An Bord Pleanála Ref.: PL16.HA0042/KA0028
An Bord Pleanála
Inspector’s Report on Traffic, Travel, Road Design and other matters
Site Address: On a linear alignment from east to west running from Turlough, east of Castlebar, passing to the south of Castlebar, crossing the existing N5 east of Islandeady, running north and roughly parallel to the existing N5, and passing to the north of Westport. All in County Mayo.
Proposal: New-build dual carriageway (type 2), with associated junctions, tie-ins, and ancillary works.
Application
LA/Applicant: Mayo County Council (lead authority), Westport Town Council, Castlebar Town Council.
PA Reg. Ref.: Not applicable – Direct application.
Type of Application: Local Authority Road Development – EIS and CPO
Observers: As set out in Section 6.0 and Appendix 2 below
Date of Site Inspections: 11 th /12 th December 2013, 13 th /18 th /20 th January 2014
Report Brief: As directed by presiding inspector, Mr O’Sullivan, and as set out in section 1.3 below.
Inspector: G. Ryan
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 1 of 145
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION...... 7 1.1 Proposal ...... 7 1.2 Case Type...... 7 1.3 Report Brief...... 7 1.4 Report Structure and Approach ...... 8
2.0 SITE ...... 9 2.1 Existing N5 Road and Corridor...... 9 2.2 Lands Along Proposed Corridor ...... 10 2.3 Surrounding National and Regional Road Network...... 10 2.4 Existing Roads at Proposed Tie-In and Crossing Points...... 11 2.4.2 Newport Road – N59 – Chainage 2+000 ...... 11 2.4.4 Attireesh Road West – Chainage 2+050...... 11 2.4.7 Attireesh Road North – Chainage 2+050 to 3+000 ...... 12 2.4.9 Attireesh Road East – Chainage 3+000...... 12 2.4.11 Carrowbeg Road – Chainage 3+000...... 12 2.4.14 Lodge Road (L-1805) – Chainage 3+800...... 12 2.4.16 Islandeady Road (L-1811) – Chainage 17+100 ...... 13 2.4.18 Annagh Road (L17107) – Chainage 19+550 ...... 13 2.4.20 Existing N5 at Derrylea – Chainage 20+310 ...... 13 2.4.22 N84 – Chainage 33+600 ...... 13 2.4.24 Belcarra Road (L1707) – Chainage 34+3850 ...... 13 2.4.26 Breaffy Road (N60) – Chainage 37+100...... 13 2.4.29 Existing N5 at Liscromwell – Chainage 40+000...... 14 2.4.31 Windsor Road (L-5785) – Chainage 40+500 ...... 14 2.4.33 Clogher Road (L-5784) – Chainage 42+050 ...... 14 2.4.35 Gortnafolla Road (L5779) – Chainage 43+700 ...... 14 2.4.37 Other minor roads ...... 14 2.5 Existing Trails Infrastructure in the Vicinity...... 16 2.5.3 Great Western Greenway ...... 16 2.5.8 Westport Greenway ...... 17 2.5.11 Western way ...... 17 2.5.15 National Coastal Trail...... 18 2.5.17 Westport radial routes ...... 18 2.5.19 Castlebar N5 routes ...... 18 2.5.23 Castlebar to Islandeady Greenway (proposed)...... 19 2.5.27 Castlebar to Turlough Greenway (under construction)...... 19 2.5.30 Islandeady to Westport cycle route (proposed)...... 19 2.5.33 Westport-Castlebar Rail Line Greenway (proposed)...... 19 2.6 Current Traffic and Travel Patterns...... 20 2.6.2 Vehicular travel patterns ...... 20 2.6.6 Public transport, cycling, and walking ...... 20
3.0 PROPOSAL – FROM EIS AND ORAL HEARING ...... 21 3.4 Scheme as Proposed ...... 22 3.4.3 Alignment ...... 24 3.4.8 Ancillary Roads, Structures, and works...... 25
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 2 of 145
3.5 Project Timeline and Previous Reports ...... 27 3.5.1 Constraints study report...... 27 3.5.3 Route selection Study ...... 27 3.5.5 Design report ...... 28 3.5.9 Link with N26 scheme...... 28 3.6 Policy-Based Rationale ...... 29 3.7 Need for the Scheme ...... 29 3.7.3 Economy...... 30 3.7.9 Safety...... 31 3.7.12 Environment...... 31 3.7.14 Accessibiliy and Social Inclusion...... 31 3.7.16 Integration ...... 31 3.8 Alternative Routes Considered ...... 32 3.8.8 Online option...... 33 3.9 Proposed Carriageway Type and Justification ...... 33 3.9.6 Incremental Analysis and Cost Benefit Analysis ...... 34 3.10 Proposed Junction Type and Justification ...... 36 3.10.1 Route Section A – Junction Strategy...... 36 3.10.5 Route Sections B, C, D – Junction Strategy...... 37 3.11 Proposed Provision for Cyclists And Pedestrians ...... 39 3.11.1 Pedestrian/cyclist provision within the scheme (mainline)...... 39 3.11.9 Interaction with existing pedestrian/cyclist routes at Westport (Section A) ...... 41 3.11.24 Interaction with existing pedestrian/cyclist routes elsewhere (Sections, B, C, D) ...... 43 3.12 Traffic Modelling and Analysis...... 43 3.12.1 Surveys ...... 43 3.12.8 Model construction...... 45 3.12.14 Model outputs and analysis...... 46 3.12.25 Modelling issues specific to the proposed N5/N60 junction...... 47 3.12.27 Move to ‘new’ NRA traffic forecasts...... 49 3.12.31 Comparative analysis with other road schemes ...... 49 3.12.34 Comparative analysis with other sections of the N4/N5 ...... 52
4.0 HISTORY ...... 53 4.1 Previous Roads Schemes on This Alignment...... 53 4.1.3 N5 Westport-Castlebar (2000-2003) ...... 53 4.1.7 N5 Ballyvary – Bohola (2003) ...... 53 4.1.10 Castlebar Ring Road (2004-2007) ...... 53 4.1.14 N5/N59 North Westport Relief Road (2004-2007)...... 54 4.1.16 N5 Westport to Bohola (2008-2010) ...... 54 4.2 Other Relevant National Roads Schemes in Mayo ...... 54 4.2.1 N26 Ballina to Bohola - PL16.HA0003 (2010)...... 54 4.2.4 Turlough to Bohola scheme ...... 55 4.2.6 N59 Westport-Mulranny (PL16.JP0001/PL16.CH3163)...... 55 4.2.11 N60 Balla to Claremorris Road Realignment (PL16.JP0025 /PL16.CH3209) ...... 56 4.3 Previous Relevant T2dc Cases Elsewhere in the Country...... 56 4.3.2 PL08.HA0016 – Tralee bypass, Co. Kerry ...... 57 4.3.5 PL08.CH2235 – Castleisland Bypass, Co. Kerry ...... 57
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 3 of 145
4.4 Relevant Major Non-Road Schemes ...... 57 4.4.1 Allergan expansion – PA Ref. 12/451 ...... 57
5.0 POLICY...... 58 5.1 European Infrastructural Policy ...... 58 5.1.1 TEN-T Trans European Transport Network - 2013 ...... 58 5.2 National Planning and Infrastructural Policy ...... 58 5.2.1 National Spatial Strategy 2002-2020 ...... 58 5.2.2 Transport 21 - 2005...... 59 5.2.3 National Development Plan 2007-2013...... 60 5.2.4 Smarter Travel 2009-2020 ...... 60 5.2.5 Infrastructure and Capital Investment 2012-16 ...... 61 5.3 Regional Planning Policy...... 62 5.3.1 Border, Midland and Western Regional Operational Programme 2007-2013...... 62 5.3.2 West Regional Planning Guidelines 2010-2022...... 62 5.4 County Level Planning Policy (incl. Town & Environs Plans) ...62 5.4.1 Mayo County Council Development Plan 2008-2014...... 62 5.4.2 Castlebar Town and Environs Development Plan 2008-2014...... 65 5.4.3 Westport Town and Environs Development Plan 2010-2016...... 65 5.4.4 DRAFT Mayo County Council Development Plan 2014 – 2020 ...66 5.5 Roads Programmes And Policies ...... 66 5.5.1 NRA National Roads Needs Study (1998) ...... 66 5.5.2 NRA National Secondary Roads Needs Study (2011) ...... 67 5.6 Roads Design Standards - Design Manual For Roads and Bridges (DMRB) ...... 67 5.6.1 DMRB TD9 - Road Link Design - 2012 ...... 67 5.6.2 DMRB TD10 - Road Link Design for Type 2 and Type 3 Dual Carriageways - 2007...... 69 5.6.3 DMRB TD16 – Geometric Design of Roundabouts - 2009...... 69 5.6.4 DMRB TD27 – Cross Sections and Headroom - 2011...... 69 5.6.5 DMRB - NRA Interim Advice Note 3/12 (IAN) – 2012 ...... 70 5.7 Roads Design Standards – Other Documents ...... 71 5.7.1 Guidelines on a Common Appraisal Framework for Transport Projects and Programmes – Department of Transport – 2009.....71 5.7.2 NRA project Appraisal Guidelines (2011)...... 71 5.7.3 Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets (DMURS) - 2013 ...71 5.7.4 Various Planning and Construction guidelines of the National Roads Authority ...... 72 5.8 Cycle and Pedestrian Policy...... 72 5.8.1 A Strategy for the Development of Irish Cycle Tourism – Fáilte Ireland - 2007...... 72 5.8.2 Irish trails strategy – Irish Sports Council - 2007...... 72 5.8.3 Ireland’s First National Cycle Policy Framework – Department of Transport - 2009-2020 ...... 72 5.8.4 National Cycle Network Scoping Study - Dept. of Transport and NRA - 2010) ...... 73 5.8.5 National Cycle Manual – NTA 2011 ...... 73 5.8.6 Mayo Trails Strategy ...... 74
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 4 of 145
6.0 SUBMISSIONS FROM 3 RD PARTIES – with applicant’s responses 75 6.5 An Taisce - Submission # 2 ...... 76 6.6 The West Regional Authority - Submission # 5 ...... 77 6.7 Padraig Mcloughlin - Submission # 13 ...... 78 6.8 Mary B. Rice - Submission # 61...... 79 6.9 Edward Browne - Submission # 68 ...... 79 6.10 Michael Mccormack and Others - Submission # 70...... 81 6.11 Westport Tourism Organisation - Submission # 75...... 82 6.12 Allergan Pharmaceuticals Ireland - Submission # 76...... 82 6.13 Synergy Health Westport Ltd - Submission # 77 ...... 82 6.14 Westport Chamber of Commerce - Submission # 79 ...... 83 6.15 Dominic Di Lucia - Submission # 81 ...... 83 6.16 Annagh Residents - Submission # 82...... 84 6.17 James Burke and Mary Amelia Mcnally - Submission # 86 ...... 84 6.18 Caroline and Paul Ryder - Submission # 89...... 86 6.19 John Jordan - Submission # 92...... 86 6.20 Helen Sarsfield - Submission # 93 ...... 86 6.21 Thomas Horkan, Paraic Horkan and John Horkan - Submission # 100...... 86 6.22 H Bro - Submission # 101 ...... 87 6.23 Peter Sweetman - Submission # 104...... 87 6.24 Islandeady Community Council - Submission # 107 ...... 88
7.0 ASSESSMENT ...... 90 7.1 Policy Context...... 90 7.1.2 European-level strategic infrastructure policy ...... 90 7.1.6 National-level planning and infrastructure policy...... 90 7.1.30 Regional planning and infrastructure policy ...... 92 7.1.36 County-level planning and infrastructure policy...... 94 7.1.43 Conclusion on Policy Context ...... 95 7.2 Need for the Scheme ...... 96 7.2.2 Demand - v - capacity on current route...... 96 7.2.4 Road Safety Considerations ...... 96 7.2.8 Scheme priority ...... 97 7.2.23 Conclusion on need for scheme...... 99 7.3 Appropriateness of Cross-Section/Road Type ...... 99 7.3.1 Evolution of cross section on this route...... 99 7.3.19 Examples of T2DC roads nationwide...... 101 7.3.25 Conclusion on appropriateness of cross-section/road type...... 103 7.4 Impacts on Traffic Flows and Travel Patterns ...... 103 7.4.1 Traffic modelling...... 103 7.4.14 Some concerns regarding N60 junction ...... 105 7.4.28 Likely impacts on traffic flow ...... 108 7.4.31 Conclusions on impacts on traffic flows and travel patterns...... 108 7.5 Junction Strategy and Design ...... 108 7.5.1 Overall junction strategy...... 108 7.5.21 Newport Road – N59...... 111 7.5.31 Attireesh Road West ...... 112 7.5.38 Carrowbeg Road / Attireesh Road East ...... 113 7.5.53 Knockranny North and South ...... 114
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 5 of 145
7.5.60 Castlebar West (junction with existing N5)...... 115 7.5.70 Breaffy Road (N60) ...... 116 7.5.96 N84 ...... 120 7.5.98 Castlebar East (Existing N5) ...... 120 7.5.104 Windsor Road (L5785) ...... 120 7.5.109 Clogher Road (L-5784)...... 121 7.5.114 Gortnafolla Road (Turlough Interchange) (L5779)...... 121 7.5.119 Conclusion on Junction Strategy and Design...... 122 7.6 Interaction with Non-Motorised Users ...... 122 7.6.2 Proposed NMU provision on Section A and KLR ...... 122 7.6.6 Requirement for NMU provision on this corridor ...... 123 7.6.50 Proposed NMU provision at Junctions ...... 130 7.6.53 Interaction with Great Western Greenway ...... 131 7.6.76 Interaction with other trails infrastructure ...... 134 7.6.79 Conclusion on interaction with non-motorised users...... 134 7.7 Interaction with Public Transport...... 134 7.7.1 Requirement to consider...... 134 7.7.4 Specific interaction with scheme ...... 135 7.7.7 Conclusion on interaction with public transport ...... 135 7.8 Interaction with Land-Use Policy ...... 135 7.8.1 Land use as driver of the scheme ...... 135 7.8.8 Impacts on land use from scheme ...... 136 7.8.18 Conclusion on interactions with land use policy ...... 137 7.9 Alternatives Considered ...... 137 7.9.1 Route Selection...... 137 7.9.6 Alternative approaches ...... 138 7.9.9 Conclusion on alternatives considered...... 138 7.10 Suggested Amendments by Observers...... 138 7.10.1 Annagh Residents...... 138 7.10.5 Padraig McLoughlin, Michael McCormack ...... 139 7.10.9 Horkans...... 139 7.10.14 Balloor residents...... 140 7.10.17 Islandeady Community Council...... 140 7.10.19 Conclusion on suggested amendments by observers...... 140
8.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 141 8.1 Overall conclusions...... 141 8.2 Detailed conclusions...... 141 8.3 Remedies available to the board ...... 142 8.4 Recommendation...... 143
1.0 Appendix 1 – existing inter-urban road connectivity...... 1
2.0 Appendix 2 – Full list of valid observers...... 5
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 6 of 145
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROPOSAL
1.1.1 It is proposed to construct a new Dual Carriageway road from Turlough (east of Castlebar) to Westport. The majority would be ‘new build’ or ‘greenfield’ construction on a route roughly parallel to the existing N5, although the eastern section would comprise of an upgrade of an existing stretch of single carriageway.
1.1.2 The scheme would also consist of a number of junctions and ‘tie in’ roads, and would result in a southern bypass of Castlebar and a northern bypass of Westport.
1.1.3 An oral hearing in respect of this case was held between 14 th and 23 rd January 2014.
1.2 CASE TYPE
1.2.1 The case before the board is made by way of a direct application to An Bord Pleanála by Mayo County Council (the applicant). Both a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) have been presented to the board. The CPO relates to the acquisition of lands to affect the roads proposal, whereas the EIS relates to the likely environmental impacts of the proposal. It falls to the board to grant consent, or otherwise, to this proposal.
1.3 REPORT BRIEF
1.3.1 My role in this case is as ‘2 nd inspector’, or ‘assessor’. I have been tasked with providing support to the lead inspector on the basis of the following brief:
1. Attend the oral hearing, provide assistance to Stephen O’Sullivan in its format, timetabling and direction and deal with any such issues as may be determined by the Board and / or the reporting inspector.
2. Ask questions as deemed necessary at the oral hearing.
3. Submit a written report with recommendations to Stephen O’Sullivan on the following aspects of the proposed scheme:
Its likely effects on travel patterns and traffic, including its impacts on the safety and carrying capacity of the road network and the application of road design guidance and specifications.
The report and recommendations shall be compiled having regard to the relevant section of the EIS, including chapters 2, 3,
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 7 of 145
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4 and 5 as well as to any further information submitted to the Board in writing or at the oral hearing by any of the parties .
1.3.2 At the time of writing, having discharged the brief under points 1 and 2, this report concerns itself with the matters outlined under point 3.
1.4 REPORT STRUCTURE AND APPROACH
1.4.1 Section 2.0 below describes the site and its surroundings, the existing road network and trails infrastructure and overall travel patterns.
1.4.2 Section 3.0 below describes the proposed development. Information in this section is taken from the EIS, the attached drawings and appendices, and from written and oral information provided at the oral hearing.
1.4.3 Section 4.0 describes previous proposals for roads along this corridor, and indeed other roads proposals of relevance in the vicinity, as well as any other major planning applications.
1.4.4 Section 5.0 provides relevant details of policy, standards, studies, and programmes at a range of spatial levels and thematic areas.
1.4.5 Section 6.0 is an account of 3 rd party submissions received directly by the board or at the oral hearing. Only those relevant to the brief of this report are listed.
1.4.6 Section 7.0 consists of my assessment of the scheme against the report brief across a number of topics relevant to the issues raised.
1.4.7 Section 8.0 contains my conclusions on the issues raised, as well as recommendations to the presiding inceptor and the board.
1.4.8 It should be noted that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process falls to the board to undertake, as informed by the recommendations of the presiding inspector. I do not propose to proffer any direct recommendations on this matter, save for any conclusions the presiding inspector and the board might draw from the analysis and recommendations provided within this report under the terms of the brief.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 8 of 145
2.0 SITE
2.0 SITE
2.1 EXISTING N5 ROAD AND CORRIDOR
2.1.1 The existing road is described in section 2.3 of the EIS. Having inspected the road in its entirety, I would consider this description to be accurate and representative. In broad terms, the road is a single carriageway road, with intermittent sections of hard shoulder. The lane widths for the Castlebar-Westport section are described in Section 2.4.2 of the EIS as ranging from 2.6m to 3.5m, with hard shoulder widths varying between 0m and 3m. The Castlebar- Turlough section has 4m lanes with 2.5-3.2m hard shoulders and 0.5m verges, and is of notably high quality.
