity of 1st to 5 th order tributaries which are large enough to support salmonids < 2 years of age while at the same time being too small to support significant adult trout numbers and are therefore highly productive in salmonid nursery terms. Salmon run the Moy every month of the year. Both multi-sea-winter fish and grilse are present. The salmon fishing season is 1st February to 30th September. The peak of the spring fishing is in April and the grilse begin running in early May. The average weight of the spring fish is 9 lb and the grilse range from about 3-7 lb. In general spring fish are found more frequently in the rivers at the western extent of the Moy system. The Arctic Char (Salvelinus alpinus), an interesting relict species from the last ice age, which is listed as threatened in the Irish Red Data Book has been recorded in Lough Conn and in only a few other lakes in Ireland. The latest reports suggest that it may now have disappeared from the site. The site is also important for the presence of three other species listed on Annex II of the E.U. Habitats Directive, namely Sea Lamprey (Petromyzon marinus), Otter (Lutra lutra) and White-clawed Crayfish (Austropotamobius pallipes). The Sea Lamprey is regularly encountered in the lower stretches of the river around Ballina, while the otter and crayfish are widespread throughout the system. In addition, the site also supports many more of the mammal species occurring in Ireland. Those which are listed in the Irish Red Data Book include Pine Marten, Badger, Irish Hare and Daubenton s Bat. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 60

74 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Common Frog, another Red Data Book species, also occurs within the site. Loughs Conn and Cullin support important concentrations of wintering waterfowl and both are designated Special Protection Areas. A nationally important population of the Annex I species Greenland White-fronted Geese (average 113 over 6 winters 1994/95 to 1999/00) is centred on Lough Conn. Whooper Swans also occur (numbers range between 25 to 50), along with nationally important populations of Tufted Duck 635, Goldeneye 189 and Coot 464. A range of other species occur on the lakes in regionally important concentrations, notably Wigeon 303, teal 154, Mallard 225, Pochard 182, Lapwing (>1,000) and Curlew 464. Golden Plover also frequent the lakes, with numbers ranging between 700 and 1,000. Loughs Conn and Cullin are one of the few breeding sites for Common Scoter in Ireland. Breeding has occurred on Lough Conn since about the 1940s when about pairs were known. A census in 1983 recorded 29 pairs. Breeding was first proved on Lough Cullin in 1983 when 24 pairs were recorded. In 1995, pairs were recorded at Lough Conn and 5 pairs at Lough Cullin. The latest survey in 1999 gives a total of 30 birds for both lakes, comprising only 5 pairs, 18 unpaired males and 2 unpaired females. The reason for the decline is not known but may be due to predation by mink, possible changes in food supply and/or redistribution to other sites. The Common Scoter is a Red listed species. Agriculture, with particular emphasis on grazing, is the main landuse along the Moy. Much of the grassland is unimproved but improved grassland and silage are also present. The spreading of slurry and fertiliser poses a threat to the water quality of this salmonid river and to the large lakes. Fishing is a main tourist attraction on the Moy and there are a large number of Angler Associations, some with a number of beats. Fishing stands and styles have been erected in places. The North Western Regional Fisheries Board have erected fencing along selected stretches of the river as part of their salmonid enhancement programme. Other aspects of tourism are concentrated around Loughs Conn and Cullin. Afforestation has occurred in the past around the shores of Loughs Conn and Cullin. The coniferous trees are due for harvesting shortly. It is proposed to replant with native tree species in this area. Forestry is also present along many of the tributaries and in particular along the headwaters of the Deel. Forestry poses a threat in that sedimentation and acidification occurs. Sedimentation can cover the gravel beds resulting in a loss of suitable spawning grounds. The Moy has been arterially dredged in the 60s. Water levels have been reduced since that time. This is particularly evident along the shores of Loughs Conn and Cullin and in the canal-like appearance of some river stretches. Ongoing maintenance dredging is carried out along stretches of the river system where the gradient is low. This is extremely destructive to salmonid habitat in the area. The site supports populations of several species listed on Annex II of the EU Habitats Directive, and habitats listed on Annex I of this directive, as well as examples of other important habitats. The presence of a fine example of broad-leaved woodland in this part of the country increases the overall habitat diversity and adds to the ecological value of the site as does the presence of the range of nationally rare and Red Data Book plant and animal species (*Source: National Parks & Wildlife Service website) Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 61

75 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance 9.3 Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Introduction This chapter provides information on the known archaeological data and on sites of architectural significance within the constraints study area. The report is a desk survey only. This section discusses the receiving environment from an archaeological perspective in general terms; it describes the known baseline data, identifies all known and potential archaeological and cultural heritage sites that may act as constraints on the emerging preferred route and provides the initial assessment of potential impact on these sites. The Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Sites are shown on Drawings 49 to 54 in Volume Study Methodology The assessment consisted of a paper survey identifying all recorded sites within the area of study. This is a document search utilising a number of sources including the Record of Monuments and Places (RMP), Sites and Monuments Record (SMR); National Museum of Ireland Topographical Files; County Development Plans; Primary sources; and Literary sources. The Record of Monuments and Places (RMP) is an inventory of archaeological sites known to the National Monuments Service with accompanying RMP Constraint Maps, based on OS 6 Sheets, which indicate the location of each recorded site. The RMP list is based on the earlier Sites and Monuments Record (SMR) files housed in the National Monuments Services offices. The inventory is backed up with files housed in the National Monuments Services offices, which provide information on documentary, cartographic and photographic sources and field inspections that have taken place in relation to each identified site. The record is updated on a constant basis. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Archaeology section formerly known as Dúchas has focussed on monuments that predate 1600AD. Buildings belonging to the seventeenth century and later are not well represented in their archive, although they are considered to be archaeological sites today. As a result field inspection may reveal additional sites from this more recent past. The National Museum of Ireland s Topographical Files are the national archive of all known antiquities by the National Museum. These files are housed in the National Museum of Ireland. These files relate primarily to artefacts but they also include references to monuments and have a unique archive of records of previous excavations. The find-spots of artefacts can also be an important indication of the archaeological potential of the related or surrounding area. The Museum s files present an accurate catalogue of objects reported to that institution between 1928 and c Records of material acquired by the Museum before and after these dates are not readily accessible, unless they have been mentioned in publications. Both the Mayo County Development Plan and new Mayo County Development Plan were consulted. This plan sets out the Council s policy for the conservation and enhancement of their natural and built environment and lists items of special environmental or archaeological/artistic interest. It contains lists of historic buildings and other items for preservation as compiled for the County Council by expert bodies. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 62

76 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Description of Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Sites Recorded Monuments The Study area is rich in recorded monuments as recorded in the in the Register of Monuments and Places (RMP). These sites are listed as being of regional or local importance and vary in origin to include numerous enclosures, ringforts, cashels, standing stones and burial grounds. None of the listed monuments have National Monument or Registered Historic Monument Status. These sites and their location relative to the route options can be seen in Drawings 049 to 054 in Volume 2. Stray Finds from the National Museum of Ireland The topographical files of the National Museum of Ireland indicate the find spots of archaeological artefacts. These are often not very specific locations and commonly simply indicate the townland in which the artefact was found. Arderry Bohola Burrishoke Abby Castlebar (Manulla River ) Castlebar Castlebar Castlebar Castlebar Castlebar Claggarnagh east Clogher Clogher Cloonagh Clooncane Coorower Demesne Doogary Killeen Manulla River Purranus Turlough Westport Westport Westport Previous Excavations Vessel (wooden), Cauldron (iron) Axehead (stone) Seal matrix Bronze axehead 2 gold bracelets Axehead (copper alloy) Boat (wooden) Coin, silver Gold Ring Canoe Axehead Axehead (stone) Axehead, stone, pottery Mill (horizontal mill) Human remains, 3 ceramic vessels Tablet (stone) 2 bog butter Shovel Wooden, 5 wooden vesels River Spearhead (iron) Vessel (wooden) Vessel and bog butter Stone axehead Stone beads Vessel bronze The results of archaeological investigations in Ireland are published in summary in Excavations (Bennett ). A search of the database was made for all the townlands located within the constraints study area. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 63

77 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance The following table outlines relevant previous excavations: Reference No. Townland Results of excavation 1994:187 Westport Industrial Park, Westport House 1995:223 Clooneen, Cist 1997:403 Clonkeen Adjacent to enclosure 1997:400 Carrowbeg No archaeological significance 1997:406 Kilbree Lower Bullaun stone 1998:479 Carrowbeg Rath 1998:491 Lecarrow No archaeological significance 1998:497 Westport Belclare R335 Road Realignment Scheme No archaeological significance 1999:662 Liscromwell No archaeological significance 2001:884 Attireesh Two fulachta fiadh 2001:906 Deerpark East I Fulachta fiadh 2001:907 Deerpark East II Fulachta fiadh 2001:911 Gortaroe I Fulachta fiadh 2001:912 Gortaroe II Neolithic house and possible kiln 2001:930 Turlough, Ecclesiastical Enclosure 2002:13 Attireesh Fluachta fiadh 2002:1382 Carrowkeel, Ringfort, children s burial-ground and enclosure 2002:1393 Gortaroe I Fulachta fiadh 2002:1394 Gortaroe II Fulachta fiadh 2002:1401 Lisgowel, No archaeological significance 2002:1410 Westport Monitoring Monitoring 2003:1307 Carrowkeel, Ringfort Ringfort 2003:1308 Carrowkeel, No archaeological significance 2003:1327 Gortaroe Burnt spreads 2003;1336 Lisgowel No archaeological significance Lisgowel Testing 2004:113 Breaghwy No archaeological significance 2004:1149 Gortaroe Burnt mound 2004:1150 Gortaroe Monitoring 2004:1156 Creevagh Burial Ground, Westport Demesne Fulachta fiadh Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 64

78 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance The variation in stray finds and results of excavations shows that there is a strong and ancient history within the study area. While there are poor records in much of the study area (primarily to the centre and to the west of the constraints study), this is likely to be reflective of the lack of development in this strongly rural section of the country. Areas of Archaeological Potential The Study area encompasses a large area of land mass skirting a number of lakes and rivers including Islandeady Lough, Castlebar Lough and a number of smaller lakes. Rivers within the study area include Castlebar River, Manulla River, Toormore River and the Little River amongst others. Rivers and Lakes are generally considered to be of high archaeological potential. The rivers and Lough shores themselves may be the repositories of artefacts previously deposited in the water and the fields immediately adjacent have potential to contain subsurface evidence of prehistoric or later settlement or other activity. Architectural Heritage A Record of Protected Structures (RPS) can be found in Mayo County Development Plan and the new Mayo County Development Plan : The following RPS Sites have been identified within the constraints study area: RPS Name Townland 0005 Old Church of Ireland Turlough 0011 Turlough House Turlough 0020 Bridge Turlough 0126 Hawthorn Lodge Castlebar 0127 Fisherhill Castlebar 0128 Moynenna Bridge Turlough 0131 Bohola RCC Bohola 0132 Barleyhill House Bohola 0215 Pat Randall s Bridge, Capparanny Castlebar 0220 Old Humpback Bridge, Capparanny Castlebar 0231 Turlough Lodge Turlough Assessment of Potential Impacts on Sites Table 9.1 looks at the number of sites in proximity to each route corridor and assess the potential for impact on archaeology due to the number of sites in proximity, done using 0-50 metre, metre and metre bands. 9.4 Landscape and Visual Methodology The assessment is made with regard to the vulnerability of the landscape to change and to the location of visual receptors relative to the proposed development. The methodology is based on the EPA Guidelines and Advice Notes on Environmental Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 65

79 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Impact Statements and the Highways Agency (UK) Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. The report has been prepared in the light of, and informed by, the findings of previous reports on the project particularly the Constraints Report. Details of these findings are shown on Drawings in Volume 2 of this report. The varying degree and incidence of landscape and visual impact is dependent on various factors including: - the contrast between the existing and proposed view, the proximity of the view point, the elevation of the development the removal of existing features, the alteration of landform and topography, Visual Impact, landscape impact and landscape planning impacts are rated as Not Significant, Minor, Moderate, Major or Severe as shown in Table Visual impact generally relates to the extent to which a new development can be seen and in particular to potential intrusion and/or obstruction from properties. A P number identifies properties potentially impacted to either a severe or major degree. With respect to visual impact from properties and given the prevalence of properties along minor roads, it is likely that necessary re-alignment of local roads in the vicinity of the routes would result in significant levels of visual impact. At this stage it has not been possible to assess these impacts. However, it is an aspect common to all route options. Landscape planning impact relates to the effect on designated amenity or scenic landscapes, views, preserved or protected trees and woodlands etc. These may be informed from national publications such as the Inventory of Outstanding Landscapes in Ireland or the more local County Development Plan etc. Landscape Planning Impacts are described in the tables under a LP number. Landscape impact generally relates to alteration in the fabric of the landscape and in particular to the impact on distinctiveness, integrity and quality. Landscape impacts are described as being of Local, Regional or National Significance, where the impacted landscape rating is dependent on an absence of designation, a county designation or a national designation, respectively. Landscape Impacts are described in the tables under a NL number. Only that section of the landscape impacted by the proposed route is identified and the identification should not be taken as the boundary of the impacted landscape. Table Significance Severe Major Rating of Severity of Impact Criteria Arises where the proposed scheme would so alter the existing visual environment or so completely block an existing view as to entirely eliminate the existing visual character. Arises where the proposed scheme would result in significant alteration of the existing view or where the view is obstructed or so dominated by the proposed scheme that it becomes the focus of attention. Generally, there will be open views of the development located in the foreground. Visual obstruction may impinge on the skyline. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 66

80 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Significance Moderate Minor Not Significant Criteria Arises where an appreciable segment of the existing view is impacted or where there is intrusion in the foreground. Arises where the proposed scheme forms only a small element in the overall panorama or where there is substantial intervening screening in the form of topography and/or vegetation. No effect or without noticeable consequences. Impact results in no change on the quality of the environment. The Landscape Appraisal for County Mayo (County Development Plan ) describes Mayo as having many landscapes. These range from complex agricultural patterns in the lowlands with small roads and houses; to a deeply indented and islanded Atlantic coastline; to the great and often empty uplands and moorlands of the west and north of the County. One of the first tasks of any analysis is to subdivide the County into its constituent parts. These are called Character Units. Each of them contains an area of land, which has similar character-giving elements such as slope, vegetation and landuse. The appearance of the landscape is relatively uniform within each Character Unit. Once identified and described these units are very useful for the consistent and clear application of policy because the effects of development will be relatively consistent within each Character Unit. Landscape Appraisal for County Mayo, County Development Plan Section 1 Impacts From node A-B the three route options (1.0, 1.1 and 1.2) are rated as having only a minor impact on landscape. From node B-C all 5 route options (1.0, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 and 1.5A) are rated as having a minor impact on the landscape, however route options 1.0 and 1.3 are considered to retain the panoramic view of Westport and Clew Bay over a longer approach to Westport than the three route options, 1.4, 1.5 and 1.5A. The locations of these impacts are shown on Drawings in Volume 2 of this report Section 2 Impacts In Section 2, route option 2.0 is considered as having a moderate impact on the landscape of Lough Lannagh Section 3 Impacts In Section 3, four of the route options are considered to have a moderate impact on landscape and visual amenity. Route 3.1(G-I), 3.1B(G-I) and 3.3 (G-I) involve high embankment that will be visible from both the housing development at Balloor and the golf course. Route 3.0(E-M) is also rated as moderate due to the high embankments required around the south of Castlebar. All other route options in this section are rated as having only a minor impact on landscape and visual amenity Section 4 Impacts A number of the routes pass through an estate landscape in section 4. Route 4.3 (M- P) has the greatest impact on the estate by cutting right through it over a distance of 1600 metres while two further routes 4.4A (N-P) and 4.4B (N-P) affect the north eastern edge of the estate. Route 4.5 (M-N) also traverses a large length of the estate however the impact is not considered as great as route 4.3 (M-P) as this Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 67

81 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance section is on-line on the existing N5. All other routes are considered as having a minor impact on landscape and visual amenity Section 5 Impacts In Section 5 route 5.0, from node R-T, has moderate impact due to a deep cut through a ridge and has further moderate impact, from node T-V, which cuts through an estate landscape over a distance of one kilometre. Route 5.2 (U-V) cuts through the edge of an estate landscape while the remaining routes are considered as having a minor impact. 9.5 Agricultural Land Use Methodology The assessment of the agricultural impact on the route options consisted of a combination of a desktop survey of the relevant maps, a roadside inspection of land and farming practices and consultation with local sources for the area. The desktop study consisted of a review of aerial photography and scheme mapping together with a preliminary design plan and profile for each of the options in the assessment. The roadside survey was carried out over the 9th and 10th October 2008 along each of the options. The agricultural assessment is prepared under several separate headings including Landtake, Land Quality, Land Use and Farmyard Disturbance. The extent of agricultural landtake on an option is based on the length of the option excluding any portion of the option on an existing road. The level of each option under each of the land quality and land use categories has been assessed and expressed as a percentage within each category. Where the route option wholly or partly impacts upon a farmyard, the farmyard was recorded under disturbance for the purposes of this assessment. Affected farms of particular note were also recorded as part of the assessment. The report conclusions draw together these four issues to present an overall impact on agriculture from each route section option. The level of each option under each of the land quality and land use categories has been assessed and expressed as a percentage of the length of the option. Where the route option impacted upon farmyard facilities, the farm buildings or farmyard was recorded under disturbance for each option. The assessment also considered where options impacted on local farms of note and recorded the predominant farm enterprise for those options. The agricultural assessment of each the options involved the assignment of an impact rating to each option based on the combined results of the areas identified above. These ratings range from a minor negative impact rating with the lowest impact on agriculture to a major negative impact rating with the greatest impact on agriculture Assessment Criteria The new road will pass through productive agricultural land with impacts on farm holdings or individual land parcels. In general, negative impacts from the development of a new road are mainly due to the level of landtake, land severance and access problems to land and farmyard facilities. Intensive farm enterprises may be particularly affected by the loss of direct access to severed lands. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 68

82 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Slight positive impacts could be associated with all of the route options through improvement of accessibility to lands for some agricultural enterprises. The overall impacts are generally found to be negative as with agricultural properties the negative impacts will be found to be greater than any positive impact. The details of the significance criteria used in the assessment are outlined in Table and were prepared by Philip Farrelly & Co. Table Details of Significance Criteria Significance Criteria Major Negative Impact Moderate Negative Impact Minor Adverse Impact Neutral Slight Positive Impact Moderate Positive Impact Large Positive Impact Impact There is a high level of lands primarily of good land quality. Land use is arable or grassland based. Affected farm holding include farms with locally significant and intensive grassland-based farm enterprises. There is a high level of farmyard disturbance. There is a high level of lands within those affected being primarily of average land quality. Land use is mainly grassland based. There may be locally significant farm enterprises affected. There is a level of farmyard disturbance. The affected lands are primarily of poor to average land quality. Land use is grassland based and includes non-grassland areas such as wetlands and woodlands. There is a low impact on locally significant farm enterprises. There is a low level or an absence of farmyard disturbance. No affect on agricultural land. Increased access to the parcel or improved drainage. However, this will not outweigh the removal of a portion of land. Not Applicable to agriculture. Not Applicable to agriculture. Severance of a land parcel occurs when a road alignment splits a field or land parcel into two or more pieces. This results in the fragmentation of the farm into a greater number of management units. Access may involve a considerable distance to the severed area of land. Fragmentation of farms results in greater costs due to increased livestock and grassland management involved in farming more than one unit e.g. movement of livestock between land parcels and increased travel distances for grassland, silage and tillage machinery. The assessment of severance of individual farm holdings is based on the availability of landownership details for the study area. Without complete and accurate landownership information for all of the options the assessment of land severance on a land parcel basis was not possible. Having considered the size of the farm holdings, the land quality and the extensive agricultural practices in the study area the weighting attached to severance was not considered to be sufficient to merit including it as a separate criteria in the assessment. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 69

83 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Existing Environment Land Quality and Land Use The entire study area with the exception of the urban areas and roads can be classified as agricultural lands. The route options traverse areas with gently rolling to drumlin topography. The farmland is generally of average to good quality resulting in the level of grassland-based farming enterprises across the study area. There are significant levels of lands of poor quality present on several route section options. The grassland-based activities comprise beef, sheep, dairy and horses with beef and sheep being the predominant farm enterprises. It is common for farms to have a combination of some or all of these categories. There was no tillage crops evident on the farms along the options assessed. Farm Enterprise The farm enterprises range from intensively managed systems in areas of good land quality to very extensive systems in other areas of average to poor quality land. The predominant farm enterprises are Beef production and Sheep production and a combination of both. Dairy farms are found on some of the route section options and are generally to be found on good quality land and are highly stocked with intensively managed systems. Farms with horses are generally extensively managed and are found on lands of average to good quality. Farm Structure Farms in the study area generally consist of more than one parcel of land. Some farms are quite fragmented consisting of several land parcels in close proximity to each other. This may result in a route option affecting more than one parcel on a farm holding. While farming as a full time occupation depends on the land type and farm enterprise, farming in Mayo is either the sole or major occupation on farms (CSO 2000). This information was not available at a local level, though it would be expected to apply within the study area. The number of farmers with off-farm income is increasing and a significant proportion of farms are two income households. Rural Environmental Protection Scheme (REPS) Farm participation of the REPS scheme for Mayo is approximately 48.5% for December Participation in the scheme consists of a five-year contract with the Department of Agriculture, Food & Rural Development to farm in accordance with an agri-environmental plan. Its objectives include the establishment of environmentally sustainable and friendly farming practices, quality food production methods and the protection of wildlife habitats and endangered flora and fauna. While the level of participation is not available at a local level it is not expected to differ significantly from one option to another. Soil Type The soil types within the study area fall under four different soil association numbers: 21, 25, 28 and 44. The soil association number is a reference to the soil types in Soil Associations of Ireland and their Land Use Potential (An Foras Taluntais, 1980). Soil association 25 predominates on the western side of the study area, while soil association 28 is more prominent on the eastern side of the area. The principal soil is of soil association number 21 and is a poorly drained Gley, with a limited use range, best suited to grassland. Gleys and Acid Brown Earths are the dominant soils of association 25. These are moderately well drained and have a Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 70

84 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance fairly limited use range, due mainly to the drumlin topography, being more suited to pasture than arable cropping. The predominant soil in association 28 is a moderately well drained Grey Brown Podzolic of somewhat limited use range, mainly suited to grassland. Soil association number 44 is primarily a basin peat which is extremely limited for agricultural use Assessment of Option Impacts The assessment of the options is presented under the five geographical sections of the study area. The results of the agricultural assessment for each option are presented individually in the tables for each section. Each table presents details of the length of the option, landtake and impacts under land quality, land use and farmyard disturbance for each of the node options. An impact rating is assigned to each route option based on the combined results of the areas within the agricultural assessment. It should be noted that the agricultural impact assessment was carried out on the initial route options prior to the A and B modifications to routes and these slight modifications were individually assessed to address any changes in agricultural impact from it s original route. Section 1 This section ranges from northwest of Westport in the townland of Creggaunnahorna to the townland of Knockbrack. This Section incorporates nodes A-B and B-C. There are three options proposed for A-B and four options proposed for Node B-C. The three options proposed for Node A-B (1.0, 1.1 and 1.2) are all north of Westport and all options incorporate some level of existing roadway, as well as some agricultural lands. The four options proposed for Node B-C (1.0, 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5) are also north of the existing N5 while one option crosses the existing N5 at two locations before the tie-in at Node C (Option 1.0). Of the affected lands to the north of the existing N5, most is of average to poor in quality. The following tables outline the approximate length and landtake for each of the options in Section 1. Node Qualitative Quantitative Assessment A-B Route Option 1.0 Length (m) Agricultural Landtake (ha) Land Quality (%) - Good - Average - Poor - Non-Agri Land Land Use (%) - Grass/Arable - Forestry - Bog - Non-Agri Land Farmyard Disturbance (No.) - Farm buildings - Yard/Pens Local farms of particular note Soil Type(s) - Soil Association No. 3, % 62% 12% 14% 74% 12% 14% Moderate Negative Impact Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 71

85 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Node Qualitative Quantitative Assessment A-B Route Option 1.1 Length (m) Agricultural Landtake (ha) Land Quality (%) - Good - Average - Poor - Non-Agri Land Land Use (%) - Grass/Arable - Forestry - Bog - Non-Agri Land Farmyard Disturbance (No.) - Farm buildings - Yard/Pens Local farms of particular note Soil Type(s) - Soil Association No. 2, % % 12.5% 68% 19.5% 12.5% Minor Negative Impact Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 72

86 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Node Qualitative Quantitative Assessment A-B Route Option 1.2 Length (m) Agricultural Landtake (ha) Land Quality (%) - Good - Average - Poor - Non-Agri Land Land Use (%) - Grass/Arable - Forestry - Bog - Non-Agri Land Farmyard Disturbance (No.) - Farm buildings - Yard/Pens Local farms of particular note - One Beef Farm Soil Type(s) - Soil Association No. 2, % 50.5% 25% 16.5% 58.5% 25% 16.5% Moderate Negative Impact Node Qualitative Quantitative Assessment B-C Route Option 1.0 Length (m) Agricultural Landtake (ha) Land Quality (%) - Good - Average - Poor - Non-Agri Land Land Use (%) - Grass/Arable - Forestry - Bog - Non-Agri Land Farmyard Disturbance (No.) - Farm buildings - Yard/Pens Local farms of particular note Soil Type(s) - Soil Association No. 4, % 4 51% 49% 51% Minor Negative Impact Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 73

87 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Node Qualitative Quantitative Assessment B-C Route Option 1.3 Length (m) Agricultural Landtake (ha) Land Quality (%) - Good - Average - Poor - Non-Agri Land Land Use (%) - Grass/Arable - Forestry - Bog - Non-Agri Land Farmyard Disturbance (No.) - Farm buildings - Yard/Pens Local farms of particular note Soil Type(s) - Soil Association No. 3, % 41.3% 36.4% 64% 36% Moderate Negative Impact Node Qualitative Quantitative Assessment B-C Route Option 1.4 Length (m) Agricultural Landtake (ha) Land Quality (%) - Good - Average - Poor - Non-Agri Land Land Use (%) - Grass/Arable - Forestry - Bog - Non-Agri Land Farmyard Disturbance (No.) - Farm buildings - Yard/Pens Local farms of particular note Soil Type(s) - Soil Association No. 3, % 34% 48% 52% 48% & 44 Moderate Negative Impact Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 74

88 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Node Qualitative Quantitative Assessment B-C Route Option 1.5 Length (m) Agricultural Landtake (ha) Land Quality (%) - Good - Average - Poor - Non-Agri Land Land Use (%) - Grass/Arable - Forestry - Bog - Non-Agri Land Farmyard Disturbance (No.) - Farm buildings - Yard/Pens Local farms of particular note Soil Type(s) - Soil Association No. 4, % 26.5% 60.3% & 44 Minor Negative Impact Agricultural Impacts Section 1 None of the options in Section 1 will have a major negative impact on agriculture. Four of the options would have a moderate negative impact and the remaining three options would have a minor negative impact on agriculture. For all route options in this section the land quality is predominantly average to poor with higher levels of poor land where significant levels of bog were present under the Land Use category. A moderate negative impact was recorded where lands were predominantly average to good in quality with a high level of grass under land use. The level of farmyard disturbance on some options also contributed to the moderate negative impact. Option 1.2 between nodes A and B would also affect one locally significant beef farm. Section 2 This section ranges from Node C east of Westport in the townland of Knockbrack to southwest of Castlebar, in the townland of Ballymacrah. This section incorporates one option between each of Nodes C-D, D-E and D-F. All options run north of the existing N5, primarily through agricultural land of average quality with some good land and some poor land also being affected. The following tables outline the approximate length and landtake for each of the options in Section 2. The assessment criteria include Land Quality, Land Use, Farmyard Disturbance and affected Local Farms of Particular Note. The details of the Soil Type(s) affected along the routes are also included. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 75

89 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Node Qualitative Quantitative Assessment C-D Route Option 2.0 Length (m) Agricultural Landtake (ha) Land Quality (%) - Good - Average - Poor - Non-Agri Land Land Use (%) - Grass/Arable - Forestry - Bog - Non-Agri Land Farmyard Disturbance (No.) - Farm buildings - Yard/Pens Local farms of particular note - One Dairy Soil Type(s) - Soil Association No. 4, % 51% 18% 82% 18% Moderate Negative Impact Node Qualitative Quantitative Assessment D-E Route Option 2.0 Length (m) Agricultural Landtake (ha) Land Quality (%) - Good - Average - Poor - Non-Agri Land (Lake) Land Use (%) - Grass/Arable - Forestry - Bog - Non-Agri Land Farmyard Disturbance (No.) - Farm buildings - Yard/Pens Local farms of particular note Soil Type(s) - Soil Association No. 3, % 87% 4% 96% 4% Moderate Negative Impact Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 76

90 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Node Qualitative Quantitative Assessment D-F Route Option 3.2 Length (m) Agricultural Landtake (ha) Land Quality (%) - Good - Average - Poor - Non-Agri Land Land Use (%) - Grass/Arable - Forestry - Bog - Non-Agri Land Farmyard Disturbance (No.) - Farm buildings - Yard/Pens Local farms of particular note Soil Type(s) - Soil Association No % 86% 5% 95% 5% & 44 Minor Negative Impact Agricultural Impacts Section 2 None of the options in Section 2 will have a major negative impact on agriculture. Two of the options would have a moderate negative impact on agriculture, while the third option would have a minor agricultural impact. Node C-D (2.0) affects predominantly average to good quality land which is mainly in grassland use. One dairy farm will be impacted by this route section and there will be farmyard disturbance on one farmyard. Nodes D-E (2.0) and D-F (3.2) are of a similar length and both affect lower levels of good grassland. The land quality is predominantly average for both options with grassland again the main land use. Node D-F (3.2) would not affect any local farms of particular note and would not result in farmyard disturbance. Node D-E (2.0) would result in the disturbance of two farmyards. Section 3 This section ranges from southwest of Castlebar in the townland of Ballymacrah, to 1.5km southwest of Breaffy. This Section incorporates several node options of varying lengths and tie-in points. All options traverse agricultural lands of predominantly average quality in an area south of Castlebar. Some of the options incorporate a section of roadway on the existing N5 road east of Castlebar thereby reducing agricultural landtake for those options. The following tables outline the approximate length and landtake for each of the options in Section 3. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 77

91 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Node Qualitative Quantitative Assessment E-G Route Option 3.1 Length (m) Agricultural Landtake (ha) Land Quality (%) - Good - Average - Poor - Non-Agri Land Land Use (%) - Grass/Arable - Forestry - Bog - Non-Agri Land Farmyard Disturbance (No.) - Farm buildings - Yard/Pens Local farms of particular note Soil Type(s) - Soil Association No. 2, % 46.6% 43.7% 56% 44% & 44 Minor Negative Impact Node Qualitative Quantitative Assessment F-G Route Option 3.2 Length (m) Agricultural Landtake (ha) Land Quality (%) - Good - Average - Poor - Non-Agri Land Land Use (%) - Grass/Arable - Forestry - Bog - Non-Agri Land Farmyard Disturbance (No.) - Farm buildings - Yard/Pens Local farms of particular note Soil Type(s) - Soil Association No. 2, % 84% Moderate Negative Impact Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 78

92 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Node Qualitative Quantitative Assessment G-H Route Option 3.4 Length (m) Agricultural Landtake (ha) Land Quality (%) - Good - Average - Poor - Non-Agri Land Land Use (%) - Grass/Arable - Forestry - Bog - Non-Agri Land Farmyard Disturbance (No.) - Farm buildings - Yard/Pens Local farms of particular note Soil Type(s) - Soil Association No. 1, % 79% 21% 7% 72% & 44 Minor Negative Impact Node Qualitative Quantitative Assessment F-H Route Option 3.5 Length (m) Agricultural Landtake (ha) Land Quality (%) - Good - Average - Poor - Non-Agri Land Land Use (%) - Grass/Arable - Forestry - Bog - Non-Agri Land Farmyard Disturbance (No.) - Farm buildings - Yard/Pens Local farms of particular note Soil Type(s) - Soil Association No. 3, % 25% 46% 53.9% 6.5% 39.6% & 44 Minor Negative Impact Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 79