2.1.2 The road runs from Turlough in the east, through Castlebar’s inner relief road, and westward through an area of countryside. This area is signposted as ‘Islandeady’, although what might be considered to be the historical centre of this small, dispersed settlement is a distance to the north of the road alignment. This being said, there is a school/crèche and a public house opening directly on to the N5 along this stretch which appear to be considered within the wider dispersed infrastructure of ‘Islandeady’. The road continues westward to Westport, where it slowly changes to an urban character, knitting into the town’s 19 th century streets and one-way system, from where there are onward routes including the N59 (north) and the N59 (south).
2.1.3 The horizontal alignment of the N5 is variable, with good straight sections, but with tight and compound bends in places, particularly in the ‘middle third’ of the section between Castlebar and Westport, around Islandeady. The entirety of the section between Westport and Castlebar has pockets of housing with direct access on the road, with some more isolated houses. The housing stock would appear to generally date from the 20 th century, and there is perhaps a notable absence of 21 st century additions, as compared with non- national roads in the vicinity.
2.1.4 The character of the section through Castlebar is that of an urban relief road, with its roundabouts in rapid succession, but the general absence of frontage development. This road was constructed on a new alignment in 1992/1993 1. It is single carriageway, with 2 lanes on approaches to roundabouts. The approach section east of Castlebar has the best horizontal and vertical alignment of the entire route, with generous hard shoulders and a general absence of frontage development. This section of roadway was constructed as a ‘new build’ alignment, opening in 1990. Prior to this, the N5 route
1 As stated in the EIS. The written submission at the Oral hearing (Doc OH5) states it was constructed in 1990.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 9 of 145
2.0 SITE
was along the Turlough Road on the north side (opposite bank) of the Castlebar River, now the L-1719
2.1.5 Section 2.4.2 of the EIS states that this length of the N5 has 27 junctions and accesses per kilometre, where more than 9 would be considered ‘high’ in accordance with NRA TD9. There is no provision for right-turning vehicles at these junctions and accesses.
2.1.6 There is no designated cycle or pedestrian facility along the existing road except on the eastern approaches to Westport, on both approaches to Castlebar, and along the Castlebar relief road, where there are footpaths and cycle lanes.
2.2 LANDS ALONG PROPOSED CORRIDOR
2.2.1 The western part of the road corridor (Sections A and B – See section 3.4.3 below for breakdown of route) is characterised by undulating topography of drumlins, low hills, and small lakes. Section C is characterised by flatter farmland, with lower, intermittent hills interspersed by expansive areas prone to flooding, and some areas of bog. The eastern section (section D) appears to be characterised by rolling farmland, with generally well drained soils, along the banks of the Castlebar River.
2.2.2 The eastern part of ‘Section B’ of the corridor includes a number of small lakes to the north of the road corridor, including Islandeady Lough (also known as Bilberry Lake), and Lough Lannagh (also known as Castlebar Lough).
2.3 SURROUNDING NATIONAL AND REGIONAL ROAD NETWORK
2.3.1 Aside from the tie-in with the N59 at the Westport end, this section of the N5 has only one junction with a national route, the N60, This route links Castlebar to Claremorris, Ballyhaunis, Castlerea, Roscommon, and Athlone, and is known as the Breaffy/Breaffy Road on its approach to Castlebar. It also provides access to Tuam and an alternative route to Galway via the N17. The N5/N60 junction also provides access to the N84 by way of a T junction 2 a short distance to the south. The N84 links Castlebar with Ballinrobe, Headford, and ultimately Galway.
2.3.2 The only links to the regional road network (3 routes) occur along the Castlebar relief road 3 via the 3 roundabouts, and can be summarised as follows, from west to east
2 While it is the N60 that starts at the Castlebar Relief Road, it is the route that takes the 90 0 turn at the T-junction. 3 This road is not universally referred to as such in the documentation on file, but I will refer to it as this in this report, in the interests of clarity.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 10 of 145
2.0 SITE
Roundabout Junction north/west Junction south/east name
Westport Road R310 to Pontoon and Ballina n/a Roundabout (and town centre west)
Cathal Duffy 4 R311 (Spencer Street) to N60 to Athlone (N84 to Roundabout Newport (and town centre Galway) south)
Moneen R373 to town centre east R373 (Moneen Road) to Roundabout N60
Table 1
2.3.3 Further links to the regional road network exist in Westport, beyond the affected section of the N5 corridor. The R330 links back to the N84 at Partry, while the R335 runs west to Louisburgh and beyond.
2.3.4 As per section 2.3.7 of the EIS, there are a total of 84 local road junctions along this section of the N5, from Westport to Turlough.
2.4 EXISTING ROADS AT PROPOSED TIE-IN AND CROSSING POINTS
2.4.1 The proposed road would cross or form junctions with a large number of roads, from national primary to private accesses. Some of the more significant of these roads can be summarised as follows:
2.4.2 Newport Road – N59 – Chainage 2+000
2.4.3 The N59 at this point is a single carriageway rural-character roadway, with hedgerows and no hard shoulder or footpaths, just north of the Westport’s built edge. The section to the north of the tie- in point is scheduled for improvements (see section 4.2.6 below). The section to the south of the tie-in point is scheduled for works under the current scheme as far south as the junction between Golf Links Road and Attireesh Road West. South of this junction, towards the town, there is an ‘offline’ path to the southwest of the roadway which links to a narrow roadside path which continues – on one side of the road or the other – as far as Westport Town Centre.
2.4.4 Attireesh Road West – Chainage 2+050
2.4.5 This road is identified as ‘Attireesh Road’ in the submitted plans, but I will refer to it as Attireesh Road West in this report, do distinguish it from Attireesh Road north, a laneway that runs from the north end of Attireesh Road West to the north end of Attireesh Road East.
4 A local name, after the car dealership at this junction.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 11 of 145
2.0 SITE
2.4.6 Attireesh Road west is a narrow shared surface laneway providing access to about a dozen houses of varying vintages. It forms part of the Western Way walking route, and is generally level and well surfaced.
2.4.7 Attireesh Road North – Chainage 2+050 to 3+000
2.4.8 While the proposed road alignment does not cross this road, it does run parallel to it. Attireesh Road north runs from the north end of Attireesh Road West in an easterly direction, up a steep incline on the ridge of a hill, to its junction with Attireesh road east, where there are bollards preventing vehicular through-traffic. It is a narrow shared surface, with just 2 or 3 houses along its length. The Great Western Greenway runs along its length and westward on the old rail track. The Western Way also runs along this road.
2.4.9 Attireesh Road East – Chainage 3+000
2.4.10 This short road runs south from Attireesh Road on a steep incline from its highpoint at Attireesh Road North, and meets the access road to Mr Edward Browne’s house. This road also carries the Great Western Greenway.
2.4.11 Carrowbeg Road – Chainage 3+000
2.4.12 Running from the Existing N5 at Knockranny to the construction site at the Allergan Pharmaceutical Campus, Carrowbeg Road is currently a cul-de-sac, which it is proposed to extent to meet the N59/N5 link Road. It sits on the former Westport-Mulranny rail line, which continues as the private access lane to Mr Edward Browne’s house. Carrowbeg Road also provides access to residential streets to its west.
2.4.13 Carrowbeg Road has a single lane in each direction and a narrow footpath along its eastern side for its northern portion, and on the western side south of the northern Allergan entrance. South of the Southern Allergan entrance, there are footpaths on both sides. There are intermittent markings delineating on-street and off street cycle lanes.
2.4.14 Lodge Road (L-1805) – Chainage 3+800
2.4.15 This local road is quite industrial in character, and consists of a single carriageway road with no hard shoulder and no footpaths. It does however form part of the Western Way waling route. The proposed road is shown bridging this local road.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 12 of 145
2.0 SITE
2.4.16 Islandeady Road (L-1811) – Chainage 17+100
2.4.17 This minor local road with no markings, verges, or paths provides access between the existing N5 and the small settlement of Islandeady, on the western Shores of Islandeady Lough.
2.4.18 Annagh Road (L17107) – Chainage 19+550
2.4.19 This minor road provides the sole access to what is effectively a peninsula of land between Islandeady Lough, Lough Lannagh, and their connecting channel. The road crosses a causeway between Lough Lannagh ‘proper’ to the north and a southern separated portion. The proposed new road would cross both Lough Lannagh and Annagh Road at this point.
2.4.20 Existing N5 at Derrylea – Chainage 20+310
2.4.21 The N5 at this location has a straight and level horizontal and vertical alignment, with no hard shoulders except to the front of the houses along this stretch. The surrounding topography is notably level.
2.4.22 N84 – Chainage 33+600
2.4.23 This is a level section of the national secondary route, with a series of linked wide-radius bends (to the left if approaching Castlebar). Again, there are no hard shoulders or paths. A large warehouse/distribution facility 5 is located a short distance to the north of the proposed crossing point.
2.4.24 Belcarra Road (L1707) – Chainage 34+3850
2.4.25 There is a hill to the northwest of the proposed crossing point, resulting in the necessity for a large cutting at this point. There is a very significant amount of ribbon development to the southeast of this crossing point in and around the townland of Curry.
2.4.26 Breaffy Road (N60) – Chainage 37+100
2.4.27 There are intermittent sections of significant ribbon development along this road. There is a hard shoulder along the southern side of the road, which become a footpath a short distance towards Castlebar to the west.
2.4.28 Given the proposed Compact Grade Separated Interchange at this location, it is arguably the most congested tie-in point of the alignment. The only inhabited house proposed for demolition is located at this point, as are a number of properties which it is proposed to acquire but not demolish.
5 This would appear to have been constructed between 1995 and 2000.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 13 of 145
2.0 SITE
2.4.29 Existing N5 at Liscromwell – Chainage 40+000
2.4.30 There is a low hill to the south of the road at this point, necessitating a cutting. The bank of the Castlebar River sits just below (2m) the toe of the embankment for the proposed roundabout. At this point, the N5 consists of a single carriagway with wide hard shoulders on both sides, and good horizontal and vertical alignment.
2.4.31 Windsor Road (L-5785) – Chainage 40+500
2.4.32 This staggered crossroads on the ‘improved’ section of the N5 east of Castlebar consists of a pair of all-movement T- junctions that provide access to the surrounding rural hinterland via Windsor Road North and Windsor Road South, as referred to on file.
2.4.33 Clogher Road (L-5784) – Chainage 42+050
2.4.34 This junction currently forms an uncontrolled crossroads of the N5 to the north. This road provides a route north to Turlough Village via a narrow and twisting road. It also provides a route to the wider network of local roads to the south, lying east of Castlebar town. A nursing home is located at the southwest corner of this junction, with access off Clogher Road just south of the N5 junction.
2.4.35 Gortnafolla Road (L5779) – Chainage 43+700
2.4.36 This junction performs similarly to the Clogher Road junction above, with the northern arm providing access to Turlough village, albeit on a road of somewhat higher standard. Turlough church sits on high ground to the southeast of this junction.
2.4.37 Other minor roads
2.4.38 The remaining public roads that cross the proposed alignment of the road can be summarised as follows:
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 14 of 145
2.0 SITE
Known as (as per Route number Chainage EIS)
Drummindoo Road L-5847 10+500
Sheean Road L-58092 11+500
Cogaula Road L-5848 12+350
Bullaunmeneen Road L-5891 13+700
Derrada Road L-5849 14+550
Drumneen Road L-58551 15+750
Islandeady Cemetary L-5851 17+600 Road
Claggarnagh East L-18131 18+500 Road
Fore Annagh Road 6 No number given 19+200
Unnamed road at No number given 30+600 Derrylea
Unnamed road at No number given 31+100 Derrynashask
Unnamed road at No number given 31+600 Derrinlevaun
Horsepark Road L-5756 32+200
Keelogues Road L-1711 37+700
Unnamed Road at No number given 38+650 Liscromwell
[other] Windsor Road 7 L-5786 39+000
Turlough Road L-1719 44+550
Table 2
6 As per the name given by the Annagh Residents in their submission. 7 An east-west road, not the ‘Windsor Road North’ and ‘Windsor Road South’ referred to at 2.4.31.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 15 of 145
2.0 SITE
2.5 EXISTING TRAILS INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE VICINITY
2.5.1 The route comes in contact with, or in proximity to a number of walking and cycling trails, particularly at the Westport end. Aside from tourist/recreational trails infrastructure, the route also interacts with residential/commuter pedestrian and cycle movements and associated routes. Section 3.2.4 of the EIS provides information in this regard, and states that in 2011, Westport was one of 11 towns nationally to be short-listed for the final stage of the Department of Transport’s Smarter Travel Areas Competition, promoting alternative ways of travel around Westport. The town received €5 of funding to undertake the initiative, which led to the development of the Westport greenway and the Westport Cycle Hub. Further to this designation, I note that Westport has been designated as one of three centres in Ireland that have become Ireland's first Smarter Travel Demonstration Areas 8.
2.5.2 Plates 3.28, 3.29, and 3.30 show the existing and proposed cycle/pedestrian infrastructure within and surrounding Westport, between Westport and Castlebar, and within and surrounding Castlebar. It should be noted that Plate 3.28 of the EIS contains a number of errors in its depictions of the Cycleways/Walkways, specifically the sections of the Great Western Greenway/Westport Greenway to the southeast of the town. These errors were replicated in the documents submitted by the applicant at the oral hearing, namely Document OH6 (slide 137), but was largely corrected by way of information submitted at the oral hearing (Document OH67 – Errata No. 3)
2.5.3 Great Western Greenway
2.5.4 This 42km off-road cycling and walking facility runs from Westport, through Newport and Mulranny to Achill Island. It runs largely along the line of the old Midland Great Western Railway. The first phase, Newport to Mulranny, was opened in April 2010. It was subsequently extended in 2011.
2.5.5 Approaching Westport from the northwest, the current alignment of the Greenway deviates left (north) away from the original rail alignment, and up a relatively steep hill at Attireesh Road North, in an easterly direction. At the brow of this hill, the route takes a sharp right, heading south down an even steeper incline before tying in with the existing road at Carrowbeg Road. The route runs along the main carriageway of Carrowbeg road to the existing N5. There are intermittent and disconnected sections of cycle lane on parts of the footpath. It is notable that Carrowbeg Road was constructed along the alignment of the original rail line. At the N5, the dedicated cycle/pedestrian route reappears, including a pedestrian crossing of
8 http://www.westportsmartertravel.ie/about.html
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 16 of 145
2.0 SITE
the N5 with on-demand traffic lights. From here south, the alignment continues on an off-road route, along the old rail alignment. It is my understanding that it becomes the Westport Greenway at this point, as it crosses the existing N5.
2.5.6 Aside from the above alignment, there is a second viable (albeit not signposted) feeder route from the Western Greenway to the town of Westport. At the point north of the town where the greenway diverges up the hill at Attireesh Road North. There is an alternative viable route south along Attireesh Road west, albeit one that joins the N59 at a point where the route onward to the town centre must be shared with traffic on the national road.
2.5.7 Along the Westport-Newport section, there are a small number of at- grade uncontrolled crossing points of the N59. These are orientated at 90 O to the roadway, with ‘speed checks’ either side, and good visibility in either direction. These are to be omitted in favour of grade-separated crossings under the terms of the permitted N59 upgrade (See section 4.2.6 below)
2.5.8 Westport Greenway
2.5.9 This cycle and pedestrian route runs from Westport Quay to Knockranny (at the junction of the existing N5 and Carrowbeg Road), running to the south of the built up area of Westport Town, again largely on an abandoned rail line. It was funded by the Smarter Travel Project Fund. As per Section 3.2.4 of the EIS, it was opened in April 2010 from Westport to Altamont Street (near railway station). The section from Altamont Street to Knockranny (existing N5), linking with the Great Western Greenway was opened in 2012. This route incorporates numerous tie-in routes to the adjoining road network and residential areas. The linking section between Altamont Street and the N5 incorporates some on-road sections and cycle routes along paths, as well as shared surfaces along Mill Road. The route takes a detour off the rail alignment at the playing pitches of Rice College.
2.5.10 The route’s vertical alignment either side of Altamont Street is quite steep, where it diverts from the original rail alignment. As is the case with the Great Western Greenway, there are opportunities available to improve sections of the route’s horizontal and vertical alignment, by omitting the current diversions from the rail alignment. These potential re-routes are reflected in the objectives of the Westport Town development plan, as discussed in Section 5.4.3 below.
2.5.11 Western way
2.5.12 This long distance cycle route approaches Westport from the northeast along Lodge Road, passes to the north of the town along
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 17 of 145
2.0 SITE
Attireesh Road North and Attireesh Road West, and into the town centre along the N59.
2.5.13 Westport Cycle Hub
2.5.14 This is a series of looped cycle routes to the north and southwest of Westport town, ranging from 8km to 24km. Much of these routes are on-road along more minor roads. Some of the routes incorporate sections of the Westport Greenway, Great Western Greenway, and Western Way. One section effectively ‘closes’ the orbital loop of Westport created by the Westport Greenway and Great Western Greenway, providing a route to the west of the town from Westport Quay, through the grounds of Westport House, and along Golf Links Road to the N59 at Attireesh Road west. The Westport Cycle Hub also passes along Lodge Road.
2.5.15 National Coastal Trail
2.5.16 This pedestrian and cycle route effectively runs west from the Westport Greenway at Westport Quay, past Croagh Patrick on an on-road route. The EIS states that this route is subject to ongoing localised improvements.
2.5.17 Westport radial routes
2.5.18 While not depicted in the EIS, a number of routes into Westport Town incorporate cycle lanes along their edges, including a section of the N5 at Knockranny, east of the town, and a short parallel route alongside the N59 near Golf Links Road and Attireesh Road West.
2.5.19 Castlebar N5 routes
2.5.20 Sections of the current N5 approaching and through Castlebar incorporate cycle lanes, either on the main vehicular carriageway, or on a section of the adjacent footpath.
2.5.21 Castlebar-Lough Lannagh pedestrian and cycle routes.
2.5.22 While not shown in the EIS 9, there currently exists a looped route running both north and south of Lough Lannagh and the Castlebar River, running west from the R311 Link road at Tesco/Aldi. The routes run through parkland either side of the lake, and are linked via a new bridge around 750m southwest of the R311 link road. The bridge would appear from available aerial photography to have been built between 2010 and 2013.
9 The northern section is indicated on Plate 3.30 as being part of the proposed Castlebar – Islandeady Greenway.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 18 of 145
2.0 SITE
2.5.23 Castlebar to Islandeady Greenway (proposed)
2.5.24 The EIS presents this route has having ‘Part 8’ planning under the National Cycle Network. It is described as running to the north of Castlebar Lough (Lough Lannagh) and Islandeady Lough, over a distance of around 9km. As such, its route is essentially a continuation of the existing Lough Lannagh Route.
2.5.25 Document OH66, presented to the oral hearing on foot of questioning, amends this assertion in stating that the proposal was adopted by Mayo County Council on 5 th November 2013 [2 months after the date of the EIS], and on an amended route as compared with what was presented in the EIS.
2.5.26 This amended route is shown in Document OH67 Errata No. 3. It is a less direct route than was shown in the EIS, involving a significant ‘switchback’ onto the R311. Furthermore, while the alignment shown in the EIS was entirely off-road, the adopted alignment shown in OH67 includes a significant portion of the route along existing roadways. It was stated by the applicant at the oral hearing that the route was amended to avoid the requirement for compulsory purchase.
2.5.27 Castlebar to Turlough Greenway (under construction)
2.5.28 The EIS states that funding has been made available through Smarter Travel for a route linking Castlebar to Turlough House and the National Museum at Turlough. It is described as being largely north of the Castlebar River, and around 7km long. At the time of my site inspection, work on sections of this route appeared to be underway.
2.5.29 Document OH67 states that ‘Part 8 planning’ was adopted by Mayo County Council on 13 th May 2013
2.5.30 Islandeady to Westport cycle route (proposed)
2.5.31 The EIS states that an on-road cycle route is being developed by Mayo County Council to link the proposed Castlebar-Islandeady greenway to the Great Western Greenway/Westport Cycle hub.
2.5.32 This route was shown entirely ‘on road’, and involves a significant diversion north from what would be a direct route.
2.5.33 Westport-Castlebar Rail Line Greenway (proposed)
2.5.34 This is presented in Section 3.2.4 of the EIS as a long-term aspiration.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 19 of 145
2.0 SITE
2.6 CURRENT TRAFFIC AND TRAVEL PATTERNS
2.6.1 Document OH9 documents the 2006-2011 intercensal population growth in the environs of towns, including Castlebar at 21% and Westport at 67%. The population of the town of Castlebar dropped by 2%.
2.6.2 Vehicular travel patterns
2.6.3 The EIS (Section 2.5.1) makes reference to the existing road’s role in carrying long distance traffic, as well as significant regional inter- urban traffic flows. The EIS states that the capacity of the existing infrastructure is not sufficient to meet these demands, resulting in significant traffic congestion, particularly at peak hours. Section 2.6.3 of the EIS states that the current base year volumes on the western approaches to Castlebar and on the Castlebar relief road already exceed the design capacity for a Type 2 single carriageway by 72% and 67% respectively.
2.6.4 My own experiences, from site inspections over a number of days and times of day along the affected section of road, were such that I did not at any time encounter congestion or delays of any significance. Where delays occurred, within Westport Town, and on the Castlebar Relief Road, they were relatively minor, in my opinion.
2.6.5 This matter is dealt with in greater detail in Section 3.12 below.
2.6.6 Public transport, cycling, and walking
2.6.7 Document OH9 (Section 6) makes reference to the decline in the number of people using ‘green transport modes’ within the linked hubs of Castlebar and Ballina, having dropped from 10.45% in 2002 to 7.03% in 2011, which is the lowest such proportion of any NSS hub nationwide. The nationwide average is 10.59%.
2.6.8 Having consulted the timetables of the Bus Éireann website, there would appear to be 11/12 bus services a day (Monday to Saturday, half this on Sunday) in each direction between Westport and Castlebar, most of which have additional destinations beyond these towns. There do not appear to be any (scheduled) intermediate stops between Castlebar and Westport.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 20 of 145
3.0 PROPOSAL
3.0 PROPOSAL – FROM EIS AND ORAL HEARING
3.1 The description of the scheme is essentially contained within the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), as is the entirety of the background information, analysis, and justification for the scheme, as presented by the applicant to the board in the first instance. In this section, I propose to present some key aspects of that information, to the extent that it is relevant to the brief of this report.
3.2 Aside from the EIS itself, there are a number of other sources of information, which can be summarised as follows, in terms of the sections relevant to the brief of this report. The board administrative staff applied a linear chronological numbering system for documents received from all parties during the oral hearing, which I have employed in this report, and depicted as OH1, OH2, etc.
Information Relevant Sections Source EIS Chapter 2 - Need for the Proposed Road Development Chapter 3 - Description of the proposed development Chapter 4 - Alternatives Considered Chapter 5 - Traffic Analysis
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 21 of 145
3.0 PROPOSAL
Oral Hearing - OH5 - Presented by Jim Thorpe - Topic: Written Engineering / Project Design / CPO / Soils / Submissions Geology OH6 - Presented by Jim Thorpe - Topic: PowerPoint Presentation to accompany Design Brief of Evidence OH7 - Presented by Philip Shiels - Topic: Traffic Analysis OH8 - Presented by Philip Shiels - Topic: PowerPoint Presentation to accompany Traffic Brief of Evidence OH9 - Presented by Iain Douglas - Topic: Planning Aspects of Scheme (in addition to the above, the applicant submitted a number of development plan extracts – largely maps - relevant to this report. Oral Hearing - OH65 - Presented by Esmonde Keane - Topic: Written Response to inspector’s queries re: Existing & Submissions on predicted Traffic flows. foot of inspector OH66 - Presented by Esmonde Keane - Topic: questions 10 Response to inspector’s queries re: Pedestrian & Cycle Facility Provision Oral submissions As arose during the course of the oral hearing. and matters arising from questions Table 3
3.3 In the course of this section of the report, I will combine the above sources by theme, citing sources as relevant and appropriate.
3.4 SCHEME AS PROPOSED
3.4.1 Chapter 3 of the EIS opens with the caveat that as the scheme development is on the basis of a ‘design and build’ contract, the contractor may vary in precise line, level, and detail from the proposals set out in the EIS, as modifications may be made to avail of opportunities to improve the design, provided this has no significant adverse environmental effects.
3.4.2 This chapter sets out a detailed description of the scheme, essentially replicating the details shown in the submitted drawings. It is accompanied by photographs of the existing roads, along with
10 Presented on the afternoon of Day 4 (17/1/14), but read into the record on the afternoon of Day 5 (21/1/14)
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 22 of 145
3.0 PROPOSAL
existing ‘greenfield’ locations where works are proposed. For the purposes of description and analysis, the scheme is divided into 4 sections, A, B, C, and D, from west to east. In addition, the short ‘Knockranny Link Road’ (KLR) joins the new N5 line to the existing N5 east of Westport. These sections can be summarised in the following section.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 23 of 145
3.0 PROPOSAL
3.4.3 Alignment
Section Description Carriageway Junctions 11 A From the Type 2 Single • 3-arm Roundabout at N59. ‘N5/N59 existing N59 Carriageway, • Priority Junction at Attireesh Link Westport- with Road Road’ Newport footpath/cycle • Roundabout at Carrowbeg Road road to a track along West. 2.3km point southern side. • Priority Junction at Western northeast of Greenway/access laneway. Westport (Attireesh Road East) • Priority Junction at ESB substation. • 3-arm Roundabout (with ‘slip’ lane) at terminus (section B and KLR) – ‘Knockranny North’ ‘KLR’ Linking the Type 2 Dual • 3-arm Roundabout at southern proposed Carriageway, end (existing N5) – ‘Knockranny 280m mainline to with South’. the existing footpath/cycle N5 east of track along Westport southern side. B The Type 2 Dual • 4-arm Roundabout at eastern Westport- Carriageway end (existing N5) – ‘Castlebar 10.3km Castlebar West’ at Derrylea townland. section C The Type 2 Dual • Compact grade separated Castlebar Carriageway interchange at crossing of N84. 9.4km ‘bypass’ • Compact grade separated interchange at crossing of N60. • 3-arm Roundabout (with two ‘slip’ lanes) at junction with existing N5 – ‘Castlebar East’ at Liscromwell townland.
D Castlebar- Type 2 Dual • Left in/Left out junctions at Turlough Carriageway Windsor Road north and south. 4.6km (online • The closing of the N5/Clogher upgrade) Road junction, and the provision of a flyover at this point. • Compact grade separated interchange at crossing of L- 5779 (Gortnafolla Road) – ‘Turlough Junction’. Table 4
11 Each junction is only referenced once, even where it joins two sections of roadway.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 24 of 145
3.0 PROPOSAL
3.4.4 Cross Sections
3.4.5 The cross sections proposed are described in Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 of the EIS and shown in section on the accompanying drawings, and on Plates 3.18, 3.19, and 3.20. These sections replicate the standards set out in NRA TD9 (DMRB) which is showin in section 0 below. The proposed ‘Type 2’ or ‘2+2’ dual carriageway is similar to the Dual carriagway that Irish road users would be largely familiar with, in that there are 2 lanes in each direction. However, there are no hard shoulders for use by vehicles in difficulty or non-motorised users such as pedestrians or cyclists. Furthermore, there is no grassed central reservation. Instead, there is a segregation barrier. It is my understanding that there is a limited amount of such roads in existence in Ireland. Examples include the N4 Drumod/Roosky bypass in Leitrim, and the Tralee and Castleisland bypasses in Kerry (see section 4.3 below), and a section of transitional road between the M3 and N3 at Kells. Plate 3.18 of the EIS shows a photograph of the N4 section.
3.4.6 In the interests of clarity, I will refer to ‘Type 2 Dual Carriageway’ in this report as ‘T2DC’.
3.4.7 As stated in Section 3.2.1 of the EIS, T2DCs require an additional 3.2m of land take over and above that required for a Type 1 Single carriageway (one lane + hard shoulder in each direction). In addition, as stated at the oral hearing (Doc OH5), they require 6.1m less than a Type 1 dual carriagway (2 lanes + hard shoulder in each direction).
3.4.8 Ancillary Roads, Structures, and works
3.4.9 In addition to the elements listed above, the road incorporates a number of bridges and underpasses, to accommodate the local road network, a number of permanent road closures, parallel access roads, and realignments of existing roads (horizontal and vertical). Table 3.4 of the EIS gives an account of the crossing points, and tables 3.11, 3.12, and 3.13 give an account of the proposed overbridges and underbridges. In general terms, all non-national roads are shown ‘bridging’ the mainline scheme, either by an overbridge or underbridge. Those that it is proposed to terminate are as follows.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 25 of 145
3.0 PROPOSAL
Known as (as Route Chainage Proposed Proposed per EIS) number treatment treatment north/west south/east of mainline of mainline
Bullaunmeneen L-5891 13+700 Divert to Terminate Road Derrada at cul-de- Road sac
Islandeady L-5851 17+600 Divert to Terminate Cemetary Road Islandeady at cul-de- Road sac
Fore Annagh No 19+200 Divert to Terminate Road 12 number Claggarnagh at cul-de- given East Road sac
Unnamed road No 30+600 Terminate at Terminate at Derrylea number cul-de-sac at cul-de- given sac
Turlough Road L-1719 44+550 Terminate at n/a – T cul-de-sac junction.
Table 5
3.4.10 Detailed drawings of overbridges, underbridges, and other structures are contained in Volume 2 of the Design Report.
3.4.11 There is one emergency access point proposed at Derrada, within Section B, 7 lay-bys, and 2 raised Garda Observation Platforms. Documents OH5 and OH6 (slide 79 onwards) gives detailed descriptions of the mainline road’s interaction with existing roads and accesses.
3.4.12 Perhaps the most significant road realignment is the proposed Annagh Road Overbridge, which would see the new N5 mainline, a realigned local road, a local access road, and a pair of linked waterbodies, converge by way of grade separation. The highest alignment would be the realigned Annagh Road, which would be carried on a 120m long 5-span bridge. This non-typical bridge is being prosed due to geotechnical, environmental, and aesthetic considerations, and is explored in more depth in documents OH5 and OH6, slides 92-96. The road also crosses the Westport- Castlebar-Manulla Junction rail line at two points, to the west and east of Castlebar.
12 As per the name given by the Annagh Residents in their submission.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 26 of 145
3.0 PROPOSAL
3.4.13 At chainage 3+000 on Section A, a short section of single carriagway is proposed running south from the proposed roundabout, and tying in to Carrowbeg Road. This requires the removal of an existing roundabout at the head of the road, which is currently a cul-de-sac, and the creation of a vehicular through-route along this road.
3.4.14 As is invariably the case with road schemes, the subject proposal requires an amount of cut and fill, with resultant cuttings and embankments. The undulating drumlin countryside of Section B particularly has resulted in significant interventions in this regard. While such works are indicated on the submitted drawings, it is difficult to get an overall sense of the scheme and its context. On foot of questioning, the applicant supplied Document OH69, which depicts areas of cut and fill that are differentiated in colour, against a backdrop of the existing topographical contours. The accompanying longitudinal sections also show the results from borehole tests.
3.4.15 Construction Phase
3.4.16 Sections 3.4.7 and 3.4.8 of the EIS details proposed traffic management and construction traffic issues during the construction phase. As well as the national road network, 3 specified local roads would be required for site access. The mainline route would be used for earthworks haulage, where possible. This issue is expanded upon in Document OH5 (Slide 146)
3.5 PROJECT TIMELINE AND PREVIOUS REPORTS
3.5.1 Constraints study report
3.5.2 As per Section 4.2.3 of the EIS, public consultation commenced in Early 2008. Comments were invited until May 2008. Published in October 2008, this document is currently available online on the website of the Mayo County Council National Roads Design Office (NRDO) 13 . This process referred to the longer Westport to Bohola alignment.
3.5.3 Route selection Study
3.5.4 As stated in Sections 1.2.4 and 4.2.4 of the EIS, this study led to the identification of an Emerging Preferred Route, which was subject to public consultation in September and October 2008. The ‘Emerging Preferred Route’ was displayed at a third round of public consultation between December 2008 and January 2009, and was presented and adopted by Mayo County Council on 9 th March 2009. This process referred to the longer Westport to Bohola alignment.
13 http://www.regdesign.com/?page_id=493
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 27 of 145
3.0 PROPOSAL
3.5.5 Design report
3.5.6 I note that a significant body of work was contained and published in the ‘Design Report’. While not in the body of documentation presented to the board for consideration, its contents were referred to, and indeed excerpts circulated, during the oral hearing. During questioning, the applicant often referred to the contents of the Design Report, and indeed the applicant made a copy available for inspection throughout the oral hearing. At the time of writing, it is also available online on the RDO’s website 14 .
3.5.7 The Design Report contains sets of drawings of the scheme, which are more detailed than those contained in the EIS, although they do refer to the exact same scheme as is before the board for consideration. The design report available online is dated ‘September 2013’, which is the same date as the EIS submitted to the board.
3.5.8 While much of the content of the Design Report is replicated in the EIS and the additional material furnished to the hearing by the applicant, there are sections that provide additional detail, background, or justification for aspects of the scheme, which can be summarised as follows.
• Section 8 provides further background on Junction Strategy, including modelled AADT figures for a number of additional junction arms not referenced in the EIS. • Section 10 includes details of Departures from DMRB standards that were sought and granted from the NRA, including the provision of CGSIs at the N84 and N60 junctions, rather than roundabouts. • Section 18 addresses pedestrian and cyclist provision and references a number of standards and policies (TD 27, IAN 03/12, DMURS, National Cycle Manual) that do not feature in the EIS. Figures 18.8. 18.9, 18.10, 18.12, and 18.15 show cyclist/pedestrian provision at the major junction in a clear and concise manner. • Section 23 references (but does not include) the ‘Stage F’ and ‘Stage 1’ Road Safety Audits undertaken.
3.5.9 Link with N26 scheme
3.5.10 Section 1.7 of the EIS refers to difficulties encountered. The original Westport to Bohola Scheme was intended to compliment [and link with] the N26 Ballina to Bohola road scheme. The refusal of permission by the board in February 2010 for the N26 scheme precipitated a revision of the current scheme. The eastern portion of the scheme was curtailed from Bohola back to Turlough, pending
14 http://www.regdesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Design-Report-Vol-1.pdf (volume 1)
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 28 of 145
3.0 PROPOSAL
future consideration of the N26/N58 corridor. This matter is also referred to in section 4.2.5 of the EIS.
3.5.11 Document OH5 (Section 11.0, Slide 148) states that the Turlough to Bohola road project is currently at Route Corridor Selection Stage, and is being developed by the same team that have developed this project, the Mayo NRDO and Roughan & O’Donovan-Aecom Alliance.
3.6 POLICY-BASED RATIONALE
3.6.1 The EIS (section 1.4.1) asserts that the proposed development supports the NSS by providing a higher quality road to the east of Castlebar and also providing for a connection to the proposed N5/N26/N58 Turlough to Bohola road Project connecting Foxford to Ballina. Also, by reducing congestion in Castlebar, it would facilitate economic development within the hub. The EIS also refers to a map 15 that ‘recognises the importance of the N5 as a link to Westport and areas further west’.
3.6.2 Section 1.4.2 asserts that the National Development Plan 2007-2013 (NDP) included the N5 as part of its development strategy for National Primary Roads.
3.6.3 Section 1.4.3 refers to Transport 21, and quotes from the ‘N5 Dublin to Westport and Castlebar’ section of the Transport 21 website, which is summarised in section 5.2.2 below.
3.6.4 Section 1.4.4 makes reference to the policies of ‘Smarter Travel’, while section 1.4.5 discusses the regional and county level planning policy, namely the Regional Planning Guidelines for the West Region 2010-2022 (RPGs), the Mayo County Development Plan 2008-2014 (CDP), the Castlebar and Environs Development Plan 2008-2014, and the Westport Town and Environs Development Plan 2010-2016. The EIS quotes sections from the RPGs that support the NRA programme of works on the national routes through the region, and notes similar support in the CDP. The EIS notes that the two Town Development Plans make provision for the currently proposed road corridor.
3.7 NEED FOR THE SCHEME
3.7.1 Document OH9, from the planning authority’s Senior Planner, places the proposed development in the context of balanced regional development, and presents the spatial planning documents applicable to the scheme. The document states that the view consistently expressed by development agencies and business interests is that poor quality road infrastructure is a major barrier to
15 This map does not appear to originate from the NSS (2002) but rather the National Development Plan (2007)
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 29 of 145
3.0 PROPOSAL
investment in Mayo. The proposed development, as part of a ‘developmental strategy’ would
• Substantially improve the links between Mayo and the rest of Ireland, the UK, and Europe
• Facilitate existing and future economic activity
• Ensure speedy and efficient access to Dublin Airport
• Improve access to and between the 3 towns in the county
• Improve accessibility to/from the coast to support tourism and marine development
3.7.2 The need for the scheme is also covered in Chapter 2 of the EIS. In accordance with the ‘NRA Project Appraisal Guidelines’, the provision of and need for improved transport systems is based on 5 criteria 16 , as summarised below. The EIS states that the NRA Guidelines are themselves in compliance and in accordance with the Department of Finance’s ‘Guidelines on the Appraisal and Management of Capital Expenditure Proposals in the Public Sector’ as well as the Department of Transport’s ‘Guidelines on a Common Appraisal Framework for Transport Projects and Programmes’.
3.7.3 Economy
3.7.4 The proposed development would increase transport efficiency through a reduction in journey times and congestion, removing restrictions to business and tourism. A cost benefit analysis forecasts a saving of 12 million hours over 30 years.