93 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Node Qualitative Quantitative Assessment H-J Route Option 3.4 Length (m) Agricultural Landtake (ha) Land Quality (%) - Good - Average - Poor - Non-Agri Land Land Use (%) - Grass/Arable - Forestry - Bog - Non-Agri Land Farmyard Disturbance (No.) - Farm buildings - Yard/Pens Local farms of particular note Soil Type(s) - Soil Association No. 2, % 21% 79% 21% Moderate Negative Impact Node Qualitative Quantitative Assessment H-J Route Option 3.6 Length (m) Agricultural Landtake (ha) Land Quality (%) - Good - Average - Poor - Non-Agri Land Land Use (%) - Grass/Arable - Forestry - Bog - Non-Agri Land Farmyard Disturbance (No.) - Farm buildings - Yard/Pens Local farms of particular note - One Dairy and One Equine Soil Type(s) - Soil Association No. 2, % 74.2% 15.5% 84.5% 15.5% Major Negative Impact Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 80

94 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Node Qualitative Quantitative Assessment G-I Route Option 3.1 Length (m) Agricultural Landtake (ha) Land Quality (%) - Good - Average - Poor - Non-Agri Land Land Use (%) - Grass/Arable - Forestry - Bog - Non-Agri Land Farmyard Disturbance (No.) - Farm buildings - Yard/Pens Local farms of particular note - Beef Farm Soil Type(s) - Soil Association No. 3, % 63% Moderate Negative Impact Node Qualitative Quantitative Assessment G-I Route Option 3.3 Length (m) Agricultural Landtake (ha) Land Quality (%) - Good - Average - Poor - Non-Agri Land Land Use (%) - Grass/Arable - Forestry - Bog - Non-Agri Land Farmyard Disturbance (No.) - Farm buildings - Yard/Pens Local farms of particular note Soil Type(s) - Soil Association No. 3, % 77% 9% 91% 9% & 44 Moderate Negative Impact Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 81

95 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Node Qualitative Quantitative Assessment E-M Route Option 3.0 Length (m) Agricultural Landtake (ha) Land Quality (%) - Good - Average - Poor - Non-Agri Land Land Use (%) - Grass/Arable - Forestry - Bog - Non-Agri Land Farmyard Disturbance (No.) - Farm buildings - Yard/Pens Local farms of particular note Soil Type(s) - Soil Association No. 11, % 37% 15% 19% 66% 3% 12% 19% Moderate Negative Impact Agricultural Impacts Section 3 One of the node options in Section 3 would have a major negative impact on agriculture. Five of the node options would have a moderate negative impact and the remaining three options would have a minor negative impact on agriculture. Most of the land affected by the node options in Section 3 is of average land quality which is limited in terms of possible land use with higher levels of poor land. This is especially the case where significant levels of bog were present under the land use category. Four of the node options would result in farmyard disturbance, in particular node option H-J (3.4) relative to its length. Two of the node options would affect local farms of particular note, Node H-J (3.6) would affect one dairy farm and one equine farm, while Node G-I (3.1) would affect one locally significant beef farm. Section 4 This section ranges from 1.5km southwest of Breaffy to 2km east of Bellavary. The node options in this section affect primarily average agricultural land, with an increasing proportion of good land becoming prevalent towards the east. This section contains a large number of node options again of varying lengths and tie-in points. As with Section 3 a number of options incorporate a section of roadway on the existing N5 road east of Castlebar thereby reducing agricultural landtake for those options. The following tables outline the approximate length and landtake for each of the options in Section 4. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 82

96 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Node Qualitative Quantitative Assessment I-M Route Option 3.3 Length (m) Agricultural Landtake (ha) Land Quality (%) - Good - Average - Poor - Non-Agri Land Land Use (%) - Grass/Arable - Forestry - Bog - Non-Agri Land Farmyard Disturbance (No.) - Farm buildings - Yard/Pens Local farms of particular note Soil Type(s) - Soil Association No. 5, % 53% 7% 11% 82% 7% 11% Moderate Negative Impact Node Qualitative Quantitative Assessment I-M Route Option 3.1 Length (m) Agricultural Landtake (ha) Land Quality (%) - Good - Average - Poor - Non-Agri Land Land Use (%) - Grass/Arable - Forestry - Bog - Non-Agri Land Farmyard Disturbance (No.) - Farm buildings - Yard/Pens Local farms of particular note Soil Type(s) - Soil Association No. 6, % 2 27% 73% 27% Moderate Negative Impact Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 83

97 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Node Qualitative Quantitative Assessment I-L Route Option 4.1 Length (m) Agricultural Landtake (ha) Land Quality (%) - Good - Average - Poor - Non-Agri Land Land Use (%) - Grass/Arable - Forestry - Bog - Non-Agri Land Farmyard Disturbance (No.) - Farm buildings - Yard/Pens Local farms of particular note Soil Type(s) - Soil Association No. 5, % 75% Moderate Negative Impact Node Qualitative Quantitative Assessment J-K Route Option 3.4 Length (m) Agricultural Landtake (ha) Land Quality (%) - Good - Average - Poor - Non-Agri Land Land Use (%) - Grass/Arable - Forestry - Bog - Non-Agri Land Farmyard Disturbance (No.) - Farm buildings - Yard/Pens Local farms of particular note - One Dairy Farm Soil Type(s) - Soil Association No. 2, % 64.4% 21.2% 79% 21% Moderate Negative Impact Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 84

98 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Node Qualitative Quantitative Assessment K-L Route Option 3.4 Length (m) Agricultural Landtake (ha) Land Quality (%) - Good - Average - Poor - Non-Agri Land Land Use (%) - Grass/Arable - Forestry - Bog - Non-Agri Land Farmyard Disturbance (No.) - Farm buildings - Yard/Pens Local farms of particular note Soil Type(s) - Soil Association No. 5, % 78% Moderate Negative Impact Node Qualitative Quantitative Assessment K-R Route Option 4.2 Length (m) Agricultural Landtake (ha) Land Quality (%) - Good - Average - Poor - Non-Agri Land Land Use (%) - Grass/Arable - Forestry - Bog - Non-Agri Land Farmyard Disturbance (No.) - Farm buildings - Yard/Pens Local farms of particular note - One Dairy Farm Soil Type(s) - Soil Association No. 13, % 71% Major Negative Impact Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 85

99 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Node Qualitative Quantitative Assessment L-O Route Option 4.1 Length (m) Agricultural Landtake (ha) Land Quality (%) - Good - Average - Poor - Non-Agri Land Land Use (%) - Grass/Arable - Forestry - Bog - Non-Agri Land Farmyard Disturbance (No.) - Farm buildings - Yard/Pens Local farms of particular note Soil Type(s) - Soil Association No. 3, % 62% Moderate Negative Impact Node Qualitative Quantitative Assessment M-P Route Option 4.3 Length (m) Agricultural Landtake (ha) Land Quality (%) - Good - Average - Poor - Non-Agri Land Land Use (%) - Grass/Arable - Forestry - Bog - Non-Agri Land Farmyard Disturbance (No.) - Farm buildings - Yard/Pens Local farms of particular note Soil Type(s) - Soil Association No. 3, % 49% 7% 93% 7% Moderate Negative Impact Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 86

100 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Node Qualitative Quantitative Assessment M-N Route Option 4.5 Length (m) Agricultural Landtake (ha) Land Quality (%) - Good - Average - Poor - Non-Agri Land Land Use (%) - Grass/Arable - Forestry - Bog - Non-Agri Land Farmyard Disturbance (No.) - Farm buildings - Yard/Pens Local farms of particular note Soil Type(s) - Soil Association No. 1, % 19% Minor Negative Impact Node Qualitative Quantitative Assessment N-P Route Option 4.4 Length (m) Agricultural Landtake (ha) Land Quality (%) - Good - Average - Poor - Non-Agri Land Land Use (%) - Grass/Arable - Forestry - Bog - Non-Agri Land Farmyard Disturbance (No.) - Farm buildings - Yard/Pens Local farms of particular note - One Equine Farm Soil Type(s) - Soil Association No. 2, % 58% Moderate Negative Impact Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 87

101 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Node Qualitative Quantitative Assessment N-Q Route Option 4.5 Length (m) Agricultural Landtake (ha) Land Quality (%) - Good - Average - Poor - Non-Agri Land Land Use (%) - Grass/Arable - Forestry - Bog - Non-Agri Land Farmyard Disturbance (No.) - Farm buildings - Yard/Pens Local farms of particular note Soil Type(s) - Soil Association No. 3, % 4% 96% 4% Moderate Negative Impact Node Qualitative Quantitative Assessment N-Q Route Option 4.7 Length (m) Agricultural Landtake (ha) Land Quality (%) - Good - Average - Poor - Non-Agri Land Land Use (%) - Grass/Arable - Forestry - Bog - Non-Agri Land Farmyard Disturbance (No.) - Farm buildings - Yard/Pens Local farms of particular note Soil Type(s) - Soil Association No. 3, % 74% 5% 95% 5% Moderate Negative Impact Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 88

102 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Node Qualitative Quantitative Assessment Q-S Route Option 4.5 Length (m) Agricultural Landtake (ha) Land Quality (%) - Good - Average - Poor - Non-Agri Land Land Use (%) - Grass/Arable - Forestry - Bog - Non-Agri Land Farmyard Disturbance (No.) - Farm buildings - Yard/Pens Local farms of particular note Soil Type(s) - Soil Association No. 2, Major Negative Impact Node Qualitative Quantitative Assessment O-P Route Option 4.6 Length (m) Agricultural Landtake (ha) Land Quality (%) - Good - Average - Poor - Non-Agri Land Land Use (%) - Grass/Arable - Forestry - Bog - Non-Agri Land Farmyard Disturbance (No.) - Farm buildings - Yard/Pens Local farms of particular note Soil Type(s) - Soil Association No. 1, % 38% Major Negative Impact Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 89

103 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Node Qualitative Quantitative Assessment P-S Route Option 4.6/5.3 Length (m) Agricultural Landtake (ha) Land Quality (%) - Good - Average - Poor - Non-Agri Land Land Use (%) - Grass/Arable - Forestry - Bog - Non-Agri Land Farmyard Disturbance (No.) - Farm buildings - Yard/Pens Local farms of particular note Soil Type(s) - Soil Association No. 3, % 41% Major Negative Impact Node Qualitative Quantitative Assessment P-R Route Option 4.3 Length (m) Agricultural Landtake (ha) Land Quality (%) - Good - Average - Poor - Non-Agri Land Land Use (%) - Grass/Arable - Forestry - Bog - Non-Agri Land Farmyard Disturbance (No.) - Farm buildings - Yard/Pens Local farms of particular note Soil Type(s) - Soil Association No. 2, % 68% Moderate Negative Impact Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 90

104 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Node Qualitative Quantitative Assessment O-R Route Option 4.1 Length (m) Agricultural Landtake (ha) Land Quality (%) - Good - Average - Poor - Non-Agri Land Land Use (%) - Grass/Arable - Forestry - Bog - Non-Agri Land Farmyard Disturbance (No.) - Farm buildings - Yard/Pens Local farms of particular note Soil Type(s) - Soil Association No. 3, % 43% Major Negative Impact Agricultural Impacts Section 4 Five of the node options in Section 4 would have a major negative impact on agriculture. Eleven of the node options would have a moderate negative impact and the remaining option would have a minor negative impact on agriculture. While the lands affected by the various node options in Section 4 are mostly of average land quality and of limited use range, the land quality generally improves from west to east across the study area. The absence of areas of bog together with very low levels of Forestry on the options in the area is an indication of the general improvement in land quality. This improvement in land quality generally results in more intensive farming systems, which in turn leads to more significant agricultural impacts in options in the east of the section. A number of the node options would result in farmyard disturbance, in particular node options K-R (4.2), P-S (4.6/5.3) and O-R (4.1). Three of the node options would affect farms of particular note. Node options J-K (3.4) and K-R (4.2) would both affect one dairy farm, while node option N-P (4.4) would be affected one equine farm. Section 5 The final section ranges from 2km east of Bellavary to north of Bohola to a tie-in point in the townland of Clooneen, 2km east of Bohola, and where the scheme merges with the existing N5.. There are five node options proposed in this section of varying lengths and tie-in points. The options traverse land of better quality than that found in the other sections of the study area. Some of the options incorporate small sections of roadway at the tie-in point to the existing N5 road at Clooneen. The following tables outline the approximate length and landtake for each of the node options in Section 5. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 91

105 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Node Qualitative Quantitative Assessment S-U Route Option 5.3 Length (m) Agricultural Landtake (ha) Land Quality (%) - Good - Average - Poor - Non-Agri Land Land Use (%) - Grass/Arable - Forestry - Bog - Non-Agri Land Farmyard Disturbance (No.) - Farm buildings - Yard/Pens Local farms of particular note Soil Type(s) - Soil Association No. 2, % 38% Major Negative Impact Node Qualitative Quantitative Assessment R-T Route Option 5.0 Length (m) Agricultural Landtake (ha) Land Quality (%) - Good - Average - Poor - Non-Agri Land Land Use (%) - Grass/Arable - Forestry - Bog - Non-Agri Land Farmyard Disturbance (No.) - Farm buildings - Yard/Pens Local farms of particular note Soil Type(s) - Soil Association No. 1, % 78% Moderate Negative Impact Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 92

106 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Node Qualitative Quantitative Assessment T-U Route Option 5.2 Length (m) Agricultural Landtake (ha) Land Quality (%) - Good - Average - Poor - Non-Agri Land Land Use (%) - Grass/Arable - Forestry - Bog - Non-Agri Land Farmyard Disturbance (No.) - Farm buildings - Yard/Pens Local farms of particular note - One Dairy Farm Soil Type(s) - Soil Association No. 1, % 63% Moderate Negative Impact Node Qualitative Quantitative Assessment U-V Route Option 5.2 Length (m) Agricultural Landtake (ha) Land Quality (%) - Good - Average - Poor - Non-Agri Land Land Use (%) - Grass/Arable - Forestry - Bog - Non-Agri Land Farmyard Disturbance (No.) - Farm buildings - Yard/Pens Local farms of particular note Soil Type(s) - Soil Association No. 4, % 61.2% 9% 6% 86% 5.5% 3.2% 6% Moderate Negative Impact Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 93

107 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Node Qualitative Quantitative Assessment T-V Route Option 5.0 Length (m) Agricultural Landtake (ha) Land Quality (%) - Good - Average - Poor - Non-Agri Land Land Use (%) - Grass/Arable - Forestry - Bog - Non-Agri Land Farmyard Disturbance (No.) - Farm buildings - Yard/Pens Local farms of particular note Soil Type(s) - Soil Association No. 5, % 8% 6% 86% 3% 5% 6% Moderate Negative Impact Agricultural Impacts - Section 5 One of the node options in Section 5 would have a major negative impact on agriculture. The remaining four options would have a moderate negative impact on agriculture. The land quality under all options in this section is predominantly of average to good land quality of limited use range. Two of the nodes, S-U (5.3) and T-V (5.0) affect significantly higher levels of good quality grassland. This improvement in land quality generally results in more intensive farming systems, which in turn can lead to more significant agricultural impacts. There is no farmyard disturbance on the node options in Section 5. One node option T-U (5.2) would affect a local dairy farm of significance. Mitigation Measures During the preparation of the agricultural assessment it has been assumed that impacts on agriculture from each route option can be mitigated with provision of access to severed lands and the restoration of land drainage and existing services. It has been assumed that permanent land drainage affected by an option can be restored to the equivalent or better of the current land drainage condition and that existing services such as the supply of water and power on farm holdings can be restored where affected. 9.6 Engineering Assessment Introduction The engineering assessments have generally been carried out based on the Ordnance Survey 1:5000 mapping and 50m level grid, supplemented by aerial photography. Where more detailed mapping and level information was available from the previous studies of sections 1, 2, and 5 this has been utilised to improve the accuracy of the terrain model in these areas. While this information provides a Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 94

108 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance reasonable overview of the topography, it is apparent that for the large sections of the route where level information is only available on a 50m grid the digital terrain model does not pick up local features such as existing man made cuttings accurately and local level discrepancies of up to 5m have been identified Methodology Each of the route options has been modelled in three dimensions within the road design package MX and preliminary horizontal and vertical alignments developed to inform the engineering assessment. Horizontal and vertical alignments have been developed in accordance with the engineering parameters described in Chapter 5. Particular attention has been paid to the identification of all water courses and local roads. At each watercourse the vertical alignments have been developed to ensure that these can be crossed at appropriate levels. An initial assessment of the local topography and adjacent constraints has been undertaken at each local road crossing to establish that grade separation can be achieved, or that an appropriate local diversion could be implemented Route Lengths The road types proposed for each section are described in Chapter 5. For each of the different route options the total length of each road type has been extracted from the MX model as recorded in Table 9.1. In addition to the mainline, an allowance of 400m of local road diversion has been included wherever it is anticipated that the vertical alignment of the local road will have to be amended to achieve grade separation Junctions For the route comparison, a number of assumptions were necessary to determine the types of junctions at the intersection of the proposed N5 and other roads. The types of junctions assumed for the comparison are based on the following: The proposed N5 cross section and how it varies along its length The types of junctions in TD 10/07 recommended for the proposed Type 2 Dual Carriageway road cross sections, namely: o o o Roundabouts Compact grade separation Left-in/left-out For single carriageway sections - at grade junctions and roundabouts Requirements for connection and allowable turning manoeuvres Preliminary estimates of turning traffic at the junctions The actual junction requirements layouts and capacities do not form part of this report and will be developed further during the development of the N5 project's preliminary design. For consistent route comparison purposes it has been assumed that compact grade separated junctions would be provided at the intersections with the national secondary roads the N84 and N60. For those routes that utilise the route of the existing N5 east of Castlebar an initial assessment of the likely treatment of the Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 95

109 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance existing junctions led to the conclusion that an additional compact grade separated junction would be required in the vicinity of Turlough to provide connection between the proposed dual carriageway and the local road network. At this stage it is assumed that the remaining junctions would be closed and the local roads either grade separated from the N5 or left-in/left-out junctions provided. The level of turning movements anticipated at the junctions with the existing N5 either side of Castlebar and with the proposed N26 at Bohola exceed the capacity of compact grade separation. It is therefore assumed that these junctions would take the form of large roundabouts, potentially with the addition of free flow slip roads to cater for the dominant turning movements. The routes have been developed to ensure that space is available for roundabouts of a sufficient size to achieve appropriate capacities and deflection angles required for the dual carriageway approaches. For those routes that do not utilise the route of the existing N5 east of Castlebar a separate connector road is provided to maintain access to the east side of Castlebar. The predicted traffic levels and turning movements associated with this link lead to the selection of a Type 2 Dual Carriageway cross section and similar large roundabout junctions at either end to those at other junctions with the existing N5. For the single carriageway section on the Westport northern relief road and the N5 east of the proposed N26 at Bohola it is assumed that local roads would continue to connect to the National Road via at-grade priority junctions. The exceptions to this are the connection to the N59 and the accesses to the IDA site and Allergen factory north of Westport where the anticipated turning movements justify the provision of roundabouts. However the traffic levels and deflection requirements on these single carriageway sections do not require such large roundabouts as those required on the dual carriageway sections. The inclusion of the above junctions arrangements within the various route options are recorded in Table 9.1. The one exception to the arrangements described above relates to the junction of route 3.0 and the N60. Route 3.0 was originally developed as a single carriageway with at grade roundabouts at both the N60 and R373 as part of the Castlebar Ring Road Project. In order to upgrade this route to Type 2 Dual carriageway standards it has not been possible to accommodate the junction with the R373 and therefore this has been omitted. While it is assumed that the junction with the N60 will take the form of a compact grade separated junction for all of the other routes, it is not possible to accommodate this on route 3.0 and therefore the roundabout junction originally proposed for this route has been retained Bridges The numbers of bridge structures required for each of the following situations has been identified for each route and reported in Table 9.1:- Local Road crossings either under or over the mainline Railway crossings under the mainline in all cases River crossings for named rivers as indicated on the Ordnance Survey Un-named watercourses have been assumed to be able to be diverted through a culvert as opposed to requiring a bridge structure. Bridges within compact grade separated junctions are considered as part of the junction and are not counted as a local road bridge. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 96

110 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance In addition to the above there are a few locations where special structures of greater significance are required: Earthworks 180m viaduct across Lough Lannagh on route m of viaduct across the flood plain at the confluence of the Castlebar, Manulla and Toormore Rivers on route m viaduct across the floodplain of the Toormore River on route 4.7. In general an average 4m height of cut and fill has been assumed throughout all routes with the exception of the final section at the N59 tie-in where the constraints are such that the road has to be approximately at-grade and therefore this figure is reduced to 1m. The interface of the preliminary vertical alignments and the available terrain model has been examined within the MX computer model to identify the approximate lengths of each route for which this general assumption is exceeded, together with an indication of the approximate maximum height for each such length. The output from this analysis is reported in Table 9.1 for each route option, together with site specific comments where relevant. Routes 3.2 and 3.2A between nodes D and F cross Lough Lannagh on the approximate line of an existing causeway between two bodies of water at different levels. It is understood that this level difference in water arose from a previous lowering of the water levels within the lough system resulting in different water levels on either side of the causeway. Due to the lowering of the lough system it is apparent that approximately 400m of the required embankment on these routes is over land that was previously under water. As such it has conservatively been assumed that this length of embankment would have to be supported on piles Construction Impacts Wherever constraints within the receiving environment will result in particular impacts during the construction period or require specialist construction methods, these have been noted in Table 9.1. These generally arise where construction operations will be particularly close to properties, interacting with live traffic or involve construction over water. 9.7 Geological and Hydrogeological Assessment This section of the report describes the geology and hydrogeology along the route corridors and considers how the geology and hydrogeology contributes to the selection of a preferred route. Geology and hydrogeology may influence route selection in various ways, which is summarised as follows: As geological soils and rocks will provide a foundation for the road and earth materials for its construction, they thereby influence route feasibility and engineering constructability. Certain geological features and geological weathering phenomena (such as swallow holes in karst limestone areas) may also pose a hazard for long-term stability of the road. Geology also contributes to landscape development and to the formation of certain environmental features, such as peat bogs and turloughs. The geology therefore needs to be considered as part of the overall environmental assessment. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 97

111 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Groundwater contained in soils and rocks (hydrogeology) may have an impact on road construction and on its long-term performance. Equally, groundwater is a valuable natural resource, which has to be protected. Geology contributes to the occurrence of economic mineral resources, which may be sterilised or made less accessible by road construction. Geology, therefore, has the potential to impact on material assets. This section considers the importance of these aspects along each of the routes Sources of Information The principal sources of information used to prepare this geological and hydrogeological assessment are those referred to in the Constraints Study Assessment Methodology Constraints Study An earlier Constraints Study was carried out, to provide a geological framework for the study area. This also served as a basis for identifying the primary geological and geotechnical constraints, enabling preliminary route corridors to be chosen that either avoid or minimise the length of crossing of significant geological/hydrogeological constraint features. The principal output of the Constraints Study was a set of maps (Geological and Hydrogeological Constraints Maps) covering the study area, showing amongst other things: bedrock geology, glacial sands and gravels, soft ground areas (alluvium and peat), gravel pits and rock quarries, aquifer areas, public and group water supply boreholes and wells. Much of the information contained in these maps was extracted from unpublished Quaternary Mapping and published Bedrock Mapping produced by the Geological Survey of Ireland (GSI), as well as database information held by the GSI. Route Selection Study For the purposes of the present Route Selection Study, the information gathered at the Constraint Study stage has been looked at again concentrating on the individual route corridors Geological and Hydrogeological Assessment Table 9.1 describes the impact of each of the route options on the various geological and hydrogeological sites with potential to be impacted. Drawings 36 to 41 in Volume 2 display the geological and hydrogeological sites and the position of the route options in relation to those sites. 9.8 Cost Estimates For the Route Selection Phase of this scheme a Point Cost Estimate is required for each of the route options and parts thereof in accordance with the NRA Cost Management Manual. For the purposes of this estimate, the point estimate requires that costs be allocated to one of the following seven headings: Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 98

112 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Ref. Cost Heading VAT A. Planning & Design 21.5% B. Land & Property C. Archaeology (13.5% VAT Investigation and On Site Resolution and 21.5% VAT for reporting and Post Ex) 13.5% & 21.5% D. Advance Works and Other Contracts 13.5% E. Main Contract Construction 13.5% F. Main Contract Supervision (Employer s costs) 21.5% G. Residual Network 13.5% The total of these seven elements gives the total for each length being considered in the route selection and cumulatively gives the cost of the overall scheme. Under the NRA Cost Management Manual, this is known as the Option Comparison Estimate (OCE) Phase 3. This estimate type is required to undertake and complete the Cost Benefit Analysis (COBA) for the considered options. All final costs for each of the points and the final estimate are inclusive of VAT Planning and Design The rate for planning and design is based on a total estimate cost of 10.8 Million excluding VAT for the scheme with an estimate length of 45km taking into account interchanges and link roads. This gives an estimate cost of 0.29 Million per km Land & Property Land Land costs have been estimated at a rate per kilometre multiplied by the width of land take required to construct the road and required earthworks and accesses. The widths for the various road types land take are based on the dimensions given in Table below: Table Base Land Acquisition Costs for Estimates Road Type Pavement Verges Earthworks Widths Access Tracks Maintenance / Fenceline Type 2 Dual Type 2 Dual Widening Single Carriageway - Westport tie-in Urban Fringe Single Carriageway Westport tie-in Rural Standard Single Bohola tie-in Total (m) Following input from Mayo County Council s Land Valuer, the land costs per acre for areas along the length of the proposed routes were given. From these rates and Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 99

113 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance taking average widths of land take for each section of road (Table 9.8.1), an average rate per kilometre of road has been derived according to the following categories indicated in Table below: Table Base Land Acquisition Costs for Estimates Section Westport Urban Fringe - Single C/Way Rate Per Acre Rate Per Hectare Width (m) Rate Per km (Millions) 750, ,853, Westport Rural - Single C/Way 200, , Westport Outer - Dual C/Way 225, , Westport - Castlebar Link Section - Dual C/Way Castlebar South West - Dual C/Way 55, , , , Castlebar Inner - Dual C/Way 600, ,482, Castlebar Mid Dual C/Way 350, , Castlebar Outer Dual C/Way 55, , Castlebar East Dual C/Way 65, , N5 Online Upgrade C/Way 40, , Ballyvary - Bohola Offline Dual C/Way Ballyvary - Bohola Offline Single C/Way Property 55, , , , For the purposes of the cost estimation property prices for acquisitions of houses have been averaged at 0.5 Million per property Archaeology Archaeological Investigation with follow on Resolution and Post Excavation reporting works will be required. The value for the entire archaeological works is estimated at 5 Million for the entire works while VAT rates are at 13.5% for On-site works and 21.5% for reporting and specialist examinations. The estimate cost is 0.13 Million per km Advance Works and Other Contracts Advance works are likely to include hedgerow clearance and preliminary fencing contracts as well as service relocation works to enable advancement of the main works contracts. Detailed and supplementary ground investigation contracts for the design and build tenderers may also be required. These works are estimated at 0.09 Million per km Main Contract Construction The main construction costs are built up from the following elements: Lengths of Mainline: Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 100

114 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance o o o o Lengths of Type 2 dual carriageway mainline / link roads Length of Single Carriageway mainline / link roads Lengths of Reduced single carriageway side roads lengths of online upgrading and widening - particularly along the existing N5 between Ballyvary and Castlebar Lengths of side roads General Structures, overbridges, underbridges, river bridges, railway bridges. Special structures (Viaducts, cable stayed bridges etc) Junctions grade separated interchanges and roundabouts Other costs A summary of the rates for each element is given in Table Mainline The cost of the mainline has been calculated as a rate per kilometre for the route being considered and the road type being considered. This rate comprises all the costs including preliminary items for the construction of the road and actual items required including; site clearance, earthworks, pavement and surfacing, culverts, drainage, barriers, fencing, signage, communication, ducting lighting, signage, landscaping, accommodation works and other ancillary items. For online sections of the mainline costs per kilometre for the length of carriageway costs it is proposed that these costs are reduced by 5 from the normal rates. This is based on 25% of the normal required earthworks, 5 of the normal pavement and 10 of the normal drainage. Side Roads Similarly for the side roads a rate per kilometre for the each side road diversion has been applied. Structures For the general structures, overbridges, underbridges and river bridges a average base cost per structure has been applied for the estimate. While for any special structures, a preliminary cost estimate has been made, this cost has been included under Other Costs for the purpose of this estimate. Junctions For each grade separated junction a base cost for the junction has been applied. Other Costs Where it is anticipated that a selected route will incur an exceptional cost this has been applied as a fixed cost for every exceptional item. These items include, protection or relocation of a monument or known archaeology, known poor ground conditions requiring improvement and specialist engineering solutions, additional environmental mitigation and known deep cuts and fills due to undulating topography. For the earthworks it has been assumed, in the cost estimate for the lengths of mainline, that the average earthworks height will vary between 4m of cut and fill. Where high embankments and deep cuts have been identified, these are typically of Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 101

115 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance average 9m. The additional 5m of earthworks is estimated at 3.41 million per kilometre. A preliminary estimate for a viaduct structure over Lough Lannagh is approximately 9.08 million. Similarly the cost estimate for engineered earthworks through the southern drained portion of Lough Lannagh is approximately 4.54 million. For each individual rail bridges along the scheme, an additional million has been added to the estimate as an extra over item to each bridge for the difficulty expected in construction of these bridges and additional fill requirements. Table Base Rates for Main Contract Construction Item Unit Rate (Million) Notes Type 2 Dual Carriageway km 3.29 Assumes average 4m earthworks height Online Widening to Type 2 Dual Carriageway km 1.65 Assume approximately 5 full costs Single Carriageways km 1.99 Assumes average 2m earthworks height Reduced Single Carriageways km 1.42 Assumes average 2m earthworks height Local Road Diversions km 0.91 Underbridge/Overbridge No Grade Separated Junction No Assuming compact dumbbell junction with 600m diversion of National Secondary Roundabout on Type 2 Dual No Assuming 100m Inscribed Circle Diameter (ICD) and free flow slips Roundabout on Reduced Single Carriageway Resolution of known affect Archaeological sites Main Contract Supervision No No Site Supervision is estimated at 1% of the Main Contract Construction costs for each of the routes considered and for the overall route Residual Network At the route selection stage the costs for the residual network are expected to entail the costs of repairing and upgrading existing local and regional roads where local traffic could be diverted along once the proposed N5 is completed. Further analysis of the residual network may be required at preliminary design stage once the junction location and strategies are addressed. These works are estimated at 90, per km ( 0.09 Million per km). Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 102

116 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Point Estimates for Individual Routes For each section of the route considered the costs were developed by applying the individual costs for each element of the route being considered before arriving at a total cost for each section. The costs for each section along with the elements comprising the total costs are contained in Table Traffic Functionality and Economic Benefits Introduction This section outlines the development of the N5 Local Area Traffic Model (LAM) that was developed to assess the traffic impacts of the N5 Westport to Bohola Road Project. The discussion sets out the key model development process as follows: Selection of Modelling Software; Data Collection; Network Development; Matrix Development; and Model Calibration/Validation It then goes on to describe the development of the future year traffic forecasts and estimation of AADT flows for the LAM. Finally an initial estimate of the economic benefits of routes of different lengths was developed to support the route selection process. Study Area The required a traffic model of the N5 corridor between Westport and Swinford to forecast future traffic levels and patterns. The study area was also to incorporate all the previous individual project study areas as follows: N5 Westport to Castlebar; The N5 Castlebar Bypass; N5/N59 North - Westport Relief Road; and N5 Ballyvary Bohola Road Project. N26 Ballina to Bohola Stage 2 Road Scheme The study area is illustrated in Drawing 01 in Volume Traffic Modelling Software AM & PM Peak Hour traffic models incorporating capacity restraint have been developed using the traffic modeling software VISUM. VISUM is a strategic modelling tool that can be used to assess the following: The effects of land use change and development; Traffic management and network changes as well as junction revisions; Changes to car park provision, including location, capacity and cost; Effects of overall economic growth and increased pressure on the network; and Future potential to test modal shift proposals. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 103