3.7.5 Section 2.4.3 of the EIS refers to the necessary 50/60km/h speed restrictions along the Castlebar relief road. The NRA have a target minimum level of service D for though-traffic which seeks to deliver an average speed of 80kph for inter urban journeys. ‘Level of Service’ is a term that was adopted in the NRA National Roads Needs Study, and originates in the United States Highway Capacity Manual 17 .
3.7.6 Chapter 2 of the EIS includes a number of photographs of the existing route which are annotated to the effect that they show congestion along the Castlebar relief road and on the Castlebar- Westport section.
3.7.7 As stated in Documents OH4 and OH5, while the posted speed limit on the existing Westport-Castlebar section of the N5 is 100km/h,
16 These headings, from the NRA Project Appraisal Guidelines, were also applied to the process of route assessment in Section 4.5.1 of the EIS 17 As per ‘Slide 25’ of document OH5.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 30 of 145
3.0 PROPOSAL
neither its cross section nor alignment are of the standard required for high speed traffic. The reduced standard and lack of overtaking opportunities leads to platoons of vehicles – queues of 5-10 vehicles - building up behind slower vehicles. 75% of journeys are delayed by slower vehicles.
3.7.8 Document OH9 (Section 6) presents a number of socio-economic indicators for the Castlebar-Ballina linked hub, as well as figures relating to industry and tourism. It asserts that 43.8% of the economy of Mayo is directly dependant on access to the east. Westport is the primary tourism destination in the county. Achill Island is the second most popular tourism destination. Job losses have occurred in Castlebar and key towns.
3.7.9 Safety
3.7.10 The proposed development would address the road’s poor current safety record. It is estimated that from 1996 to 2011, it is estimated that a total of approximately 409 people have been killed or injured along the N5 between Westport and Turlough. This section includes a graph depicting road fatality rates versus accumulated expenditure in road infrastructure from 2000 to 2009, showing an inverse correlation.
3.7.11 Plate 2.2 shows a map of the existing route, marked with observed casualties from 1996 to 2011. Section 2.2.2 sets out a ‘do-minimum’ accident forecast for the N5, and quantifies the impacts of road improvements in terms of safety, categorised by accident type. The scheme is predicted to save 35 years over the period from 2018- 2048, and the avoidance of 1,350 non-fatal injuries.
3.7.12 Environment
3.7.13 The proposed development would enhance environmental quality in the towns of Castlebar and Westport, with an overall improvement in air quality. Stop-start traffic queues, as currently experienced in both Westport and Castlebar, are one of the greatest contributors to poor air quality in urban areas. It would also improve the stormwater discharge regime.
3.7.14 Accessibiliy and Social Inclusion
3.7.15 The new road would provide improved access to the County Mayo CLÁR 18 area.
3.7.16 Integration
3.7.17 The proposed development is consistent with planning policy.
18 No map showing this area was submitted by the applicant, nor is one readily available. I would assume that this area may refer to parts of the northwest of the county.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 31 of 145
3.0 PROPOSAL
3.7.18 On this topic, Section 4.2 of the scheme also references the ‘NRA National Road Needs Study’ (1998) (see section 5.5.1 below), which – in Annex 4 – identifies the N5 Westport-Castlebar route as ‘Backlog’ requiring a Wide 2 Lane standard road. ‘Backlog’ refers to those routes not included in the Operations Programme for Transport 1994-1999 which with projected traffic growth would not be capable of delivering 80kmp average inter-urban speeds by 1999. Castlebar to Charlestown was identified for upgrading to Standard Single Carriageway (See section 5.5.1 below).
3.8 ALTERNATIVE ROUTES CONSIDERED
3.8.1 Section 4.3 of the EIS states that the general principle 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 be informed by the previous studies in relation to previously-considered schemes (see Section 1.0 below)
3.8.2 Section 4.4 of the EIS lists the constraints to the road corridor, namely topography and water bodies, roads, railways, environmental issues, existing services, settlements, and land use.
3.8.3 Section 2.4 of the EIS explores the local constraints to on-line improvements, including the many access points, the national school at Islandeady, and an ESB substation at Knockranny, and buildings along the Castlebar Relief Road.
3.8.4 Section 4.5 of the EIS states that the route selection for the scheme is detailed in full in the N5 Westport to Bohola Road Project Route Selection Report, dated March 2009. It goes on to state that the preferred route corridors had been protected from planning since the completion of the previous route selections, and that the development of alternative routes, particularly around Westport and Castlebar, was significantly constrained by the extensive ribbon development along the existing road network.
3.8.5 Alternative routes are explored in section 4.5.2, with reference to figures 4.1-4.5 of the EIS, which relate to the Westport-Bohola scheme. Potential routes were broken down into sections, intersecting at nodes. Each of the 41 route elements were assessed in relation to the 6 criteria from the NRA Project appraisal guidelines. The decisions taken are discussed in the EIS. A number of small adjustments were made between ‘emerging preferred route’ and ‘preferred route’, as detailed in Section 4.6.1 of the EIS and Figure 4.5. Further amendments were made between ‘preferred route’ and ‘preliminary design’, as detailed in Section 4.6.2.
3.8.6 This matter was explored in more detail Slides 46-59 of Document OH6, submitted at the oral hearing by the applicant, where constraints mapping is provided in more detail, along with a
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 32 of 145
3.0 PROPOSAL
commentary on same, and an explanation of the decisions made. Points of note include that a route north of Castlebar was eliminated, as it would not connect with the N84 and N60 national secondary roads. Also, a route south of the existing N5 along Section B was eliminated due to large number of properties impacted, community severance, and two crossings of a railway.
3.8.7 The associated commentary notes that the whole study area is ‘characterised by extensive ribbon development along all of the national, regional, and local roads’. Slides 50-53 of Document OH6 provide a case study of the attempt to find a crossing point of the N60 without impacting on houses. The submission states that while the N60 is particularly constrained by development, similar constraints exist along almost every road in the study area.
3.8.8 Online option
3.8.9 Section 2.8 of the EIS considers and dispatches with the ‘Traffic Management’ alternative by considering the alternative of on-line upgrade. A total of 19 tight curves would need to be removed on the Westport-Castlebar section, which would require the removal of at least 19 properties. Large sections of parallel roadways to accommodate existing accesses would be required, along with U- turn facilities. Works to the urban sections of Castlebar and Westport would result in increased severance and demolition on a massive scale. Slide 32 of document OH6 shows the land take at 2 of the existing roundabouts in Castlebar, were larger roundabouts to be constructed. These figures originate from the ‘Design Report’.
3.8.10 If a T2DC were to be provided ‘online’, a total of 73 properties would need to be acquired on the Westport-Castlebar section alone. The prospect and implications of grade separated junctions along the Castlebar Relief Road is discussed.
3.9 PROPOSED CARRIAGEWAY TYPE AND JUSTIFICATION
3.9.1 Table 2.4 of the EIS presents Table 6/1 of NRA TD9 (see section 5.6.1 below), which recommends a suite of carriageway types for rural roads of different AADT levels. It also gives minimum acceptable requirements for treatment of junctions, access, and edge treatment. Each road section is presented relative to its maximum capacity where it can still provide level of service ‘D’, which is defined as being a minimum journey speed of 80km/h on single carriageways and 90km/h on dual carriageways.
3.9.2 Section 2.5.2 of the EIS relates the predicted traffic flows to Table 6/1 of TD9 from the NRA’s DMRB (see section 5.6.1 below). The applicant notes that the predicted AADT figures fall within the bounds of a Type 2 and Type 3 Dual carriageway. Type 3 Dual Carriageways are only intended for online upgrades. A Type 2 Dual
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 33 of 145
3.0 PROPOSAL
carriagway (T2DC) is considered preferable, and is what is currently proposed. Its attributes can be summarised as follows (from Table 6/1 of TD9)
• Type of Road - Divided 2 +2 Lanes (2x7.0m) Carriageways
• Capacity for Level of Service D -20,000 AADT
• Edge Treatment - 0.5m hard strips
• Access Treatment - No gaps in the central reserve. Left in / Left out
• Junction Treatment at Minor Road - No gaps in the central reserve. Left in / Left out
• Junction Treatment at Major Road - At-grade roundabouts and compact grade separation
3.9.3 By way of comparison, the next ‘grade’ up in the hierarchy is a Type 1 Dual carriagway, the main difference being it has 2.5m hard shoulders on either side and full grade separated interchanges at major junctions instead of compact grade separated interchanges and roundabouts. The capacity of a Type 1 Dual Carriagway is more than twice that of a Type 2, at 42,000 AADT. The next ‘grade’ down in the hierarchy is a Type 3 Dual Carriageway. These are ‘2+1’ roads whereby there are 3 lanes at any given point, with the 3 rd lane alternating between carriagway to give intermittent overtaking opportunities in both directions. Type 3 Dual Carriageways have a capacity of 14,000 AADT. The applicant stated at the oral hearing that these have effectively fallen out of favour for safety reasons.
3.9.4 Section 2.6.4 of the EIS states that the Castlebar-Turlough section of the existing road is on the limit of the design capacity for the current Type 1 Single Carriageway. For the design year of 2033, the volume would exceed this road’s design capacity by 13%. Furthermore, this section of roadway has two at-grade crossroad junctions that are not permitted under NRA TD41/42 (DMRB), and a staggered junction which is unsatisfactory.
3.9.5 Table 3.2 of the EIS shows that the prosed design speed for sections B, C, and D is 100km/h, whereas the design speed for section A would be 85km/h.
3.9.6 Incremental Analysis and Cost Benefit Analysis
3.9.7 Section 2.5.2 of the EIS refers briefly to the process of incremental analysis, which was expanded upon significantly at the oral hearing (see document OH5 and OH6 – slide 37-43, and document OH65 –
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 34 of 145
3.0 PROPOSAL
Section A, which was submitted as a result of questions on this matter.).
3.9.8 Essentially, this process requires an analysis of the performance of different carriageway options. Alternatives were considered, along with the Ratio of Flow to Capacity 19 (RFC) figures for each section, based on 2033 projected AADT values. The oral hearing submission references Tables 21.2 and 21.3 of the ‘Design Report’, which are replicated in the submission, and can be combined as follows, along with the bottom line of the cost/benefit analysis shown on Slide 40 of the oral hearing submission and the accident savings from Slide 41, represented in financial terms.
Section Proposed RFC Alternative RFC Alternative RFC Scheme A B
A Type 2 Type 2 Type 2 Single Single Single
B T2DC 53% T2DC 53% Type 1 91% Single
C T2DC 35-40% Type 1 60-69% Type 1 60- Single Single 69%
D T2DC T2DC T2DC
Benefit 1.967 1.780 1.353 Cost Ratio
Accident €39,925 €30,486 €14,554 Savings (€,000)
Table 6
3.9.9 The oral hearing submission notes that under Alternative B, Section B would be operating at 91% of ‘service D capacity’ within 15 years of opening, with the onset of difficult overtaking and platooning of vehicles behind slower vehicles. The submission notes that a Type 1 single carriagway provides for free-flow conditions on Section C. The submission notes that the proposed scheme provides a Net Present Benefit and Net Present Cost in excess of either of the two alternatives, and greater accident savings.
3.9.10 Document OH65 (Section A) provides a more detailed presentation of the costs and benefits associated with the scheme and the two
19 That is, capacity while providing ‘Level of Service D’
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 35 of 145
3.0 PROPOSAL
alternatives considered (Table 5). This analysis derives from the Design Report, which preceded the drafting of the EIS. The benefits quantified are as follows.
• Consumer User Benefits • Business User Benefits • Private Sector Provider Impacts • Accidents Benefits • Emission Benefits • Indirect Tax Revenues • Residual Value
3.9.11 The submission notes NRA TD10, which advises against providing short isolated lengths of T2DC, as would be the case with the alternatives considered.
3.9.12 The incremental analysis concludes (slide 43 of OH6) that the proposed scheme performs better than the two alternatives on Economy, Safety, Accessibility and Social Inclusion, and Integration. All 3 schemes are rated equally on the topic of Environment.
3.10 PROPOSED JUNCTION TYPE AND JUSTIFICATION
3.10.1 Route Section A – Junction Strategy
3.10.2 Following specific questioning at the oral hearing relating to the junction strategy at the N5 Link Road Junction (Carrowbeg Road), the applicant presented a rationale by way of Section G of Document OH65. Benefits of a junction at this point on the N5/N59 Link Road were framed as follows:
• This junction would provide access between the N59 north of Westport and the eastern parts of Westport, reducing congestion in the town.
• The junction would support the IDA objective of attracting inward investment to the IDA facility (subsequently occupied by expanded Allergan proposal)
• Allergan is the largest employer in the town. Their 800 employees all have to travel via the N5.
3.10.3 The submission notes that earlier proposed alignments and reserved corridors passed through the existing roundabout at Allergan. An announcement to expand the Allergan facility (See section 4.4.1 below) in January 2012 required a reassessment of the route.
3.10.4 In terms of junction strategy, while the flows on the N5/N59 link road and Carrowbeg road (4,600 AADT and 2,600 AADT) are such that a
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 36 of 145
3.0 PROPOSAL
ghost island junction would suffice, it would require a smooth alignment through the junction that would require a different horizontal alignment that would encroach on Allergan, the GAA club, involve a significant cut, and/or reduced design speeds. The roundabout allows for a kink in the alignment, and is consistent with expectations from previously proposed schemes.
3.10.5 Route Sections B, C, D – Junction Strategy.
3.10.6 Section 3.1.2 of the EIS presents a description of the proposed junctions, along with a brief rationale for each. On foot of a request made at the oral hearing (see section 3.2 above), the applicant furnished the board with a justification for the junction types selected (see document OH65 – Section D).
3.10.7 It can be seen from the information presented at the oral hearing that the junction strategy was formulated on the basis of a number of competing requirements, and is not simply an ‘off the peg’ application of design standards. NRA TD10 (see section 0 below) is the starting point on this issue, the recommendations of which (Section 2.26 onwards) can be summarised as follows:
AADT on minor road Recommended junction
>3,000 Roundabout
>1,000 (<3,000) Compact grade separated interchange (CGSI)
<1,000 Generally bridged, or ‘left in left out’ if roundabout nearby.
Table 7
3.10.8 This compares against the modelled AADT figures and proposed junction strategy as follows.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 37 of 145
3.0 PROPOSAL
Junction Design year TD10 Proposed AADT on recommendation Junction minor Road 20
Knockranny 4,600 Roundabout Roundabout North (N59/N5 (with slip lane) link)
Knockranny 3,300 21 Roundabout Roundabout South (existing N5)
Castlebar 4,200 Roundabout Roundabout West (existing N5)
N84 8,000 Roundabout CGSI
N60 12,200 Roundabout CGSI
Castlebar East 8,700 22 Roundabout Roundabout (existing N5) (with slip lane)
Turlough (L- 1,200 23 CGSI CGSI 5779 (Gortnafolla Road)
Table 8
3.10.9 The departures in respect of the N84 and N60 junctions were made in consultation with, and with the consent of the NRA. The use of lower capacity compact grade separated interchanges (CGSIs) proposed is justified in Document OH65(section D), and can be summarised as follows:
• Analysis shows that a significant majority of the traffic on the national secondary routes is through traffic. A roundabout would create conflicting movements between the dominant through flows.
20 From Table 5.4 of EIS. Where separate flows are given for the minor road either side of the mainline junction, the larger of the two figures is presented. 21 On the assumption that ‘N5 Westport Road (Existing) refers to the east arm of the junction, and that the north and west arms can be considered the ‘mainline’ section. 22 On the assumption that ‘N5 Turlough Road (East of Castlebar) represents the west arm of the junction. 23 Not presented in EIS, but is contained in the Design Report – Fig 8.8
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 38 of 145
3.0 PROPOSAL
• The connection between the proposed road and the heavily trafficked national secondary roads south of Castlebar is an unusual circumstance not adequately addressed by current design standards.
• The 3,000 AADT ‘cap’ for CGSIs has its origins in the UK where traffic turning on/off a dual carriageway is approx. 10% of mainline flows. This 10% figure was applied to the 20,000 AADT capacity of T2DCs to derive the 1,000-3,000 AADT range. This figure is therefore more applicable to turning flows than to through flows on the minor route.
• While analysis of the N60 showed combined turning flows 15% above 3,000 AADT, detailed modelling showed that the junction would be operating at 25% of capacity.
• The option of providing a roundabout at the N60 would result in significantly greater impacts in terms of property acquisition.
• The provision of an excessive number of roundabouts in close succession would lead to driver frustration and unnecessary delay. The nature of such a road would have reflected the original Castlebar Relief Road.
3.10.10 Document OH65 (Section D) also discusses the consideration of a CGSI at Castlebar West, which was also discounted. A strategy of utilising roundabouts at all intersections between the ‘old’ and ‘new’ N5s would assist users in recognising their location, and identify decision points where the driver may wish to turn back.
3.11 PROPOSED PROVISION FOR CYCLISTS AND PEDESTRIANS
3.11.1 Pedestrian/cyclist provision within the scheme (mainline)
3.11.2 The proposals for Non-Motorised Users (NMUs) are set out in Chapter 3 of the EIS from Page 3/34 onwards. Section A (N5/N59 Link Road) and the KLR include provision for footpaths and cycle lanes along the southern and western edges respectively. The EIS states that this section of the route would ‘encourage recreational use, support the aims and proposed route of the Westport Greenway, allow connectivity to the Western way at the Attireesh Road and a connection with a number of existing and proposed cycle routes in and around Westport.’ On questioning, the applicant confirmed that the 2.5m cycle tracks proposed would be 2-way cycle tracks.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 39 of 145
3.0 PROPOSAL
3.11.3 There is to be no provision for either cyclists or pedestrians on remainder of the new proposed N5 mainline aside from emergency pedestrian provision for breakdowns, in accordance with DMRB. The EIS states that ‘the proposed provision is that cyclists and pedestrians will avail of the current N5 once the new N5 is in [sic] constructed and the proposed Castlebar Islandeady Cycle Ways for Journeys between Castlebar and Westport’. It goes on to assert that the proposed reduction in speed limit and traffic would improve overall conditions for cyclists, and that further speed reductions could be considered. Sections of the road have hard shoulders or hard strips, which cyclists and pedestrians would be able to avail of. One the proposed scheme is in place, these lengths could be retrofitted with signs and marked lanes for pedestrians and cyclists.
3.11.4 The EIS stats that Section C would be particularly unattractive for cyclists, as there is a lack of origins/destinations along this route, and it is 2.5km longer than the existing route.
3.11.5 For section D - the online improvements - it is proposed that signage will emphasise the [under construction] Castlebar-Turlough greenway and the L-1719 as the preferred route for cyclists.