117 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance The National Traffic Model (NTM) has been developed by the National Roads Authority using VISUM. As such, relevant data could be extracted from the NTM as necessary to assist with the development of the N5 Local Area Model Data Collection A significant amount of data has been collected in order to ensure that a detailed model of the existing traffic situation could be developed. As stated above several previous traffic studies undertaken in the study area as part of previous road project developments were made available. Data provided comprised of Road Side Interviews (RSI), Automatic Traffic Counts (ATC) and Turning Count surveys. The base year was established from the available survey data, which mainly originated from In terms of model period, it was calculated from traffic flow analysis that the morning peak hour was between 08:00 to 09:00 and the evening peak hour was between 17:00 to 18:00. A summary of the survey data used is given in Table below: Table Summary of Survey Data Source Survey Location Date of Survey Type of Data No. of sites Use in N5 Model Castlebar Ring Road Project Traffic Report Castlebar May 2007 RSI 6 Matrix development NRA National Highways Model Various/ Network April 2007 RSI 4 Matrix development Westport N5/N59 Northern Relief Road SATURN Traffic Model Final Report Westport May 2006 Saturn Matrix N/A Matrix development Castlebar Ring Road Project Traffic Report Castlebar May 2007 ATC 13 Calibration N5/N59 North Westport Relief Road: Route Selection Report Westport May 2006 ATC 6 Calibration NRA National Highways Model Various/ Network May 2007 ATC 7 Calibration Castlebar Ring Road Project Traffic Report Castlebar May 2007 Journey Times 4 Routes Validation As well as RSI and traffic counts data, information on existing traffic conditions was collated. This information took the form of journey time surveys, local observations of traffic conditions and queue length surveys. Journey time information was made available for Castlebar Network Development As previously stated the NRA NTM was used to inform the overall development of the N5 LAM. Once the study area had been defined for the N5 LAM, this area was cordoned from the NTM base year model. The cordoning of the N5 model from the NTM results in a base network of Links, Nodes and Zones. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 104

118 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Links (Roads) The base year network cordoned from the NTM includes all national primary, secondary, regional and local roads in the study area. Each link in the LAM contains the following characteristics; Length; Link type, for example motorway, dual carriageway, wide 2 lane, etc; Link capacity; Speed limit and free flow speed; and Reference to an appropriate speed flow curve Nodes (Junctions) Due to the strategic nature and size of the NTM, all nodes in the modelled network were based on the following assumptions: The control type at all nodes is set to default; All turning movements are permitted at each junction; and Priority is given to the major flow at each node For the N5 LAM additional local data on key junctions was used to reflect existing conditions such as delay and control type. Zoning System To obtain suitable detail within the N5 LAM, a more detailed zoning system than used in the NTM was necessary. The NTM contains 874 zones, which are based on the aggregation of 3744 District of Electoral Division s (DED s). The study area cordoned from the NTM contains 44 DED s. To allow more precise movements in and out of the core urban areas, such as Castlebar and Westport town centres, several DED s were split into smaller zones. The DED s representing Castlebar and Westport town centres were split into 13 and 4 smaller zones, respectively. While the DED surrounding Castlebar town was split into five smaller zones. The entire study area is therefore represented by 64 zones with twelve further external zones corresponding to the main routes into and out of the study area Matrix Development A base year matrix was developed based on the Roadside Interviews carried out around the network at 10 locations in April/May The origins and destinations of the RSI records were reviewed using GIS and assigned to their relevant zones as described above, any illogical movements were noted. DED coding errors were also highlighted, and, where possible, corrected. In addition, those records that did not contain the time period, or both an origin and a destination were excluded. Westport RSI s were deemed unsuitable as the geocoding was only done to the small zone system of the donor model. Where necessary the AM peak records origins and destinations were transposed to create PM peak records. This assumes that a similar pattern of movement occurs in both peaks. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 105

119 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Expansion factors were then calculated to ensure that the number of vehicles passing each site matched the observed count. Finally, the matrices were combined, ensuring that fully observed movements were identified Assignment Model The assignment model applies the demand for travel, represented by the trip matrices, to the supply, in the form of the road network. The generalised cost of the journey, represented by a combination of time and distance, is compared in a route choice algorithm, and a stable output produced, where, ideally, all possible routes between an origin and destination have the same cost. The generalised cost is calculated using the same parameters as the National Traffic Model: Car Generalised Cost = * time (sec) * length (meters); and HGV Generalised Cost = 1 * time (sec). The Route Choice Algorithm selected is the same as that used in the National Traffic Model: Equilibrium Lohse. This starts with an all or nothing assignment, and assigns in an iterative fashion, with drivers consecutively including information gained during their last journey for the next route choice. The assignment terminates when a stable solution is calculated Model Calibration/Validation The AM and PM N5 LAM have both been calibrated and validated for a Base Year of The calibration process involves the adjustment of parameters within the model to generate a fit between modelled outputs and know observations. These parameters include the capacity and speeds of links and the adjustment of trip matrices. The NRA Project Appraisal Guidelines set out the criteria that must be satisfied in order to calibrate and validate strategic traffic models. Table below illustrates the model calibration results. Table Model Calibration Results Model Number of Links Links with GEH>5 Percentage Calibrated AM % PM % Once the calibration of the model has been finalised the process of validating the model was undertaken. The validation process compares the modelled outputs after the calibration process against at set of observed data that was not previously used in the calibration process. Table below shows the validation results for the journey time surveys. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 106

120 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Table Model Journey Time Validation Results Model Number of Routes Total Surveyed Time (s) Total Modelled Time (s) Difference in Totals(s) Average Difference per Route AM % PM % The N5 LAM meets all the criteria as set out in the NRA Project Appraisal Guidelines. It was therefore concluded that the model successfully represents base year conditions and could be taken forward to develop future year forecasts of conditions in the study network. The full calibration and validation process and results are set out in the N5 Westport to Bohola Traffic Modelling Report (Sept 2008) Future Traffic Forecasts Traffic growth for the design year (2025) is based on predicted growth in population, employment and retail for the study area of the. Population projections are based on the Mayo County Development Plan , with growth rates extrapolated to In estimating employment forecasts the same growth rates for population increase were applied to the 2006 jobs figures. This therefore works on the assumption that the rate of increase in employment will be equal to the increase in the population. The Mayo Retail Strategy 2008 forms the basis from which predicted increases in retailing floor space were developed. Table below illustrates the aggregate growth in population, employment and retail for the study area: Table Aggregate Growth Type Percentage Growth Population % Employment % Retail (sq.m) % AM and PM trips rates for households, employment and retail taken from the TRICS database were applied to the predicted growth for each zone to establish the total origin/destination trips for each zone. The forecast growth in population, employment and retail results in overall growth in traffic flow from the 2007 Base Year to 2025 Design Year of 78% in the AM Peak and 58% in the PM Peak Estimation of Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) To estimate Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) a peak hour conversion formula was developed based on regression analysis of local area traffic data to allow the AM and PM Peak hour flows to be converted into AADT values. The AM and PM Peak Hour flows were converted to AADT values using the following formula: Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 107

121 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance where ( * x) + ( * y) = AADT x = AM Peak Hour Flow y = PM Peak Hour Flow The local traffic data that was used to develop this formula was taken from three NRA permanent Automatic Traffic Counters (ATC) and four temporary ATC s sites that were used as part of the development the NRA National Traffic Model: N5 Frenchpark (N05-11) - Immediately East of Frenchpark; N60 Balla (N60-7) 5km northwest of Claremorris; and N59 Mulranny (N59-6) 6km east of Mulranny; Site 4 N26 Callow, Northwest of Swinford; Site 6 N5 Northeast of Bohola, Southwest of Swinford; Site 7 N5 Southwest of Turlough, Northwest of Castlebar; and Site 9 N59 North of Westport, South of Newport Initial Testing of AM & PM Traffic Models As an initial starting point, two route alignment schemes were developed to allow traffic to be assigned to the network to produce AM and PM Peak Hour flows. These Peak Hour flows would then allow an approximate AADT flow for the route alignment to be developed. These two route alignment schemes were described as scheme A and scheme B as follows: Scheme A Scheme A represents the previous route elements contained in the County Development Plan, connected by the shortest Ballyvary bypass option. As such this route passes close to the south of Castlebar town with junctions located on the existing N5 east and west of Castlebar, the N60 and N84. The route is a combination of routes 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.4 and 5.0 and acts both as a bypass and distributor road of Castlebar town. Scheme B Scheme B extends significantly further to the south of Castlebar town than Scheme A, following routes1.0, 2.0, 3.2, 3.5, 4.2 and 5.0. Scheme B includes a link from the existing N5 at the junction with the proposed Castlebar northern ring road east of Castlebar to the proposed new N5 bypass, following the approximate route of the proposed N60 improvement scheme. In addition junctions are located on the existing N5 west of Castlebar, the existing N60 and N84. Scheme B acts quite similarly to Scheme A, once again acting as both a bypass and distributor road of Castlebar town. AM and PM Peak hour traffic flows were extracted from both schemes to establish the approximate AADT flows that the proposed route alignment would generate. Overall the AADT values ranged between 13,000 and 25,000 AADT on the bypass section of Castlebar, but were generally in the region of 20,000 AADT on the sections to the east and west of Castlebar. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 108

122 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Traffic Functionality In the immediate vicinity of the urban areas of Westport and Castlebar the strategic traffic model is not capable of distinguishing between the relative performance of small differences in local junction and tie-in arrangements. These issues are addressed in the form of commentary included in Table 9.1 for future route comparison purposes Relative Traffic Dis-Benefit The relative traffic dis-benefit refers to the additional cost per 100m of route length. If two routes have the same traffic flow but one route is longer in length, it will have a relative traffic dis-benefit. To assess the relative traffic dis-benefit a number of assumptions must be taken into consideration, as follows: Speed Limit 100 kph; Approximate AADT 20,000; Value of Time (commuting) per hour; Evaluation Period 30 years; and Discount Rate of 4% per annum The relative traffic dis-benefit calculation is shown below based on the above assumptions: Travel time per km (per vehicle): 100 km = 3600 sec, therefore 1km = 36sec. Total travel time per km (all vehicles): (20,000 * 36sec)/3600 = 200 hrs Value of Time (per day): 6.80/hr * 200hrs = 1,360 per day Value of Time (per year): 365 * 1,360 = 496,400 per year Value of Time (evaluation period): 30 discount rate of 4% * 496,400 = 10m over 30 years This equates to a Relative Traffic Dis-Beneift of 10m per km, or 1m per 100m. This relative traffic dis-benefit is only applied to sections of the route where traffic levels are in the order of 20,000 AADT. Being a relative factor this cannot be assessed for specific route elements but rather is introduced in Chapter 10 below for route comparison purposes Traffic Safety All of the routes were assessed in terms of traffic safety and with the exception of the routes between Nodes A and B no issues of traffic safety arose as all routes are considered to provide a significant improvement to the road standard with consequent safety benefits. (Accidents and Traffic Safety on the existing road network is discussed in Chapter 4.6 and shown on Drawings 29 to 34 in Volume 2) Accessibility and Social Inclusion In accordance with the new National Roads Authority Proaject Appraisal Guidelines the impacts on vulnerable groups and deprived geographical areas, both positive and negative are required to be considered as part of the route selection process. All route options are regarded as having a neutral impact on vulnerable groups. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 109

123 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance 9.12 Integration In accordance with the new National Roads Authority Project Appraisal Guidelines the extent to which alternative routes integrate with broader stratigies must be assessed. In general the objectives of the National Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spacial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford are achieved. Furthermore sections 3, 4 & 5 of the route, in conjunction with the proposed N26 scheme, contribute to the interconnectivity of the linked hubs of Ballina and Castlebar. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 110

124 Roughan O'Donovan Faber Maunsell Table 9.1 Route Assessment Matrix A B A B A B B C B C B C B C B C C D D E D F D F E G A A Environment Effect on Humans Acquisition Houses (1 + 1 Save) 2 (1 + 1 Save) Granted Planning Applications 3 + Housing Estate (within 100m) Significant Agricultural Buildings Noise/Air Quality (no. of dwellings within) 0m 100m 31 + Housing Estate m 200m Housing Estate 49 + Housing Estate m 300m Community Facilities GAA Pitch, Gaelscoil GAA Pitch, Gaelscoil GAA Pitch, Gaelscoil Community Severance Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Agriculture Moderate Minor Moderate Minor Moderate Moderate Minor Minor Moderate Moderate Minor Minor Reduced Severance Minor Natural Environment Impact on designated site Impact on other sites of ecological value Minor Minor Neutral Moderate Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Moderate Minor Minor Moderate Archaeology (no. of RMPs, Find spot, Listed Buildings within bands) 0m 50m 4 (2sites on IDA Site Resolved) 4 (2sites on IDA Site Resolved) 2 (2sites on IDA Site Resolved) m 100m m 250m Hydrogeology (sensitive aquifers/wells) m = 44% 800m = 21% 690m = 18% 200m = 5% 200m = 5% Aquatic impact (No. Rivers / Streams) Landscape and Visual Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Severs Black Lough from Keeps Black Lough with Minor Islandeady Lough Islandeady Lough Economy Length of Alignment TOTAL (km) Mainline Type 2 Dual Mainline Online widening Mainline Single 3.45 (Reduced) 2.75 (Reduced) 2.40 (Reduced) Side Road Junctions 0 Roundabouts 2 new + 1 existing 1 new + 1 existing 1 new + 1 existing 2 (Large Dual C/Way) 2 (Large Dual C/Way) 2 (Large Dual C/Way) 2 (Large Dual C/Way) 2 (Large Dual C/Way) 0 1 (Large Dual C/Way) 1 (Large Dual C/Way) 1 (Large Dual C/Way) 0 Grade Separations (Incl Bridge) Bridges Road Under / Over Lough and/or multispan (180m) Piled embankment lough Piled embankment lough 0 Railway Rivers Ground conditions (%age soft) m = 5% 200m = 5% 120m = 3% 120m = 3% 185m = 5% 0 250m = 8% 1020m = 32% 886m = 28% 623m = 25% Hydrology (length within flood plain) Earthworks (major) Deep cut, potential retaining structure behind Westport GAA Club Deep cut, potential retaining structure behind Westport GAA Club Deep cut, potential retaining structure behind Westport GAA Club 300m Deep Cut 400m Large embankment ch , up to 16m. 200m Embankment ch , up to 10m. 300m Large cut ch , up to 8m. Construction Impacts Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Difficult constrained cut. Possible acquisitions 250m Embankment up to 8m. 900m Embankment cd , up to 11m. 500m Cut up to 14m Approaches for Viaduct. High embankment at Deep Cut Minor Minor Minor Major bridge and works over Lough Filling near lough, soft ground near railway. Filling near lough, soft ground near railway. Piled embankment along lough Piled embankment along lough Heath and Marshland Minor Cost (Millions) Traffic Functionality Less clear route for drivers Unatractive route to Westport Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Relieves traffic along 1.0km /20 Traffic along 1.0km /20 houses Traffic along 1.0km /20 houses North houses fronting onto existing N5 fronting onto existing N5 fronting onto existing N5 Relative Traffic Dis benefits (Millions) Safety Traffic Safety Improvement of road standard Tie in close to dangerous bend near rail bridge Improvement of road standard Tie in close to dangerous bend near rail bridge, mitigated by terminal roundabout Improvement of road standard Terminal roundabout position allows gradual reduction in road standard Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with moderately poor safety record. Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with moderately poor safety record. Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with moderately poor safety record. Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with moderately poor safety record. Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with moderately poor safety record. Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with poor safety record at Islandeady. Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with poor safety record. Including site of 1 more serious accident than Routes 3.2 & 3.2A Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with poor safety record. Bypasses site of 1 less serious accident than Routes 2.0 Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with poor safety record. Bypasses site of 1 less serious accident than Routes 2.0 Improvement of road standard Diverts through traffic away from urban area. Accessibility and Social Inclusion Impact on Vulnerable Groups Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Impact on deprived geographic areas Development Plan , National Spacial Strategy, Regional, Development Plan , National Spacial Strategy, Regional, Development Plan , National Spacial Strategy, Regional, Development Plan , National Spacial Strategy, Regional, Development Plan , National Spacial Strategy, Regional, Development Plan , National Spacial Strategy, Regional, Development Plan , National Spacial Strategy, Regional, Development Plan , National Spacial Strategy, Regional, Development Plan , National Spacial Strategy, Regional, Development Plan , National Spacial Strategy, Regional, Development Plan , National Spacial Strategy, Regional, Development Plan , National Spacial Strategy, Regional, Development Plan , National Spacial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans County and Local Development Plans County and Local Development Plans County and Local Development Plans County and Local Development Plans County and Local Development Plans County and Local Development Plans County and Local Development Plans County and Local Development Plans County and Local Development Plans County and Local Development Plans County and Local Development Plans County and Local Development Plans to revitalise The Western Region to revitalise The Western Region to revitalise The Western Region to revitalise The Western Region to revitalise The Western Region to revitalise The Western Region to revitalise The Western Region to revitalise The Western Region to revitalise The Western Region to revitalise The Western Region to revitalise The Western Region to revitalise The Western Region to revitalise The Western Region Integration Integration Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spacial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford. Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spacial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford. Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spacial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford. Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spacial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford. Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spacial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford. Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spacial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford. Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spacial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford. Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spacial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford. Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spacial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford. Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spacial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford. Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spacial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford. Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spacial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford. Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spacial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford. Ref Route Selection Matrix Final Report March 2009

125 Roughan O'Donovan Faber Maunsell Table 9.1 Route Assessment Matrix F G G H F H H J H J G I G I G I E M I M I M I M I L B A 4.1 Environment Effect on Humans Acquisition Houses Granted Planning Applications (within 100m) Significant Agricultural Buildings Noise/Air Quality (no. of dwellings within) 0m 100m 100m 200m 200m 300m Community Facilities Community Severance Agriculture Natural Environment Impact on designated site Impact on other sites of ecological value Archaeology (no. of RMPs, Find spot, Listed Buildings within bands) 0m 50m 51m 100m 101m 250m Hydrogeology (sensitive aquifers/wells) Aquatic impact (No. Rivers / Streams) Landscape and Visual Economy Length of Alignment TOTAL (km) Mainline Type 2 Dual Mainline Online widening Mainline Single Side Road Junctions Roundabouts Grade Separations (Incl Bridge) Bridges Road Under / Over Lough and/or multispan Railway Rivers Ground conditions (%age soft) Hydrology (length within flood plain) Earthworks (major) (Commercial) Corner of golf course Corner of golf course Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Moderate Minor Minor Minor Minor Moderate along the existing Moderate along the exsiting Minor N5 near Windsor N5 near Windsor Moderate Minor Minor Moderate Major Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Minor Moderate Neutral Moderate Major Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Major Minor Minor Minor Neutral m Through Aquifer 1 Well m 675 Through Fen Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Moderate, embankment divides housing estate at Balloor. Moderate, embankments visible from edge of housing estate and golf course. Moderate, embankments visible from edge of housing estate and golf course. Moderate, due to high embankments Minor Minor Minor Minor (Large Dual C/Way) 1 (Large Dual C/Way) 1 (Large Dual C/Way) (Large Dual C/Way) 0 1 (N84 Compact Grade 1 (N84 Compact Grade (N84 Compact Grade 1 (N84 Compact Grade 1 (N84 Compact Grade 1 (N84 Compact Grade 1 (N60 Compact Grade 1 (N60 Compact Grade 1 (N60 Compact Grade 1 (N60 Compact Grade Seperated) Seperated) Seperated) Seperated) Seperated) Seperated) Seperated) Seperated) Seperated) Seperated) m = 51% 2200m = 6 190m = 8% 0 210m = 7% 525m = 15% 190m = 6% 1565m = 22% m = 18% Long lengths of peat Long lengths of peat 500m of embankment up to 9m high Cutting through hill for 150m max height up to 13m. Rock outcrop at grade km of embankment 9 14m of fill Construction Impacts Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Close to properies at Balloor Close to properties along Belcarra Road & Disruption to Golf Club Activities Disruption to Golf Club Activities Retained fill overbridge behind row of houses over R373. On Belcarra Road garage / house to be taken with retained cut. Minor Minor Minor Minor Cost (Millions) Traffic Functionality Good connection to Northern Ring Road. No connection to R373. Provides connection to R373. No connection to future Northern Ring Road. Provides connection to R373. Reasonable connection to future Northern Ring Road. Provides connection to R373. Reasonable connection to future Northern Ring Road. Provides connection to R373. Reasonable connection to future Northern Ring Road. Relative Traffic Dis benefits (Millions) Safety Traffic Safety Improvement of road standard Diverts through traffic away from urban area. Improvement of road standard Diverts through traffic away from urban area. Improvement of road standard Diverts through traffic away from urban area. Improvement of road standard Diverts through traffic away from urban area. Improvement of road standard Diverts through traffic away from urban area. Improvement of road standard Diverts through traffic away from urban area. Improvement of road standard Diverts through traffic away from urban area. Improvement of road standard Diverts through traffic away from urban area. Improvement of road standard Diverts through traffic away from urban area. Improvement of road standard Diverts through traffic away from urban area. Improvement of road standard Diverts through traffic away from urban area. Improvement of road standard Diverts through traffic away from urban area. Improvement of road standard Diverts through traffic away from urban area. Accessibility and Social Inclusion Impact on Vulnerable Groups Impact on deprived geographic areas Integration Integration Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Development Plan , National Spacial Strategy, Regional, Development Plan , National Spacial Strategy, Regional, Development Plan , National Spacial Strategy, Regional, Development Plan , National Spacial Strategy, Regional, Development Plan , National Spacial Strategy, Regional, Development Plan , National Spacial Strategy, Regional, Development Plan , National Spacial Strategy, Regional, Development Plan , National Spacial Strategy, Regional, Development Plan , National Spacial Strategy, Regional, Development Plan , National Spacial Strategy, Regional, Development Plan , National Spacial Strategy, Regional, Development Plan , National Spacial Strategy, Regional, Development Plan , National Spacial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans County and Local Development Plans County and Local Development Plans County and Local Development Plans County and Local Development Plans County and Local Development Plans County and Local Development Plans County and Local Development Plans County and Local Development Plans County and Local Development Plans County and Local Development Plans County and Local Development Plans County and Local Development Plans to revitalise The Western Region to revitalise The Western Region to revitalise The Western Region to revitalise The Western Region to revitalise The Western Region to revitalise The Western Region to revitalise The Western Region to revitalise The Western Region to revitalise The Western Region to revitalise The Western Region to revitalise The Western Region to revitalise The Western Region to revitalise The Western Region Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spacial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford. Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spacial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford. Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spacial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford. Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spacial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, and improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction with the N26 scheme. Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spacial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, and improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction with the N26 scheme. Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spacial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, and improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction with the N26 scheme. Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spacial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, and improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction with the N26 scheme. Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spacial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, and improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction with the N26 scheme. Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spacial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, and improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction with the N26 scheme. Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spacial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, and improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction with the N26 scheme. Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spacial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, and improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction with the N26 scheme. Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spacial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, and improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction with the N26 scheme. Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spacial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, and improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction with the N26 scheme. Ref Route Selection Matrix Final Report March 2009

126 Roughan O'Donovan Faber Maunsell Table 9.1 Route Assessment Matrix J K K L K R L O M P M N N P N P N Q N Q Q S O P P S A 4.4B Environment Effect on Humans Acquisition Houses Granted Planning Applications (within 100m) Significant Agricultural Buildings Noise/Air Quality (no. of dwellings within) 0m 100m 100m 200m 200m 300m Community Facilities Community Severance Agriculture Natural Environment Impact on designated site Impact on other sites of ecological value Archaeology (no. of RMPs, Find spot, Listed Buildings within bands) 0m 50m 51m 100m 101m 250m Hydrogeology (sensitive aquifers/wells) Aquatic impact (No. Rivers / Streams) Landscape and Visual Economy Length of Alignment TOTAL (km) Mainline Type 2 Dual Mainline Online widening Mainline Single Side Road Junctions Roundabouts Grade Separations (Incl Bridge) Bridges Road Under / Over Lough and/or multispan Railway Rivers Ground conditions (%age soft) Hydrology (length within flood plain) Earthworks (major) Positive Serves Tulough Positive Serves Tulough House House Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Moderate Moderate Major Moderate Moderate Minor Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Major Major Major 0 0 Neutral Neutral Moderate Neutral Moderate Moderate Severe Moderate Minor Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Minor Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral m 585m Turlough 0 2 Turloughs Minor Minor Minor Minor Route through 1600m grassland, woodland and undeveloped area. Minor On edge of grassland, woodland and undeveloped area. On edge of grassland, woodland and undeveloped area. Moderate Minor Minor Minor Minor (Large Dual C/Way) (Large Dual C/Way) m Viaduct 100m Viaduct (widening) m = 2 760m = 8% 0 380m = 11% 475m = 35% 320m = 13% 50m = 2% 1750m = 52% 250m = 7% 0 85m = 8% 225m = 9% Active Quarry m Fill, 700m Cut and Fill up to 9m Construction Impacts Minor Minor Minor Minor Route goes through quarry. Located close to landfill. Long link for house located south of existing N m Viaduct to be constructed through flood plane. Crossing of existing N5 Close to houses at 3 locations. Crossing of existing N5 0 0 Existing N5 Crossing Cost (Millions) Traffic Functionality Remote for the purposes of Does not serve as a ring road. being a ring road. Relative Traffic Dis benefits (Millions) Safety Traffic Safety Improvement of road standard Diverts through traffic away from urban area. Improvement of road standard Diverts through traffic away from urban area. Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with poor safety record. Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with poor safety record. Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with poor safety record. Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with poor safety record. Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with poor safety record. Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with poor safety record. Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with poor safety record. Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with poor safety record. Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with poor safety record. Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with poor safety record. Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with poor safety record. Accessibility and Social Inclusion Impact on Vulnerable Groups Impact on deprived geographic areas Integration Integration Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Development Plan , National Spacial Strategy, Regional, Development Plan , National Spacial Strategy, Regional, Development Plan , National Spacial Strategy, Regional, Development Plan , National Spacial Strategy, Regional, Development Plan , National Spacial Strategy, Regional, Development Plan , National Spacial Strategy, Regional, Development Plan , National Spacial Strategy, Regional, Development Plan , National Spacial Strategy, Regional, Development Plan , National Spacial Strategy, Regional, Development Plan , National Spacial Strategy, Regional, Development Plan , National Spacial Strategy, Regional, Development Plan , National Spacial Strategy, Regional, Development Plan , National Spacial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans County and Local Development Plans County and Local Development Plans County and Local Development Plans County and Local Development Plans County and Local Development Plans County and Local Development Plans County and Local Development Plans County and Local Development Plans County and Local Development Plans County and Local Development Plans County and Local Development Plans County and Local Development Plans to revitalise The Western Region to revitalise The Western Region to revitalise The Western Region to revitalise The Western Region to revitalise The Western Region to revitalise The Western Region to revitalise The Western Region to revitalise The Western Region to revitalise The Western Region to revitalise The Western Region to revitalise The Western Region to revitalise The Western Region to revitalise The Western Region Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spacial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, and improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction with the N26 scheme. Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spacial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, and improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction with the N26 scheme. Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spacial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, and improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction with the N26 scheme. Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spacial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, and improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction with the N26 scheme. Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spacial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, and improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction with the N26 scheme. Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spacial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, and improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction with the N26 scheme. Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spacial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, and improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction with the N26 scheme. Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spacial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, and improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction with the N26 scheme. Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spacial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, and improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction with the N26 scheme. Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spacial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, and improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction with the N26 scheme. Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spacial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, and improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction with the N26 scheme. Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spacial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, and improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction with the N26 scheme. Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spacial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, and improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction with the N26 scheme. Ref Route Selection Matrix Final Report March 2009

127 Roughan O'Donovan Faber Maunsell Table 9.1 Route Assessment Matrix P S P R O R S U R T T U U V T V 5.3A Environment Effect on Humans Acquisition Houses Granted Planning Applications (within 100m) Significant Agricultural Buildings Noise/Air Quality (no. of dwellings within) 0m 100m 100m 200m 200m 300m Community Facilities Community Severance Agriculture Natural Environment Impact on designated site Impact on other sites of ecological value Archaeology (no. of RMPs, Find spot, Listed Buildings within bands) 0m 50m 51m 100m 101m 250m Hydrogeology (sensitive aquifers/wells) Aquatic impact (No. Rivers / Streams) Landscape and Visual Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Moderate Moderate Major Major Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Neutral Neutral Minor Minor Neutral Minor Moderate Moderate Turlough 2 No. Turloughs Turlough Minor Minor Minor Minor Deep cut through ridge Runs through a group of Edge of estate landscape 1km through middle of estate houses landscape Economy Length of Alignment TOTAL (km) Mainline Type 2 Dual Mainline Online widening Mainline Single Side Road Junctions Roundabouts Grade Separations (Incl Bridge) Bridges Road Under / Over Lough and/or multispan Railway Rivers Ground conditions (%age soft) Hydrology (length within flood plain) Earthworks (major) (Large Dual C/Way) 1 (Large Dual C/Way) m = 13% 0 496m = 15% 200m = 9% m = 24%, 300m peat. 1262m = 22%, 500m peat m Cut up to 8m 400m Cut up to 14m m Deep Cut 600m of up to 20m cut 450m of deep Cut, 400m Embankment 450m of up to 14m cut 150m high Embankment, 400m of Deep Cut Construction Impacts Existing N5 Crossing Existing N5 Crossing Online construction of large roundabout Existing N5 crossing, Diversion of N26 Cost (Millions) Traffic Functionality At grade junctions Relative Traffic Dis benefits (Millions) Safety Traffic Safety Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with poor safety record. Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with poor safety record. Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with poor safety record. Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with moderately poor safety record. Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with moderately poor safety record. Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with moderately poor safety record. Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with moderately poor safety record. Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with moderately poor safety record. Accessibility and Social Inclusion Impact on Vulnerable Groups Impact on deprived geographic areas Integration Integration Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Development Plan , National Spacial Strategy, Regional, Development Plan , National Spacial Strategy, Regional, Development Plan , National Spacial Strategy, Regional, Development Plan , National Spacial Strategy, Regional, Development Plan , National Spacial Strategy, Regional, Development Plan , National Spacial Strategy, Regional, Development Plan , National Spacial Strategy, Regional, Development Plan , National Spacial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans County and Local Development Plans County and Local Development Plans County and Local Development Plans County and Local Development Plans County and Local Development Plans County and Local Development Plans County and Local Development Plans to revitalise The Western Region to revitalise The Western Region to revitalise The Western Region to revitalise The Western Region to revitalise The Western Region to revitalise The Western Region to revitalise The Western Region to revitalise The Western Region Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spacial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, and improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction with the N26 scheme. Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spacial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, and improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction with the N26 scheme. Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spacial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, and improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction with the N26 scheme. Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spacial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, and improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction with the N26 scheme. Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spacial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, and improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction with the N26 scheme. Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spacial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, and improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction with the N26 scheme. Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spacial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, and improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction with the N26 scheme. Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spacial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, and improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction with the N26 scheme. Ref Route Selection Matrix Final Report March 2009

128 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Chapter 10 Comparison of Alternative Routes 10.0 Methodology The comparison of different route options is carried out on the basis of the Department of Transport Project Appraisal Balance Sheet. Alternatives are ranked with respect to Environment, Economy, Safety, Accessibility and Social Inclusion, and Integration. Each of these criteria is given a score on a 7 point scale, as follows:- +3 Highly Positive +2 Moderately Positive +1 Slightly Positive 0 Neutral -1 Slightly Negative -2 Moderately Negative -3 Highly Negative Having assessed the 41 route elements between nodes A-V as described in Chapter 9, the large number of route options that arise from the potential combinations of route elements were reduced by a process of elimination. The first stage of this was to select the best route between any two sequential nodes. Ten such two node decisions were identified, as follows (see Drawing 67 in Volume 2) Decision 1 Node A to Node B via route 1.0, 1.1 or 1.2 Decision 2 Node B to Node C via route 1.0, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 or 1.5A Decision 3 Node C to Node D via route 2.0 Decision 4 Node D to Node F via route 3.2 or 3.2A Decision 5 Node G to Node I via route 3.1, 3.3 or 3.1B Decision 6 Node I to Node M via route 3.1, 3.1A or 3.3 Decision 7 Node H to Node J via route 3.4 of 3.6 Decision 8 Node N to Node Q via route 4.5 or 4.7 Decision 9 Node N to Node P via route 4.4A or 4.4B Decision 10 Node P to Node S via route 4.6 of 5.3A The Appraisal Balance Sheets that led to the selection of a single Emerging Preferred Route between these discrete nodes are described in Sections 10.1 to below. Having identified an Emerging Preferred Route element between any two nodes, the alternative routes for each of these elements were discounted, leaving the reduced number of route options illustrated on Drawing 68 in Volume 2. The next stage was to select the best route between common points that involved options that passed through intermediate nodes, but where the relative traffic benefits could be assessed on the basis of a simple comparison of the overall route lengths. The following such decisions were identified (see Drawing 68 in Volume 2). Decision 11 Node F to Node H directly via route 3.5 or via node G following routes 3.2 and 3.4 Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 111