3.11.6 On foot of questioning at the oral hearing in respect of the consideration of pedestrian/cyclist provision on the proposed mainline, the applicant pointed to Sections TD10 (see Section 5.6.2 below), which states that facilities for NMUs alongside a T2DC should be provided in accordance with TD27, but that NMUs should be encouraged by signage to use alternative parallel routes. In this regard, existing parallel routes and the use of offline greenways along the length of the proposed project form the basis of the proposed pedestrian and cyclist provision. See document OH66 in this regard. On further questioning at the oral hearing, the applicant confirmed that there would not be a prohibition on NMUs on the proposed mainline, as this is an ‘all-purpose road’. Motorways are the only roads that may preclude NMUs.
3.11.7 The applicant stated that they were not familiar with the Tralee and Castleisland Bypasses, where segregated cycleways were provided on T2DC cross sections. In accordance with TD10, it must have been identified that due to the particular circumstances, cyclists were likely to arise on the mainline. Under such circumstances, it is prudent to make express provision, as the T2DC is not a ‘friendly’ cross section for cyclists to be present on.
3.11.8 Document OH66 also presents a comparison in cross section between a T2DC without pedestrian/cyclist facilities and a Type 1 Single Carriageway with pedestrian facilities, at 16.5m and 17m respectively.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 40 of 145
3.0 PROPOSAL
3.11.9 Interaction with existing pedestrian/cyclist routes at Westport (Section A)
3.11.10 N59 Westport to Mulranny
3.11.11 Documents OH5 and OH6 from the applicant expand on the provision for NMUs within the scheme. Slide 63 shows the approaches to the N59 roundabout. Footpaths are proposed on both sides of the road for the southern arm (towards the town). Footpaths and cycle paths are proposed on one side only (west/south) on both the northern (towards Newport) and eastern (towards the N5) arms. A short, independent section of footpath is proposed along the roundabout’s northern perimeter, terminating at the entrance to the northern leg of Attireesh Road West.
3.11.12 On foot of questioning at the oral hearing, the applicant responded to the issue of whether the Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets (DMURS
3.11.13 ) applies to the scheme. The applicant asserted that DMURS is not applicable due to the design speed of the roads involved, as per the following information.
DMURS ‘threshold’ 60km/h (speed limit)
N59 Westport-Mulranny 85km/h (design speed) / 80km/h (speed limit)
N5/N59 link road 80km/h (speed limit)
New N5 mainline 100km/h (design speed)
3.11.14 Document OH66 (Section 3) references NRA TD16 (see section 5.6.3 below) on the issue of roundabout design, with specific reference to provision for NMUs. Citing table 6/1 of TD16, the submission states that the predicted flows for the N59 Newport Road is 9,000 24 AADT for the design year, bringing it above the 8,000 AADT threshold between a ‘compact’ and ‘normal’ roundabouts and between ‘informal’ and ‘signal controlled’ pedestrian/cyclist provision.
3.11.15 The applicant asserts that the proposed informal crossings are adequate for the design year, and that the council will monitor the cyclist and pedestrian demand in the vicinity, should the need/demand for a signalised crossing develop.
3.11.16 On foot of questioning at the oral hearing, the applicant confirmed that the roundabout at this location, as proposed, would be considered a ‘normal’ (and not ‘compact’) roundabout, but noted that
24 Modelled flows for this road had not been presented in the EIS or in the oral hearing prior to this point. I note that this figure is 191% of the 2013 baseline flows.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 41 of 145
3.0 PROPOSAL
TD16 does not consider the scenario of a Type 2 single carriagway with no hard shoulders, as is being proposed. The purpose of compact roundabouts are to narrow the approaches, in order to allow for pedestrians to cross. In this situation, the approaches are already narrowed by virtue of having no hard shoulders.
3.11.17 Attireesh Road West (Western Way)
3.11.18 The proposed diversion of the Western Way at Attireesh Road West is shown by way of a dotted red line on Slide 63 of Document OH6. The walking route would be redirected along a new laneway near the terminated section of the southern ‘severed’ leg of Attireesh Road West, out onto the footpath/cycle lane on the roundabout’s southeastern perimeter, across the two westbound traffic lanes of the N5/N59 link road and onto a triangular island, at the road’s merge onto the proposed roundabout. From here, the route would cross the eastbound section of the N5/N59 link road onto the northern ‘independent’ section of footpath on the roundabout’s northern perimeter. From here, the route runs a short distance east to the entrance of the northern ‘severed’ leg of Attireesh Road West. This crossing is described in the accompanying test of Document OH5 as an ‘uncontrolled pedestrian crossing’.
3.11.19 Carrowbeg Road / Attireesh Road East (Great Western Greenway)
3.11.20 Document OH5 (Slide 72) notes that the Great Western Greenway passes along Carrowbeg Road and Attireesh Road East, which is also an agricultural access. It is proposed to re-route this access to the east to reduce the steep gradient, and to provide a safe separation distance from the roundabout, and that ‘The Greenway will also utilise this diversion, connecting to the footpath and cycle tracks that are proposed along the N5/N59 Link and the Allergan Road extension’. No comparable dotted red line route is shown, as was the case with the rerouted Western Way. However, it is reasonable to assume that the intended route would be along the cycle tracks on the southern and eastern approaches to the Carrowbeg Road Roundabout, and across to the realigned Attireesh Road by way of an uncontrolled pedestrian crossing of the N5/N59 link road.
3.11.21 Document OH66 (Section 3) confirms that the highest AADT figure at this junction in the design year is 4,600, and that as such, a ‘Category 5’ roundabout is required by TD16, which requires no specific provision for cyclists and pedestrians at crossing points.
3.11.22 Knockranny South
3.11.23 Document OH66 (Section 3) confirms that it is proposed to provide a combined east-west pedestrian/cycle route on the south side of the roundabout, with uncontrolled crossing points of the existing N5
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 42 of 145
3.0 PROPOSAL
130m west and 100m east of the roundabout. The submission asserts that there are currently low pedestrian and cyclist numbers (<5 per hour) along this section of the N5.
3.11.24 Interaction with existing pedestrian/cyclist routes elsewhere (Sections, B, C, D)
3.11.25 Castlebar West
3.11.26 Slide 97 of Document OH5 refers to provision at the intersection of the existing and new N5, at Castlebar West junction. A combined footpath and cycle track is proposed along a short section of the existing N5 either side of the roundabout, on the road’s eastern edge, and the perimeter of the east side of the proposed roundabout. There would be uncontrolled crossing points across the 4 lanes of traffic, via the central triangular island, and short sections of footpath/cycle track on the west side of the existing N5, commencing a distance away from the roundabout.
3.11.27 Document OH66 confirms that the recommended provision from TD16 is a signalised crossing or grade separation. However, it is proposed that pedestrians and cyclists will avail of the Castlebar- Islandeady Greenway.
3.11.28 In response to further questioning regarding IAN 03/12, which addresses at-grade NMU crossings of T2DCs, the applicant stated that this refers to Type 2 and Type 3 single carriageways, and as such is applicable to Section A only. Should advice in this area alter between now and final design, such advice could be incorporated.
3.11.29 N84, N60, Castlebar East, and Turlough Interchange
3.11.30 The realigned sections of the N84 and N60 are shown as having combined footpath/cycleways along both sides where they cross the proposed N5 mainline, albeit interrupted by 35-40m gaps across the spayed entrances for slip roads to the grade separated interchange.
3.11.31 There is no provision for cyclists or pedestrians at the Castlebar East junction or at the Turlough Interchange.
3.12 TRAFFIC MODELLING AND ANALYSIS
3.12.1 Surveys
3.12.2 A number of traffic surveys were undertaken in 2010, 2012, and 2013 and were incorporated with Traffic flow data from the NRA Traffic Monitoring Unit (TMU) database. These can be summarised as follows:
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 43 of 145
3.0 PROPOSAL
June October March Survey 2010 2012 2013 locations mapped (EIS) Automatic Traffic Counts x x Plate 5.1 25 (ATC) Origin-Destination x Surveys (OD) Manual Classified Counts x x Plate 5.1- (MCC) 5.3 Journey Time Surveys x Plate 5.4 NRA TMU flows x26 Plate 5.1 Table 9
3.12.3 From the mapping, it can be seen that the 2010 MCC survey points were on the N5 at Swinford, and the N60 at Balla, both outside the scheme boundaries. The 2012 ATC survey points were at 3 points east of Turlough, also outside the scheme boundary.
3.12.4 2013 ATC survey points have the widest spread, along the N5 mainline; on all National and Regional approach roads to Castlebar, on the N59 approaches to Westport, and on the N58 and R321 roads linking Ballina to the N5. The 2013 MCC surveys points from the same time added information from main junctions within Castlebar and Westport. The NRA TMU database points are on the N5, to the east and west of Castlebar, effectively equivalent to Sections D and B of the subject scheme.
3.12.5 While the EIS does not contain any detail on survey data, Document OH65 provides a table showing 2013 ATC data at 9 of the 12 locations, and shows how these figures were converted to estimated AADT from the AM/PM counts. It would appear that 5 of these count locations have corresponding entries in Tables 5.3 and 5.4 of the EIS. While the baseline 2013 figures do not correspond exactly, the 2013 figures from OH65 do fall between 88% and 98% of the EIS figures.
3.12.6 Appendix 1 of OH65 also provides traffic count data from the 2013 Manual Classified Counts, including turning movements. These locations are mapped in the submission and correspond to the purple icons in Plates 5.2 and 5.3 of the EIS. Figures for AM Peak, PM peak, and 12 hour aggregate counts are given.
25 and also Appendix 1 of OH65 26 The EIS states ‘2013’, as opposed to March specifically.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 44 of 145
3.0 PROPOSAL
3.12.7 Roadside interview (RSI) origin-destination (OD) data for Westport and Castlebar is also given in Appendix 1 of OH65. While this information is undated, it might be assumed to relate to the March 2013 surveys referred to in the EIS. The information presented in relation to Castlebar is particularly useful in that it breaks down the town into zones, internal and external, and assigns a proportion to each based on each approach road.
3.12.8 Model construction
3.12.9 The National Traffic Model (NTM), developed and maintained by the NRA in 2008 as a central analysis tool includes all National Primary, Secondary, and Regional roads, plus other local roads of significance. A study area was cordoned off from the NTM and refined on the basis of observations of road and junction geometry. Its extent is shown in Plate 5.5, and includes all national and regional roads linking Castlebar, Westport, Newport, Foxford, Swinford, and Kiltemagh. The NTM’s zones were disaggregated for urban areas, giving a Local Area Model (LAM) of 64 internal and 12 external zones. Under questioning (day 7), the applicant clarified that the zones within the LAM were more refined/detailed/numerous than those presented in Appendix 1 of OH65.
3.12.10 Document OH7 states that the ‘cordoned-off’ section of network was identified based on the change in traffic flow on a road link between the 2040 high growth NTM with and without the N5 upgrade.
3.12.11 The LAM was calibrated against link flow and junction movement data. Modelling for the scheme is based on an Assignment Model (Equilibrium Lohse), which assigns a fixed demand matrix based on the lowest generalised cost route between defined origin and destination zones. The ‘Do Minimum’ network includes the existing network with only committed infrastructure improvements (of which there are none). The ‘Do Something’ network adds the proposed scheme only, as shown in Plate 5.6 of the EIS.
3.12.12 As per the NRA’s Project Appraisal Guidelines (PAG), 3 traffic growth scenarios are presented in the EIS; low, medium, and high, and are shown in relation to the scheme opening year (2018) and the scheme design year (2033), disaggregated by light vehicles and HCV, and by AM Peak and PM peak. However, only the medium figures are applied to the traffic model, as presented. The model is further simplified by aggregating the AM and PM peak figures into AADT figures using regression analysis of two permanent NRA counters.
3.12.13 Document OH7 states that base year trip matrices were developed to represent the AM and PM peak hours for both light and heavy vehicles.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 45 of 145
3.0 PROPOSAL
3.12.14 Model outputs and analysis
3.12.15 Following the above methodology and assumptions, Tables 5.3 and 5.4 of the EIS present link flow summary figures in AADT for 21 points within the study area for the following scenarios
2013 2018 2033 (base year) (opening year) (design year)
Do Minimum Both tables Table 5.3 Table 5.4 (no new N5)
Do Table 5.3 Table 5.4 Something (new N5)
Table 10
3.12.16 While these 21 points are not mapped in the EIS, they are generally discernible by their description.
3.12.17 In respect of the existing mainline N5 in the ‘Do Minimum’ scenario, the figures range from a low of 9,700 AADT in respect of the base year on the section between Castlebar and Westport, to a high of 16,700 at the Cathal Duffy roundabout in the Design year.
3.12.18 In respect of the proposed mainline N5 in the ‘Do Something’ scenario in the design year, figures range from 7,900 AADT on the N84-N60 portion of Section C of the scheme to 10,600 AADT on Section B.
3.12.19 Comparing the modelled flows for the overall network for 2018 with and without the proposed road, it is clear that 7 points show a drop in traffic, while 6 points show a rise in traffic. These can be summarised in terms of percentage increase as follows, from highest to lowest:
• N58 Straide Road +11.6%
• R321 Kiltemagh Road +9.1%
• N58 South of Foxford +9.6%
• N5 West of Turlough +8.6%
• N84 North of Proposed N5 +3.0%
• N5 West of Bohola +2.2%
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 46 of 145
3.0 PROPOSAL
3.12.20 These increases are referenced in the subsequent commentary, and are attributed to diversion of Castlebar-Ballina traffic from the R310, and diversion of westbound Kiltemagh traffic from the R324.
3.12.21 Modelled decreases in traffic are highlighted, including a drop of 25- 35% on the existing Castlebar Relief Road and a reduction of 80% on the existing Castlebar-Westport section of the N5. Additional reallocations are also modelled, including Newport-Castlebar traffic from the R311 to the new road.
3.12.22 Comparable figures are presented for the design year (2033), with figures and modelled impacts largely comparable in proportional terms to those modelled for the opening year.
3.12.23 The closure of a number of existing roads and junctions would result in modifications to local traffic flows. Plate 3.16 and 3.17 of the EIS show how local movements that currently use the Windsor Road/N5 junction(s) for eastbound and westbound journeys would need to use the local road network for some movements.
3.12.24 At the oral hearing, during the portion of questioning by Mr Sweetman, the issue arose as to the proportion of different types of traffic that are predicted to use the road [tourist, local, long-distance]. The applicant asserted that the majority of trips would be short distance. When queried on the source of this assertion, the applicant stated that this would have been in the Traffic Modelling Report, which fed into the Business Case, to be used by the NRA in deciding priorities. This document is not contained in any submissions or publically available documentation of which I have had sight.
3.12.25 Modelling issues specific to the proposed N5/N60 junction
3.12.26 The applicant responded at the oral hearing (day 7) to questions regarding potential modelled impacts on the proposed N5/N60 junction, and turning movements in particular, with reference to a number of issues. These questions and the responses provided by the applicant can be summarised as follows.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 47 of 145
3.0 PROPOSAL
Issue Raised in Applicant’s response questioning
The proportion of traffic The applicant acknowledged that traffic shown in Appendix 2 of OH5 between zone 1002 and a number of internal with its origin/destination in and external zones would have the option of the southeastern portion of continuing to use existing routes, or indeed the Castlebar (zone 1002), along new bypass and junction. The extent of this with any potential impacts on route allocation varies during the day, but is the proposed N5/N60 captured by the model. junction. The resultant movements at the N5/N60 junction are presented on Page 130/131 of the Design Report.
The maximum RFC of this junction in the design year would by 0.22. The target value is 0.85, which shows that there is significant capacity available at this junction.
The potential for reallocation The completion of the M17 to Tuam may divert of Galway-Castlebar traffic some traffic from the N84 to the N60. This was from the N84 to the N60 not modelled in the preparation of the scheme. following completion of the M17 Gort-Tuam motorway. However, much of the traffic on these approach roads is related to the rural hinterland. Taking a conservative approach, if half the traffic on the N84 north of Ballinrobe were to be considered ‘Galway’ traffic, and half of this were to reallocate to the N17/N60, this would represent a 27% inc rease at the N60/N5 junction. This would be well within the 60% reserve capacity available.
The policies of the local The objective of the county development plan authority to ‘up-designate’ to upgrade the N60 to National Primary status the N60 (Claremorris- is in response to high levels of projected Castlebar section) to traffic. This demand is already incorporated National Primary status. into the model.
Further improvements to the N17 and N60 routes would result in some additional volumes on this route, but again, the 60% reserve capacity allows for such matters.
The N60 is presently being augmented by a series of online upgrades. There is, however, a reserved corridor of an ‘offline’ route to the east of the current route which would result in
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 48 of 145
3.0 PROPOSAL
a new junction between the proposed (current) N60 junction and the proposed ‘Castlebar East’ junction. This alignment is indicated in the Route Selection Report.
A further advantage of the proposed CGSI at the N60 junction is that it avoids the prospect of rapid-succession ‘at grade’ junctions, should a new offline N60 be constructed. Under this scenario, the connector arms of the CGSI could be closed, while maintaining the bridging of the radial route across the mainline. A roundabout would not allow for this.
Potential issues arising from On the issue of one-off events, the traffic peak flow scenarios for models developed for scheme appraisal to not events, such as at McHale take account of such matters. However, the Park. 60% reserve capacity offers a high degree of resilience.
Table 11
3.12.27 Move to ‘new’ NRA traffic forecasts
3.12.28 On foot of a request made at the oral hearing (see section 3.2 above), the applicant furnished the board with evidence of a shift in NRA policy whereby traffic forecasts were revised ‘substantially downward’ in January 2011. The reasons for this shift are outlined in document OH65 (Section A), and include reduced economic growth prospects, saturation effects on car ownership, the incorporation of zonal variations in land use, and the use of a single medium growth scenario as the primary basis for scheme design.
3.12.29 The document states that the traffic flows presented at the oral hearing are based on the new NRA growth projections. Table 2 shows design year forecast flows under the old and new models, which show a drop of between 7% and 19%. This information is presented as being particularly relevant with regard to the comparative analysis below, as 8 of the 9 schemes compared were presented on foot of the ‘old’ growth forecasts.
3.12.30 On questioning regarding the average ‘write down’ in growth forecast figures, notwithstanding the variation due to zonal considerations, the applicant stated that in comparative terms, it would be around 15%.
3.12.31 Comparative analysis with other road schemes
3.12.32 On foot of a request made at the oral hearing (see section 3.2 above), the applicant furnished the board with a comparison of a
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 49 of 145
3.0 PROPOSAL
number of roads schemes from the perspective of traffic flow (see document OH65, Section A). These examples represent the entirety of cases adjudicated upon by the board under the current legislative framework that relate to a national inter-urban route, and are greater than 10km in length.