129 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Decision 12 Decision 13 Decision 14 Decision 15 Decision 16 Node D to Node G via node E following routes 2.0 and 3.1 or via node F following routes 3.2 and 3.2A Node M to Node P directly via route 4.3 or via node N following routes 4.5 and 4.4B Node T to Node V directly via route 5.0 or via node U following route 5.2 Node P to Node U via node S following route 5.3A and 5.3 or via nodes R and T following routes 4.3, 5.0 and 5.2 Node O to Node U via nodes P and S following routes 4.6, 5.3A and 5.3 or via nodes R and T following routes 4.1, 5.0 and 5.2 Decision 17 Node K to Node V via nodes L, O, P, S and U following routes 3.4, 4.1, 4.6, 5.3A, 5.3 and 5.2 or via nodes R and T following routes 4.2 and 5.0 Decision 18 Node M to Node S via nodes N and P following routes 4.5, 4.4B and 5.3A or via nodes N and Q following routes 4.5, 4.7 and back to 4.5 The Appraisal Balance Sheets that led to the selection of the single Emerging Preferred routes between these discrete nodes are described in Sections to below. Following these Emerging Preferred Route elements and discounting the alternative routes for each of these elements led to the final route options illustrated on Drawing 69 in Volume 2. The final stage was to select the best route from the routes shown on Drawing 69. The remaining route options between nodes D and P are at varying distances from Castlebar and as such required specific traffic modelling to estimate the relative traffic benefits. Similarly the remaining route options between nodes P and V involve different journey lengths for Castlebar-Dublin and Castlebar-Ballina traffic, and therefore required specific traffic modelling. The three final decisions to be made were therefore as follows (see Figure 69 in Volume 2): Decision 19 Node G to Node L via node I following routes 3.1B and 4.1 or via nodes H, J and K following route 3.4 Decision 20 Node D to Node P via nodes E, M and N following routes 2.0, 3.0, 4.5 and 4.4B or via nodes F, G, I, M and N following routes 3.2A, 3.2, 3.1B, 3.1A, 4.5 and 4.4B or via nodes F, G, I, L and O following routes 3.2A, 3.2, 3.1B, 4.1 and 4.6 Decision 21 Node P to Node V via nodes S and U following routes 5.3A and 5.3, or via nodes R and T following routes 4.3 and 5.0. As a check two other routes using previously rejected elements were also compared over the full length P to V, via nodes S and U but this time following routes 4.6, 5.3 and 5.2 and finally via nodes R, T and U via routes 4.3, 5.0 and 5.2. The Appraisal Balance Sheets that led to the selection of the single Emerging Preferred routes between these discrete nodes are described in Sections to below. The result of these three final decisions led to the identification of a single overall Emerging Preferred Route from node A to V, as illustrated in Drawing 70 in Volume 2. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 112

130 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance 10.1 Decision 1 Node A to Node B via route 1.0, 1.1 or 1.2 (Drawing 67 Volume 2) Impacts on People Although route 1.1 has the least overall number of properties within a 300 metre corridor, route 1.2 has the least properties within the 100 metre corridor (22) with route 1.0 being worst on both counts with 31 and a planned housing estate within the 100 metre corridor and 159 in the 300 metre corridor. Route 1.2 is best in terms of effects on property as it affects only 1 planning permission compared with 2 for 1.1 and 3 and a housing estate for 1.0. None of the three require the acquisition of any houses. Similarly all three routes affect the same community facilities (directly impacting Westport GAA pitch and adjacent to a gaelscoil) and are considered to create minor community severance. In overall impacts on people preference the ranking of the three route options is as follows:- Route 1.2 Route 1.1 Route Flora, Fauna and Fisheries First Second Third Two sites of ecological interest exist within these nodes, both of which are rated as D (moderate value, locally important). Routes 1.0 and 1.1 will impact both of these sites, whereas route 1.2 impacts only one site. In each case the impacts on the sites will be of the magnitude minor negative. In overall impacts on ecology preference the ranking of the three route options is as follows:- Route 1.2 Route 1.0 Route 1.1 First Second equal Second equal Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Routes 1.0 and 1.1 will impact 6 cultural heritage sites, whereas route 1.2 impacts four sites. On each route 2 of the sites are on the IDA site and have already been resolved. In overall impacts on archaeology preference the ranking of the three route options is as follows:- Route 1.2 Route 1.0 Route Agricultural Land Use First Second equal Second equal Route 1.2 requires the least amount of land acquisition at 11 hectares with route 1.0 the worst with a total of 16 hectares. Route 1.0 also affects the largest area of land adjudged to be of good quality at 12% compared to route 1.1 and 1.2 Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 113

131 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance both of which affect 8%. Route 1.2 is the only route to affect farmyards or farms of note, impacting on a beef farm and a buildings and a yard/pen. In overall impacts on agriculture preference the ranking of the three route options is as follows:- Route 1.1 Route 1.0 Route Landscape and Visual First Second equal Second equal No particular landscape and visual impacts have been identified in this area and consequently all three route options should be given equal ranking Engineering Assessment Route 1.2 is the shortest route at 2.4km and route 1.0 is the longest at 3.45km. Route 1.1 comes between these at 2.75km. All three routes incorporate the existing roundabout at the IDA/Allergen junction. Both routes 1.1 and 1.2 require a new roundabout at their junction with the N59, while route 1.0 requires two new roundabouts, one on the western corner of the GAA grounds and a second along the N59 to the south west of the GAA grounds. All three options require a similar bridge at the crossing of the Lodge Road and have the potential to require a difficult cut slope potentially requiring a retaining structure if it proves necessary to cut into the steep slope behind the GAA ground. In overall Engineering preference the ranking of the three routes options is as follows:- Route 1.2 Route 1.1 Route Geology and Hydrogeology First Second Third No particular geological or hydrogeological features have been identified in this area and consequently all three route options should be given equal ranking Cost Estimates In cost term terms the preference ranking of the three routes is as follows:- Route 1.2 Route 1.1 Route 1.0 First Second Third Traffic Functionality & Economic Benefits Route 1.2 provides the simplest and most direct connection for traffic coming out of the north of Westport on the N59, the Golf Links Road and the Industrial Estate. While route 1.0 provides similarly good connections the introduction of an additional roundabout complicates the layout. Route 1.1 provides a poor connection for traffic coming out of the north of Westport on the N59, the Golf Links Road and the Industrial Estate, requiring them to travel some distance to the north west before gaining access to the new eastbound route. As such it is anticipated that a significantly higher proportion of drivers may continue to choose to access the N5 via Westport town centre. Consequently the Traffic functionality preference ranking of the three routes options is as follows:- Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 114

132 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Route 1.2 Route 1.0 Route 1.1 First Second Third Traffic Safety All three route options provide a significant improvement to the road standard with consequent safety benefits. However both routes 1.0 and 1.2 terminate just prior to a narrow blind bend and junction near the old railway bridge. In the case of route 1.2 this is mitigated by the proximity of the terminal roundabout which clearly defines the end of the new higher standard of road and facilitates an improvement to the Slauger Road junction. In terms of Traffic Safety the preference ranking of the three routes is as follows:- Route 1.2 Route 1.1 Route 1.0 First Second Third Accessibility and Social Inclusion All three route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans to revitalise the Western Region. The routes are neutral in terms of impact on vulnerable groups. Consequently equal ranking can be identified in terms of Accessibility and Social Inclusion Integration All three route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans All three route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans and National Road Needs Study to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford. Consequently equal ranking can be identified in terms of Integration Appraisal Balance Sheet All of the above assessments and relative rankings are drawn together in the following Appraisal Balance Sheet, Table 10.1 and each route given an overall ranking on the seven point scale for each of the five appraisal criteria, as defined in Section The summation of these rankings shows Route 1.2 to be the overall Emerging Preferred Route between nodes A and B. Consequently the alternative routes between these nodes are discounted. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 115

133 Roughan O'Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Key most preferable least preferable Decision 1. A - B Table 10.1 A - B A - B A - B Comments Environment Effect on Humans Effect of Properties Houses(Acquired) Granted Planning 3 + Housing Estate 2 1 Applications (within 100m) Significant Agricultural Buildings (Acquired) Noise/Air Quality (no. of dwellings within) 0m-100m 31 + Housing Estate m-200m Housing Estate 49 + Housing Estate 200m-300m Community Facilities GAA Pitch, Gaelscoil GAA Pitch, Gaelscoil GAA Pitch, Gaelscoil Community Severance Minor Minor Minor Agriculture Moderate Minor Moderate Natural Environment Impact on designated site Impact on other sites of ecological value Minor Minor Neutral Archaeology (no. of RMPs, Find spot, Listed Buildings within bands) 0m-50m 4 (2 Sites on IDA Site Resolved) 4 (2 Sites on IDA Site Resolved) 2 (2 Sites on IDA Site Resolved) 51m-100m m-250m Hydrogeology (sensitive aquifers/wells) Aquatic impact (No. Rivers / Streams) Landscape and Visual Minor Minor Minor Economy Length of Alignment- TOTAL (km) Mainline -Type 2 Dual Mainline - Online widening Mainline -Single 3.45 (Reduced) 2.75 (Reduced) 2.40 (Reduced) Side Road Junctions Roundabouts 2 new + 1 existing 1 new + 1 existing 1 new + 1 existing Grade Separations (Incl Bridges Road Under / Over Lough and/or multispan Railway Rivers Ground conditions (%age soft) Hydrology (length within flood plain) Earthworks (major) Deep cut, potential retaining structure behind Westport GAA Club Deep cut, potential retaining structure behind Westport GAA Club Deep cut, potential retaining structure behind Westport GAA Club Construction Impacts Minor Minor Minor Cost (Millions) Traffic Functionality Less clear route for drivers Unatractive route to Westport Yes North Relative Traffic Dis-benefits (Millions) Negligible Negligible Negligible Safety Traffic Safety Improvement of road standard Tie-in close to dangerous bend near rail bridge Improvement of road standard Tie-in close to dangerous bend near rail bridge, mitigated by terminal roundabout Improvement of road standard Terminal roundabout position allows gradual reduction in road standard Accessibility and Social Inclusion Impact on Vulnerable Groups Neutral Neutral Neutral Impact on deprived geographic areas Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans to revitalise The Western Region Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans to revitalise The Western Region Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans to revitalise The Western Region Integration Integration Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford. Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford. Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford. Ranking Environment Moderately Negative (-2) Slightly Negative (-1) Slightly Negative (-1) Economy Neutral (0) Slightly Positive (+1) Slightly Positive (+1) Safety Neutral (0) Slightly Positive (+1) Moderately Positive (+2) Accessibility and Social Inclusion Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Integration Highly Positive (+3) Highly Positive (+3) Highly Positive (+3) Overall Ref Route Selection Matrix Final Report - March 2009

134 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance 10.2 Decision 2 Node B to Node C via route 1.0, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, or 1.5A (Drawing 67 Volume 2) Impacts on People Route1.5A is the best route in terms of acquisition of houses requiring none, while 1.0 has 1 and all other routes have 2. Route 1.0 affects no planning permissions with route 1.5A second best with 1 and 1.3 worst affecting 9. Route 1.5A affects the least number of properties in both the 300 metre corridor (42 no.) and also in the 100 metre corridor (12 no, equal with route 1.5). None of the routes affect any community facilities and all are rated equally as creating only minor community severance. In overall impacts on people preference the ranking of the route options is as follows:- Route 1.5A Route 1.0 Route 1.5 Route 1.3 Route Flora, Fauna and Fisheries First Second Third Fourth equal Fourth equal The route options impact three sites of ecological interest. Route 1.0 is the least preferred route as it has a permanent impact on a large part of a site rated as D (moderate value, locally important) and as such has a moderate negative impact on this site. Route 1.5A has the least impact on the three ecological sites and is the preferred route. Routes 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5 all impact the same two ecological sites to the same extent and are rated second equal. In overall impacts on ecological preference the ranking of the route options is as follows:- Route 1.5A Route 1.3 Route 1.4 Route 1.5 Route 1.0 First Second Equal Second Equal Second Equal Fifth Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Only route 1.0 impacts on a single site within the 50 metre corridor while only routes 1.5 and 1.5A impact a site each within the 100 metre corridor. Routes 1.3 and 1.4 affect 2 and 1 sites respectively within the 100 to 250 metre corridor. In overall impacts on archaeological preference the ranking of the route options is as follows:- Route 1.3 Route 1.4 Route 1.5 Route 1.5A Route 1.0 First Equal First Equal Second Equal Second Equal Third Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 116

135 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Agricultural Land Use Route 1.3 requires the least amount of land acquisition at 19 hectares with route 1.0 the worst with a total of 20.5 hectares. However route 1.0 affects the smallest area of land adjudged to be of good quality at 9% compared to route 1.3 which affects 22%. Route 1.0, 1.3 and 1.4 all cause farmyard disturbance by affecting buildings and yards/pens however route 1.5 and 1.5A do not affect any farm buildings. In overall impacts on agriculture preference the ranking of the route options is as follows:- Route 1.5 Route 1.5A Route 1.4 Route 1.0 Route Landscape and Visual First equal First equal Second equal Second equal Third All 5 route options (1.0, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 and 1.5A) are rated as having a minor impact on the landscape, however route options 1.0 and 1.3 are considered to retain the panoramic view of Westport and Clew Bay over a longer approach to Westport than the three route options, 1.4, 1.5 and 1.5A. However in terms of overall impact on the landscape equal ranking can be identified for all the route options Engineering Assessment Route 1.3 is the shortest at 3.81 km while route 1.0 is the longest at 4.11km with the remaining routes fitting between these. All five routes require two large roundabouts at the connection back to the existing N5 at Knockranny (node B). In addition route 1.0 requires a grade separated junction where it crosses the existing N5 north of Derrygorman. Route 1.3 requires the most bridges at 5 No. due to the large number of local road crossings, while route 1.0 requires the least bridges at 2 No. Route 1.3 requires the most significant earthworks and route 1.5 the least. However there is a tightly constrained cut on route 1.4 that will require special construction measures or additional property acquisition. In overall Engineering preference the ranking of the five routes is as follows:- Route 1.5 Route 1.5A Route 1.4 Routes 1.0 and Geology and Hydrogeology First Second Third Fourth equal Routes 1.0 and 1.3 both traverse approximately 200m of soft ground while this is reduced to 120m for routes 1.4 and 1.5 and 185m for route 1.5A. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 117

136 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Routes 1.5 and 1.5A have the least potential impact on sensitive aquifers, while route 1.0 has the greatest potential impact in this regard. In overall Geological and Hydrogeological preference the ranking of the five routes is as follows:- Route 1.5 Route 1.5A and 1.4 Route 1.3 Route Cost Estimates First Second equal Fourth Fifth In cost terms the preference ranking of the five routes is as follows:- Route 1.5 Route 1.4 Route 1.0 Route 1.5A Route 1.3 First Second Third Fourth Fifth Traffic Functionality & Economic Benefits The traffic functionality of the five routes are all similar although route 1.0 causes slightly more disruption to access routes for properties along the existing N5 due to the need to cross the existing road north of Derrygorman. The economic benefits reduce as the routes become longer and therefore the ranking in this regard is as follows: Route 1.3 Route 1.4 Routes 1.5 and 1.5A Route Traffic Safety First Second Third equal Fourth All five routes replace the same length of existing road with a new road of higher standard. As such there is nothing to distinguish the route options in traffic safety and consequently all routes are ranked equally Accessibility and Social Inclusion All five route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans to revitalise the Western Region. The routes are neutral in terms of impact on vulnerable groups. Consequently equal ranking can be identified in terms of Accessibility and Social Inclusion Integration All five route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans All three route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans and National Road Needs Study to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 118

137 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance and Longford. Integration. Consequently equal ranking can be identified in terms of Appraisal Balance Sheet All of the above assessments and relative rankings are drawn together in the following Appraisal Balance Sheet, Table 10.2 and each route given an overall ranking on the seven point scale for each of the five appraisal criteria, as defined in Section The summation of these rankings shows Route 1.5A to be the overall Emerging Preferred Route between nodes B and C. Consequently the alternative routes between these nodes are discounted. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 119

138 Roughan O'Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Key Decision 2. B - C most preferable least preferable Table 10.2 B - C B - C B - C B - C B - C Comments A Environment Effect on Humans Effect of Properties Houses(Acquired) 1 2 (1 + 1 Save) 2 (1 + 1 Save) 2 0 Granted Planning Applications (within Significant Agricultural Buildings (Acquired) Noise/Air Quality (no. of dwellings within) 0m-100m m-200m m-300m Community Facilities Community Severance Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Agriculture Minor Moderate Moderate Minor Minor Natural Environment Impact on designated site Impact on other sites of ecological value Moderate Minor Minor Minor Minor Archaeology (no. of RMPs, Find spot, Listed Buildings within bands) 0m-50m m-100m m-250m Hydrogeology (sensitive aquifers/wells) 1820m = 44% 800m = 21% 690m = 18% 200m = 5% 200m = 5% Aquatic impact (No. Rivers / Streams) Landscape and Visual Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Economy Length of Alignment- TOTAL (km) Mainline -Type 2 Dual Mainline - Online Mainline -Single Side Road Junctions Roundabouts 2 (Large Dual C/Way) 2 (Large Dual C/Way) 2 (Large Dual C/Way) 2 (Large Dual C/Way) 2 (Large Dual C/Way) Grade Separations (Incl Bridges Road Under / Over Lough and/or Railway Rivers Ground conditions (%age soft) 200m = 5% 200m = 5% 120m = 3% 120m = 3% 185m = 5% Hydrology (length within flood plain) Earthworks (major) 300m Deep Cut 400m Large embankment ch , up to 16m. 200m Embankment ch , up to 10m. 300m Large cut ch , up to 8m. 250m Embankment up to 8m. 800m Embankment ch , up to 11m. Construction Impacts Minor Minor Difficult constrained cut. Minor Minor Possible acquisitions Cost (Millions) Traffic Functionality Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Relative Traffic Dis-benefits (Millions) Safety Traffic Safety Improvement of road standard Improvement of road standard Improvement of road standard Improvement of road standard Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with Bypasses section of road with Bypasses section of road with Bypasses section of road with Bypasses section of road with moderately poor safety record. moderately poor safety record. moderately poor safety record. moderately poor safety record. moderately poor safety record. Accessibility and Social Inclusion Impact on Vulnerable Groups Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Impact on deprived geographic areas Development Plan , Development Plan , Development Plan , Development Plan , Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans County and Local Development Plans County and Local Development Plans County and Local Development Plans County and Local Development Plans to revitalise The Western Region to revitalise The Western Region to revitalise The Western Region to revitalise The Western Region to revitalise The Western Region Integration Integration Development Plan , Development Plan , Development Plan , Development Plan , Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Regional, County and Local Regional, County and Local Regional, County and Local Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Development Plans, NRA National Development Plans, NRA National Development Plans, NRA National Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the Road Needs Study, to improve the Road Needs Study, to improve the Road Needs Study, to improve the Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key National Road network on the key National Road network on the key National Road network on the key National Road network on the key route between Westport and route between Westport and route between Westport and route between Westport and route between Westport and Longford. Longford. Longford. Longford. Longford. Ranking Environment Slightly Negative (-1) Moderately Negative (-2) Moderately Negative (-2) Moderately Negative (-2) Slightly Negative (-1) Economy Neutral (0) Slightly Positive (+1) Slightly Positive (+1) Slightly Positive (+1) Slightly Positive (+1) Safety Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Accessibility and Social Inclusion Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Integration Highly Positive (+3) Highly Positive (+3) Highly Positive (+3) Highly Positive (+3) Highly Positive (+3) Overall Ref Route Selection Matrix Final Report - March 2009

139 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance 10.3 Decision 3 Node C to Node D via route 2.0 (Drawing 67 Volume 2) Appraisal Balance Sheet Between nodes C and D the separate route selection study previously undertaken for the N5 Westport to Castlebar scheme identified a Preferred Route, and as described previously a review of this study confirmed that the selection process remains valid. However for consistency the assessment of Route 2.0 between these nodes is presented in the following Appraisal Balance Sheet, Table 10.3 and given an overall ranking on the seven point scale for each of the five appraisal criteria, as defined in Section Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 120

140 Roughan O'Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Key most least Decision 3. C - D Table 10.3 C - D 2.0 Comments Environment Effect on Humans Effect of Properties Houses(Acquired) 0 Granted Planning 0 Applications (within 100m) Significant Agricultural 0 Buildings (Acquired) Noise/Air Quality (no. of dwellings within) 0m-100m 2 100m-200m m-300m 7 Community Facilities - Community Severance Minor Agriculture Moderate Natural Environment Impact on designated site 0 Impact on other sites of ecological value Minor Archaeology (no. of RMPs, Find spot, Listed Buildings within bands) 0m-50m 0 51m-100m 0 101m-250m 0 Hydrogeology (sensitive aquifers/wells) 0 Aquatic impact (No. Rivers / Streams) 6 Landscape and Visual Minor Economy Length of Alignment- TOTAL (km) 4.70 Mainline -Type 2 Dual 4.70 Mainline - Online widening Mainline -Single Side Road 2.00 Junctions Roundabouts 0 Grade Separations (Incl 0 Bridges Road Under / Over 5 Lough and/or multispan 0 Railway 0 Rivers 0 Ground conditions (%age soft) Hydrology (length within flood plain) 0 Earthworks (major) 500m Cut up to 14m Construction Impacts Minor Cost (Millions) Traffic Functionality Yes Relative Traffic Dis-benefits (Millions) N/A Safety Traffic Safety Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with poor safety record at Islandeady. Accessibility and Social Inclusion Impact on Vulnerable Groups Impact on deprived geographic areas Integration Integration Neutral Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans to revitalise The Western Region Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford. Ranking Environment Slightly Negative (-1) Economy Slightly Positive (+1) Safety Moderately Positive (+2) Accessibility and Social Inclusion Moderately Positive (+2) Integration Highly Positive (+3) Overall +7 Ref Route Selection Matrix Final Report - March 2009

141 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance 10.4 Decision 4 Node D to Node F via route 3.2 or 3.2A (Drawing 67 Volume 2) Impacts on People The impacts on people are minor between nodes D-F as neither route 3.2 or 3.2A necessitate the acquisition of any houses or affect any planning permissions. Route 3.2 is slightly better in terms of houses within the 100 metre corridor with only 5 houses within 100 metres compared to 6 on Route 3.2A. Both routes are considered to create minor community severance and neither affects any community facilities. In overall impacts on people preference the ranking of the two route options is as follows:- Route 3.2 Route 3.2A Flora, Fauna and Fisheries First Second This route option decision has no impact on any ecological site. As such both route options are ranked equally Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Both route 3.2 and 3.2A are very similar routes with very similar impacts/benefits with both only affecting 1 site within the 50 metre corridor. In overall impacts on archaeology and cultural heritage preference the ranking of the two route options is as follows:- Route 3.2A Route Agricultural Land Use First equal First equal Route 3.2 and 3.2A are very similar routes with very similar impacts/benefits however route 3.2A is considered better follow the field boundaries as observed on the aerial photography. While this is considered to be a minor difference in overall impact terms on agriculture preference, the ranking of the two route options is as follows:- Route 3.2A Route Landscape and Visual First Second The only issue of landscape and visual amenity that differed between the routes was that route 3.2 severs Black Lough from Islandeady Lough, passing through a greater area of Black Lough prior to draining. While this is considered to be a minor difference in overall impact terms on landscape and visual amenity preference, the ranking of the route options is as follows:- Route 3.2A Route 3.2 First Second Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 121

142 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Engineering Assessment In Engineering terms routes 3.2 and 3.2A are almost identical, being of similar length, including a similar roundabout junction with the existing N5, both requiring 2 bridges for local road crossings, one railway bridge and an embankment crossing of Lough Lannagh. Consequently both options are ranked equally Geology and Hydrogeology Neither route affects any vulnerable aquifers. However Route 3.2 crosses a longer length of soft ground than route 3.2A. Therefore in overall Geological and Hydrogeological preference the ranking of the two routes is as follows:- Route 3.2A Route Cost Estimates First Second In cost terms the two routes are almost identical and no preference can be determined within estimating accuracy Traffic Functionality & Economic Benefits Both routes provide the same traffic functionality. Being of almost identical length there is negligible difference in economic benefits. Therefore no preference can be determined on the basis of Traffic Functionality and Economic Benefits and consequently both options are ranked equally Traffic Safety Both routes replace the same length of existing road with a new road of higher standard. As such there is nothing to distinguish the route options in traffic safety and consequently both options are ranked equally Accessibility and Social Inclusion Both route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans to revitalise the Western Region. The routes are neutral in terms of impact on vulnerable groups. Consequently equal ranking can be identified in terms of Accessibility and Social Inclusion Integration Both route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans All three route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans and National Road Needs Study to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford. Consequently equal ranking can be identified in terms of Integration Appraisal Balance Sheet All of the above assessments and relative rankings are drawn together in the following Appraisal Balance Sheet, Table 10.4 and each route given an overall ranking on the seven point scale for each of the five appraisal criteria, as defined Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 122

143 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance in Section The summation of these rankings shows Route 3.2A to be the overall Emerging Preferred Route between nodes B and C. Consequently route 3.2 between these nodes is discounted. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 123

144 Roughan O'Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Key most preferable least preferable Decision 4. D - F Table 10.4 Environment Effect on Humans Effect of Properties Houses(Acquired) 0 0 Granted Planning 0 0 Applications (within 100m) Significant Agricultural 0 0 Buildings (Acquired) Noise/Air Quality (no. of dwellings within) D - F D - F Comments A 0m-100m m-200m m-300m 1 1 Community Facilities - - Community Severance Minor Minor Agriculture Minor Minor - follows field boundaries Natural Environment Impact on designated site 0 0 Impact on other sites of ecological value Neutral Neutral Archaeology (no. of RMPs, Find spot, Listed Buildings within bands) 0m-50m m-100m m-250m 0 0 Hydrogeology (sensitive aquifers/wells) 0 0 Aquatic impact (No. Rivers / Streams) 3 3 Landscape and Visual Severs Black Lough with Islandeady Lough Keeps Black Lough with Islandeady Lough Economy Length of Alignment- TOTAL (km) Mainline -Type 2 Dual Mainline - Online widening Mainline -Single Side Road Junctions Roundabouts 1 (Large Dual C/Way) 1 (Large Dual C/Way) Grade Separations (Incl 0 0 Bridges Road Under / Over 2 2 Lough and/or multispan Piled embankment along lough Piled embankment along lough Railway 1 1 Rivers 0 0 Ground conditions (%age soft) 1020m = 32% 886m = 28% Hydrology (length within flood plain) Earthworks (major) Filling near lough, soft ground near railway. Filling near lough, soft ground near railway. Construction Impacts Piled embankment along lough Piled embankment along lough Cost (Millions) Traffic Functionality Traffic along 1.0km /20 houses Traffic along 1.0km /20 houses fronting onto existing N5 fronting onto existing N5 Relative Traffic Dis-benefits (Millions) Negligible Negligible Safety Traffic Safety Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with poor safety record. Bypasses site of 1 less serious accident than Routes 2.0 Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with poor safety record. Bypasses site of 1 less serious accident than Routes 2.0 Accessibility and Social Inclusion Impact on Vulnerable Groups Neutral Neutral Impact on deprived geographic areas Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans to revitalise The Western Region Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans to revitalise The Western Region Integration Integration Development Plan , Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford. route between Westport and Longford. Ranking Environment Moderately Negative (-2) Slightly Negative (-1) Economy Slightly Positive (+1) Slightly Positive (+1) Safety Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Accessibility and Social Inclusion Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Integration Highly Positive (+3) Highly Positive (+3) Overall Ref Route Selection Matrix Final Report - March 2009

145 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance 10.5 Decision 5 Node G to Node I via route 3.1, 3.3 or 3.1B (Drawing 67 Volume 2) Impacts on People None of the routes would acquire any houses or affect any planning permissions. Route 3.3 has a much greater number of houses within both the 300 metre (99 no.) and 100 metre (18 no.) than either 3.1 which has 44 and 11 respectively or 3.1B which has the least number with only 4 houses within the 100 metre corridor and 30 within the 300 metre corridor. Both routes 3.3 and 3.1B affect the corner of Castlebar golf course and are considered to create only minor community severance however route 3.1, although not affecting any community facilities, is considered to have a moderate impact on community severance at a housing estate in Balloor. Access would be provided to all properties however this would be by means of a new access road adjacent to the railway line which would require a new underbridge for users to negotiate thereby creating the perception of community severance. In overall impacts on people preference the ranking of the three route options is as follows: Route 3.1B Route 3.1 Route Flora, Fauna and Fisheries First Second Third Each of these route options has the same minor impact on a single site of ecological interest. Consequently, all three route options are ranked equally Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Route 3.1 and 3.1B are very similar routes with very similar impacts/benefits as all three routes only have 2 sites each within the metre corridor. Consequently, all three route options are ranked equally Agricultural Land Use Route 3.1, 3.1B & 3.3 are very similar routes with very similar impacts/benefits however route 3.3 is slightly longer and therefore has greater landtake. However route 3.3 has the least amount of good land affected which has lead to all three routes being rated as moderate. Consequently, all three route options are ranked equally Landscape and Visual Due to the presence of the railway line between nodes G-I all three routes require a large embankment to cross the railway line. All three routes therefore have a moderate impact on landscape and visual amenity. Route 3.1 cuts through the housing estate at Balloor and therefore has a visual impact on properties in the estate while route 3.3 and 3.1B pass behind the estate near two houses and through the corner of Castlebar golf course on embankment having a visual impact on the houses on the edge of the estate. Consequently, all three route options are ranked equally. Ref: Approval Issue Rev 2 April 2010 Page 124

146 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Engineering Assessment Route 3.1 is the shortest at 3.03 km while route 3.3 is the longest at 3.18 km with route 3.1B only 40m longer than route 3.1. All three routes require a grade separated junction where they cross the N84 at node G. Similarly all three routes require 1 bridge to cross the Belcarra Road and a bridge over the railway, while Route 3.1 would require an increased span railway bridge to facilitate Balloor road plus extra length of access road The earthworks requirements for all three routes are similar, largely associated with the approaches to the railway crossing. However routes 3.1 and 3.3 would require construction of earthworks close to properties in the vicinity of Balloor and the Belcarra road respectively, and routes 3.1B and 3.3 both require construction through the golf course, all of which may require special measures during construction. In overall Engineering preference while the routes are similar the ranking of the three routes, if any is as follows:- Route 3.1B Route 3.1 and Geology and Hydrogeology First Second equal Route 3.1B crosses the least potentially soft ground at 190m, with route 3.1 crossing slightly more at 210m and 3.3 the greatest amount at 525m. None of the routes impact on sensitive aquifers. In overall Geological and Hydrogeological preference the ranking of the three routes is as follows:- Route 3.1B Route 3.1 Route Cost Estimates First Second Third In construction terms the three routes are of almost identical cost. While the direct land costs plus the costs of serving the Balloor Estate associated with route 3.1 are slightly higher, the costs associated with disruption to the golf course balance this for routes 3.1B and 3.3. Therefore in overall cost all route options are ranked equally Traffic Functionality & Economic Benefits The traffic functionality of the three routes are identical. The economic benefits reduce as the routes become longer, but the differences in length and level of traffic on this section are such that any difference becomes negligible. Consequently, all options rank equally. Ref: Approval Issue Rev 2 April 2010 Page 125

147 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Traffic Safety All three routes replace the same length of existing road with a new road of higher standard. As such there is nothing to distinguish the route options in traffic safety and consequently, all route options rank equally Accessibility and Social Inclusion All three route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans to revitalise the Western Region. The routes are neutral in terms of impact on vulnerable groups. Consequently equal ranking can be identified in terms of Accessibility and Social Inclusion Integration All three route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans All three route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans and National Road Needs Study to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford. Consequently equal ranking can be identified in terms of Integration Appraisal Balance Sheet All of the above assessments and relative rankings are drawn together in the following Appraisal Balance Sheet, Table 10.5 and each route given an overall ranking on the seven point scale for each of the five appraisal criteria, as defined in Section The summation of these rankings shows Routes 3.1 and 3.1B to be equal within the sensitivity of the ranking system, while route 3.3 is less preferable. When seeking to distinguish between routes 3.1B and 3.1, route 3.1B is considered to be preferable since there is greater potential to mitigate the impacts of route 3.1B on the golf course than the impacts of route 3.1 on the community of Balloor. Consequently routes 3.1 and 3.3 are discounted between nodes G and I. Ref: Approval Issue Rev 2 April 2010 Page 126

148 Roughan O'Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Key Decision 5. G - I most preferable least preferable Table 10.5 G - I G - I G - I Comments B Environment Effect on Humans Effect of Properties Houses(Acquired) Granted Planning Applications (within 100m) Significant Agricultural Buildings (Acquired) Noise/Air Quality (no. of dwellings within) 0m-100m m-200m m-300m Community Facilities - Corner of golf course Corner of golf course Community Severance Moderate Minor Minor Agriculture Moderate Moderate Moderate Natural Environment Impact on designated site Impact on other sites of ecological value Minor Minor Minor Archaeology (no. of RMPs, Find spot, Listed Buildings within bands) 0m-50m m-100m m-250m Hydrogeology (sensitive aquifers/wells) Aquatic impact (No. Rivers / Streams) Landscape and Visual Moderate, embankment divides housing estate at Moderate,impact on views from Balloor and golf course Moderate,impact on views from Balloor and golf course Balloor. Economy Length of Alignment- TOTAL (km) Mainline -Type 2 Dual Mainline - Online widening Mainline -Single Side Road Junctions Roundabouts Grade Separations (Incl Bridge) 1 (N84 Compact Grade Seperated) 1 (N84 Compact Grade Seperated) 1 (N84 Compact Grade Seperated) Bridges Road Under / Over Lough and/or multispan Railway Rivers Ground conditions (%age soft) 210m = 7% 525m = 15% 190m = 6% Hydrology (length within flood plain) Earthworks (major) Construction Impacts Close to properies at Balloor Close to properties along Belcarra Road, Disruption to Disruption to golf course activities. golf course activities. Cost (Millions) Traffic Functionality Relative Traffic Dis-benefits (Millions) Negligible Negligible Negligible Safety Traffic Safety Improvement of road standard Diverts through traffic away from urban area. Improvement of road standard Diverts through traffic away from urban area. Improvement of road standard Diverts through traffic away from urban area. Accessibility and Social Inclusion Impact on Vulnerable Groups Neutral Neutral Neutral Impact on deprived geographic areas Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans to revitalise The Western Region Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans to revitalise The Western Region Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans to revitalise The Western Region Integration Integration Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, and improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction with the N26 scheme. Development Plan , Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, route between Westport and Longford, and improve the link between the hubs and improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction with the N26 scheme. with the N26 scheme. Ranking Environment Slightly Negative (-1) Moderately Negative (-2) Slightly Negative (-1) Economy Slightly Positive (+1) Slightly Positive (+1) Slightly Positive (+1) Safety Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Accessibility and Social Inclusion Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Integration Highly Positive (+3) Highly Positive (+3) Highly Positive (+3) Overall Ref Route Selection Matrix Final Report - March 2009

149 Roughan & O Donovan 10.6 Decision 6 Node I to Node M via route 3.1, 3.1A or 3.3 (Drawing 67 Volume 2) Impacts on People All three routes acquire one house while route 3.3 also affects 6 planning permissions whereas route 3.1 and 3.1A do not affect any planning permissions. In terms of proximity to dwellings route 3.3 is again significantly worse than the other two routes with 28 No. houses in the 100 metre corridor compared with 11 No. on route 3.1 and only 4 No. on route 3.1A. Route 3.1 and 3.1A are considered to create moderate community severance along the existing N5 near Windsor however route 3.3 is considered to have a greater impact on community severance as a housing estate at Carheens is divided by the route and despite the provision of a bridge will create the perception of community severance. None of the routes impact on any community facilities. In overall impacts on people preference the ranking of the three route options is as follows: Route 3.1A Route 3.1 Route Flora, Fauna and Fisheries First Second Third Each of these three route options will have a minor impact on an ecological site rated as D. Consequently, all route options are ranked equally Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Route 3.1 and 3.1A have the same impact on sites with 1 each within 50 metres, 6 within 100 metres and 7 more within 250 metres. Route 3.3 affects 2 sites within the 50 metre corridor and another 13 within 250 metres. In overall impacts on archaeology and cultural heritage preference the ranking of the three route options is as follows: Route 3.1A Route 3.1 Route Agricultural Land Use First equal First equal Second Route 3.3 is shorter therefore having less land take than 3.1 as well as impacting less good quality land than 3.1 however it does cause farmyard disturbance and requires the demolition of one farm building. Route 3.1A is very similar to 3.1 but following Public Consultation No. 2 was modified to reduce the impact on a large land holding adjacent to the existing N5. In overall impacts on agricultural preference the ranking of the three route options is as follows: Route 3.1A Route 3.1 Route 3.3 First Second equal Second equal Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 127

150 Roughan & O Donovan Landscape and Visual No particular landscape and visual impacts have been identified in this area that would suggest any ranking of the three alternative routes. By virtue of its increased length of new road corridor Route 3.3 may be considered marginally greater impact Engineering Assessment Route 3.3 is the shortest at 5.3 km while route 3.1 is the longest at 6.05 km with route 3.1A fitting between these at 5.88 km. However routes 3.1 and 3.1A utilise a significantly greater length of the existing N5 with consequently less new construction. All three routes require a large roundabout at their respective connections back to the existing N5. Similarly all three routes require a grade separated junction where they cross the N60. Route 3.3 requires one additional bridge crossing of local roads compared to routes 3.1 and 3.1A. None of the routes require major earthworks. In overall Engineering preference the ranking of the three routes is as follows:- Routes 3.1 and 3.1A Route Geology and Hydrogeology First equal Second None of the routes traverse areas of either anticipated soft ground or sensitive aquifers. However a well has been identified on route 3.3 which may be affected. In overall Geological and Hydrogeological preference the ranking of the three routes, if any is as follows:- Routes 3.1 and 3.1A Route Cost Estimates First equal Second In cost terms the preference ranking of the three routes is as follows:- Route 3.1A Route 3.1 Route 3.3 First Second Third Traffic Functionality & Economic Benefits All three routes cross the N60 south east of its junction with the R373 and therefore facilitate the continued use of this regional road to distribute traffic entering Castlebar. However while routes 3.1 and 3.1B connect to the existing N5 sufficiently close to its junction with the proposed Castlebar northern ring road to support the concept of the two roads forming a ring around the town, the fact that route 3.3 re-joins the existing N5 1.4km further east, would mean that the concept of a ring road would be made more difficult if route 3.3 were selected. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 128

151 Roughan & O Donovan Although route 3.3 provides a shorter route for traffic bypassing Castlebar, it leaves a longer length of the existing N5 un-improved for the high proportion of traffic which wishes to access the town. When this is combined with the loss of traffic functionality with the proposed northern ring road it is considered that when the three factors are taken together there is little to distinguish the three routes in terms of overall Traffic Functionality & Economic Benefits and consequently all route options are ranked equally Traffic Safety All three routes provide a similar level of diversion of through traffic away from the urban area. While routes 3.1 and 3.1A increase the length of road improvement for traffic accessing Castlebar compared to route 3.3, it is considered that this would not necessarily produce a quantifiable difference in overall traffic safety. Therefore no clear preference is evident in this regard and consequently all routes are ranked equally Accessibility and Social Inclusion All three route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans to revitalise the Western Region. The routes are neutral in terms of impact on vulnerable groups. Consequently equal ranking can be identified in terms of Accessibility and Social Inclusion Integration All three route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans All three route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans and National Road Needs Study to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, and, in conjunction with the separate N26 scheme, improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castelbar. Consequently equal ranking can be identified in terms of Integration Appraisal Balance Sheet All of the above assessments and relative rankings are drawn together in the following Appraisal Balance Sheet, Table 10.6 and each route given an overall ranking on the seven point scale for each of the five appraisal criteria, as defined in Section The summation of these rankings shows Route 3.1A to be the overall Emerging Preferred Route between nodes I and M. Consequently the alternative routes between these nodes are discounted. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 129

152 Roughan O'Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Key most preferable least preferable Decision 6. I - M Table 10.6 I - M I - M I - M Comments A Environment Effect on Humans Effect of Properties Houses(Acquired) Granted Planning Applications (within 100m) Significant Agricultural Buildings (Acquired) Noise/Air Quality (no. of dwellings within) 0m-100m m-200m m-300m Community Facilities Community Severance Severs Housing Estate Moderate along the existing N5 near Windsor Moderate along the exsiting N5 near Windsor Agriculture Moderate Moderate Minor Natural Environment Impact on designated site Impact on other sites of ecological value Minor Minor Minor Archaeology (no. of RMPs, Find spot, Listed Buildings within bands) 0m-50m m-100m m-250m Hydrogeology (sensitive aquifers/wells) 1 Well 0 0 Aquatic impact (No. Rivers / Streams) Landscape and Visual Minor Minor Minor Economy Length of Alignment- TOTAL (km) Mainline -Type 2 Dual Mainline - Online widening Mainline -Single Side Road Junctions Roundabouts Grade Separations (Incl Bridge) 1 (N60 Compact Grade Seperated) 1 (N60 Compact Grade Seperated) 1 (N60 Compact Grade Seperated) Bridges Road Under / Over Lough and/or multispan Railway Rivers Ground conditions (%age soft) Hydrology (length within flood plain) Earthworks (major) Construction Impacts Minor Minor Minor Cost (Millions) Traffic Functionality Provides connection to R373. No connection to future Northern Ring Road. Provides connection to R373. Reasonable connection to future Northern Ring Road. Provides connection to R373. Reasonable connection to future Northern Ring Road. Relative Traffic Dis-benefits (Millions) Similar Similar Similar Safety Traffic Safety Improvement of road standard Diverts through traffic away from urban area. Improvement of road standard Diverts through traffic away from urban area. Improvement of road standard Diverts through traffic away from urban area. Accessibility and Social Inclusion Impact on Vulnerable Groups Neutral Neutral Neutral Impact on deprived geographic areas Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans to revitalise The Western Region Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans to revitalise The Western Region Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans to revitalise The Western Region Integration Integration Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, and improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction with the N26 scheme. Development Plan , Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, route between Westport and Longford, and improve the link between the hubs and improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction with the N26 scheme. with the N26 scheme. Ranking Environment Moderately Negative (-2) Moderately Negative (-2) Slightly Negative (-1) Economy Neutral (0) Slightly Positive (+1) Slightly Positive (+1) Safety Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Accessibility and Social Inclusion Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Integration Highly Positive (+3) Highly Positive (+3) Highly Positive (+3) Overall Ref Route Selection Matrix Final Report - March 2009

153 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance 10.7 Decision 7 Node H to Node J via route 3.4 or 3.6 (Drawing 67 Volume 2) Impacts on People Neither route requires any property acquisitions. However Route 3.6 does not affect any houses or planning permissions within 100m while route 3.4 affects 2 planning permissions in this zone. Route 3.4 is generally worse affecting more than twice the total number of houses within the 300 metre corridor, 25 compared to 12 on route 3.6. Route 3.4 also affects 6 within the 100 metre corridor compared to 1 on 3.6. Neither route affects any community facilities while community severance is considered minor. The overall impacts on people preference are relatively small but show a clear ranking of the two route options as follows:- Route 3.6 Route Flora, Fauna and Fisheries First Second Both of the route options impact the same ecological site. The site is rated as D and the impact in both instances is minor. Consequently, both route options are ranked equally Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Both routes avoid all sites by at least 50 metres, however within the metre band Route 3.4 affects one site, while in the metre band route 3.4 affects 1 site while route 3.6 affects 2 sites. The overall impacts on archaeology and cultural heritage are small but the preference ranking of the two route options is as follows: Route 3.6 Route Agricultural Land Use First Second Both routes have quite a negative impact on agriculture. Route 3.4 affects a significant commercial agricultural holding that appears to be a nursery (but from visual inspection is unclear whether it is operational) leading to the loss of 3 buildings/pens, however, route 3.6 affects both a dairy farm and an equine holding. Both of these types of holding are considered most sensitive from the perspective of road planning and construction. In overall impacts on agricultural the strong preference ranking of the two route options is as follows: Route 3.4 Route Landscape and Visual First Second No particular landscape and visual impacts have been identified in this area that would suggest any ranking of the alternative routes and consequently, both route options are ranked equally. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 130

154 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Engineering Assessment Route 3.4 is the shorter at 2.28 km compared to 2.61 km. Neither route involves any junctions and both routes require two bridges at local road crossings. Route 3.4 requires approximately 500m of high embankment while route 3.6 requires 150m of particularly deep cutting. In overall engineering terms it is not possible to establish a preference for one route over the other and consequently, both route options are ranked equally Geology and Hydrogeology Route 3.4 traverses approximately 190m of soft ground while route 3.6 avoids this. Neither route affects any sensitive aquifers. In overall Geological and Hydrogeological preference there is therefore a slight preference for route 3.6 over route 3.4 and ss a result the ranking of the two route options is as follows: Route 3.6 First Route 3.4 Second Cost Estimates In cost terms route 3.6 is marginally cheaper than route 3.4 and consequently both route options are ranked equally Traffic Functionality & Economic Benefits Both routes provide the same traffic functionality, but route 3.4 being 330m shorter will provide greater economic benefits. As a result the ranking of the two route options is as follows: Route 3.4 First Route 3.6 Second Traffic Safety Both routes replace the same length of existing road with a new road of higher standard and facilitate diversion of through traffic away from an urban area. As such there is nothing to distinguish the route options in traffic safety Accessibility and Social Inclusion Both route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans to revitalise the Western Region. The routes are neutral in terms of impact on vulnerable groups. Consequently, both route options are ranked equally in terms of Accessibility and Social Inclusion Integration Both route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans All three route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 131

155 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Regional, County and Local Developments Plans and National Road Needs Study to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford. Consequently equal ranking can be identified in terms of Integration Appraisal Balance Sheet All of the above assessments and relative rankings are drawn together in the following Appraisal Balance Sheet, Table 10.7 and each route given an overall ranking on the seven point scale for each of the five appraisal criteria, as defined in Section Despite Route 3.6 being preferred on several environmental grounds to Route 3.4 the severity of impact of Route 3.6 on agricultural operations is considered to counter balance these negatives giving an overall equal rating environmentally. The summation of these rankings shows Route 3.4 to be the overall Emerging Preferred Route between nodes H and J. Consequently route 3.6 is discounted. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 132

156 Roughan O'Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Key most preferable least preferable Decision 7. H - J Table 10.7 H - J H - J Comments Environment Effect on Humans Effect of Properties Houses(Acquired) 0 0 Granted Planning 2 0 Applications (within 100m) Significant Agricultural 1 (Commercial) 0 Buildings (Acquired) Noise/Air Quality (no. of dwellings within) 0m-100m m-200m m-300m 8 7 Community Facilities - - Community Severance Minor Minor Agriculture Moderate Major Natural Environment Impact on designated site 0 0 Impact on other sites of ecological value Minor Minor Archaeology (no. of RMPs, Find spot, Listed Buildings within bands) 0m-50m m-100m m-250m 1 2 Hydrogeology (sensitive aquifers/wells) 0 0 Aquatic impact (No. Rivers / Streams) 1 2 Landscape and Visual Minor Minor Economy Length of Alignment- TOTAL (km) Mainline -Type 2 Dual Mainline - Online widening Mainline -Single Side Road Junctions Roundabouts 0 0 Grade Separations (Incl 0 0 Bridges Road Under / Over 2 2 Lough and/or multispan 0 0 Railway 0 0 Rivers 0 0 Ground conditions (%age soft) 190m = 8% 0 Hydrology (length within flood plain) Earthworks (major) 500m of embankment up to 9m high Cutting through hill for 150m max height up to 13m. Rock outcrop at-grade. Construction Impacts Minor Minor Cost (Millions) Traffic Functionality - - Relative Traffic Dis-benefits (Millions) 0.00 Order of 2M Safety Traffic Safety Improvement of road standard Diverts through traffic away from urban area. Improvement of road standard Diverts through traffic away from urban area. Accessibility and Social Inclusion Impact on Vulnerable Groups Neutral Neutral Impact on deprived geographic areas Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans to revitalise The Western Region Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans to revitalise The Western Region Integration Integration Development Plan , Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford. Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford. Ranking Environment Moderately Negative (-2) Moderately Negative (-2) Economy Slightly Positive (+1) Neutral (0) Safety Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Accessibility and Social Inclusion Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Integration Highly Positive (+3) Highly Positive (+3) Overall Ref Route Selection Matrix Final Report - March 2009

157 Roughan & O Donovan 10.8 Decision 8 Node N to Node Q via route 4.5 or 4.7 (Drawing 67 Volume 2) Impacts on People Route 4.7 necessitates the acquisition of one house & affects no planning permissions and although 4.5 does not affect any houses it does affect 2 planning permissions. Route 4.7 affects significantly more houses in the 100 and 300 metre corridors, 11 compared with 2 in the 100 metre corridor and 63 compared to 45 in the 300 metre corridor. Neither affects any community facilities and community severance is considered minor for both routes. In overall impacts on people preference the ranking of the route options is as follows:- Route 4.5 Route Flora, Fauna and Fisheries First Second Both route option 4.5 and 4.7 will have an impact on the River Moy csac. Under the NRA guidelines all SACs are considered as Sites of International Importance and the impacts on such sites are either moderate (temporary impact on a small part of the site; major (temporary impact on a large part of the site; or severe (any permanent impact). Route option 4.5 will have a permanent impact on a considerable area of this csac and therefore has a severe negative impact. It should be possible for Route Option 4.7 to bridge the SAC, thus only having a temporary or moderate impact on the SAC. In overall impacts on ecological site the ranking of the two route options is as follows:- Route 4.7 Route 4.5 First Second Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Both routes avoid all sites by at least 50 metres with only route 4.5 having 1 site within the metre band. Route 4.7 although having no sites between metres has 6 sites between metres; double the amount present with route 4.5. In overall impacts on archaeology and cultural heritage preference the ranking of the route options is as follows: Route 4.7 Route Agricultural Land Use First Second No particular agricultural impacts have been identified in this area that would suggest any differential ranking of the alternative routes, Consequently, both route options are ranked equally. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 133

158 Roughan & O Donovan Landscape and Visual In terms of landscape and visual impact route 4.5 is considered to have a significant negative impact due to the requirement to span the floodplain of the Toormore River on a viaduct. In overall impacts on landscape and visual amenity preference the ranking of the route options is as follows:- Route 4.7 Route Engineering Assessment First Second Route 4.5 is the shorter at 3.34 km compared to 3.67 km. Neither route involves any junctions. However route 4.7 requires 4 bridges at local road crossings compared to only 1 on route 4.5. The major engineering issue between nodes N and Q is the flood plain of the Toormore river. Route 4.5 runs approximately parallel to the river through a long length of the floodplain, requiring a viaduct of approximately 1600m in length in order to avoid displacing this large storage volume. Route 4.7 crosses the floodplain almost at right angles to the river, consequently only requiring approximately 100m of viaduct. Neither route involves major earthworks but both routes will require special construction measures where they cross the existing N5 over live traffic. While route 4.7 may require special construction measures at three locations where it passes close to properties, the special construction measures associated with building the 1600m viaduct through the flood plain will make route 4.5 significantly more difficult to construct. In overall Engineering preference route 4.7 is significantly better than route Geology and Hydrogeology Neither route affects any sensitive aquifers, but the soft ground and potential interference with the hydrology of the flood plain of the Toormore River are much more extensive for route 4.5 compared to route 4.7. Consequently from the perspective of Geology and Hydrogeology route 4.7 is significantly better and is ranked first Cost Estimates Route 4.5 is approximately three times as costly as route 4.7 due to the long length of viaduct required and consequently route 4.7 is ranked first Traffic Functionality & Economic Benefits Both routes provide the same traffic functionality. However route 4.5, being 330m shorter provides greater economic benefits and consequently route 4.5 is ranked first. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 134

159 Roughan & O Donovan Traffic Safety Both routes replace the same length of existing road with a new road of higher standard. As such there is nothing to distinguish the route options in traffic safety and consequently both route options are ranked equally Accessibility and Social Inclusion Both route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans to revitalise the Western Region. The routes are neutral in terms of impact on vulnerable groups. Consequently equal ranking can be identified in terms of Accessibility and Social Inclusion Integration Both route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans All three route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans and National Road Needs Study to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, and, in conjunction with the separate N26 scheme, improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar. Consequently equal ranking can be identified in terms of Integration Appraisal Balance Sheet All of the above assessments and relative rankings are drawn together in the following Appraisal Balance Sheet, Table 10.8 and each route given an overall ranking on the seven point scale for each of the five appraisal criteria, as defined in Section The summation of these rankings shows Route 4.7 to be the overall Emerging Preferred Route between nodes N and Q. Consequently route 4.5 is discounted between these nodes. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 135

160 Roughan O'Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Key most preferable least preferable Decision 8. N - Q Table 10.8 Environment Effect on Humans Effect of Properties Houses(Acquired) 0 1 Granted Planning 2 0 Applications (within 100m) Significant Agricultural 0 0 Buildings (Acquired) Noise/Air Quality (no. of dwellings within) 0m-100m m-200m m-300m Community Facilities - - Community Severance Minor Minor Agriculture Moderate Moderate Natural Environment Impact on designated site Severe Moderate Impact on other sites of ecological value Neutral Neutral Archaeology (no. of RMPs, Find spot, Listed Buildings within bands) 0m-50m m-100m m-250m 3 6 Hydrogeology (sensitive aquifers/wells) 0 0 N - Q N -Q Comments Aquatic impact (No. Rivers / Streams) 6 1 Landscape and Visual Moderate, Viaduct across Minor floodplane Economy Length of Alignment- TOTAL (km) Mainline -Type 2 Dual Mainline - Online widening Mainline -Single Side Road Junctions Roundabouts 0 0 Grade Separations (Incl 0 0 Bridges Road Under / Over 1 4 Lough and/or multispan 1600m Viaduct 100m Viaduct Railway 1 1 Rivers 0 0 Although Rivers crossed - bridging included in Viaduct Ground conditions (%age soft) 1750m = 52% 250m = 7% Hydrology (length within flood plain) Earthworks (major) 0 0 Construction Impacts 1600m Viaduct to be Close to houses at 3 locations. constructed through flood plane. Crossing of N5. Cost (Millions) Traffic Functionality - - Relative Traffic Dis-benefits (Millions) Safety Traffic Safety Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with poor safety record. Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with poor safety record. Accessibility and Social Inclusion Impact on Vulnerable Groups Neutral Neutral Impact on deprived geographic areas Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans to revitalise The Western Region Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans to revitalise The Western Region Integration Integration Development Plan , Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, route between Westport and Longford, and improve the link between the hubs and improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction with the N26 scheme. with the N26 scheme. Ranking Environment Highly Negative (-3) Moderately Negative (-2) Economy Slightly Negative (-1) Neutral (0) Safety Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Accessibility and Social Inclusion Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Integration Highly Positive (+3) Highly Positive (+3) Overall Ref Route Selection Matrix Final Report - March 2009

161 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance 10.9 Decision 9 Node N to Node P via route 4.4A of 4.4B (Drawing 67 Volume 2) Impacts on People Neither route necessitates the acquisition of any houses; however route 4.4A affects 1 planning permission. Route 4.4A has significantly more houses within the 100 metre corridor than 4.4B, 5 as opposed 1. Neither route affects any community facilities while both routes are considered as creating minor community severance. In overall impacts on people preference the ranking of the route options is as follows:- Route 4.4B Route 4.4A Flora, Fauna and Fisheries First Second Both route options 4.4A and 4.4B will have a temporary impact on a small part of the River Moy csac and as such the impact in both instances is moderate negative. Route option 4.4A also has a minor impact on one site of ecological interest. In overall impacts on ecological sites the ranking of the two route options is as follows:- Route 4.4B Route 4.4A First Second Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Only route 4.4B affects a site within the 50 metre band however it is slightly better than route 4.4A by affecting one less site within each of the other two bands; 4 compared to 5 in the metre band and 1 compared to 2 in the metre band. In overall impacts on archaeology and cultural heritage preference the ranking of the route options is as follows: Route 4.4A Route 4.4B Agricultural Land Use First Second No particular agricultural impacts have been identified in this area that would suggest any differential ranking of the alternative routes and consequently both route options are ranked equally Landscape and Visual Both route 4.4A and 4.4B traverse the edge of an estate landscape to the south east of Turlough House. Both routes are considered as having a similar impact on landscape and visual amenity and consequently are ranked equally Engineering Assessment Route 4.4B is the shorter at 2.35 km compared to 2.41km. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 136

162 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Neither route involves any junctions, but while both routes require 2 river bridges and 1 railway bridge, route 4.4A requires two more bridges over local roads than route 4.4B. Neither route requires major earthworks and there are no particular construction impacts. Consequently in overall Engineering preference ranking route 4.4B is better than route 4.4A Geology and Hydrogeology Route 4.4A traverses approximately 320m of anticipated soft ground associated with the floodplain of the Toormore River, compared to only 50m for route 4.4B. Neither route affects any sensitive aquifers. Consequently route 4.4B is ranked first from the perspective of Geology and Hydrogeology Cost Estimates Route 4.4A is approximately 25% more expensive than route 4.4B and therefore route 4.4B is preferred on cost grounds Traffic Functionality & Economic Benefits Both routes provide the same traffic functionality. However route 4.4B, being 60m shorter, provides slightly greater economic benefits and is consequently ranked first Traffic Safety Both routes replace the same length of existing road with a new road of higher standard. As such there is nothing to distinguish the route options in traffic safety and consequently both options are ranked equally Accessibility and Social Inclusion Both route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans to revitalise the Western Region. The routes are neutral in terms of impact on vulnerable groups. Consequently equal ranking can be identified in terms of Accessibility and Social Inclusion Integration Both route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans All three route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans and National Road Needs Study to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, and, in conjunction with the separate N26 scheme, improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar. Consequently equal ranking can be identified in terms of Integration Appraisal Balance Sheet All of the above assessments and relative rankings are drawn together in the following Appraisal Balance Sheet, Table 10.9 and each route given an overall ranking on the seven point scale for each of the five appraisal criteria, as defined Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 137

163 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance in Section The summation of these rankings shows Route 4.4B to be the overall Emerging Preferred Route between nodes N and P. Consequently route 4.4A is discounted. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 138

164 Roughan O'Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Key most preferable least preferable Decision 9. N - P Table 10.9 Environment Effect on Humans Effect of Properties Houses(Acquired) 0 0 Granted Planning 1 0 Applications (within 100m) Significant Agricultural 0 0 Buildings (Acquired) Noise/Air Quality (no. of dwellings within) 0m-100m m-200m m-300m 1 1 Community Facilities - - Community Severance Minor Minor Agriculture Moderate Moderate Natural Environment Impact on designated site Moderate Moderate Impact on other sites of ecological value Minor Neutral Archaeology (no. of RMPs, Find spot, Listed Buildings within bands) 0m-50m m-100m m-250m 2 1 Hydrogeology (sensitive aquifers/wells) 0 0 N - P N - P Comments 4.4A 4.4B Aquatic impact (No. Rivers / Streams) 5 3 Landscape and Visual Edge of estate Landscape Edge of estate Landscape Economy Length of Alignment- TOTAL (km) Mainline -Type 2 Dual Mainline - Online widening Mainline -Single Side Road Junctions Roundabouts 0 0 Grade Separations (Incl 0 0 Bridges Road Under / Over 3 1 Lough and/or multispan 0 0 Railway 1 1 Rivers 2 2 Ground conditions (%age soft) 320m = 13% 50m = 2% Hydrology (length within flood plain) Earthworks (major) 0 0 Construction Impacts 0 0 Cost (Millions) Traffic Functionality - - Relative Traffic Dis-benefits (Millions) Safety Traffic Safety Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with poor safety record. Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with poor safety record. Accessibility and Social Inclusion Impact on Vulnerable Groups Neutral Neutral Impact on deprived geographic areas Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans to County and Local Development Plans to revitalise The Western Region revitalise The Western Region Integration Integration Development Plan , Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, and between Westport and Longford, and improve the link between the hubs of improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction with the N26 scheme. with the N26 scheme. Ranking Environment Slightly Negative (-1) Slightly Negative (-1) Economy Neutral (0) Slightly Positive (+1) Safety Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Accessibility and Social Inclusion Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Integration Highly Positive (+3) Highly Positive (+3) Overall Ref Route Selection Matrix FInal Report - March 2009

165 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Decision 10 Node P to Node S via route 4.6 or 5.3A (Drawing 67 Volume 2) Impacts on People Route 5.3A does not necessitate the acquisition of any houses or affect any planning permissions, while route 4.6 acquires 1 house and affects 1 planning permission. Route 5.3A is worse in terms of proximity to houses with 8 in the 100 metre corridor compared to 5 and 33 in total within the 300 metre corridor compared to 27 for route 4.6. No community facilities are affected and community severance is considered to be minor for both routes. In overall impacts on people preference the ranking of the route options is as follows:- Route 5.3A Route Flora, Fauna and Fisheries First Second Route 4.6 will have a permanent impact on a small part of one ecological site rated as C. This impact is assessed as moderate negative. This site is a natural basin containing two interconnected areas of open water and associated swamp and marsh habitats. Route 5.3A does not impact any sites of ecological value. In overall impacts on ecological site the ranking of the two route options is as follows:- Route 5.3A Route 4.6 First Second Archaeology and Cultural Heritage No sites are affected within the 50 metre band while route 4.6 affects 3 sites in the metre band. Route 4.6 also affects 4 sites in the metre band, just one less than route 5.3A. In overall impacts on archaeology and cultural heritage preference the ranking of the two route options is as follows: Route 5.3A Route Agricultural Land Use First Second Route 4.6 requires the demolition of 3 agricultural buildings and as such has a major impact on agriculture. Route 5.3A like route 4.6 does affect good quality land but does not impact on any farm buildings. In overall impacts on agricultural preference the ranking of the route options is as follows:- Route 5.3A Route 4.6 First Second Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 139

166 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Landscape and Visual No particular landscape and visual impacts have been identified in this area. Consequently both route options are ranked equally Engineering Assessment Route 4.6 is the shorter at 3.12 km compared to 3.4 km. Neither route involves any junctions and both routes require four road bridges crossing a number of local roads and the existing N5 and one combined road and river bridge. Both routes involve some major earthworks, route 4.6 being over a longer length but route 5.3A involving deeper cut. Both routes will require special construction measures for the crossing of the existing N5 over live traffic. Consequently in overall Engineering preference, if any, route 4.6 is only marginally preferred due to its shorter length Geology and Hydrogeology Neither route affects any sensitive aquifers, but route 5.3A traverses approximately 450m of potentially soft ground compared to 225m for route 4.6. Consequently, from the perspective of geology and hydrogeology route 4.6 is ranked first Cost Estimates Route 5.3A is slightly cheaper than route 4.6 as it avoids the acquisition of a house Traffic Functionality & Economic Benefits Both routes provide the same traffic functionality. However route 4.6, being 280m shorter, provides greater economic benefits and consequently is ranked first Traffic Safety Both routes replace the same length of existing road with a new road of higher standard. As such there is nothing to distinguish the route options in traffic safety and both are ranked equally Accessibility and Social Inclusion Both route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans to revitalise the Western Region. The routes are neutral in terms of impact on vulnerable groups. Consequently equal ranking can be identified in terms of Accessibility and Social Inclusion Integration Both route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans All three route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans and National Road Needs Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 140

167 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Study to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, and, in conjunction with the separate N26 scheme, improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar. Consequently equal ranking can be identified in terms of Integration Appraisal Balance Sheet All of the above assessments and relative rankings are drawn together in the following Appraisal Balance Sheet, Table and each route given an overall ranking on the seven point scale for each of the five appraisal criteria, as defined in Section The summation of these rankings shows no overall preference between the two routes. In this circumstance the environmental dis-benefits, in particular the effects on humans through the acquisition of a house required by route 4.6, are considered to out-weight the economic dis-advantage of the slightly longer length of route 5.3A. Added to this, the benefits of reduced impact on agriculture and associated buildings, archaeology and construction costs, influences the selection of Route 5.3A as the Emerging Preferred Route and route 4.6 is discounted between nodes P and S. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 141