3.12.33 This table is replicated below, along with an additional three columns I have shown the capacity of the proposed road link in each case – taken from NRA TD9 (see section 0 below), the Ratio of Flow to Capacity (RFC), which is based on design year AADT. I have also included the board decision in each instance. I have also added a row representing the subject scheme, and a brief description of each scheme along with its ABP reference number. I have also amalgamated a number of the applicant’s columns, for clarity.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 50 of 145
3.0 PROPOSAL
APB No. Road Design Opening Road RFC Model 2013 AADT Board + description Type Year Year capacity (desi Base decision AADT AADT AADT gn Year (+ (year) (year) year) NRA growth rates) HA0003 T2DC 15,800 11,800 20,000 0.79 2005 7,710 (N26 North of Refuse N26 Ballina to (2031) (2011) (Old) Foxford) Bohola Mayo 27 HA0004 T2DC 27,900 12,100 20,000 1.39 2007 No counter available Grant N25 New Ross (2028) (2013) (Old) Bypass HA0005 Motor- 31,100 23,300 55,500 0.67 2006 20,332 (N17 North of Grant M17 Galway to way – – 28,100 (Old) Claregalway)/12,841 Tuam 37,400 (2012) (N17 North of N63 (2032) Jnc) HA0009 T2DC 16,900 12,600 20,000 0.85 2006 5,015 (N15 Between Refuse N15/N13 (2026) (2011) (Old) Ballybofey and Ballybofey / Donegal Stranorlar Town)/9,057 (N13 North of Ballybofey) HA0024 Motor- 22,800 (2013) 55,500 0.41 2006 14,240 (N11 North of Grant Wexford M11 way (2028) 16,800 (Old) Enniscorthy) Gorey to Enniscorthy. HA0025 T2DC 11,200 8,700 20,000 0.56 2005 6,505 (N22 West of Grant N22 (2027) (2012) (Old) Ballyvourney) Ballyvorney to Macroom HA0027 Motor- 12,200 10,400 55,500 0.39 2008 9,923 (N20 North of With- M20 Cork to way -21,600 -18,600 (Old) Mallow)/14,770 (N20 drawn Limerick (2030) (2015) South of Mallow) HA0034 Type 3 4,800 - 5,000 0.96 2010 2,735 (N56 South of Grant N56 Single (2030) (2015) (Old) Dungloe) Lettercaward to Glenties HA0035 Type 3 4,900 4,200 5,000 0.98 2010 3,955 (N86 East of Refuse N86 Dingle to Single (2030) (2015) (New ) Dingle) Annascaul 29 HA0042 T2DC 10,600 9,400 20,000 0.53 2013 11,400 (N5 east of Subject N5 Westport to 28 (2018) (New) Westport - Table 5.3 case Castlebar (2033) of EIS Table 12
27 This figure may need to be treated with a degree of caution. The inspector’s report for this case cites a predicted AADT figure of 15,173 for the proposed bridge in the design year of 2028. 28 Based on the ‘new build’ section with the highest AADT (‘N5 Westport Road’) as given in Table 5.4 of the EIS, which uses ‘medium growth’ NRA figures. 29 As above
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 51 of 145
3.0 PROPOSAL
3.12.34 Comparative analysis with other sections of the N4/N5
3.12.35 Again, on foot of a request made at the oral hearing (see section 3.2 above), the applicant furnished the board with contemporary traffic count information pertaining to the Mullingar-Westport stretch of the N4 and N5 (see document OH65, Section B). I would refer the board to this document directly, as it provides an important insight into current traffic volumes. It can be summarised as follows.
Section Commentary (all figures in AADT)
Mullingar to From a high of over 17,000 north of Mullingar, at Longford the termination of the dual carriagway, the N4 drops to 10-11,000 at Edgeworthstown and Longford.
Longford to Northwest of Longford, after the N4/N5 split, Castlebar numbers drop off rapidly, with figures of 5,000 or less at Termonbarry, Frenchpark and Swinford.
Castlebar to East of Castlebar, the level of traffic more than Westport doubles to around 11,500 . This then drops off between Castlebar and Westport to around 8,500 at Doon, before picking up again to 11,000 30 or so on the eastern approaches to Westport
Table 13
30 By way of clarification, the applicant stated at the oral hearing that the figures given for the last and third last columns – ‘N5 East of Westport’ and ‘N5 West of Castlebar’ were from their own surveys, whereas the remainder were from the publically available NRA traffic counts. The latter category of data are all consistent with the information available on https://www.nratrafficdata.ie at the time of writing.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 52 of 145
4.0 HISTORY
4.0 HISTORY
4.1 PREVIOUS ROADS SCHEMES ON THIS ALIGNMENT
4.1.1 A total of 5 schemes have been progressed to varying stages on this alignment (plus the Turlough-Bohola section). None have been constructed, and indeed none have received consent. They are presented below in chronological order.
4.1.2 While there is no information to hand regarding the alignment of these previous roads schemes, the applicant did provide - on foot of questioning - copies of Chapter 6 of the Route Selection Report (Document OH65, Appendix 2). This text links the previous schemes to some of the route corridors shown in Figure 4.2 of the EIS. This information is incorporated below, where applicable.
4.1.3 N5 Westport-Castlebar (2000-2003)
4.1.4 The route of this scheme was from ‘Allergan junction’ (Carrowbeg Road) to the inner relief road in Castlebar. It was completed to ‘design report’ stage, and recommended a wide single carriageway with a crossing at Lough Lannagh.
4.1.5 This scheme was roughly equivalent to Section B of the current scheme, with some adjoining parts of Sections A and C. More specifically, it followed the alignment of Route Corridor 2.0, as shown in red on Figure 4.2 of the EIS.
4.1.6 This scheme also incorporated an additional off-line parallel route for the western approach to Castlebar, to the south of the existing N5 and linking with the Castlebar Relief Road. This alignment appears on the current Castlebar Development Plan. The applicant confirmed at the oral hearing that this section has been superseded by the subject proposal, and it is no longer intended to pursue this offline section of approach road.
4.1.7 N5 Ballyvary – Bohola (2003)
4.1.8 This route was developed to facilitate the intersection with the proposed N26 Ballina-Bohola scheme. It was completed to ‘preferred route’ stage.
4.1.9 The route of this scheme lies to the east of Section D of the current scheme. More specifically, it followed the alignment of Route Corridor 5.0, as shown in orange on Figure 4.2 of the EIS.
4.1.10 Castlebar Ring Road (2004-2007)
4.1.11 This route would have completed a new-build 360 0 orbital route around Castlebar. The northern section was to be a local or regional
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 53 of 145
4.0 HISTORY
road, while the southern section was to be the new N5. A preferred route to the south of the town had been selected as a Type 1 Single carriagway, with connections at the N84 and N60, and cognisance of a proposed new-build alignment of the N60.
4.1.12 This route is roughly equivalent to Section C of the current scheme plus a separate section to the north of Castlebar. More specifically, the southern section followed the alignment of Route Corridor 3.0, as shown in blue on Figure 4.2 of the EIS.
4.1.13 On questioning at the oral hearing, the applicant confirmed that the southern part of this route has been superseded by the subject proposal, whereas the northern section remains an objective of the county development plan as a local distributor road.
4.1.14 N5/N59 North Westport Relief Road (2004-2007)
4.1.15 Developed as a Standard Single Carriageway. This route is roughly equivalent to Section A of the current scheme. More specifically, it followed the alignment of Route Corridor 1.0, as shown in yellow of Figure 4.2 of the EIS.
4.1.16 N5 Westport to Bohola (2008-2010)
4.1.17 Following an NRA peer review of the above projects in July 2007, it was decided that a single project would be developed in its entirety. Planning commenced in early 2008 and was developed to preliminary design as a T2DC, with type 2 reduced single carriagway on the N59.
4.1.18 This scheme is roughly equivalent to the entirety of the current scheme, plus a section to the east of Section D. It is essentially the precursor to the subject proposal, and was halted and ultimately curtailed following the refusal of permission for the N26 Ballina to Bohola scheme (see below).
4.2 OTHER RELEVANT NATIONAL ROADS SCHEMES IN MAYO
4.2.1 N26 Ballina to Bohola - PL16.HA0003 (2010)
4.2.2 This route was to be a new greenfield road, running from the N5 at Bohola to Ballina. It was to substantively replace the N26 and N58 routes, and provide access from Ballina to the east of the country as well as from Ballina to Castlebar (and Westport). It was to be a T2DC (as per the current scheme).
4.2.3 The board refused to approve this scheme in 2010. The refusal reason can be summarised as follows (edited for clarity)
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 54 of 145
4.0 HISTORY
Having regard to:
(a) The status of the River Moy as a salmon angling resource,
(b) the designation of the River Moy / Moy Valley as an SAC/pNHA,
(c) the existing and future predicted traffic volumes on the N26, and
(d) the recent upgrade of the N26 (Stage 1) between Ballina and Mount Falcon to a wide single carriageway design,
the proposed road scheme, designed to dual-carriageway standard with 2 major bridges and 2 major interchanges, is not justified.
The board is not satisfied that a more environmentally and economically sustainable road upgrade scheme is not available.
a more modest upgrade may be acceptable which complements the important resource of the River Moy in County Mayo.
4.2.4 Turlough to Bohola scheme
4.2.5 This scheme, which would connect the subject scheme to a revised Ballina to Bohola scheme (see above) is currently at route section stage, as per section 3.5.9 above.
4.2.6 N59 Westport-Mulranny (PL16.JP0001/PL16.CH3163)
4.2.7 Approved by the board in July 2012, this scheme relates to the upgrade of the N59 from Westport, through Newport, to Mulranny. The alignment of this scheme ties in with the alignment of the N59/N5 link road (Section A) portion of the subject scheme.
4.2.8 Document OH5 from the applicant states that depending on funding priorities, it is possible that the subject scheme could be constructed in advance of the adjoining section of the N59 scheme. Were this to occur, a temporary tie-in to the existing N59 could be implemented adjacent to the proposed roundabout at Chainage 2+000.
4.2.9 I note that this scheme incorporates Enhancements to existing Great Western Greenway cycle/walking route by removal of two ‘at grade’ crossings, and the construction of an underpass, an over-bridge, and 3.2km of cycleway – typically 2.5m in width - along the improved N59. Having inspected the drawings, it would appear that the Great Western Greenway would cross the new N59 at 3 points, from north
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 55 of 145
4.0 HISTORY
to south (as follows), completely eliminating ‘at grade’ crossings, save for an ‘on street’ section within Newport.
• Kiltarraght Greenway Overbridge
• New Rossdooaun bridge, incorporating Greenway underpass.
• Creggaunnahorna Greenway Underbridge
4.2.10 At the time of my site inspection, I noted that portions of the northern Westport-Newport section had been recently completed.
4.2.11 N60 Balla to Claremorris Road Realignment (PL16.JP0025 /PL16.CH3209)
4.2.12 This scheme has not been referred to explicitly on the case file, except where the upgrade of the N60 arises as part of wider suites of long term roads proposals within Co. Mayo. The applications were made to the board on 4 th March 2014, with NIS and CPO documentation published online by the roads authority 31 . It is currently before the board for determination.
4.2.13 The N60 stretches for around 26km from Castlebar to Claremorris, where it crosses the N17, and heads onwards to Roscommon town and Athlone. The Balla to Claremorris stretch is the southern 13km (50%) of this section. Balla lies around 10km southeast (outside) of the line of Section B of the subject proposal – the ‘Castlebar Bypass’ section. The section of road under consideration with this application is just 3.6km of the Balla to Claremorris section, immediately to the southeast of Balla.
4.2.14 The proposal for the N60 is a largely ‘online’ scheme with minor realignments, which would result in a Type 2 Single Carriagway with Cycleway.
4.2.15 No modelled traffic flows for the road are presented, although the cross section’s capacity of 8,600 AADT is cited with reference to drainage requirements. A 2010 figure of 5,523 AADT is cited in the Environmental Assessment Report available online.
4.3 PREVIOUS RELEVANT T2DC CASES ELSEWHERE IN THE COUNTRY
4.3.1 Aside from the cases referred to in the comparative analysis provided by the applicant in Document OH65 (see Error! Reference source not found. in Section 3.12.31 above), there are two further cases of relevance insofar as they incorporate cycleways alongside the road
31 http://www.regdesign.com/?page_id=1955
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 56 of 145
4.0 HISTORY
4.3.2 PL08.HA0016 – Tralee bypass, Co. Kerry
4.3.3 Proposed as a T2DC road, The EIS for this scheme does not mention cycle paths, although cycleways were included in the final scheme.
4.3.4 The junction spacing in this instance are such that the mainline sections are of the following lengths (from north to south) – 3.2km, 2.5km, 1.5km, 900m.
4.3.5 PL08.CH2235 – Castleisland Bypass, Co. Kerry
4.3.6 The scheme as submitted to the board appears to be a wide single carriagway, with no cycleways. However, it was constructed with a 2-way cycleway along its northern section.
4.3.7 The junction spacing in this instance are such that the mainline sections are of the following lengths (from north to south) – 5.6km, 1.6km.
4.4 RELEVANT MAJOR NON-ROAD SCHEMES
4.4.1 Allergan expansion – PA Ref. 12/451
4.4.2 The Allergan Pharmaceutical plant lies just to the south of the proposed road alignment (Section A). As noted by the parties to the application, permission was granted in 2012 for an expansion of the plant to the north, on a site straddling (and including) an existing road which had been reserved as part of the road alignment. This necessitated the realignment of the proposed road further north at this point, onto the alignment currently proposed.
4.4.3 At the time of my site inspections, this new facility was under construction. Document OH65 (Section G) states that the expanded Allergan facility will increase the workforce from 800 to 1000.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 57 of 145
5.0 POLICY
5.0 POLICY
A range of policies are applicable to the subject scheme, both spatial and sectoral. Most of the documents below are referenced by the parties to the application. Within each section, the policies are presented in chronological order of their adoption, except for Section 5.6 below (DMRB).
5.1 EUROPEAN INFRASTRUCTURAL POLICY
5.1.1 TEN-T Trans European Transport Network - 2013
Document OH5 makes reference to these guidelines, which were given final approval by the European Parliament on 19 th November 2013. This requires the development of a ‘Core Network’ by 2030, with a connecting ‘comprehensive network’ of express routes to be delivered by 2050. The applicant asserts that this latter network requires Ireland to upgrade the full length of the N5 to express route standards.
Following questioning at the oral hearing, the applicant produced further evidence (Document OH65 – Section F) on this matter, stating that the agreement was finally approved on 11/12/13 via Regulation No. 1315/2013 of the European Parliament.
This document includes a figure that would appear to originate from Annex I, Volume 7 of the guidelines 32 . It consists of a map showing the road network within Ireland, and differentiates between ‘completed’ planned’ and ‘to be upgraded’ routes. This map does indeed show the N5 from Longford to Westport as within the ‘comprehensive network’ as a ‘Road / to be upgraded’. Other roads so shown are the N4 from Longford to Sligo, the N11, N17, N20, and N21. The core network is shown as the M1, M7, and M8.
The guidelines themselves 33 state that ‘With respect to the comprehensive network, Member States should make all possible efforts with the aim of completing it and complying with the relevant provisions of the guidelines by 2050.’
5.2 NATIONAL PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURAL POLICY
5.2.1 National Spatial Strategy 2002-2020
Section 1.4 of the EIS states that this is no longer a current government policy document. However, as per DoECLG circular PL. 2/2013, dated February 2013, it was the intention ‘to bring proposals to Government in the first half of this year [2013] for a roadmap to develop a successor to the National Spatial Strategy.’ The circular goes on to state that ‘Until such
32 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/infrastructure/revision-t_en.htm 33 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:348:0001:0128:EN:PDF
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 58 of 145
5.0 POLICY
time as a successor to the NSS has been developed and adopted by Government (as the current NSS was) and Oireachtas (as per the Mahon recommendation), the existing NSS continues to serve as Ireland’s national level spatial planning framework.’
The NSS identifies the towns of Castlebar and Ballina as ‘Linked Hubs’. Tuam was also identified as a hub, with Galway and Sligo the nearest ‘Gateways’, which is the tier above hubs. The NSS identified 9 Gateways (covering 13 towns/cities), and 9 hubs (covering a father 11 towns).
Map 3 identified the ‘national transport’ framework, with the N5 identified as a ‘Strategic radial corridor’ as far west as Castlebar, but no further. The route to Ballina is similarly identified. These alignments are reflected in Map 10, which refers to the West Region in more detail.
Section 4.8 states, in relation to the West Region that ‘Castlebar, Ballina and Tuam, as hubs, will perform important roles within the national structure 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 at Knock.’
Westport is also explicitly referred to in this section, as follows – ‘Towns such as Westport and Claremorris in Mayo, Ballaghadereen, Boyle and Castlerea in Roscommon and Athenry and Loughrea in Galway present opportunities for development and expansion through effective promotion and marketing in association with larger towns, hubs and gateways. An example already apparent is that of Westport, which has used its physical attractiveness and heritage conservation as a strong selling point, while ensuring that key infrastructure is in place, notably in water services and communications.’
5.2.2 Transport 21 - 2005
This document is cited in the ‘policy context’ section of the EIS (see section 3.6.2 above), but is no longer in force, as acknowledged in section 1.4 of the EIS 34 . While the EIS contains an excerpt from this document, I cannot source an original, online or otherwise, aside from cached versions of the text referred to by the applicant, which reads as follows:
‘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.
34 Although I note, however, that documents OH9 from the planning authority’s Senior Planner asserts that Transport 21 set out a 10-year transport investment framework for 2006-2015. While this may have been the intention, it could be the case that the economic downturn precipitated the wrapping up of Transport 21 ahead of its intended timeframe.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 59 of 145
5.0 POLICY
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.’
5.2.3 National Development Plan 2007-2013
This document is cited in the ‘policy context’ section of the EIS, but is no longer in force, as acknowledged in section 1.4 of the EIS. The Roads Sub-Programme contained within the NDP included 8 principle objectives, which can be summarised as follows:
• Completion by 2010 of the major inter-urban routes linking Dublin with Belfast, Cork, Galway, Limerick and Waterford; • The upgrade of the M50 • Improvement of road links between the main NSS Gateways; • Ongoing development of the Atlantic Road Corridor from Letterkenny through Sligo, Galway, Limerick, Cork and Waterford; • Continued upgrading of road links to Northern Ireland; • Targeted improvements of a number of key national secondary routes; • Improvement and maintenance of non-national roads; and • Investment in strategic non-national roads
A map attached does identify the entirety of the N5 as one of the ‘Routes to Border/North West/West’, and the entirety of the N59 as one of the ‘National Secondary Routes Targeted’.
5.2.4 Smarter Travel 2009-2020
This report reviews transport trends and sets out the position on sustainability in transport and actions required to reduce travel demand and a reliance on the car. Five key goals, which form the basis of the overall policy, include the aim to:
• Improve quality of life and accessibility to transport for all and, in particular, for people with reduced mobility and those who may experience isolation due to lack of transport
• Improve economic competitiveness through maximising the efficiency of the transport system and alleviating congestion and infrastructural bottlenecks
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 60 of 145
5.0 POLICY
• Minimise the negative impacts of transport on the local and global environment through reducing localised air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions
• Reduce overall travel demand and commuting distances travelled by the private car
• Improve security of energy supply by reducing dependency on imported fossil fuels.