168 Roughan O'Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Key most preferable least preferable Decision 10. P - S Table Environment Effect on Humans Effect of Properties Houses(Acquired) 1 0 Granted Planning 1 0 Applications (within 100m) Significant Agricultural 3 0 Buildings (Acquired) Noise/Air Quality (no. of dwellings within) 0m-100m m-200m m-300m Community Facilities - - Community Severance Minor Minor Agriculture Major Moderate Natural Environment Impact on designated site 0 0 Impact on other sites of ecological value Neutral Neutral Archaeology (no. of RMPs, Find spot, Listed Buildings within bands) 0m-50m m-100m m-250m 4 5 Hydrogeology (sensitive aquifers/wells) 0 0 P -S P - S Comments A Aquatic impact (No. Rivers / Streams) 2 2 Landscape and Visual Economy Length of Alignment- TOTAL (km) Mainline -Type 2 Dual Mainline - Online widening Mainline -Single Side Road Junctions Roundabouts 0 0 Grade Separations (Incl 0 0 Bridges Road Under / Over 4 4 Lough and/or multispan 0 0 Railway 0 0 Rivers 1 1 Ground conditions (%age soft) 225m = 9% 450m = 13% Hydrology (length within flood plain) Earthworks (major) 200m Fill, 700m Cut and Fill up to 9m 200m Cut up to 8m 400m Cut up to 14m Construction Impacts Existing N5 Crossing Existing N5 Crossing Cost (Millions) Traffic Functionality - - Relative Traffic Dis-benefits (Millions) Safety Traffic Safety Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with poor safety record. Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with poor safety record. Accessibility and Social Inclusion Impact on Vulnerable Groups Neutral Neutral Impact on deprived geographic areas Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans to County and Local Development Plans to revitalise The Western Region revitalise The Western Region Integration Integration Development Plan , Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, and between Westport and Longford, and improve the link between the hubs of improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction with the N26 scheme. with the N26 scheme. Ranking Environment Moderately Negative (-2) Slightly Negative (-1) Economy Slightly Positive (+1) Neutral (0) Safety Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Accessibility and Social Inclusion Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Integration Highly Positive (+3) Highly Positive (+3) Overall Ref Route Selection Matrix Final Report - March 2009

169 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Decision 11 Node F to Node H directly via route 3.5 or via node G following routes 3.2 and 3.4 (Drawing 68 Volume 2) Impacts on People Neither of these routes necessitate the acquisition of any house however both affect 1 planning permission. Route 3.5 (F-H) impacts considerably more houses in terms of proximity with 41 houses within the 300 metre corridor and 11 within the 100 metre corridor. Route 3.2/3.4 (F-G-H) in comparison only affects 12 and 1 respectively. Both routes create only minor community severance and neither affects any community facilities. In overall impacts on people preference the ranking of the route options is as follows:- Route F-G-H Route F-H Flora, Fauna and Fisheries First Second The eastern half of both of these route options passes through one large ecological site rated as C. This site is a large expanse of cut-over bog with bog woodland. Route option 3.5 will have a permanent impact on a large part of this site, and the impact is defined as Major negative. Route option 3.2/3.4 has a lesser impact on this site and the impact is defined as moderated negative. In overall impacts on ecological sites the ranking of the two route options is as follows:- Route F-G-H Route F-H First Second Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Route F-H does not affect any sites within a corridor of 250 metres while route F- G-H has 2, 1 in the metre band and 1 in the metre band. In overall impacts on archaeology and cultural heritage preference the ranking of the route options is as follows: Route F-H Route F-G-H Agricultural Land Use First Second Route F-G-H is considered to have a minor/moderate impact on agriculture as all of the lands affected are grassland compared to route F-H which has almost 4 within bog areas. In overall impacts on agricultural preference the ranking of the route options is as follows: Route F-H Route F-G-H First Second Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 142

170 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Landscape and Visual No particular landscape and visual impacts have been identified in this area that would suggest any ranking of the alternative routes. Consequently both route options are ranked equally Engineering Assessment The direct route F-H via route 3.5 is the shorter at 3.66 km compared to 3.94 km. Both routes involve a grade separated junction where they cross the N84 and both routes require 2 no. bridges at local road crossings. Both routes will require special construction measures for the crossing of the railway. In overall Engineering preference, the direct route of F-H via route 3.5 is preferred due to its shorter length. However this has to be balanced against the engineering risks associated with the ground conditions described below. Consequently both route options are ranked equally Geology and Hydrogeology Neither route affects any vulnerable aquifers, but both routes traverse similar lengths of potentially poor ground on the approach to the railway at node F. In addition route 3.5 crosses a further 2200m which is likely to be underlain by peat, while this is reduced to 785m following the alternative route. Consequently from the perspective of Geology and Hydrogeology route 3.2/3.4 is ranked first Cost Estimates The direct route 3.5 is estimated to be slightly cheaper than the route via node G due to the shorter length, although liable to greater risk associated with the long length crossing peat. Consequently, both options are ranked equally Traffic Functionality & Economic Benefits Both routes provide similar traffic functionality. The shorter length of the direct route 3.5 provides greater economic benefit for traffic bypassing Castlebar, but is less direct for traffic wishing to use the bypass to access Castlebar via the N84. Consequently it is not possible to state a definitive preference between the two options in terms of overall Traffic Functionality and Economic Benefits without specific traffic and economic assessment. Consequently, both options are ranked equally Traffic Safety Both routes replace the same length of existing road with a new road of higher standard and facilitate through traffic avoiding the urban area. As such there is nothing to distinguish the route options in traffic safety and consequently both options are ranked equally Accessibility and Social Inclusion Both route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans to revitalise the Western Region. The routes are neutral in terms of impact on vulnerable groups. Consequently equal ranking can be identified in terms of Accessibility and Social Inclusion. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 143

171 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Integration Both route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans All three route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans and National Road Needs Study to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford. Consequently equal ranking can be identified in terms of Integration Appraisal Balance Sheet All of the above assessments and relative rankings are drawn together in the following Appraisal Balance Sheet, Table and each route given an overall ranking on the seven point scale for each of the five appraisal criteria, as defined in Section The summation of these rankings shows route F-G-H to be the emerging preferred route between these nodes, although the relative economic benefits are not fully resolved. If a route via node H were to emerge from the overall assessment as a likely route, then this would require further study, but as a working assumption the route F-G-H is taken forward. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 144

172 Roughan O'Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Key most least Decision 11. F - H Table F- G-H F -H Comments 3.2 / Environment Effect on Humans Effect of Properties Houses(Acquired) 0 0 Granted Planning 1 1 Applications (within 100m) Significant Agricultural 0 0 Buildings (Acquired) Noise/Air Quality (no. of dwellings within) 0m-100m m-200m m-300m 5 17 Community Facilities - - Community Severance Minor Minor Agriculture Minor - Moderate Minor Natural Environment Impact on designated site 0 0 Impact on other sites of ecological value Moderate Major Archaeology (no. of RMPs, Find spot, Listed Buildings within bands) 0m-50m m-100m m-250m 1 0 Hydrogeology (sensitive aquifers/wells) 0 0 Aquatic impact (No. Rivers / Streams) 5 4 Landscape and Visual Minor Minor Economy Length of Alignment- TOTAL (km) Mainline -Type 2 Dual Mainline - Online widening Mainline -Single Side Road Junctions Roundabouts 0 0 Grade Separations (Incl Bridge) 1 (N84 Compact Grade Seperated) 1 (N84 Compact Grade Seperated) Bridges Road Under / Over 2 2 Lough and/or multispan 0 0 Railway 0 0 Rivers 0 0 Ground conditions (%age soft) 785m = m = 6 Hydrology (length within flood plain) Earthworks (major) Long lengths of peat Long lengths of peat Construction Impacts Minor Minor Cost (Millions) Traffic Functionality - - Relative Traffic Dis-benefits (Millions) Longer but closer to Castlebar Shorter but further from Castlebar Safety Traffic Safety Improvement of road standard Diverts through traffic away from urban area. Improvement of road standard Diverts through traffic away from urban area. Accessibility and Social Inclusion Impact on Vulnerable Groups Neutral Neutral Impact on deprived geographic areas Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans to revitalise The Western Region Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans to revitalise The Western Region Integration Integration Development Plan , Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford. Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford. Ranking Environment Slightly Negative (-1) Moderately Negative (-2) Economy Slightly Positive (+1) Slightly Positive (+1) Subject to traffic confirmation Safety Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Accessibility and Social Inclusion Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Integration Highly Positive (+3) Highly Positive (+3) Overall Ref Route Selection Matrix Final Report - March 2009

173 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Decision 12 Node D to Node G via node E following routes 2.0 and 3.1 or via node F following routes 3.2A and 3.2 (Drawing 68 Volume 2) Impacts on People Route 2.0/3.1 (D-E-G) necessitates the acquisition of 1 house while 3.2A /3.2 (D- F-G) does not necessitate the acquisition of any house but does impact 1 planning permission which route D-E-G doesn t. Route D-E-G does not have any houses within the 100 metre corridor but has 20 in total in the 300 metre corridor, which is 7 more than route D-F-G, however it does have 3 houses within 100 metres. Neither route affects any community facilities while community severance is considered minor. In overall impacts on people preference the ranking of the route options is as follows:- Route D-F-G Route D-E-G Flora, Fauna and Fisheries First Second Route 2.0/3.1 (D-E-G) will impact four sites of ecological interest. The southern shores of Islandeady Lough and the crossing point of Lannagh Lough are both rated as C. The impact on these sites are classified as moderate negative as they will have a permanent impact on a small part of each site. The remaining sites are primarily cut-over bogs rated as D. The impacts in this instance are also rated as moderate negative as it will involve permanent impacts on a relatively large part of each site. Route 3.2/3.2A (D-F-G) will have permanent impacts on a small part of two ecological sites both of which are rated as D. This is considered a minor negative impact. In overall impacts on ecological sites the ranking of the two route options is as follows:- Route D-F-G Route D-E-G First Second Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Both routes affect 1 site each in the 50 metre band however both avoid all sites within the metre band. Route D-E-G is worse in so far as it affects 2 sites in the metre band while D-F-G does not affect any sites in this band. In overall impacts on archaeology and cultural heritage preference the ranking of the route options is as follows: Route D-F-G Route D-E-G Agricultural Land Use First Second No particular agricultural impacts have been identified and no farm buildings are disturbed, both routes are considered as being of minor moderate negative Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 145

174 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance impact with no preference between them, Consequently, both route options are ranked equally Landscape and Visual Route 2.0/3.1 (D-E-G) involves a viaduct crossing of Lough Lannagh and a significant cutting while Route 3.2/3.2A (D-F-G) will involve a significant embankment at the crossing of Lough Lannagh both of these impacts are regarded as moderate. In overall Landscape and Visual both routes are ranked equally Engineering Assessment The route D-F-G is the shorter at 5.55 km compared to 5.8 km. Both routes involve a large roundabout where they cross the existing N5 and both routes require a railway bridge. The route D-E-G requires 4 no. bridges at local road crossings and a 180m bridge at the Lough Lannagh crossing while the route D-F-G only requires 3 no. bridges at local road crossings and an engineered embankment to cross Lough Lannagh. The route D-E-G involves high embankments on the approaches to the Lough Lannagh bridge, another 800m of high embankment and 200m of deep cutting. The earthworks associated with the route D-F-G are less extensive although still require approximately 200m of embankment at Lough Lannagh. In overall Engineering preference the route D-F-G is better than D-E-G and is ranked first Geology and Hydrogeology Neither route affects any vulnerable aquifers but both routes traverse similar lengths of potentially poor ground. Consequently in overall Geological and Hydrogeological there is no basis to determine a preference Cost Estimates The route D-F-G has a significantly lower cost than the route D-E-G largely due to the increase engineering complexity of D-E-G Traffic Functionality & Economic Benefits Both routes provide similar traffic functionality for traffic bypassing Castlebar. However the route D-E-G provides relief to an additional 1km of the existing N5 to the west of Castlebar. The shorter length of D-F-G will provide greater economic benefits to the bypassing traffic, but the closer connection to Castlebar would have similar benefits for traffic accessing Castlebar. However the difference in benefits, if any, would be small compared to the difference in cost. In overall Traffic Functionality & Economic Benefit the preference, if any, is slightly in favour of the route D-E-G due to the relief created over a greater length of the existing N5. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 146

175 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Traffic Safety Both routes provide safety benefits through an improved standard of road and drawing through traffic out of the urban area. The route D-E-G may have a marginal safety benefit by relieving traffic on a longer length of the existing N5, including the site of 1 previous serious accident. Route DEG is ranked first Accessibility and Social Inclusion Both route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans to revitalise the Western Region. The routes are neutral in terms of impact on vulnerable groups. Consequently from the perspective of Accessibility and Social Inclusion both route are ranked equally Integration Both route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans All three route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans and National Road Needs Study to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford. Consequently equal ranking can be identified in terms of Integration Appraisal Balance Sheet All of the above assessments and relative rankings are drawn together in the following Appraisal Balance Sheet, Table and each route given an overall ranking on the seven point scale for each of the five appraisal criteria, as defined in Section The summation of these rankings shows the Emerging Preferred Route to be the route D-F-G. Consequently route 3.1 between nodes E and G is discounted, but route 2.0 between nodes D and F remains a potential element of other route combinations. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 147

176 Roughan O'Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Key Decision 12. D - G most least Table D-E-G D-F-G Comments 2.0 / A / 3.2 Environment Effect on Humans Effect of Properties Houses(Acquired) 1 0 Granted Planning 0 1 Applications (within 100m) Significant Agricultural 0 0 Buildings (Acquired) Noise/Air Quality (no. of dwellings within) 0m-100m m-200m m-300m 15 5 Community Facilities - - Community Severance Minor Minor Agriculture Minor - Moderate Minor - Moderate Natural Environment Impact on designated site 0 0 Impact on other sites of ecological value Moderate Minor Archaeology (no. of RMPs, Find spot, Listed 0m-50m m-100m m-250m 2 0 Hydrogeology (sensitive aquifers/wells) 0 0 Aquatic impact (No. Rivers / Streams) 7 8 Landscape and Visual Moderate Moderate Economy Length of Alignment- TOTAL (km) Mainline -Type 2 Dual Mainline - Online widening Mainline -Single Side Road Junctions Roundabouts 1 (Large Dual C/Way) 1 (Large Dual C/Way) Grade Separations (Incl 0 0 Bridges Road Under / Over 4 3 Lough and/or multispan 1 (180m) 0 Railway 1 1 Rivers 0 0 Ground conditions (%age soft) 873m = 15% 886m = 16% Hydrology (length within flood plain) 0 0 Earthworks (major) Approaches for Viaduct. High embankment at Deep Cut Heath and Marshland Filling near lough, soft ground near railway. Construction Impacts Major bridge and works over Piled embankment along lough Lough Cost (Millions) Traffic Functionality Relieves traffic along 1.0km /20 houses fronting onto existing N5 Traffic along 1.0km /20 houses fronting onto existing N5 Relative Traffic Dis-benefits (Millions) Similar Similar Safety Traffic Safety Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with poor safety record. Including site of 1 more serious accident than Routes 3.2 & 3.2A Improvement of road standard Diverts through traffic away from urban area. Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with poor safety record. Bypasses site of 1 less serious accident than Routes 2.0 Improvement of road standard Diverts through traffic away from urban area. Accessibility and Social Inclusion Impact on Vulnerable Groups Neutral Neutral Impact on deprived geographic areas Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans to revitalise The Western Region Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans to revitalise The Western Region Integration Integration Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford. Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford. Ranking Environment Moderately Negative (-2) Slightly Negative (-1) Economy Neutral (0) Slightly Positive (+1) Safety Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Accessibility and Social Inclusion Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Integration Highly Positive (+3) Highly Positive (+3) Overall Ref Route Selection Matrix FInal Report - March 2009

177 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Decision 13 Node M to Node P directly via route 4.3 or via node N following route 4.5 and 4.4B (Drawing 68 Volume 2) Impacts on People Neither route necessitates the acquisition of any houses however route 4.3 (M-P) does affect 2 planning permissions while 4.5/4.4B (M-N-P) doesn t affect any. Route M-P also has a greater number of houses in proximity with 24 within 300 metres, double the number of route M-N-P, which has 3 within 100 metres, one more than route M-P. Both routes are considered to have a positive effect on community facilities by serving Turlough House. Both routes are considered to have a minor effect on community severance. In overall impacts on people preference the ranking of the route options is as follows:- Route M-N-P Route M-P Flora, Fauna and Fisheries First Second Route 4.3 (M-P) will have a temporary impact on a small part of the River Moy csac. This is considered a moderate negative impact. Route 4.5/4.4B (M-N-P) has a similar impact on the csac. Consequently both route options are ranked equally Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Route M-P affects 2 sites within the 50 metre band while route M-N-P only affects 1 site. Route M-N-P has 6 sites in the metre band and 2 in the band, however M-P has none in the band and five in the band. In overall impacts on archaeology and cultural heritage preference the ranking of the route options is as follows: Route M-N-P Route M-P Agricultural Land Use First Second Neither route affects any significant agricultural holdings or impacts on any agricultural buildings however route M-P is considered to have a slightly greater impact on agriculture, rated as moderate compared to M-N-P which is rated as minor-moderate. In overall impacts on agricultural preference the ranking of the route options is as follows: Route M-N-P Route M-P Landscape and Visual First Second Both routes affect the estate landscape to the south east of Turlough House, however route M-P has considerably greater impact a it passes right through the Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 148

178 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance middle of these lands for a distance of approximately 1600 metres while route M- N-P cuts through the north eastern corner and would have a much reduced impact. Additionally a length of Route M-N-P runs along the alignment of the existing N5 and would have less additional impact on the landscape compared to route M-P which is along a new route. In overall impacts on landscape and visual amenity preference the ranking of the route options is as follows:- Route M-N-P Route M-P Engineering Assessment First Second The direct route M-P via route 4.3 is the shorter at 3.53 km compared to 3.72 km. At this stage in the scheme development both routes are assumed to include a grade separated junction in the vicinity of the church at Turlough to provide connection to the local road network and the general hinterland of Turlough. Route 4.5/4.4B involves a railway bridge and 1no. bridge at a local road crossing while route 4.3 involves railway bridge and 2 no. bridges at local road crossings. However the direct route 4.3 only involves 1 no. river bridge while the route M-N- P requires 2 no. new river bridges and widening of an existing river bridge. The direct route 4.3 cuts across an active quarry south of Turlough which will require major filling and is likely to require some re-arrangement of the quarrying operation. Overall it is not possible to determine a particular preference in Engineering, except that the interface with the quarry on the direct route 4.3 introduces a higher degree of risk and cost with the impacts on this operation. Consequently both route options are ranked equally Geology and Hydrogeology Neither route affects any vulnerable aquifers but the route M-N-P cuts across the floodplain of the Castlebar river with associated soft ground, while the direct route 4.3 traverses a shorter length of poor ground. Consequently in overall Geological and Hydrogeological preference there is a slight preference for the direct route Cost Estimates The direct route 4.3 is more costly by approximately a third relative to the alternative despite its shorter length due to the high costs associated with crossing the quarry. Consequently, route 4.5/4.4B is ranked first Traffic Functionality & Economic Benefits Route M-N-P facilitates a good connection to the local road network with minimal changes, while the direct route 4.3 requires a rather contrived junction arrangement. However being slightly shorter the direct route 4.3 achieves slightly greater economic benefits. Consequently it is not possible to determine a clear preference in overall Traffic Functionality & Economic Benefits and both route options are ranked equally. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 149

179 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Traffic Safety Both routes replace the same length of existing road with a new road of higher standard and improve the junction arrangements for the National Museum and quarry. As such there is nothing to distinguish the route options in traffic safety and both route options are ranked equally Accessibility and Social Inclusion Both route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans to revitalise the Western Region. The routes are neutral in terms of impact on vulnerable groups. Consequently equal ranking can be identified in terms of Accessibility and Social Inclusion Integration Both route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans All three route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans and National Road Needs Study to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, and, in conjunction with the separate N26 scheme, improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar. Consequently no ranking can be identified in terms of Integration Appraisal Balance Sheet All of the above assessments and relative rankings are drawn together in the following Appraisal Balance Sheet, Table and each route given an overall ranking on the seven point scale for each of the five appraisal criteria, as defined in Section The summation of these rankings shows the route M-N-P to be the Emerging Preferred Route and therefore route 4.3 is discounted between nodes M and P. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 150

180 Roughan O'Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Key Decision 13. M - P most least Table M - N - P M -P Comments B 4.3 Environment Effect on Humans Effect of Properties Houses(Acquired) 0 0 Granted Planning 0 2 Applications (within 100m) Significant Agricultural 0 0 Buildings (Acquired) Noise/Air Quality (no. of dwellings within) 0m-100m m-200m m-300m 1 13 Community Facilities Positive - Serves Turlough House Positive - Serves Turlough House Community Severance Minor Minor Agriculture Minor - Moderate Moderate Natural Environment Impact on designated site Moderate Moderate Impact on other sites of ecological value Neutral Neutral Archaeology (no. of RMPs, Find spot, Listed 0m-50m m-100m m-250m 2 5 Hydrogeology (sensitive aquifers/wells) 0 0 Aquatic impact (No. Rivers / Streams) 4 3 Landscape and Visual Aligned along lenth of existing route Route through 1600m grassland, woodland and undeveloped area. Economy Length of Alignment- TOTAL (km) Mainline -Type 2 Dual Mainline - Online widening Mainline -Single Side Road Junctions Roundabouts 0 0 Grade Separations (Incl 1 1 Bridges Road Under / Over 1 2 Lough and/or multispan 0 0 Railway 1 1 Rivers (widening) 1 Ground conditions (%age soft) 525m = 14% 380m = 11% Online widening in lessens impact Hydrology (length within flood plain) Earthworks (major) 0 Active Quarry Construction Impacts Minor Route goes through quarry. Located close to landfill. Long link for house located south of existing N5 Cost (Millions) Cost of acquisition of Quarry Traffic Functionality Provides convenient junction for local traffic connecting to N5 Contrived junction for connecting to local traffic Relative Traffic Dis-benefits (Millions) Safety Traffic Safety Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with poor safety record. Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with poor safety record. Accessibility and Social Inclusion Impact on Vulnerable Groups Neutral Neutral Impact on deprived geographic areas Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans to revitalise The Western Region Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans to revitalise The Western Region Integration Integration Development Plan , Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, route between Westport and Longford, and improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction with the N26 scheme. and improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction with the N26 scheme. Ranking Environment Slightly Negative (-1) Moderately Negative (-2) Economy Slightly Positive (+1) Slightly Negative (-1) Safety Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Accessibility and Social Inclusion Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Integration Highly Positive (+3) Highly Positive (+3) Overall Ref Route Selection Matrix Final Report - March 2009

181 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Decision 14 Node T to Node V directly via route 5.0 or via node U following route 5.2 (Drawing 68 Volume 2) Impacts on People Route 5.2 (T-U-V) has a much greater impact on houses by directly impacting 3 houses while route 5.0 (T-V) does not necessitate the acquisition of any houses. Both routes impact 2 planning applications however route T-U-V affects 11 properties within 100 metres, more than double that of route T-V which has 5. No community facilities are affected and both are considered to have a minor impact on community severance. In overall impacts on people preference the ranking of the two route options is as follows:- Route T-V Route T-U-V Flora, Fauna and Fisheries First Second Both route options will have the same impact on one site which is rated as C and recognised as cutover bog. Route 5.2 (T-U-V) will have a very slight permanent impact on two further sites of ecological value. This impact is recognised as minor negative. Route 5.0 (T-V) will have a significant impact on three further sites of ecological value. These are defined as permanent impacts on a large part of the sites and are defined as moderate negative. In overall impacts on ecological sites the ranking of the two route options is as follows:- Route 5.2 (T-U-V) Route 5.0 (T-V) First Second Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Both routes have 1 site each within the 50 metre band. However route T-U-V will have a direct impact on a ringfort, while route T-V will not directly impact on the known extents of the site. In overall impacts on archaeology and cultural heritage preference the ranking of the route options is as follows: Route 5.2 (T-V) Route 5.0 (T-U-V) Agricultural Land Use First Second Both routes are considered to have a moderate negative effect on agriculture. However the only impact of note is that route T-U-V affects 1 dairy farm which is considered a sensitive enterprise type. In overall impacts on agriculture preference the ranking of the two route options is as follows:- Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 151

182 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Route T-V Route T-U-V First Second Landscape and Visual Both routes affect Barleyhill estate, however route T-V has a greater effect by passing through the estate for a distance of approximately 1 kilometre while route T-U-V passes along the edge of the estate. In overall impacts on landscape and visual amenity preference the ranking of the two route options is as follows:- Route T-U-V Route T-V First Second Engineering Assessment The direct route 5.0 is the shorter at 5.64 km compared to 5.91 km. Both routes involve a large roundabout at the junction with the proposed N26, at which point it is anticipated that the N5 will revert to a standard single carriageway. The direct route 5.0 involves 5 no. bridges at local road crossings and 1 no. river bridge while the route T-U-V only involves 1 no. local road crossing and no river bridges. The route T-U-V involves longer lengths of major earthworks than the direct route 5.0. However this has to be balanced by the poor ground issues described below. In terms of construction impacts the two routes are similar, the route T-U-V requiring the roundabout at the proposed N26 to be constructed on line with live traffic while the direct route 5.0 requires a realignment of the proposed N26 with live traffic and construction of the new roundabout at an elevated level. In terms of an overall Engineering preference it is not possible to determine a clear ranking and consequently both route options are ranked equally Geology and Hydrogeology Neither route affects any vulnerable aquifers but both routes traverse significant lengths of poor ground, to a greater extent with the direct route. Consequently in overall Geological and Hydrogeological preference there is a slight preference for route 5.2, T-U-V Cost Estimates The direct route 5.0, T-V is slightly more costly despite its shorter length due to the increased number of bridges and the need to re-construct a length of the proposed N26. Route option 5.2, T-U-V is slightly less expensive to construct however the likely acquisition of three properties increases this route options cost. In terms of costs and economics the difference between the two routes is marginal with the ranking of the two route options is as follows:- Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 152

183 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Route T-U-V Route T-V First Second Traffic Functionality & Economic Benefits Both routes achieve the same traffic functionality. Although the route T-U-V is slightly longer for Dublin traffic it is slightly shorter for Ballina traffic, and therefore it is not possible to determine a clear preference in Traffic Functionality & Economic Benefits and both options are ranked equally Traffic Safety Both routes replace the same length of existing road with a new road of higher standard. As such there is nothing to distinguish the route options in traffic safety and both options are ranked equally Accessibility and Social Inclusion Both route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans to revitalise the Western Region. The routes are neutral in terms of impact on vulnerable groups. Consequently both routes are ranked equally in terms of Accessibility and Social Inclusion Integration Both route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans All three route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans and National Road Needs Study to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, and, in conjunction with the separate N26 scheme, improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar. Consequently both routes are ranked equally in terms of Integration Appraisal Balance Sheet All of the above assessments and relative rankings are drawn together in the following Appraisal Balance Sheet, Table and each route given an overall ranking on the seven point scale for each of the five appraisal criteria, as defined in Section Despite route 5.2 being narrowly preferred on economic grounds this is outweighed by the severity of the environmental impacts. The summation of these rankings shows the direct route 5.0 from T-V to be the Emerging Preferred Route. However the alternative route remains potentially viable as part of wider route options. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 153

184 Roughan O'Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Key Decision 14. T - V most least Table T -U-V T -V Comments Environment Effect on Humans Effect of Properties Houses(Acquired) 3 0 Granted Planning 2 2 Applications (within 100m) Significant Agricultural 0 0 Buildings (Acquired) Noise/Air Quality (no. of dwellings within) 0m-100m m-200m m-300m Community Facilities - - Community Severance Minor Minor Agriculture Moderate Moderate Natural Environment 0 Impact on designated site 0 0 Impact on other sites of ecological value Minor Moderate Archaeology (no. of RMPs, Find spot, Listed 0m-50m 1 1 Route U - V Archaeological Resolution 51m-100m m-250m 6 7 Hydrogeology (sensitive aquifers/wells) 0 0 Aquatic impact (No. Rivers / Streams) 9 9 Landscape and Visual Edge of estate landscape, and 1km through middle of estate through group of houses. landscape Economy Length of Alignment- TOTAL (km) Mainline -Type 2 Dual Mainline - Online widening Mainline -Single Side Road Junctions Roundabouts 1 (Large Dual C/Way) 1 (Large Dual C/Way) Grade Separations (Incl 0 0 Bridges Road Under / Over 1 5 Lough and/or multispan 0 0 Railway 0 0 Rivers 0 1 Ground conditions (%age soft) 1069m = 18% 1262m = 22%, 500m peat. Hydrology (length within flood plain) Earthworks (major) Construction Impacts 450m of deep Cut, 400m Embankment, 450m of up to 14m cut Online construction of large roundabout 150m high Embankment, 400m of Deep Cut Diversion of live N26 Cost (Millions) Traffic Functionality Connects to N26 at grade Connects to N26 at grade Relative Traffic Dis-benefits (Millions) Safety Traffic Safety Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with moderately poor safety record. Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with moderately poor safety record. Accessibility and Social Inclusion Impact on Vulnerable Groups Neutral Neutral Impact on deprived geographic areas Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans to revitalise The Western Region Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans to revitalise The Western Region Integration Integration Development Plan , Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, route between Westport and Longford, and improve the link between the hubs and improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction with the N26 scheme. with the N26 scheme. Ranking Environment Highly Negative (-3) Slightly Negative (-1) Economy Slightly Positive (+1) Neutral (0) Safety Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Accessibility and Social Inclusion Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Integration Highly Positive (+3) Highly Positive (+3) Overall Ref Route Selection Matrix Final Report - March 2009

185 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Decision 15 Node P to Node U via node S following route 5.3A and 5.3 or via nodes R and T following routes 4.3, 5.0 and 5.2 (Drawing 68 Volume 2) Impacts on People Route 5.3A/5.3 (P-S-U) does not necessitate the acquisition of any house or affect any planning permissions however route 4.3/5.0/5.2 (P-R-T-U) requires the acquisition of 2 houses and affects 7 planning permissions. Route P-R-T-U also has the greater number of properties within the 100 metre corridor 15 compared to 13 of route 5.3A/5.3. Neither route affects any community facilities while community severance is considered minor. In overall impacts on people preference the ranking of the two route options is as follows:- Route P-S-U Route P-R-T-U Flora, Fauna and Fisheries First Second Both of these route options will impact two small sites of ecological value. Both route options will have slight permanent impacts on one site rated D and one site rated E. The impacts in both cases are defined as minor negative and consequently both route options are ranked equally Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Both routes avoid all sites within 50 metres and Route P-S-U affects no sites from metres with only 6 in the metre band. Route P-R-T-U however affects 2 from metres and 10 from metres. In overall impacts on archaeology and cultural heritage preference the ranking of the route options is as follows: Route P-S-U Route P-R-T-U Agricultural Land Use First Second Although similar in terms of agricultural impact route P-S-U is rated as Moderate/Major while route P-R-T-U is rated as moderate, this is mainly due to the better quality land on route P-S-U. In overall impacts on agriculture preference the ranking of the two route options is as follows:- Route P-R-T-U Route P-S-U Landscape and Visual First Second The most significant impact on the landscape and visual amenity in this section is a deep cut through a ridge for a distance of approximately 600 metres which is required on route P-R-T-U. Route P-S-U is rated as having a minor impact on landscape and visual amenity. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 154

186 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance In overall impacts on landscape and visual amenity preference the ranking of the two route options is as follows:- Route P-S-U Route P-R-T-U Engineering Assessment First Second The route P-S-U is marginally longer than route P-R-T-U at 5.63 km compared to 5.6 km. Neither route involves any junctions, while both routes require 6 no. bridges at local road crossings and 2 no. river bridges. Both routes involve some major earthworks, the route P-S-U to a lesser extent than route P-R-T-U. Both routes involve construction of bridges over the existing N5 over live traffic. In overall Engineering preference P-S-U has a reduced amount of earthworks in terms of cut and fill however more of the route is to be constructed on soft material. Consequently both route options are ranked equally Geology and Hydrogeology There is a turlough in the vicinity of both routes. However the route P-R-T-U avoids crossing areas of soft ground while the route P-S-U traverses approximately 650m of soft ground. Consequently in overall Geological and Hydrogeological preference the route P-R-T-U is better Cost Estimates The route P-S-U is slightly less costly despite the soft ground due to the avoidance of house acquisitions consequently P-S-U is ranked first Traffic Functionality & Economic Benefits Both routes achieve the same traffic functionality, although the route P-R-T-U being marginally shorter generates slightly higher economic benefits. The overall Traffic Functionality & Economic Benefits preference, if any, is therefore marginally in favour of P-R-T-U Traffic Safety Both routes replace the same length of existing road with a new road of higher standard. As such there is nothing to distinguish the route options in traffic safety Accessibility and Social Inclusion Both route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans to revitalise the Western Region. The routes are neutral in terms of impact on vulnerable groups. Consequently equal ranking can be identified in terms of Accessibility and Social Inclusion Integration Both route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 155

187 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Local Developments Plans All three route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans and National Road Needs Study to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, and, in conjunction with the separate N26 scheme, improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar. Consequently equal ranking can be identified in terms of Integration Appraisal Balance Sheet All of the above assessments and relative rankings are drawn together in the following Appraisal Balance Sheet, Table and each route given an overall ranking on the seven point scale for each of the five appraisal criteria, as defined in Section Despite route P-R-T-U being narrowly preferred in a number of categories and preferred in terms of agriculture the sever impacts on both environment and archaeology are considered to outweigh its potential benefits. The summation of these rankings shows the route P-R-T-U to be the Emerging Preferred Route and supports the result of decision 14 to discount route 5.2 between nodes T and U. However all elements of the alternative route remain potentially viable as part of wider route options. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 156

188 Roughan O'Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Key Decision 15. P - U most least Table P - S - U P - R - T - U Comments 5.3 A/ / 5.0/5.2 Environment Effect on Humans Effect of Properties Houses(Acquired) 0 2 Granted Planning 0 7 Applications (within 100m) Significant Agricultural 0 0 Buildings (Acquired) Noise/Air Quality (no. of dwellings within) 0m-100m m-200m m-300m Community Facilities - - Community Severance Minor Minor Agriculture Moderate - Major Moderate Natural Environment Impact on designated site 0 0 Impact on other sites of ecological value Minor Minor Archaeology (no. of RMPs, Find spot, Listed 0m-50m m-100m m-250m 6 10 Hydrogeology (sensitive aquifers/wells) In the vicinity of a Turlough In the vicinity of a Turlough Aquatic impact (No. Rivers / Streams) 5 5 Landscape and Visual Minor Deep cut through ridge Economy Length of Alignment- TOTAL (km) Mainline -Type 2 Dual Mainline - Online widening Mainline -Single Side Road Junctions Roundabouts 0 0 Grade Separations (Incl 0 0 Bridges Road Under / Over 6 6 Lough and/or multispan 0 0 Railway 0 0 Rivers 2 3 Ground conditions (%age soft) 650m = 8% Hydrology (length within flood plain) Earthworks (major) 200m Fill up to 16m 400m Cut up to 9m, 400m Deep Cut 600m of up to 20m cut, 450m of deep Cut, 400m Embankment Construction Impacts Existing N5 Crossing Existing N5 Crossing. Cost (Millions) Traffic Functionality - - Relative Traffic Dis-benefits (Millions) Safety Traffic Safety Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with poor safety record. Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with poor safety record. Accessibility and Social Inclusion Impact on Vulnerable Groups Neutral Neutral Impact on deprived geographic areas Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans to County and Local Development Plans to revitalise The Western Region revitalise The Western Region Integration Integration Development Plan , Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, and between Westport and Longford, and improve the link between the hubs of improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction with the N26 scheme. with the N26 scheme. Ranking Environment Slightly Negative (-1) Moderately Negative (-2) Economy Slightly Positive (+1) Slightly Positive (+1) Safety Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Accessibility and Social Inclusion Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Integration Highly Positive (+3) Highly Positive (+3) Overall Ref Route Selection Matrix Final Report - March 2009

189 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Decision 16 Node O to Node U via nodes P and S following routes 4.6, 5.3A and 5.3 or via nodes R and T following routes 4.1, 5.0 and 5.2 (Drawing 68 Volume 2) Impacts on People Route 4.1/5.0/5.2 (O-R-T-U) has a significant impact on people as it necessitates the acquisition of 2 houses and affects 4 planning permissions whereas route 4.6/5.3A/5.3 (O-P-S-U) does not affect any of the above. In terms of proximity to dwellings both routes are extremely similar, both having 13 houses within the 100 metre corridor, however O-P-S-U has 2 more within the 300 metre corridor. Neither route affects any community facilities while community severance is considered minor. In overall impacts on people preference the ranking of the two route options is as follows:- Route O-P-S-U Route O-R-T-U Flora, Fauna and Fisheries First Second Route O-P-S-U will have a minor negative impact on two ecological sites (one rated D and one rated E ); whereas Route O-R-T-U will have a minor negative impact on three ecological sites (one rated D, two rated E ). In overall impacts on ecological sites the ranking of the two route options is as follows:- Route O-P-S-U Route O-R-T-U First Second Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Both routes avoid all sites within 50 metres and Route O-P-S-U affects only one site in the metre band while O-R-T-U affects 3. In the metre band route O-R-T-U affects 13 sites compared to 7 for route O-P-S-U. In overall impacts on archaeology and cultural heritage preference the ranking of the route options is as follows: Route O-P-S-U Route O-R-T-U Agricultural Land Use First Second Route O-R-T-U is considered to have a moderate/major impact on agriculture as it impacts 2 farm yard buildings and affects a dairy farm which as outlined earlier is considered sensitive in terms of road planning and construction. Route O-P-S- U does not affect any sensitive farming enterprises or cause any farmyard disturbance. In overall impacts on agricultural preference the ranking of the two route options is as follows: Route O-P-S-U Route O-R-T-U First Second Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 157

190 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Landscape and Visual The most significant impact on the landscape and visual amenity in this section is a deep cut through a ridge for a distance of approximately 600 metres which is required on route O-R-T-U. Route O-P-S-U is rated as having a minor impact on landscape and visual amenity. In overall impacts on landscape and visual amenity preference the ranking of the two route options is as follows: Route O-P-S-U Route O-R-T-U Engineering Assessment First Second The route O-R-T-U is shorter at 6.45 km compared to 6.65 km. Neither route involves any junctions, while both routes require 6 no. bridges at local road crossings and 2 no. river bridges. Both routes involve major earthworks, the route O-P-S-U to a greater extent than route O-R-T-U. Both routes involve construction of bridges over the existing N5 over live traffic. In overall Engineering preference, route O-R-T-U is better being slightly shorter and due to the reduced earthworks Geological and Hydrogeological There are two turloughs in the vicinity of both routes. However the route O-R-T- U avoids crossing areas of soft ground while the route O-P-S-U traverses approximately 735m of soft ground. Consequently in overall Geological and Hydrogeological preference the route O-R-T-U is better Cost Estimates The route O-P-S-U is slightly less costly, despite the soft ground, and this is due to the avoidance of house acquisitions. Consequently, route O-P-S-U is ranked first Traffic Functionality & Economic Benefits Both routes achieve the same traffic functionality, although the route O-R-T-U being shorter generates greater economic benefits. The overall Traffic Functionality & Economic Benefits preference is therefore in favour of O-R-T-U Traffic Safety Both routes replace the same length of existing road with a new road of higher standard. As such there is nothing to distinguish the route options in traffic safety and both route options are ranked equally Accessibility and Social Inclusion Both route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans to revitalise the Western Region. The routes are neutral in Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 158

191 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance terms of impact on vulnerable groups. Consequently equal ranking can be identified in terms of Accessibility and Social Inclusion Integration Both route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans All three route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans and National Road Needs Study to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, and, in conjunction with the separate N26 scheme, improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar. Consequently equal ranking can be identified in terms of Integration Appraisal Balance Sheet All of the above assessments and relative rankings are drawn together in the following Appraisal Balance Sheet, Table and each route given an overall ranking on the seven point scale for each of the five appraisal criteria, as defined in Section The summation of these rankings shows the route O-P-S-U to be the Emerging Preferred Route largely due to the avoidance of property acquisition. In combination with decisions 14 and 15 this confirms that route 5.2 between nodes T and U should be discounted, together with route 4.1 between nodes O and R. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 159

192 Roughan O'Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Key Decision 16. O - U most least Table O - P - S - U O - R - T - U Comments 4.6/5.3A / / 5.0 / 5.2 Environment Effect on Humans Effect of Properties Houses(Acquired) 0 2 Granted Planning 0 4 Applications (within 100m) Significant Agricultural 0 2 Buildings (Acquired) Noise/Air Quality (no. of dwellings within) 0m-100m m-200m m-300m Community Facilities - - Community Severance Minor Minor Agriculture Moderate - Major Moderate - Major Natural Environment Impact on designated site 0 0 Impact on other sites of ecological value Minor Minor Archaeology (no. of RMPs, Find spot, Listed 0m-50m m-100m m-250m 7 13 Hydrogeology (sensitive aquifers/wells) 2 No. Turloughs in vicinity 2 No. Turloughs in vicinity Aquatic impact (No. Rivers / Streams) 6 5 Landscape and Visual Deep cut through ridge Economy Length of Alignment- TOTAL (km) Mainline -Type 2 Dual Mainline - Online widening Mainline -Single Side Road Junctions Roundabouts 0 0 Grade Separations (Incl 0 0 Bridges Road Under / Over 6 6 Lough and/or multispan 0 0 Railway 0 0 Rivers 2 3 Ground conditions (%age soft) 735m = 11% Hydrology (length within flood plain) Earthworks (major) 200m Fill up to 16m 400m Cut up to 9m, 1km of up to 10m embankment 600m of up to 20m cut, 500m of up to 14m embankment (saves deep cutting at U -V Route 5.2) Construction Impacts Existing N5 Crossing Existing N5 Crossing Cost (Millions) Traffic Functionality - - Relative Traffic Dis-benefits (Millions) Safety Traffic Safety Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with poor safety record. Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with poor safety record. Accessibility and Social Inclusion Impact on Vulnerable Groups Neutral Neutral Impact on deprived geographic areas Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans to revitalise The Western Region Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans to revitalise The Western Region Integration Integration Development Plan , Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key National Road network on the key route between Westport and route between Westport and Longford, and improve the link Longford, and improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction with the N26 Castlebar in conjunction with the N26 scheme. scheme. Ranking Environment Slightly Negative (-1) Moderately Negative (-2) Economy Slightly Positive (+1) Slightly Positive (+1) Safety Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Accessibility and Social Inclusion Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Integration Highly Positive (+3) Highly Positive (+3) Overall Ref Route Selection Matrix Final Report - March 2009

193 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Decision 17 Node K to Node V via nodes L, O, P, S and U following routes 3.4, 4.1, 4.6, 5.3A, 5.3 and 5.2 or via nodes R and T following routes 4.2 and 5.0 (Drawing 68 Volume 2) Impacts on People Neither route necessitates the acquisition of any houses however both routes have a significant effect on planning permissions. Route 4.2/5.0 (K-R-T-V) affects 9 planning permissions while route 3.4/4.1/4.6/5.3A/5.3/5.2 (K-L-O-P-S- U-V) affects 5 planning permissions. Route K-R-T-V affects more houses within the 100 metre corridor, 29 compared with 26, however route K-L-O-P-S-U-V affects more overall within the 300 metre corridor 166 compared to 140. Neither route affects any community facilities while community severance is considered minor. In overall impacts on people preference the ranking of the two route options is as follows:- Route K-L-O-P-S-U-V Route K-R-T-V Flora, Fauna and Fisheries First Second Both of these route options cross the River Moy csac at relatively narrow crossing points. It should be possible to bridge the river at these points thus minimising any impact to this designated site. Route K-L-O-P-S-U impacts seven other sites of ecological value. Two of these are rated as C, four as D and one as E. In each case there will be a permanent impact on a small part of the site and the significance of the impact is ascertained as moderate negative. Route K-R-T-V will impact four other sites of ecological value. Two of these are rated as D, one as E and one as C. In this instance there will be permanent impacts on a large part of a D rated site, a small permanent impact on a C rated site and a minor impact on the remaining two sites. The overall combined impact is ascertained as moderate negative. Due to the moderate negative impact on ecological sites both route options are ranked equally Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Both routes have the same overall number of sites within 250 metres however the impacts in terms of proximity differ for the two route options. Route K-L-O-P- S-U-V has just 1 site within 50 metres while K-R-T-V has 2, within m route K-L-O-P-S-U-V has twice as many sites compared to route K-R-T-V (8 compared to 4). In the metre band route K-R-T-V has slightly more with 20 sites compared to 17 for K-L-O-P-S-U-V. In overall impacts on archaeology and cultural heritage preference the ranking of the route options is as follows: Route K-L-O-P-S-U-V Route K-R-T-V First Second Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 160

194 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Agricultural Land Use Although both routes are considered to have moderate/major impact on agriculture route K-R-T-V affects two agricultural farm buildings which are not affected by the other route. In overall impacts on agriculture preference the ranking of the two route options is as follows:- Route 3. K-L-O-P-S-U-V Route K-R-T-V Landscape and Visual First Second Both routes affect an estate landscape however route K-R-T-V passes through the middle of the estate for approximately 1 kilometre whereas route K-L-O-P-S- U-V impacts only the edge of the estate. Route K-R-T-V also creates a deep cut through a ridge, In overall impacts on landscape and visual amenity preference the ranking of the two route options is as follows:- Route K-L-O-P-S-U-V Route K-R-T-V Engineering Assessment First Second Both routes include a link back to the existing N5 at the junction with the proposed Castlebar northern ring road. When both the main route and the link back to the existing N5 are combined the total length for route K-L-O-P-S-U-V is marginally shorter at km compared to 20.9 km. Both routes require three large roundabouts, one at either end of the link back to Castlebar and one at the junction with the proposed N26. Similarly both routes involve a grade separated junction with the N60. Both routes include 1 no. railway bridge, but at 15 no. bridges at local road crossings and 4 no. river bridges, route K-L-O-P-S-U-V requires two less bridges than the route K-R-T-V which requires 17 no. bridges at local road crossings and 4 no. river bridges. Both routes involve major earthworks, the route K-L-O-P-S-U-V to a greater extent than route K-R-T-V. Both routes involve construction of bridges crossing the existing N5 over live traffic, and while one involves an on-line roundabout on the proposed N26 the other requires diversion of a section of the proposed N26, both within live traffic. In overall Engineering preference, route K-L-O-P-S-U-V is better, being slightly shorter and due to the significant saving in numbers of bridges Geology and Hydrogeology There are two turloughs and approximately 585m of sensitive aquifers in the vicinity of both routes. Both routes traverse significant lengths of soft ground including areas of peat, route K-L-O-P-S-U-V to a slightly greater extend than Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 161

195 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance route K-R-T-V. Consequently in overall Geological and Hydrogeological preference the route K-R-T-V is slightly better Cost Estimates The route K-L-O-P-S-U-V is approximately 5% less costly than route K-R-T-V and is ranked first Traffic Functionality & Economic Benefits Both routes are a long way south of Castlebar and as such are unlikely to be attractive in terms of forming a ring road in combination with the proposed Castlebar northern ring road. In this regard the route K-R-T-V is even more remote than the route K-L-O-P-S-U-V. Neither route suggests an obvious location for an intermediate junction with the local road network between Castlebar and the proposed N26. At the east end of the scheme the route K-R- T-V requires one less at-grade junction with local roads which offers a marginal benefit in terms of traffic functionality. While route K-R-T-V is marginally shorter for traffic bypassing Castlebar, route K- L-O-P-S-U-V is marginally shorter for traffic accessing Castlebar. In overall Traffic Functionality & Economic Benefits preference there is no clearly discernable difference between the two routes and consequently both route options are ranked equally Traffic Safety Both routes replace the same length of existing road with a new road of higher standard. As such there is nothing to distinguish the route options in traffic safety and both route options are ranked equally Accessibility and Social Inclusion Both route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans to revitalise the Western Region. The routes are neutral in terms of impact on vulnerable groups. Consequently equal ranking can be identified in terms of Accessibility and Social Inclusion Integration Both route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans All three route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans and National Road Needs Study to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, and, in conjunction with the separate N26 scheme, improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar. Consequently equal ranking can be identified in terms of Integration Appraisal Balance Sheet All of the above assessments and relative rankings are drawn together in the following Appraisal Balance Sheet, Table and each route given an overall ranking on the seven point scale for each of the five appraisal criteria, as defined in Section The summation of these rankings shows the route K-L-O-P-S- Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 162

196 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance U-V to be the Emerging Preferred Route due to its lesser environmental impacts. Route 4.2 is discounted between nodes K and R, while other elements of the route K-R-T-V remain as potential elements of other route combinations. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 163

197 Roughan O'Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Key Decision 17. K - V most least Table K - L - O - P - S - U-V K - R - T - V Comments 3.4/4.1/4.6/5.3A/5.3/ / 5.0 Environment Effect on Humans Effect of Properties Houses(Acquired) 0 0 Granted Planning 5 9 Applications (within 100m) Significant Agricultural 0 2 Buildings (Acquired) Noise/Air Quality (no. of dwellings within) 0m-100m m-200m m-300m Community Facilities - - Community Severance Minor Minor Agriculture Moderate - Major Moderate - Major Natural Environment Impact on designated site Neutral Neutral Impact on other sites of ecological value Moderate Moderate Archaeology (no. of RMPs, Find spot, Listed 0m-50m m-100m m-250m Hydrogeology (sensitive aquifers/wells) 585m 2 Turloughs 585m 2 Turloughs Aquatic impact (No. Rivers / Streams) Landscape and Visual Minor - Edge of Estate Landscape Deep cut through ridge, 1km through middle of estate landscape Economy Length of Alignment- TOTAL (km) Mainline -Type 2 Dual Mainline - Online widening Mainline -Single Side Road Junctions Roundabouts 3 (Large Dual C/Way) 3 (Large Dual C/Way) Grade Separations (Incl 1 1 Bridges Road Under / Over Lough and/or multispan 0 0 Railway 1 1 Rivers 4 4 Ground conditions (%age soft) 2279m = 11%, 300m peat 2022m = 1, 500m peat Hydrology (length within flood plain) 0 0 Earthworks (major) Construction Impacts 200m Fill up to 16m 400m Cut up to 9m, 1km of up to 10m embankment, 450m of up to 14m cut Crossing of existing N5, Online construction of large roundabout 1000m of up to 20m cut, 650m of up to 14m embankment Crossing of existing N5, diversion of live N26 Cost (Millions) Traffic Functionality Remote from Castlebar and Very remote from Castlebar future Northern Ring Road and and future Northern Ring Road 2 At-grade junctions and 1 At-grade junction Relative Traffic Dis-benefits (Millions) Similar Similar Safety Traffic Safety Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with poor safety record. Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with poor safety record. Accessibility and Social Inclusion Impact on Vulnerable Groups Neutral Neutral Impact on deprived geographic areas Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans to revitalise The Western Region Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans to revitalise The Western Region Integration Integration Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, route between Westport and Longford, and improve the link between the hubs and improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction with the N26 scheme. with the N26 scheme. Ranking Environment Slightly Negative (-1) Moderately Negative (-2) Economy Slightly Positive (+1) Neutral(0) Safety Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Accessibility and Social Inclusion Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Integration Highly Positive (+3) Highly Positive (+3) Overall Ref Route Selection Matrix Final Report - March 2009

198 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Decision 18 Node M to Node S via nodes N and P, following routes 4.5, 4.4B and 5.3A, or via nodes N and Q following routes 4.5, 4.7 and back to 4.5 (Drawing 68 Volume 2) Impacts on People Route 4.5/4.7/4.5 (M-N-Q-S) has a greater impact on people as it necessitates the acquisition of 1 house and it affects 1 planning permission. Route 4.5/4.4B/5.3A (M-N-P-S) does not necessitate the acquisition of any house or affect any planning permissions and also has lesser houses in both the 100 metre corridor, 11 compared with 19 and 45 compared with 97 in the 300 metre corridor. Both routes have a positive impact on Turlough House and only minor impact on community severance. In overall impacts on people preference the ranking of the two route options is as follows:- Route M-N-P-S Route M-N-Q-S Flora, Fauna and Fisheries First Second Route M-N-Q-S has a relatively short crossing of the River Moy csac and will impact one other site of ecological value rated as E. The impact on the E site is limited to a small area of the site and is thus defined as a neutral impact. Route M-N-P-S will only impact the River Moy csac. Both route options are therefore considered as having a moderate negative impact as they will have a temporary impact on a small part of the SAC. It is hence not possible to rank these two route options based on their ecological impact and consequently both are ranked equally Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Route M-N-P-S has more sites in both the 0-50 and metre bands with 1 and 6 sites respectively. Route M-N-Q-S does not have any sites within 50 metres but has 4 in the metre band. Both routes have the same number of sites in the metre band (7). In overall impacts on archaeology and cultural heritage preference the ranking of the two route options is as follows:- Route M-N-Q-S Route M-N-P-S Agricultural Land Use First Second Route 4.5/4.7/4.5 (M-N-Q-S) has a greater impact on agriculture as it affects 1 farm building and causes farmyard disturbance which is not caused by 4.5/4.4B/5.3A (M-N-P-S). In overall impacts on agriculture preference the ranking of the two route options is as follows:- Route M-N-P-S First Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 164

199 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Route M-N-Q-S Second Landscape and Visual No particular landscape and visual impacts have been identified in this area. Consequently both route options are ranked equally Engineering Assessment The route M-N-Q-S is marginally shorter at 7.09 km compared to 7.12 km. Both routes include a grade separated junction with the local road network at Turlough, 1 no. railway bridge, 3 no. river bridges and 1 no. widening of an existing river bridge. The route M-N-Q-S requires 8 no. bridges at local road crossings and a 100m viaduct across the Toormore River flood plain, while route M-N-P-S avoids the need for the viaduct and only required 6 no. bridges at local road crossings. The route M-N-P-S requires two sections of major earthworks while the route M- N-Q-S avoids these. Both routes involve construction of bridges crossing the existing N5 over live traffic, while the construction of the viaduct over the flood plain of the Toormore River on route M-N-Q-S will require special construction measures. In overall Engineering terms route M-N-Q-S is significantly less preferable due to the need for the viaduct across the flood plain Geology and Hydrogeology Neither route affects any sensitive aquifers. Route M-N-Q-S involves a longer length within the flood plain, while route M-N-P-S traverses a similarly longer length of potentially soft ground. Consequently, from the perspective of Geology and Hydrogeology both route options are ranked equally Cost Estimates The route M-N-Q-S is more costly than route M-N-P-S, largely due to the need for the viaduct across the floodplain of the Toormore River Traffic Functionality & Economic Benefits Both routes achieve the same traffic functionality, although the route M-N-Q-S being marginally shorter generates slightly greater economic benefits. The overall Traffic Functionality & Economic Benefits preference, if any, is therefore in favour of M-N-Q-S Traffic Safety Both routes replace the same length of existing road with a new road of higher standard. As such there is nothing to distinguish the route options in traffic safety and both options are ranked equally Accessibility and Social Inclusion Both route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans to revitalise the Western Region. The routes are neutral in Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 165

200 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance terms of impact on vulnerable groups. Consequently equal ranking can be identified in terms of Accessibility and Social Inclusion Integration Both route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans All three route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans and National Road Needs Study to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, and, in conjunction with the separate N26 scheme, improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar. Consequently equal ranking can be identified in terms of Integration Appraisal Balance Sheet All of the above assessments and relative rankings are drawn together in the following Appraisal Balance Sheet, Table and each route given an overall ranking on the seven point scale for each of the five appraisal criteria, as defined in Section The summation of these rankings shows the route M-N-P-S to be the Emerging Preferred Route on both economic and environmental grounds. Consequently route 4.7 between nodes N and Q and route 4.5 between nodes Q and S are discounted. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 166

201 Roughan O'Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Key Decision 18. M - S most least Table M - N - P - S M - N - Q - S Comments B -5.3A Environment Effect on Humans Effect of Properties Houses(Acquired) 0 1 Granted Planning 0 1 Applications (within 100m) Significant Agricultural 0 1 Buildings (Acquired) Noise/Air Quality (no. of dwellings within) 0m-100m m-200m m-300m Community Facilities Positive - Serves Turlough House Positive - Serves Turlough House Community Severance Minor Minor Agriculture Minor - Moderate Minor - Major Natural Environment Impact on designated site Moderate Moderate Impact on other sites of ecological value Neutral Neutral Archaeology (no. of RMPs, Find spot, Listed 0m-50m m-100m m-250m 7 7 Hydrogeology (sensitive aquifers/wells) 0 0 Aquatic impact (No. Rivers / Streams) 6 3 Landscape and Visual Minor Minor Economy Length of Alignment- TOTAL (km) Mainline -Type 2 Dual Mainline - Online widening Mainline -Single Side Road Junctions Roundabouts 0 0 Grade Separations (Incl 1 1 Bridges Road Under / Over 6 8 Lough and/or multispan 100m Viaduct Railway 1 1 Rivers (widening) (widening) Ground conditions (%age soft) 975m = 14% 725m = 1 Hydrology (length within flood plain) Earthworks (major) 200m Cut up to 8m 0 400m Cut up to 14m Construction Impacts Crossing of existing N5 Construction of Viaduct and Crossing of existing N5 Cost (Millions) Traffic Functionality - - Relative Traffic Dis-benefits (Millions) Safety Traffic Safety Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with poor safety record. Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with poor safety record. Accessibility and Social Inclusion Impact on Vulnerable Groups Neutral Neutral Impact on deprived geographic areas Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans to revitalise The Western Region Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans to revitalise The Western Region Integration Integration Development Plan , Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key National Road network on the key route between Westport and route between Westport and Longford, and improve the link Longford, and improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction with the N26 Castlebar in conjunction with the N26 scheme. scheme. Ranking Environment Slightly Negative (-1) ModeratelyNegative (-2) Economy Slightly Positive (+1) Neutral (0) Safety Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Accessibility and Social Inclusion Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Integration Highly Positive (+3) Highly Positive (+3) Overall Ref Route Selection Matrix Final Report - March 2009

202 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Decision 19 Node G to Node L via node I following routes 3.1B and 4.1 or via nodes H, J and K following route 3.4 (Drawing 69 Volume 2) Impacts on People Route 3.1B/4.1 (G-I-L) requires the acquisition of 1 house while route 3.4 (G-H-J- K-L) does not necessitate the acquisition of any houses. Route G-H-J-K-L affects 4 planning permissions whereas route G-I-L does not affect any planning permissions. Route G-H-J-K-L also affects almost twice as many houses within the 300 metre corridor, 120 compared with 69 and three more in the 100 metre corridor, 14 compared to 11. Route 3.1B/4.1 does affect the corner of Castlebar golf course which route 3.4 does not and in terms of community severance both are considered minor. In overall impacts on people preference the ranking of the two route options is as follows:- Route G-H-J-K-L Route G-I-L Flora, Fauna and Fisheries First Second Route G-I-L will have a slight permanent impact on one site rated C. This will be a permanent impact on a very small part of the site and is classified as a minor negative impact. Route G-H-J-K-L will impact a relatively large part of a C site and will also have relatively large impacts on a further three D rated sites. This impact is classified as moderate negative. In overall impacts on ecological sites the ranking of the two route options is as follows:- Route G-I-L Route G-H-J-K-L First Second Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Neither of the routes have any sites within the 50 metre band and route G-I-L has only 1 site in the metre band and 4 sites in the metre band. Route G-H-J-K-L has 5 sites in the metre band and 6 sites in the band. In overall impacts on archaeology and cultural heritage sites the ranking of the two route options is as follows:- Route G-I-L Route G-H-J-K-L Agricultural Land Use First Second Both routes cause farm yard disturbance and affect farm buildings while route 3.4 (G-H-J-K-L) affects a dairy farm and route 3.1B/4.1 (G-I-L) affects a beef farm. However due to route G-I-L affecting significantly less agricultural land the ranking of the two route options are as follows:- Route G-I-L First Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 167

203 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Route G-H-J-K-L Second Landscape and Visual Route G-I-L is considered to have a moderate impact on landscape and visual amenity as it runs towards the edge of a housing estate which route 3.4 does not. In overall impacts on landscape and visual amenity preference the ranking of the two route options is as follows:- Route G-H-J-K-L Route G-I-L Engineering Assessment First Second Both routes include a link back to the existing N5 at the junction with the proposed Castlebar northern ring road. When both the main route and the link back to the existing N5 are combined the total length for route G-I-L is significantly shorter at 8.83 km compared to km. Both routes require 2 no. large roundabouts, one at either end of the link back to Castlebar and 2 no. grade separated junctions with the N84 and the N60. Both routes include 1 no. railway bridge, but route G-I-L only requires 5 no. bridges for road crossings compared with 10 no. on route G-H-J-K-L. The route G-H- J-K-L includes 500m of high embankment in addition to special earthworks measures to address the ground conditions described below, while the route G-I-L avoids these. In overall Engineering preference, route G-I-L is significantly better and is ranked first Geology and Hydrogeology Both routes cross similar lengths of sensitive aquifers. However the route G-H-J- K-L traverses approximately three times the length of soft ground including areas of peat. Consequently in overall Geological and Hydrogeological preference the route G-I-L is significantly better Cost Estimates The route G-H- J-K-L is approximately 25% more costly than route G-I-L as a result of the greater length and engineering complexity Traffic Functionality & Economic Benefits In principle the two routes provide similar traffic functionality. However the route G-H-J-K-L is significantly longer and more remote from Castlebar and therefore is unlikely to function as a Castlebar ring road in connection with the proposed Castlebar northern ring road consequently, route GIL is ranked first. In order to establish the order of magnitude of relative economic benefits total network statistics were compared for four different routes between nodes D and P, as follows:- Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 168

204 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Scenario A: D to E via route 2.0, E to M via route 3.0, M to N via route 4.5 and N to P via route 4.4B. Scenario B: D to F via route 3.2A, F to G via route 3.2, G to I via route 3.1B, I to M via route 3.1A, M to N via route 4.5 and N to P via route 4.4B. Scenario C: D to F via route 3.2A, F to G via route 3.2, G to I via route 3.1B, I to O via route 4.1, and O to P via route 4.6. Scenario D: D to F via route 3.2A, F to G via route 3.2, G to H to J to K to L via route 3.4, L to O via route 4.1, and O to P via route 4.6. Details of this analysis are contained in Appendix This showed that scenarios B and C produce similar level of journey time savings while scenarios A and D were poorer in this regard. From the above analysis it can be concluded that the route G-I-L is better than the route G-H-J-K-L in terms of economic benefits, and therefore in overall Traffic Functionality & Economic Benefits Traffic Safety Both routes replace the same length of existing road with a new road of higher standard. As such there is nothing to distinguish the route options in traffic safety Accessibility and Social Inclusion Both route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans to revitalise the Western Region. The routes are neutral in terms of impact on vulnerable groups. Consequently equal ranking can be identified in terms of Accessibility and Social Inclusion Integration Both route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans All three route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans and National Road Needs Study to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, and, in conjunction with the separate N26 scheme, improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar. Consequently equal ranking can be identified in terms of Integration Appraisal Balance Sheet All of the above assessments and relative rankings are drawn together in the following Appraisal Balance Sheet, Table and each route given an overall ranking on the seven point scale for each of the five appraisal criteria, as defined in Section The summation of these rankings shows the route G-I-L to be the Emerging Preferred Route due to its significantly better economics. Route 3.4 is discounted. The significantly poorer performance of the route via node H also confirms that the working assumption made at decision 11 does not require to be re-visited. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 169

205 Roughan O'Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Key Decision 19. G - L most least Table G - I - L G - H - J - K - L Comments 3.1B / Environment Effect on Humans Effect of Properties Houses(Acquired) 1 0 Granted Planning 0 4 Applications (within 100m) Significant Agricultural 1 1 (Commercial) Buildings (Acquired) Noise/Air Quality (no. of dwellings within) 0m-100m m-200m m-300m Community Facilities Corner of golf course - Community Severance Minor Minor Agriculture Moderate Moderate Route G-I-L less impact due to length Natural Environment Impact on designated site 0 0 Impact on other sites of ecological value Minor Moderate Archaeology (no. of RMPs, Find spot, Listed 0m-50m m-100m m-250m 4 6 Hydrogeology (sensitive aquifers/wells) Aquatic impact (No. Rivers / Streams) 5 5 Landscape and Visual Moderate Minor Economy Length of Alignment- TOTAL (km) Mainline -Type 2 Dual Mainline - Online widening Mainline -Single Side Road Junctions Roundabouts (Large Dual C/Way) (Large Dual C/Way) Grade Separations (Incl Bridge) 2 (N60 & N84 Compact Grade Seperated) 2 (N60 & N84 Compact Grade Seperated) Bridges Road Under / Over 5 10 Lough and/or multispan 0 0 Railway 1 1 Rivers 0 0 Ground conditions (%age soft) 760m = 9% 2336m = 12% Hydrology (length within flood plain) Earthworks (major) 0 Long lengths of peat, 500m of embankment up to 9m high Construction Impacts Minor Minor Cost (Millions) Traffic Functionality Reasonable connection to Northern Ring Road. Remote for the purposes of being a ring road. Relative Traffic Dis-benefits (Millions) Better Worse Safety Traffic Safety Improvement of road standard Diverts through traffic away from urban area. Improvement of road standard Diverts through traffic away from urban area. Accessibility and Social Inclusion Impact on Vulnerable Groups Neutral Neutral Impact on deprived geographic areas Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans to revitalise The Western Region Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans to revitalise The Western Region Integration Integration Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, and improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction with the N26 scheme. Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, and improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction with the N26 scheme. Ranking Environment Moderately Negative (-2) Slightly Negative (-1) Economy Slightly Positive (+1) Slightly Negative (-1) Safety Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Accessibility and Social Inclusion Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Integration Highly Positive (+3) Highly Positive (+3) Overall Ref Route Selection Matrix Final Report - March 2009