By 2020 commuting by car seeks to be substantially reduced, with car drivers being accommodated on other modes such as walking, cycling, public transport and car sharing. Promotion of sustainable travel patterns, integration of cycling infrastructure, and delivery of high quality transport infrastructure are seen as vital requirements. In the context of delivering alternative ways of travelling, a key issue to be addressed is seen to be the allocation of road space, giving priority to more sustainable forms of transport.
Cycling and walking are noted as having the lowest environmental impact of all travel modes and specific actions are detailed, with emphasis placed on delivering a coherent network, on safety, on serving the main travel areas, and junction priority. The creation of a strong cycling culture to achieve particular aims and to enhance the tourism industry is acknowledged. By 2020, 10% of all trips are proposed to be by bike. The report also states that a National Cycle Policy Framework will be published and implemented to give effect to this vision.
5.2.5 Infrastructure and Capital Investment 2012-16
This report constitutes a review of infrastructure and capital investment policy led by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. The review assesses the existing capacity of the country’s infrastructure and identifies remaining gaps needing to be addressed. Amongst the main priorities for economic infrastructure over the medium term will be ensuring adequate maintenance of the national road network to protect previous investments and targeting the improvement of specific road segments where there is a clear economic justification. It is stated that the NRA will progress a limited number of improvement schemes, including the Ballaghadereen bypass project [the only project explicitly cited] together with some relatively low-cost targeted improvements on the national secondary network, where road safety is an issue, and in tourist areas.
It is not anticipated that sufficient funds will be in place to commence any other major National Road projects but it should be emphasised that these projects are deferred not cancelled.
Should investment prospects pick up over the medium-term, there are further road projects which can serve to enhance competitiveness and
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 61 of 145
5.0 POLICY
improve enterprise conditions and which will be progressed by the NRA in the event of additional resources becoming available.
Under the heading ‘Tourism Investment’, it is stated that priority will be given to relatively low cost projects to enhance or renew existing attractions and provide new ones and that, in particular, there will be a greater focus on activities such as recreational walking and cycling.
Table 2 shows investment in national roads per year, at around €250m per annum. The subject proposal, at €169m would represent two thirds of this annual figure.
5.3 REGIONAL PLANNING POLICY
5.3.1 Border, Midland and Western Regional Operational Programme 2007-2013
This document, referred to by the applicant in document OH9, but presumably no longer in force at the time of writing, identifies the need for further improvements in the road network as a significant infrastructure priority for the region. It does not include any specific policies or objectives that could be construed as applying to the subject scheme.
5.3.2 West Regional Planning Guidelines 2010-2022
The ‘Spatial Transport and Infrastructure’ map identifies the N5 as a main regional access route. Objective IO5 identifies the roads projects which are considered a priority for completion, and includes the ‘N5 Westport to Roscommon/Longford borders’. The RPGs also refer to Transport 21, which identified the need to upgrade the N5.
5.4 COUNTY LEVEL PLANNING POLICY (INCL. TOWN & ENVIRONS PLANS)
5.4.1 Mayo County Council Development Plan 2008-2014
Section 1.2.3 presents the ‘National Context’, stating that
‘Given the importance of Westport as the third largest town in the County and also that the NSS identifies Westport as having an important function in relation to tourism; it is an objective of Mayo County Council that the town continues to develop as a natural extension of the linked hub of Ballina and Castlebar. It is an objective of Mayo County Council that Westport, as a logical third member of the economical spine, which has and continues to drive the balanced, integrated and sustained development of the County, be included in any future revision of the National Spatial Strategy as a hub town.’
Section 1.2.7 presents ‘Development Trends & Key Issues’. It points to Infrastructural Deficiencies, stating that
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 62 of 145
5.0 POLICY
‘The peripherally 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.’
Map 4 sets out the ‘Core Strategy’ for the county. It shows the settlement hierarchy, with Ballina and Castlebar identified as ‘Linked Hubs’. In an extrapolation from the NSS, it also shows Westport as an ‘Extension to Linked Hub’.
This map also sows ‘Rural Areas under Strong Urban Influence’, which is largely centred on Castlebar, extending outwards along approach roads to
• Westport via the N5 (and onwards to Louisburgh)
• Newport via the R311 (and indeed the entire triangle between the N5, N59, and R311.
• Balla via the N60
• Bohola and Straide via the N5 and N58.
Additional areas are shown on the Foxford-Ballina corridor, and around the towns of Swinford, Ballyhaunis, Claremorris, and Ballinrobe. It is my understanding that this designation arose on foot of a ‘Section 31’ direction from the Minister 35
Map 6 is titled ‘Strategic Infrastructure’, although in respect of roads, it merely depicts the existing national primary and secondary road network.
Appendix I consists of the County Council’s objectives in relation to National Primary Routes. Table 1 relates to National Primary routes. I have highlighted excerpts that relate to the alignment of the proposed development, as well as those that relate to progressing ‘new build’ (greenfield) schemes as far as land acquisition, or further.
Objective Route Proposal
NP1 N26 Commence land acquisition and construction of Ballina to Bohola Stage 2, including Foxford by-pass NP2 N5 Commence land acquisition and construction of Westport–Castlebar section NP3 N17 Complete design, commence land acquisition and construction of Knock Airport to Tubbercurry (Co.
35 http://www.mayococo.ie/en/Planning/DevelopmentPlansandLocalAreaPlans/ArchiveofObsolet ePlans/SupersededSection31MinisterialDirection2008/
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 63 of 145
5.0 POLICY
Sligo) section including Charlestown by-pass NP4 N5 Commence design and land acquisition for Castlebar by-pass NP5 N5 Commence design and land acquisition for Westport Northern Relief Road NP6 N26/N59 Commence design and land acquisition for Ballina Orbital Route NP7 N5 Design of Ballyvary–Swinford by-pass section including Bohola Bypass NP8 N17 Ballindine by-pass on N17 NP9 N5 The examination of converting the existing N5 to an enhanced cross-section incorporating by-passes. NP10 N17 The examination of converting the existing N17 to an enhanced cross-section incorporating by-passes. NP11 ALL Complete the provision of a high-quality pavement, minor improvements and maintenance to the un- realigned sections of roads Table 14 (Table 1.1 of Appendix I of Mayo County Development Plan 2008-2014)
Table 1.2 contains comparable objectives for national Secondary Routes, including Objective NS2 which relates to ‘Complete design, commence land acquisition and construction of Castlebar-Claremorris section [of N60]..’. Also of relevance is objective NS4, which is to ‘commence route selection of Westport Eastern Relief Road’.
A number of specific policies and objectives relating to transport are relevant to the subject case, and can be summarised as follows (edited for clarity):
O/ TI-R 1 - to restrict development along the National Road network
O/ TI-R 2 - to support improvements to the existing National Road network [See Table 10 above]
O/ TI-R 3 - to restrict development along certain sections of the Regional Road network.
P/TI-PC - 1 to encourage and facilitate the maintenance and further development of the public footpath network, rights of way, and walking routes, having regard to the Code of Practice for developing walkways and other appropriate national standards.
P/TI-PC 2 - to support and facilitate the establishment of a complete network of inter-linked cycle ways throughout the County within the context of a Mayo Trails Strategy, which would build on the Mayo Walking Strategy.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 64 of 145
5.0 POLICY
P/TI-PC 3 - to facilitate the implementation of the Mayo County Walking Strategy and Strategic Action Plan.
O/ TI-PC 1 - to ensure that existing walking routes and existing public rights of way are maintained, sign-posted and kept free of obstruction.
I note that Appendix 1 of Document OH9, by the planning authority’s Senior Planner consists of ‘Detailed Policies of the Mayo County Development Plan 2008-2014’. However, the policies quoted would appear to originate from the previous 2003-2009 County Development Plan. While many of the policies quoted have comparable counterparts in the currently applicable development plan, I note that there is a significant divergence between the 2 versions of TI-LUT 1. The 2003 version states that ‘ It is an objective of the council that proposals for all new major developments shall make provision for the incorporation of public transport infrastructure development so as not to prejudice the future delivery of a public transport service in County Mayo’. The current 2009 version, however, states that ‘It is the policy of the Council to support and co-operate with transport operators in the provision of a high quality and integrated transport system to all parts of the County, including initiatives such as the Rural Transport Scheme.’
5.4.2 Castlebar Town and Environs Development Plan 2008-2014
The 2008 plan originally contained an alignment for a previous iteration of the road scheme. As per document OH9, the plan was varied on 11 th February 2013 to incorporate the alignment of the current scheme.
I note that the majority of the ‘Enterprise and Employment’ lands zoned within the town plan are focussed on the Breaffy Road and Moneen Road area to the east of the town, and on the ‘inside’ of the proposed road alignment. These lands would be served by the N60 junction of the proposed road.
I also note that many of the zoning ‘blocks’ to the east and south of the town aligned with the original (superseded) road line. While the logic evident for this zoning (the road) has been repositioned, the zonings remain.
Document OH30 is a large map showing the proposed road line (and indeed details of the scheme), the previous road line, and the zoning blocks adjacent to these lines.
5.4.3 Westport Town and Environs Development Plan 2010-2016
Similar to the Castlebar Town and Environs Plan, and as per document OH9, the plan was varied on 21 st June 2012 and 9 th July 2012 to incorporate the alignment of the current scheme. Objectives IO-01 and IO- 02 of the plan are to protect these routes from any development that would interfere with the design and construction of these roads.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 65 of 145
5.0 POLICY
The Core Strategy Map includes ‘Existing and Planned Cycleways/Walkways’. One such alignment is along Carrowbeg Road, continuing northwest along the old railway bed, and meeting the existing Great Western Greenway at the junction of Attireesh Road North and Attireesh Road West. The Western Way along Attireesh Road North is also shown. The existing section of the Western Way along Attireesh Road West is not shown. The existing section of the Great Western Greenway along Attireesh Road East is not shown, although a link rout is indicated from Carrowbeg Road to Attireesh Road north through the Allergan/IDA lands. These alignments are also shown in Map 2. The varied version of this map also includes the corridor for the subject scheme. This map was submitted as Document OH38 to the oral hearing.
Objective 00-12 states that ‘It is an objective of the Council to develop pedestrian walkways and cycleways in accordance with Map 2. Any new developments along these routes shall be required to provide links to these ways’.
5.4.4 DRAFT Mayo County Council Development Plan 2014 – 2020
This plan is currently under preparation by the planning authority. I note that proposed amendments to the draft plan, available online at the time of writing, proposes to drop the policy to protect the capacity of certain strategically important regional roads – the equivalent policy to the existing O/ TI-R 3. This protection would remain for national roads. The existing N5 would become a regional road under the subject proposal.
5.5 ROADS PROGRAMMES AND POLICIES
5.5.1 NRA National Roads Needs Study (1998)
This document was referred to by the applicant as a plan that included the subject scheme. It is not available online, but I have had sight of a copy in the board’s library.
Map 7.3 shows ‘improvement needs’ and depicts roads that have been constructed to a high level to date, those within the ‘backlog’, and 4 further phases of development between 2000 and 2019. The Castlebar to Westport section of the N5 is depicted as ‘Backlog’, as indeed is the northern section of the N60, approaching Castlebar. East of Castlebar, a short section of the N5 at Bohola is depicted as ‘Phase 3’ (2010-2014, whereas the since-constructed ‘Charlestown Bypass’ section is included in ‘Phase 1’ (2000-2004).
Map 7.1 shows ‘Future Road Types’. The Castlebar to Westport road is shown as ‘Wide 2-Lane with Hard Shoulder’ 36 , with the Bohola and Charlestown sections of the N5 shown as ‘Standard 2-Lane with Hard Shoulder’. It is notable that the only proposed motorways are the N1, the Dublin-Kinnegad section of theN5, the Dublin-Portlaoise section of the M7,
36 This is detailed in Section 2.5 as a 10m carriagway plus 2 x 2.5m hard shoulders.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 66 of 145
5.0 POLICY
and the M50. While a number of additional Dual Carriageways are proposed, the only inter-urban route proposed to Dual Carriageway and/or Motorway in its entirety is Dublin to Cork.
5.5.2 NRA National Secondary Roads Needs Study (2011)
This document relates to National Secondary Roads only. I have not had sight of this report, which appears to have been removed from the NRA’s website. The applicant was asked at the oral hearing whether there was any comparable study for primary roads post-1998. The applicant confirmed that there is not.
5.6 ROADS DESIGN STANDARDS - DESIGN MANUAL FOR ROADS AND BRIDGES (DMRB)
This document is the primary source for standards and requirements in the area of road design. It consists of a number of chapters and discrete sections, which are updated periodically on an independent basis. The Irish DMRB is based on the UK DMRB, and indeed, where there is no deviation from the UK standards, the relevant UK document is merely reference by the Irish DMRB. The most relevant sections of the DMRB are summarised below in order of their ‘TD’ number.
5.6.1 DMRB TD9 - Road Link Design - 2012
This technical guidance document deals with Road Link Design, and its recommendations and requirements are referred to by the applicant, particularly with reference to the proposed carriagway section. Of particular relevance is Table 6/1, which is referred to in section 3.9 above, and included in its entirety below.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 67 of 145
5.0 POLICY
Type of Road 1. Capacity2 Edge Access Treatment Junction Junction (AADT) for Treatment Treatment at Treatment at Level of Minor Road Major Road Service D
Type 3 Single (6.0m) 5,000 0.5m hard strip. Minimise number of Simple Priority Priority junctions, Carriageway (S2) Footways/Cycle accesses to avoid Junctions with ghost islands Tracks where standing vehicles where necessary. required, and concentrate turning movements.
Type 2 Single (7.0m) 8,600 0.5m hard strips. Minimise number of Priority junctions, Ghost islands Carriageway (S2) Footways/Cycle accesses to avoid with ghost islands Tracks where standing vehicles where necessary. required and concentrate turning movements.
Type 1 Single (7.3m) 11,600 2.5m hard Minimise number of Priority junctions, Ghost islands or Carriageway (S2) shoulders accesses to avoid with ghost islands roundabouts 3. Footways/Cycle standing vehicles where necessary. Tracks where and concentrate required turning movements.
Type 3 Dual 4. (7.0m + 14,000 0.5m hard strips. Mini mise the Restricted number Priority junctions 3.5m) Divided 2+1 lanes number of accesses of left in/left out or or at-grade Primarily for retro fit to avoid standing ghost priority roundabouts. projects vehicles and junctions. concentrate turning movements.
Type 2 Dual 4. 20,000 0.5m hard strips No gaps in the No gaps in the At-grade Divided 2 +2 Lanes central reserve. central reserve. roundabouts and (2x7.0m) Carriageways. Left in / Left out Left in / Left out compact grade () separation
Type 1 Dual 42,000 2.5m hard No gaps in the No gaps in the At-grade Divided 2+2 Lanes shoulders central reserve. central reserve. roundabouts and (2x7.0m) Carriageways () Left in / Left out Left in / Left out full-or compact grade separation.
Standard Motorway 52,000 2.5m hard Motorway No gaps in the Motorway Divided 2 +2 Lane shoulders Regulations central reserve. standards (2X7.0m) (D2M) Full-grade separation.
Wide Motorway 55,500 3m hard Motorway No gaps in the Motorway Divided 2+2 Lane shoulders Regulations central reserve standards (2X7.5m) (D2M) Full-grade separation.
Table 15
Notes: 1. For details of the standard road cross-sections, see NRA TD 27, NRA TD 10 ‘Type 2 and Type 3 Dual Carriageways’ and Road Construction Details Series 000.
2. Capacity figures are indicative for general guidance. The appropriate cross section shall be selected in accordance with the NRA Project Appraisal Guidelines
3. Single lane dualling may be appropriate in some situations, but would be a Relaxation (see NRA TD 41-42).
4. See NRA TD 10 ‘Type 2 and Type 3 Dual Carriageways’
5. Refer to TA 79 for Urban Road capacities.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 68 of 145
5.0 POLICY
5.6.2 DMRB TD10 - Road Link Design for Type 2 and Type 3 Dual Carriageways - 2007
This document provides specific advice in respect of the design of Type 2 (T2DC) and Type 3 dual carriageways. It states (consistent with TD9 above) that the T2DC is considered appropriate for use on national road schemes in rural areas where the traffic flow in the design year is between about 11,600 and 20,000 AADT.
Section 2.5 states that short isolated lengths of T2DC should not be provided, with Section 2.40 stating that sections should be at least 5km long, and preferably 10km. Cross section and headroom shall be as per TD27. Junction strategy is set out in Section 2.26, as discussed in more detail in Section 3.10 above.
Sections 2.35-2.37 addresses Non-Motorised User requirements (NMUs), stating that facilities shall be provided in accordance with TD27. NMUs should be encouraged by signage to use alternative parallel routes, for example, the old road. The need for NMUs to cross the road at roundabouts ‘should be considered and appropriate provision made’.
5.6.3 DMRB TD16 – Geometric Design of Roundabouts - 2009
Table 6/1 sets out the roundabout type (category) to be used in a range of circumstances, depending on the class of road on the approaches, the speed limit on approaches, and the AADT on approaches. This document defers to its UK counterpart on a number of matters.
5.6.4 DMRB TD27 – Cross Sections and Headroom - 2011
This document outlines the design principles and factors which should be considered by Design Organisations in selection road cross-sections and headroom.
Section 2.10 sets out ‘Network Objectives, stating that
The aim is to deliver an economic, accessible, integrated, safe, reliable, sustainable, efficient and environmentally acceptable network for all users. This includes the need for safe, efficient and effective maintenance as well as the necessity to adapt and improve some roads for the benefit of non-motorised users. The Design Organisation should take these factors into account throughout the design process.
Sections 2.15 to 2.18 deals with Non-Motorised Users, stating that it is essential that Design Organisations integrate facilities for NMUs in the design at an early stage, so that they are not overlooked when allocating space. They must determine and make adequate provision for any NMU requirements. Consultation with user groups is advocated. While sufficient infrastructure should be provided, where considered necessary, NMUs should be discouraged from using new offline high speed roads, where the existing route remains available and provides a safer alternative.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 69 of 145
5.0 POLICY
Section 3.39 states that provision for NMUs on all-purpose roads must be made where a local need has been identified and agreed with the Road Authority
Section 3- of the document provides specific advice on cross sections, head room, etc. Cycle tracks and shared pedestrian cyclist facilities shall be as per the National Cycle Manual [see Section 5.8.5 below].