206 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Decision 20 Node D to Node P via nodes E,M and N following routes 2.0, 3.0, 4.5 and 4.4B or via nodes F, G, I,M and N following routes 3.2A, 3.2, 3.1B, 3.1A, 4.5 and 4.4B, or via nodes F, G, I, L and O following routes 3.2A, 3.2, 3.1B, 4.1 and 4.6 (Drawing 69 Volume 2) Impacts on People Route D-E-M-N-P has the greatest impact on houses, acquiring 2 while route D- F-G-I-M-N-P and D-F-G-I-L-O-P necessitates the acquisition of 1 house each. Route D-E-M-N-P is also the worst in terms of affecting planning applications with 15 compared to D-F-G-I-L-O-P with 1 and D-F-G-I-M-N-P not affecting any. In terms of proximity to houses D-E-M-N-P is again the worst affecting 42 houses within the 100 metre corridor while D-F-G-I-L-O-P affects 25. The best route in terms of proximity to houses is D-F-G-I-M-N-P with 21 within 100 metres. Route D-E-M-N-P and route D-F-G-I-M-N-P have a positive impact on Turlough House due to the location of a proposed junction servicing this facility while D-F- G-I-L-O-P does not affect any community facilities and has only a minor impact on community severance. In overall impacts on people preference the ranking of the three route options is as follows:- Route D-F-G-I-M-N-P Route D-F-G-I-L-O-P Route D-E-M-N-P Flora, Fauna and Fisheries First Second Third Route D-E-M-N-P impacts five ecological sites. This includes a moderate negative impact on four C rated sites and a minor negative impact on a single D rated site. In combination this is considered as a moderate negative impact. This route also requires a crossing of the csac and this is considered a moderate negative impact. Route D-F-G-I-M-N-P also impacts five ecological sites and requires the same crossing of the csac (moderate negative impact). Three of the ecological sites are rated as D and suffer only a minor negative impact. The two remaining sites are rated C, one of which has a minor negative impact, the other a moderate negative impact. In combination, this is considered as a minor negative impact. Route D-F-G-I-L-O-P impacts four ecological sites and requires a very small crossing of the csac. The extent of the crossing of teh SAC will allow it to be bridged thus avoiding any negative impact in this instance. There will be a minor negative impact on three of the ecological sites (two rated D, one rated C ) and on moderate negative impact on a C rated site. In combination this is considered to be a minor negative impact. In overall impacts on ecological sites the ranking of the three route options is as follows:- Route D-F-G-I-L-O-P Route D-F-G-I-M-N-P First Second Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 170

207 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Route D-E-M-N-P Third Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Route D-E-M-N-P has the greatest number of sites in the 50 and 100 metre bands, 6 and 13 respectively, while route D-F-G-I-L-O-P has the least in all bands with 1 (0-50m), 6 (50-100m) and 8 ( m). However route D-E-M-N- P and D-F-G-I-M-N-P have most of the known sites along lengths where the online upgrading of the N5 will take place where little impact on the existing archaeology is expected. In overall impacts on archaeology and cultural heritage preference the ranking of the three route options is as follows:- Route D-F-G-I-L-O-P Route D-F-G-I-M-N-P Route D-E-M-N-P Agricultural Land Use First equal First equal First equal All three routes are considered to have a moderate impact on agriculture although route D-F-G-I-L-O-P does impact on one agricultural building. In overall impacts on agriculture preference the ranking of the three route options is as follows:- Route D-E-M-N-P Route D-F-G-I-M-N-P Route D-F-G-I-L-O-P Landscape and Visual First equal First equal Second Both route D-E-M-N-P and route D-F-G-I-M-N-P impact on estate landscapes in 2 separate locations while route D-F-G-I-L-O-P does not affect any estate landscapes at all. However route D-E-M-N-P and route D-F-G-I-M-N-P have significant lengths of their alignments along the existing N5 with a corresponding reduction in further impact on the landscape. In overall impacts on landscape and visual amenity preference the ranking of the three route options is as follows:- Route D-F-G-I-L-O-P Route D-F-G-I-M-N-P Route D-E-M-N-P Engineering Assessment First equal First equal First equal Routes D-E-M-N-P and D-F-G-I-M-N-P both connect back into the existing N5 east of Castlebar directly, while route D-F-G-I-L-O-P requires the additional link back to the existing N5. When both the main route and, in the case of the route D-F-G-I-L-O-P, the link back to the existing N5 are combined the total length for the route D-F-G-I-M-N-P is the shortest at km, the route D-F-G-I-L-O-P longest at 19.27km with the route D-E-M-N-P in between at km. The route D-E-M-N-P includes 3 no. large roundabouts (at the junctions with the existing N5 either side of Castlebar and at the N60) and 2 no. grade separated junctions (at the N84 and with the local road network at Turlough). The route D- Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 171

208 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance F-G-I-M-N-P includes 2 no. large roundabouts (at the junctions with the existing N5 either side of Castlebar) and 3 no. grade separated junctions (at the N84, N60 and with the local road network at Turlough). The route D-F-G-I-L-O-P includes 3 no. large roundabouts (at the junctions with the existing N5 west of Castlebar and at either end of the link back to the existing N5 east of Castlebar) and 2 no. grade separated junctions (at the N84 and N60). All three routes include 3 no. railway bridges. The route D-E-M-N-P requires 2 no. river bridges, while the route D-F-G-I-M-N-P also requires the widening of an existing river bridge in addition to 2 no. new river bridges, and the route D-F-G-I- L-O-P only requires 1 no. river bridge. Both routes D-E-M-N-P and D-F-G-I-M-N- P require 9 no. bridges for local road crossings compared with 12 no. on route D- F-G-I-L-O-P. The route D-E-M-N-P requires a 180m viaduct over Lough Lannagh, while the two routes D-F-G-I-M-N-P and D-F-G-I-L-O-P both involve a piled embankment at the Lough Lannagh crossing. The route D-E-M-N-P requires major earthworks over approximately a quarter of its length, while the two routes D-F-G-I-M-N-P and D-F-G-I-L-O-P involve a significantly shorter length of major earthworks. The route D-E-M-N-P would require specialist construction for the Lough Lannagh viaduct, retained fill adjacent to a row of houses at the R373 crossing. Both of the routes D-F-G-I-M-N-P and D-F-G-I-L-O-P involve a significantly less specialist construction, limited to the pile embankment at Lough Lannagh and the soft ground approach to one of the railway bridges. In overall Engineering preference, the ranking of the three routes is as follows:- Route D-F-G-I-M-N-P Route D-F-G-I-L-O-P Route D-E-M-N-P Geological and Hydrogeological First Second Third The route D-E-M-N-P traverses 680m of a sensitive aquifer and 675m of fen, while routes D-F-G-I-M-N-P and D-F-G-I-L-O-P both avoid these. However routes D-E-M-N-P and D-F-G-I-M-N-P both cross approximately 525m of the floodplain of the Castlebar river while the route D-F-G-I-L-O-P avoids this. The route D-E-M-N-P traverses the most soft ground at approximately 2340m, while the route D-F-G-I-M-N-P crosses the least at approximately 1620m with the route D-F-G-I-L-O-P in between at approximately 1750m. In overall Geological and Hydrogeological preference the ranking of the three routes, if any is as follows:- Route D-F-G-I-M-N-P Route D-F-G-I-L-O-P Route D-E-M-N-P Cost Estimates First Second Third In cost terms the preference ranking of the three routes reflects the engineering complexity and geological and hydrogeological rankings, and is further Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 172

209 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance influenced by the higher land costs for route D-E-M-N-P, being closer to Castlebar, as follows:- Route D-F-G-I-M-N-P Route D-F-G-I-L-O-P Route D-E-M-N-P Traffic Functionality & Economic Benefits First Second Third The route D-E-M-N-P relieves an additional 1km of the existing N5 west of Castlebar relative to the two alternative routes and of the three routes provides the best connection to the proposed Castlebar northern ring road. However space restricts this route to an at-grade junction with the N60 which will provide less traffic functionality than the grade separated junctions that can be accommodated on the two alternative routes. Being north of the junction between the N60 and R373 it will also restrict the distribution of traffic entering Castlebar from the new N5 bypass compared to the other options. Scenarios A, B and C of the network statistics comparisons discussed in Appendix 10.1 above directly reflect the three routes being compared at this stage. The results of these comparisons indicated that routes D-F-G-I-M-N-P and D-F-G-I-L-O-P (Scenarios B and C) produce similar economic benefits, while route D-E-M-N-P (Scenario A) produced lower economic benefits. Therefore in overall Traffic Functionality & Economic Benefits preference the ranking is as follows: Traffic Safety Routes D-F-G-I-M-N-P and D-F-G-I-L-O-P Route D-E-M-N-P First equal Second All three routes provide safety benefits through an improved standard of road and drawing through traffic out of the urban area. The route D-E-M-N-P may have a marginal safety benefit over the two alternatives by relieving traffic on a longer length of the existing N5, including the site of 1 previous serious accident, although its poorer economic performance suggest that it may not provide the same level of relief to the urban area overall. In overall Traffic Safety all routes are ranked equal Accessibility and Social Inclusion All three route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans to revitalise the Western Region. The routes are neutral in terms of impact on vulnerable groups. Consequently both routes are ranked equally in terms of Accessibility and Social Inclusion Integration Both route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans All three route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans and National Road Needs Study to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, and, in conjunction with the separate N26 scheme, improve the Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 173

210 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar. Consequently both routes are ranked equally in terms of Integration Appraisal Balance Sheet All of the above assessments and relative rankings are drawn together in the following Appraisal Balance Sheet, Table and each route given an overall ranking on the seven point scale for each of the five appraisal criteria, as defined in Section The summation of these rankings shows the route D-F-G-I-M-N- P to be the Emerging Preferred Route. Therefore route 2.0 between nodes D and E, route 3.0, route 4.1 between nodes I and O and route 4.6 between nodes O and P are all discounted. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 174

211 Roughan O'Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Key Decision 20. D - P most preferable least preferable Table D - E - M - N - P D - F - G - I - M - N - P D - F - G - I - L - O - P Comments 2.0/3.0/4.5/4.4B 3.2A/3.2/3.1B/3.1A/4.5/4.4B 3.2A/3.2/3.1B/4.1/4.6 Environment Effect on Humans Effect of Properties Houses(Acquired) Granted Planning Applications (within Significant Agricultural Buildings (Acquired) Noise/Air Quality (no. of dwellings within) 0m-100m m-200m m-300m Community Facilities Positive - Serves Turlough House Positive - Serves Turlough House. - Community Severance Along the exsiting N5 near Windsor Along the exsiting N5 near Windsor Agriculture Moderate Moderate Moderate Natural Environment Impact on designated site Moderate Moderate - known Neutral Designated Sites not directly affected by any route Impact on other sites of ecological value Moderate Minor Minor Archaeology (no. of RMPs, Find spot, Listed 0m-50m m-100m m-250m Hydrogeology (sensitive aquifers/wells) 680m Through Aquifer Through Fen Aquatic impact (No. Rivers / Streams) Landscape and Visual Moderate, Estate Landscape in 2 Locations. Moderate, Estate Landscape in 2 Locations. Economy Length of Alignment- TOTAL (km) Mainline -Type 2 Dual Mainline - Online widening Longer length of dualing prefered over shorter length of single carriageway Mainline -Single Side Road Junctions Roundabouts Grade Separations (Incl Bridge) Bridges Road Under / Over Lough and/or multispan 1 (180m) Piled embankment along lough Piled embankment along lough Minor Moderate Railway Rivers (widening) 1 Ground conditions (%age soft) 2340m = 13% 1620m = 9% 1750m = 9% Hydrology (length within flood plain) Earthworks (major) Construction Impacts Approaches for Viaduct. High embankment at Deep Cut km of embankment 9-14m of fill. Major bridge and works over Lough. Retained fill overbridge behind row of houses over R373. On Lightford Road garage / house to be taken with retained cut. Filling near lough, soft ground near railway. Piled embankment along lough Filling near lough, soft ground near railway. Piled embankment along lough Cost (Millions) Traffic Functionality Relieves traffic along 1.0km /20 Traffic along 1.0km /20 houses Traffic along 1.0km /20 houses houses fronting onto existing fronting onto existing N5, Provides fronting onto existing N5, N5. Good connection to future Northern Ring Road. At grade connection to N60 and no connection to R373.. connection to R373. Reasonable connection to future Northern Ring Road. Grade Speration at N60. Provides connection to R373. Reasonable connection to future Northern Ring Road. Grade Speration at N60. Relative Traffic Dis-benefits (Millions) Worse Better Better Safety Traffic Safety Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with poor Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with poor safety Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with poor safety record. Including site of 1 more serious accident than Routes 3.2 & 3.2A. Diverts through traffic away from urban area. record. Bypasses site of 1 less serious accident than Routes 2.0. Diverts through traffic away from urban area. safety record. Bypasses site of 1 less serious accident than Routes 2.0. Diverts through traffic away from urban area. Accessibility and Social Inclusion Impact on Vulnerable Groups Neutral Neutral Neutral Impact on deprived geographic areas Development Plan , Development Plan , National Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans to revitalise The Western Region Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans to revitalise The Western Region National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans to revitalise The Western Region Routes D-E-M-N-P and D-F-G-I-M-N-P largely along existing route while D-F-G-I-L-O-P along new route. Impact on on Archaeology similar for all routes Integration Integration Development Plan , Development Plan , Transport Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, 21, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local County and Local Development Plans, NRA Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road National Road Needs Study, to improve the Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National National Road network on the key route Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, and Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, and improve the link between the hubs of between Westport and Longford, and improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction with improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction the N26 scheme. Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction with the N26 scheme. with the N26 scheme. Ranking Environment Moderately Negative (-2) Slightly Negative (-1) Slightly Negative (-1) Economy Slightly Negative (-1) Slightly Positive (+1) Neutral (0) Safety Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Accessibility and Social Inclusion Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Integration Highly Positive (+3) Highly Positive (+3) Highly Positive (+3) Overall Ref Route Selection Matrix Final Report - March 2009

212 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Decision 21 Node P to Node V via nodes S and U following routes 5.3A and 5.3 or via nodes R and T following routes 4.3 and 5.0 (Drawing 69 Volume 2) Impacts on People P-S-U-V necessitates the acquisition of one house but does not impact any planning permissions; whereas P-R-T-V does not necessitates the acquisition of any houses but has a potential impact on 7 planning permissions. Route P-S-U-V will impact 15 houses within 100m of the route corridor and P-R- T-V will impact 13 houses. Both routes are considered to create minor community severance and neither affects any community facilities. In overall impacts on people preference the ranking of the two route options is as follows:- Route P-R-T-V Route P-S-U-V Flora, Fauna and Fisheries First Second Route P-S-U-V has an impact on four ecological sites. This includes neutral impacts on two E rated sites, a minor impact on one D site and a moderate impact on one C site. This is considered a minor negative impact. Route P-R-T-V also has an impact on four ecological sites. There is a moderate impact on one C and one D rated site and minor impacts on one D site and one E site. This is considered a moderate negative impact. In overall impacts on ecological sites the ranking of the four route options is as follows:- Route P-S-U-V Route P-R-T-V Archaeology and Cultural Heritage First Second Both routes have one site within the 50 metre band however P-S-U-V will have a direct impact on a ringfort which will require archaeological resolution; whereas P-R-T-V does not directly impact the known extents of the site. Route P-R-T-V has 4 sites in the metre band while P-R-T-V has the most sites in the metre band. In overall impacts on archaeology and cultural heritage preference the ranking of the three route options is as follows:- Route P-R-T-V Route P-S-U-V Agricultural Land Use First Second Neither of the routes will impact any farm buildings or farms of significance. In both instances the impact is rated as Moderate and as such both routes are ranked equally in terms of Agriculture. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 175

213 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Landscape and Visual Both of the routes affect an estate landscape, however route P-R-T-V is considered the worst in terms of affecting the estate as it runs through the estate for approximately 1 kilometre whereas P-S-U-V affects only the edge of the estate. In overall impacts on landscape and visual amenity preference the ranking of the route options is as follows:- Route P-S-U-V Route P-R-T-V Engineering Assessment First Second The route P-R-T-V is the shorter at 9.75 km compared to km. However this route also requires the re-construction of 700m of the proposed N26 which makes the alternative P-S-U-V slightly shorter in terms of total length of construction. Both routes require a large roundabout at the junction with the proposed N26, east of which it is anticipated that the N5 would revert to a standard single carriageway. The route P-S-U-V requires five less bridges, 2 no. river bridges and 6 no. bridges for local road crossings, compared with the route P-R-T-V which requires 3 no. river bridges and 10 no. bridges for local road crossings. Both routes involve some major earthworks, the route P-S-U-V to a lesser extent than the route P-R-T-V. The route P-S-U-V requires a crossing of the existing N5 over live traffic and the construction of an on line roundabout on the proposed N26. The alternative route P-R-T-V requires two crossings of the existing N5 over live traffic and the diversion of a length of the proposed N26. In overall Engineering preference, the ranking is slightly in favour of the route P- S-U-V Geological and Hydrogeological Both routes pass in the vicinity of a turlough and cross soft ground, with the route P-S-U-V traversing a lesser total length of soft ground but a greater length of peat than the alternative route P-R-T-V. Consequently both routes are ranked equally in terms of Geology and Hydrogeology Cost Estimates The route P-R-T-V is approximately 5% more costly than the route P-R-S-U, largely due to the higher number of bridges as a result route P-R-S-U is ranked first Traffic Functionality & Economic Benefits Both routes provide the same traffic functionality. In order to establish the order of magnitude of relative economic benefits total network statistics were compared for two different routes between nodes P and V, as follows:- Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 176

214 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Scenario B: P to S via route 4.6 (the shortest), S to U via route 5.3, and U to V via route 5.2. Scenario E: P to R via route 4.3, R to T and V via route 5.0. Details of this analysis are contained in Appendix This analysis showed the two scenarios to provide almost identical total network journey times and therefore potential economic benefits. Scenario F directly reflects route P-R-T-V. While scenario E connects the same nodes as the route P-S-U-V under consideration at this stage, it takes the shorter route 4.6 between nodes P and S rather than the route 5.3A selected in decision 10, which is 280m longer. Therefore the economic benefits of the route P-S-U-V under consideration at this stage are approximately 2.8m less than the alternative route P-R-T-V. In overall Traffic Functionality & Economic Benefit preference the route P-R-T-V is better than the alternative P-S-U-V when following the previously selected route 5.3A between nodes P and S Traffic Safety Both routes replace the same length of existing road with a new road of higher standard and segregate local traffic in the vicinity of Bohola from the national road traffic. As such there is nothing to distinguish the route options in traffic safety and both routes are ranked equally Accessibility and Social Inclusion Both route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans to revitalise the Western Region. The routes are neutral in terms of impact on vulnerable groups. Consequently both routes are ranked equally in terms of Accessibility and Social Inclusion Integration Both route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans All three route options equally support the objectives of the National Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Developments Plans and National Road Needs Study to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, and, in conjunction with the separate N26 scheme, improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar. Consequently both routes are ranked equally in terms of Integration Appraisal Balance Sheet The above assessments and relative rankings are drawn together in the following Appraisal Balance Sheet, Table and each route is given an overall ranking on the seven point scale for each of the five appraisal criteria, as defined in Section The summation of these rankings shows the route P-R- T-V to be the Emerging Preferred Route on environmental grounds. This result is consistent with the adopted route in the County Development Plan. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 177

215 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance As a check on these route assessments two further routes (nodes P-S-U-V via routes 4.6/5.3/5.2 and nodes P-R-T-U-V via routes 4.3/5.0/5.2) were also compared directly with the selected route P-R-T-V. This check confirmed the selection of P-R-T-V as the Emerging Preferred Route. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 178

216 Roughan O'Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Key Decision 21. P - V most preferable least preferable Table P - S - U - V P - R - T - V Comments P - S - U - V P - R - T - U - V 5.3A / 5.3/ / / 5.3 / 5,2 4.3/5.0 / 5.2 (compared to P-R-T-V) (compared to P-R-T-V) Environment Effect on Humans Effect of Properties Houses(Acquired) Granted Planning Applications (within 100m) Significant Agricultural Buildings (Acquired) Noise/Air Quality (no. of dwellings within) 0m-100m m-200m m-300m Community Facilities Community Severance Minor Minor Minor Minor Agriculture Moderate Moderate Major - Moderate Moderate Natural Environment Impact on designated site Impact on other sites of ecological value Minor Moderate Moderate Minor Archaeology (no. of RMPs, Find spot, Listed 0 0m-50m 1 1 Routes on U - V 1 1 Archaeological Resolution 51m-100m m-250m Hydrogeology (sensitive aquifers/wells) In vicinity of Turlough In vicinity of Turlough In vicinity of Turlough In vicinity of Turlough Aquatic impact (No. Rivers / Streams) Landscape and Visual Edge of estate landscape Deep cut through ridge, 1km through estate landscape Edge of estate landscape, Embankment across deep valley Deep cut through ridge, Edge of estate landscape Economy Length of Alignment- TOTAL (km) Mainline -Type 2 Dual Mainline - Online widening Mainline -Single Side Road Junctions Roundabouts 1 (Large Dual C/Way) 1 (Large Dual C/Way) 1 (Large Dual C/Way) 1 (Large Dual C/Way) Grade Separations (Incl Bridges Road Under / Over Lough and/or multispan Railway Rivers Ground conditions (%age soft) 1719m = 17%, 300m peat. 1262m = 13%, 500m peat. 1494m = 15%, 300m peat. 1069m = 11%, 300m peat. Hydrology (length within flood plain) Earthworks (major) Construction Impacts 200m Cut up to 8m 400m Cut up to 14m, 400m Deep Cut. Existing N5 crossing, Online construction large Roundabout 600m of up to 20m cut, 150m high Embankment, 400m of Deep Cut Existing N5 crossing, Diversion of N26 200m Fill, 700m Cut and Fill up to 9m, 400m Deep Cut, 450m of up to 14m cut Existing N5 crossing, Online construction large Roundabout 600m of up to 20m cut, 450m of deep Cut, 400m Embankment, 450m of up to 14m cut Existing N5 crossing, Online construction large Roundabout Cost (Millions) Traffic Functionality Connects to N26 at grade Connects to N26 at grade Connects to N26 at grade Connects to N26 at grade Relative Traffic Dis-benefits (Millions) Total Cost & Dis-benefits Safety Traffic Safety Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with moderately poor safety record. Segregates national traffic from local traffic at N26 junction. Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with moderately poor safety record. Segregates national traffic from local traffic at N26 junction. Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with moderately poor safety record. Segregates national traffic from local traffic at N26 junction. Improvement of road standard Bypasses section of road with moderately poor safety record. Segregates national traffic from local traffic at N26 junction. Accessibility and Social Inclusion Impact on Vulnerable Groups Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Impact on deprived geographic areas Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans to revitalise The Western Region Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans to revitalise The Western Region Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans to revitalise The Western Region Development Plan , National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans to revitalise The Western Region Integration Integration Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, route between Westport and Longford, and improve the link between the hubs and improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction with the N26 scheme. with the N26 scheme. Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key Development Plan , Transport 21, National Spatial Strategy, Regional, County and Local Development Plans, NRA National Road Needs Study, to improve the National Road network on the key route between Westport and Longford, route between Westport and Longford, and improve the link between the hubs and improve the link between the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction of Ballina and Castlebar in conjunction with the N26 scheme. with the N26 scheme. Ranking Environment Moderately Negative (-2) Slightly Negative (-1) Moderately Negative (-2) Moderately Negative (-2) Economy Slightly Positive (+1) Slightly Positive (+1) Slightly Positive (+1) Neutral (0) Safety Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Accessibility and Social Inclusion Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Moderately Positive (+2) Integration Highly Positive (+3) Highly Positive (+3) Highly Positive (+3) Highly Positive (+3) Overall Ref Route Selection Matrix Final Report - March 2009

217 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Description of the Emerging Preferred Route (Drawing 70 Volume 2) Route and Node Links The emerging preferred route following the 21 decisions as discussed in the previous sections is made up of the following sections as follows: Node A-B Route 1.2 Node B-C Route 1.5A Node C-D Route 2.0 Node D-F Route 3.2A Node F-G Route 3.2 Node G-I Route 3.1B Node I-M Route 3.1A Node M-N Route 4.5 Node N-P Route 4.4B Node P-R Route 4.3 Node R-T Route 5.0 Node T-V Route 5.0 The Emerging Preferred Route as outlined above is shown on Drawing 70 in Volume 2 and was the route taken forward and presented to the public at Public Consultation No. 3. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 179

218 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Appendix 10.1 Network Statistics Scenarios A, B, C & D Network Statistics In order to establish the order of magnitude of relative economic benefits of different route options between nodes D and P network statistics were extracted for four different routes as follows:- Scenario A: A to B via route 1.2, B to C via route 1.5A, C to D via route 2.0, D to E via route 2.0, E to M via route 3.0, M to N via route 4.5, N to P via route 4.4B, P to S via route 4.6, S to U via route 5.3 and U to V via route 5.2. Scenario B: A to B via route 1.2, B to C via route 1.5A, C to D via route 2.0, D to F via route 3.2A, F to G via route 3.2, G to I via route 3.1B, I to M via route 3.1A, M to N via route 4.5, N to P via route 4.4B, P to S via route 4.6, S to U via route 5.3 and U to V via route 5.2. Scenario C: A to B via route 1.2, B to C via route 1.5A, C to D via route 2.0, D to F via route 3.2A, F to G via route 3.2, G to I via route 3.1B, I to O via route 4.1, O to P via route 4.6, P to S via route 4.6, S to U via route 5.3 and U to V via route 5.2. Scenario D: A to B via route 1.2, B to C via route 1.5A, C to D via route 2.0, D to F via route 3.2A, F to G via route 3.2, G to H to J to K to L via route 3.4, L to O via route 4.1, O to P via route 4.6, P to S via route 4.6, S to U via route 5.3 and U to V via route 5.2. Refer to RSR-67 for details of the route options. The four route options were assessed using the traffic model and a comparison of key network statistics was undertaken against the Do-Minimum Option. The key network statistics include the following: Total Network Travel Time (hrs) for all vehicles; Total Network Delay (hrs) for all vehicles; and Average Vehicle Speed (km/hr). Tables A10.1 and A10.2 below outline the key network statistics for the AM and PM Peak Hour respectively: Table A10.1 AM Peak Hour Network Statistics Scheme Option Total Network Travel Time (hrs) Total Network Delay (hrs) Average Vehicle Speed (km/hr) Do-Minimum Scheme A Scheme B Scheme C Scheme D Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 180

219 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Table A10.2 PM Peak Hour Network Statistics Scheme Option Total Network Travel Time (hrs) Total Network Delay (hrs) Average Vehicle Speed (km/hr) Do-Minimum Scheme A Scheme B Scheme C Scheme D In the AM Peak Hour there is no significant difference in the network statistics between the four routes. Route C performs the best, followed by Route B then Route A with Route D performing least favourably. During the PM Peak Hour, there are more significant differences in the network statistics between the four routes. As in the AM Peak Hour, Route C performs slightly better than Route B followed by Route D with Route A now performing least favourably. Overall the network statistics show that there is relatively little difference between the four routes in terms of Total Network Travel Time, Total Network Delay or Average Vehicle Speed. Route B and C perform very similarly and are slightly more favourable than Routes A and D Scenario E Network Statistics In order to establish the order of magnitude of relative economic benefits of different route options between nodes P and V network statistics were extracted for a variant of Scenario B. Scenario E follows the same alignment as Scenario B between decision points A and P. At decision point P it takes a route to the south of the existing N5 passing through decision points R, T and V, as follows:- Scenario E: A to B via route 1.2, B to C via route 1.5A, C to D via route 2.0, D to F via route 3.2A, F to G via route 3.2, G to I via route 3.1B, I to M via route 3.1A, M to N via route 4.5, N to P via route 4.4B, P to R via route 4.3, R to T via route 5.0 and T to V via route 5.0. Refer to RSR-67 for details of the route options Tables A10.3 and A10.4 below compare the key network statistics for scheme B & E for the AM and PM Peak Hour respectively: Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 181

220 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Table A10.3 AM Peak Hour Network Statistics (Scheme B & E) Scheme Option Total Network Travel Time (hrs) Total Network Delay (hrs) Average Vehicle Speed (km/hr) Scheme B Scheme E Table A10.4 PM Peak Hour Network Statistics (Scheme B & E) Scheme Option Total Network Travel Time (hrs) Total Network Delay (hrs) Average Vehicle Speed (km/hr) Scheme B Scheme E In the AM Peak Hour there is no difference in the network statistics between the two schemes. While during the PM Peak Hour, Scheme B performs slightly more favourable than scheme E. Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 182

221 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance Chapter 11 Economic Assessment of Route Options 11.1 Introduction Costs and benefits arise over different years and are therefore expressed in terms of their value from the standpoint of a given year, known as the present value year defined in COBA as Benefits and costs calculated for the year in which they occur are discounted back to the present value year using the appropriate discount rate. Summing the present value of costs and subtracting these from the present value of benefits, gives the net present value. The present value of benefits (PVB) has three components: road user benefits; delays during construction; and savings on delay during maintenance. Delays during construction and changes in delays due to routine maintenance have not been included in this assessment as they are generally only considered for complex schemes, or when they are likely to represent a significant element of the costs or benefits. Therefore as part of the route selection process only the road user benefits have been taken into consideration. The present value of road user benefits is the total of the annual benefits of a scheme calculated as the difference between the do-nothing (do-minimum) network road user costs and the do-something network road user costs. These road user costs are the sum of the following: The value of the time spent on the network; Cost of running all vehicles on the network; and The cost of all accidents An Irish specific version of the COBA software programme has been developed by Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), who is responsible for developing and maintaining the UK version. The Irish version incorporates default national economic and traffic parameters that reflect Irish conditions, in accordance with the National Roads Authority Project Appraisal Guidelines (March 2008) Input Data In undertaking this Phase 3 Route Selection assessment the following data is input into COBA: Traffic flow data (AADT); Link characteristics; and Junction data. Scheme costs Traffic Flow Data (AADT) Traffic flow data must be in input to COBA as Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT). The VISUM traffic model outputs traffic flows for the AM Peak Hour (08:00 09:00) and PM Peak Hour (17:00 18:00) periods. A peak hour conversion formula is required to convert the AM and PM Peak Hour flows into AADT. This formula was developed based on regression analysis of local area traffic data and is outlined below: Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 183

222 Roughan & O Donovan - Faber Maunsell Alliance where x = AM Peak Hour Flow y = PM Peak Hour Flow Link Characteristics AADT = ( * x) + ( * y) COBA uses a total of 20 Road Classes to describe the nature of road links. For the current Phase 3 COBA, default link characteristics for each road were drawn from the DMRB COBA Manual Part 5 - Speeds on Links and applied to each road in that class Junction Data In urban areas, the speed flow curves within COBA take into account delays at junctions. Nevertheless, this approach assumes only nominal delay through junctions and significantly underestimates travel times where junctions are heavily congested. In the future year do-minimum, congestion is expected at several junctions on the N5 through Castlebar. As such COBA would not be able to measure adequately the travel time savings that would result from a reduction in traffic through these junctions. To reflect the actual delay experienced at these junctions, turning count data and geometric data was coded into the COBA input deck. In total there were five junctions coded into COBA, three roundabouts and two priority controlled junctions. Figure 11.1 below highlights the location of these junctions. Figure 11.1 Location of Junctions Coded into COBA Ref: Final Report March 2009 Page 184