5.6.5 DMRB - NRA Interim Advice Note 3/12 (IAN) – 2012
IAN 3/12, produced in February 2012, relates to ‘Provisions for Cyclists and Pedestrians on Type 2 and Type 3 single carriageway National Roads in rural areas’. As such, it is not applicable to the subject case, where a Type 2 dual carriagway (T2DC) is proposed. However, the content of the document does in fact contain recommendations in respect of Dual Carriageways, and in any event does apply directly to Section A of the scheme in the first instance. Furthermore, in the absence of any comparable document in respect of Dual Carriageways, it is worth considering its contents, in my opinion.
The document provides a useful definition of Cycle Lanes (part of the roadway, not for exclusive use of cyclists), Cycleways (a dedicated facility within the road corridor), and Cycle Trails (a facility outside of the road corridor). The latter two classifications may, if permitted, be used by pedestrians also. Photos 2.1, 2.3, and 2.5 illustrate examples of these distinctions.
This document cites the statutory requirement for all-purpose roads to cater for cyclists and pedestrians, as well as for motorised vehicles, and goes on to discuss ways that this may be achieved. It provides useful advice on incorporating consideration of NMUs in the planning stage of a scheme. Sections 4, 5, and 6 set out general design principles, including the type of facility that would be appropriate for given design speeds and traffic volumes. For high speeds/volumes, cycleways or cycle trails (dedicated facilities) are considered appropriate. It discusses one way versus two way facilities, as well as appropriate cross sections.
Section 7 deals with junctions and crossings, opening by stating that ‘A cycle network is only as good as its weakest feature’. Research has shown that around three-quarters of cyclist casualties occur at or near junctions (London Research Centre 1994)’. In broad terms, the document considers ‘bending in’ and ‘bending out’ alignments at minor junctions, as shown in Figs 7.1-7.3. Grade separated junctions are also considered, with cycle/pedestrian options at grade, along the ramps, or grade separated. Where cycleways are along a dual carriageway, it is desirable to provide connections to all local roads that are carried over or under the main road.
In respect of roundabouts, Section 7.31 states that roundabouts on rural roads will usually be bypassed by a cycleway, with side road crossing
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 70 of 145
5.0 POLICY
provided on the arms of the junction, typically 10-15m from the circulatory carriagway. Refuge islands at roundabouts should be at least 3m wide. ‘Jug handle’ approaches are advocated.
Section 7.37 deals with at-grade crossings of an all-purpose dual carriageway, to connect two cycle facilities on opposite sides of the road. It requires a minimum median width of 5m for staging, along with a left- right stagger, with a minimum length of 10m.
The document also addresses construction detailing, signage, and road markings.
5.7 ROADS DESIGN STANDARDS – OTHER DOCUMENTS
5.7.1 Guidelines on a Common Appraisal Framework for Transport Projects and Programmes – Department of Transport – 2009
This document provides guidelines for the appraisal of transport projects and programmes. It makes reference to integration with land use policy, and refers to national and regional planning guidance
5.7.2 NRA project Appraisal Guidelines (2011)
The ‘Project Brief’ section states ‘there may be a need to integrate the road network more fully with other transport modes e.g. with the rail mode, or to create cycling or walking facilities. Integration with existing land use / planning policies may also be an objective.’
5.7.3 Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets (DMURS) - 2013
These ministerial guidelines, from the Department for Transport Tourism and Sport and the Department of Environment, Community, and Local Government, and were released on 25th March 2013. The guidelines states that the Design Manual for Road and Bridges (DMRB) shall not henceforth apply to urban roads and streets other than exceptional circumstances.
These guidelines seek to examine the role and function of streets within urban areas, where vehicular traffic is most likely to interact with pedestrians and cyclists and where public transport can most effectively and efficiently be planned for and provided.
Section 1.3 states that the principles, approaches and standards set out in the Manual apply to the design of all urban roads and streets (that is streets and roads with a speed limit of 60km/h or less), except for motorways, and in exceptional circumstances, which must be sanctioned by the NRA, NTA, or Dept. of Transport Tourism and Sport, as applicable.
The Design Manual contains sections relating to transitional areas, with particular reference to Business Parks / Industrial Estates and Rural Fringes. ‘Transition Zones’ are presented as an area that may be needed
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 71 of 145
5.0 POLICY
for slowing vehicles when entering an urban area from a faster moving road, such as from a motorway into an integrated street network.
5.7.4 Various Planning and Construction guidelines of the National Roads Authority
Section 1.6.2 of the EIS makes reference to 20 publications from the NRA covering EIA, landscape treatments, air quality, conservation and ecology, geology hydrology and hydrogeology, noise and vibration, architectural and archeologically heritage. These generally refer to topics outside of the terms of this report.
5.8 CYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN POLICY
5.8.1 A Strategy for the Development of Irish Cycle Tourism – Fáilte Ireland - 2007
This document includes a map that identifies Westport as a Potential Hub Town (Cat 2), with a long distance route along the N59 north and south of the town, part of a complete West Coast route from Malin Head to Mizen Head. Hub Routes around Westport are also identified. There is no cycle route identified on the Westport-Castlebar corridor.
5.8.2 Irish trails strategy – Irish Sports Council - 2007
This document essentially presents a status report on walking and cycling trails in Ireland, as well as a methodology for increasing and improving trails infrastructure.
5.8.3 Ireland’s First National Cycle Policy Framework – Department of Transport - 2009-2020
This document from the Department of Transport follows on from Smarter Travel, and seeks to create a strong cycling culture in the country. On the issue of infrastructure, emphasis is placed on transportation infrastructural designs being cycling friendly by producing safe, direct, coherent, attractive and comfortable routes. While many of the measures referred to focus on urban cycling there is support for the provision of dedicated signed rural cycling networks to cater for recreational cyclists and visitors. Indeed, it is a specific objective to provide such dedicated rural cycle networks.
The Framework acknowledges the Strategy for the Development of Irish Cycle Tourism and notes that the cycling network identified will mainly use a mix of minor roads and some greenways. In support of the objective to provide designated rural cycle routes the policies to be pursued are:
To construct the National Cycle Network as identified in the 2007 Strategy.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 72 of 145
5.0 POLICY
To carry out further research and surveying work in order to expand the network, with special attention paid to the opportunities of using both the extensive disused rail network and canal / river tow-path networks.
To examine the using of hard shoulders and contiguous space of roads with an arterial character as part of the National Cycle Network [see Section 5.8.4 below].
To ensure that the upgrading of national roads do not impact negatively on the safety and perceived safety of the roads for cyclists.
5.8.4 National Cycle Network Scoping Study - Dept. of Transport and NRA - 2010)
This document, which is cited in NRA IAN 3/12, is based on ‘Smarter Travel’ and ‘Ireland’s first National Cycle Policy Framework, which were adopted in 2009. The Study was led by the NRA, with a range of additional stakeholders. The stated vision for the ‘National Cycle Network’ is to (inter alia) ‘allow users to cycle between the main urban areas throughout the country.’, and goes on to state that ‘The routes will, where possible, avail of existing routes and State-owned lands, share use with walking, and form the basis for linkages to more comprehensive rural and urban local networks.’
The three main cyclist user groups identified are commuters, leisure cyclists, and tourist cyclists. The study seeks to maximise the length of the network that is ‘off road’, including cycleways adjacent to the road. It seeks to ensure that routes are ‘provided in a manner that will allow cycling to develop as a viable mode for people’s transport and commuter needs, as well as ensuring development of recreational / leisure and tourist cycling’.
The study presents a national map indicating the proposed National Cycle Network, which includes the Castlebar to Westport Section of the N5, which sits within a wider Clifden to Ballina section along the west coast. A second map shows the proposed Fáilte Ireland Network, which aligns with the National Cycle Network for sections, but not on the Castlebar- Westport section of the N5. The study asserts that the alignments shown are corridors and not routes, and does not indicate the standard, nor the exact location.
The study recommends that the national network can be achieved in an incremental manner, allowing for individual small and medium scale projects to be identified, along with integration with other infrastructural plans.
5.8.5 National Cycle Manual – NTA 2011
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 73 of 145
5.0 POLICY
This document represents a ‘hands on’ suite of design recommendations for implementing cycle infrastructure. Some points of note are as follows:
Section 1.7.4 includes a Guidance Graph showing instances where shared streets, cycle lanes, and cycle tracks are appropriate, depending on vehicular speeds and traffic volumes. Above 60kmph, segregated Cycle tracks are required in all instances.
Section 4.7 includes specific advice for cycle infrastructure at Crossings – where cyclists cross at right angles to the traffic flow. It states that heavier traffic and higher speeds will generally require controlled crossings. Advice is given for 2-stage ‘island’ crossings, pelican crossings, and toucan crossings.
Section 4.8 gives specific advice on roundabouts. To create a cycle friendly roundabout, multi-lane approaches are not recommended, nor are multiple gyratory lanes. Cyclists can mix with traffic at roundabouts with volumes of less than 6,000 AADT. Above this level, segregation is needed. Sections 4.8.3 and 4.8.4 give advice on roundabout geometry. In urban areas, they should not have an external radius greater than 16m. Further advice is given on segregated cycle tracks and full grade separation, which are described in a series of diagrams.
5.8.6 Mayo Trails Strategy
The County Development Plan includes a policy to formulate a ‘Mayo Trails Strategy’. At the oral hearing, the applicant asserted that such a document had been produced and was publically available. It was not, however, furnished to the hearing, and no such document would appear to be available online.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 74 of 145
6.0 SUBMISSIONS FROM 3RD PARTIES – with applicant’s responses
6.0 SUBMISSIONS FROM 3 RD PARTIES – with applicant’s responses
6.1 This section includes a summary of written submissions to the board, and evidence presented in written and oral form at the oral hearing. It is ordered as per the originally published order of proceedings for the oral hearing. Every valid submission received is listed in Appendix 2 at the end of this report. Only submissions with grounds relevant to this report’s brief are incorporated into this section.
6.2 Also included in this section are any specific responses by the applicant to the issues raised by the 3 rd parties, where relevant.
6.3 The contents of any written or oral submissions made to the board that were subsequently withdrawn are not included as they are not before the board for consideration. Similarly, I have not provided a summary of any submissions made by the applicant on foot of 3 rd party submissions that were subsequently withdrawn, nor to I intend to rely on same in my assessment.
6.4 Accompanying the summary of each submission, I have provided the following information to assist the board in navigating to the 3rd party submissions and the location of their lands/properties on the submitted plans.
• Submission # – As per the board’s own numbering system, based on the originally published order of proceedings for the Oral Hearing.
• Plot(s) # – As per the numbering system used in Figures 16.18- 16.34 of the EIS, relating to land holdings.
• House # – As per the numbering system used in Figures 11.xx and 12.xx of the EIS, relating to Landscape & Visual Analysis, and Noise &Vibration, and replicated (with additional suffixes) in the Deposit Maps.
• Chainage – as per the unique identifier along the mainline route’s length, replicated in all drawings submitted. I have indicated north, south, east, or west as appropriate to indicate which side of the proposed mainline the 3 rd party’s house/property is located, or the larger part of their property, where it is to be bisected.
• Deposit Map # – As per the sheet number used in the Deposit Maps submitted.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 75 of 145
6.0 SUBMISSIONS FROM 3RD PARTIES – with applicant’s responses
6.5 AN TAISCE - SUBMISSION # 2
6.5.1 Written submission to the board in the first instance
6.5.2 The dominant socio-cultural narrative in County Mayo continues to drive polices favouring the profligate dispersal of settlement towards one-off rural dwellings. Notwithstanding the unsustainable nature of this pattern of development, it is likely to continue, at least in the short term. Refers to (and quotes from) a recent statement from Forfas in this regard. Only when oil prices inflate will the true cost of this settlement pattern become apparent.
6.5.3 Significant development of single rural dwellings has occurred in the surrounding area within the last few decades, which has adversely affected traffic and transport patterns in the area. No evaluation of the impact of dispersed settlement on the current road has been carried out in the EIS.
6.5.4 The proposed development would facilitate an ease of use in motor vehicles feeding the towns of Castlebar and Westport from their respective hinterlands and would further exacerbate rural sprawl. The board is asked to consider the downstream impacts this road project would have the future of the spatial settlement and land-use patterns of the area.
6.5.5 ‘Smarter Travel’ includes 5 key goals [cited]. The correlation between the EIS and this document is poor, with only lip service being paid. The proposed development would undermine sustainable modes of transport.
6.5.6 The submission refers extensively to fossil fuel and climate change in a general sense.
6.5.7 Response by the applicant to specific matters raised
6.5.8 A written submission (document OH85) asserts that he proposed road scheme will not contribute to scattered rural residential development due to the proposed junction spacing. It is incorrect to state that current policy in Mayo is driving one-off housing. On the issue of cycling, the existing road would be available for cyclists.
6.5.9 The submission is accompanied by a letter from the NTA to the applicant which addressees An Taisce’s assertion that the proposal ‘does not align with the regional transport strategies of the National Transport Authority (NTA) particularly with respect to rail infrastructure and bus services’. The letter states that while the NTA does have such functions in the Greater Dublin Area, it does not have any statutory responsibility for the development of transport strategies for any other region.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 76 of 145
6.0 SUBMISSIONS FROM 3RD PARTIES – with applicant’s responses
6.6 THE WEST REGIONAL AUTHORITY - SUBMISSION # 5
6.6.1 Written submission to the board in the first instance
6.6.2 The EIS’s position with regard to the road’s policy context is noted, as is the EIS’s position with reference to increased efficiency, reduced journey times, improved road safety, and enhanced urban environmental quality.
6.6.3 Chapter 5 of the Regional Planning Guidelines (see Section 5.3.2 above), contains the regional ‘Infrastructure Strategy’. The WRA also refer to objectives to protect the strategic role of the national roads network and planned routes, and to ensure that road development avoid significant or adverse effects on the environment.
6.6.4 The proposed road development includes objectives to facilitate cycling and pedestrian access at various points along the route. The integration of sustainable travel access as part of the roads project is supported. The WRA recommends that ancillary infrastructure (e.g. a suitable safe crossing method) is integrated into the final design of roundabouts and junctions to support ease of access for pedestrians and cyclists. In particular these include:
1. The junction with the N59 on the N5-N59 link road, which is a single carriagway relief road for Westport, which could be linked to the Western Greenway.
2. The junction of the N5 link road (Carrowbeg Road) with the N5/N59 link road.
3. Knockranny Junction North
4. Knockranny Junction South
5. Castlebar West Junction
6.6.5 Consideration may be given to appropriate ancillary infrastructure where footpaths and cycle tracks cross over entrances to side-roads.
6.6.6 Concludes that the policies and objectives of the RPGs fully support the proposed road development.
6.6.7 Written submission presented at the oral hearing
6.6.8 As presented by the Regional Planning Guidelines Implementation Officer, Teresa O’Reilly, read. This submission reiterated much of the initial submission to the board. Other points of note can be summarised as follows:
6.6.9 The National Transport Authority (NTA), who is part of the RPG Implementation (Steering) group, submitted comments to the WRA
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 77 of 145
6.0 SUBMISSIONS FROM 3RD PARTIES – with applicant’s responses
which formed part of the draft submission, including the ‘Conclusion and Recommendation’ section.
• The members of the WRA approved the submission at their October meeting.
• The submission reiterates the information regarding the policy context for the proposal, and the recommendations of the WRA with regard to pedestrian and cyclist provision.
6.6.10 Response by the applicant to specific matters raised
6.6.11 Mr Keane for the Applicant Asked Ms O’Reilly whether the WRA supported the scheme as proposed. Ms O’Reilly said they did.
6.7 PADRAIG MCLOUGHLIN - SUBMISSION # 13
Plot(s) # P0510 & P0450 - House # H0540 - Chainage 10+000 south - Deposit Map # 2
6.7.1 Written submission to the board in the first instance
6.7.2 This submission to the board did not include any matters relevant to the terms of reference of this report.
6.7.3 Written submission presented at the oral hearing
6.7.4 Mr McLoughlin, concerned in the first instance about access difficulties, devaluing of land, and development potential, suggested that the Knockranny Link Road could be reduced to a single carriageway, which would result in a smaller roundabout which could be moved very slightly west, facilitating the retention of an access onto the existing N5. Mr McLoughlin also raised concerns regarding the impacts of his agricultural activities on neighbouring houses by virtue of the proposed revised access arrangements.
6.7.5 Subsequent oral submissions at the oral hearing
6.7.6 In the discussion that followed, Mr McLoughlin referred to the fact that he currently moves cattle between the two holdings either side of the N5. Mr Keane for the applicant inferred questions as to the appropriateness of this in the context of it being a national road. Mr McLoughlin stated that such activities happened early in the morning and did not give rise to any issues.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 78 of 145
6.0 SUBMISSIONS FROM 3RD PARTIES – with applicant’s responses
6.8 MARY B. RICE - SUBMISSION # 61
Plot(s) # P1790 - House # H1320 - Chainage 34+900 south and 35+900 west - Deposit Map # 10
6.8.1 Written submission to the board in the first instance
6.8.2 Measures will be required to prevent stray golf balls crossing the roadway, leading to possible accidents.
6.8.3 Note, this issue was also addressed in the submissions by the following parties, who were represented by the same agent:
• Eddie Grogan - Submission # 63
Plot(s) # n/a - House # H1788 - Chainage 35+900 west - Deposit Map # 10
• Kieran Horkan - Submission # 64
Plot(s) # n/a - House # H178X - Chainage 35+900 west - Deposit Map # 10
• Mick Kane - Submission # 65
Plot(s) # n/a - House # H1789 - Chainage 35+900 west - Deposit Map # 10
6.9 EDWARD BROWNE - SUBMISSION # 68
Plot(s) # P0320 - House # H0245 H0246 - Chainage 2+600 south - Deposit Map # 1
6.9.1 Written submission to the board in the first instance
6.9.2 Refers to advice from Westport Town Council in March 2006 that they would
• encourage the refurbishment of the existing railway cottage (occupied by Mr Browne’s son) and the construction of 2 similar cottages either side
• Encourage the demolition of the existing dwelling (Mr Browne’s) on the line of the old railway and its replacement with 3 to 4 dwellings on adjacent lands off the line of the old railway.
• Westport Town Council would condition a public walkway along the site with a grant of permission to extend the existing
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 79 of 145
6.0 SUBMISSIONS FROM 3RD PARTIES – with applicant’s responses
old railway walk (the Greenway) which will (ultimately) circumnavigate the town.
6.9.3 It is submitted that Mr Browne’s property offers a significant recreational development potential to the planning authorities. The Western Greenway follows the path of the old railway line to a point northwest of the property. The construction of a Greenway route under/over/through the proposed nearby roundabout would pose significant difficulties. The submission recommends that the planning authority purchase the entirety of the Brownes’ property. Alternatively, the planning authority could purchase the triangular shape section of the property and Mr Browne would agree to a right of way through the remainder. This would allow for the completion of the Western Greenway and the relocation of Mr Browne’s family to a suitable location.
6.9.4 Alternatively, the planning authority could consider relocating the roadway towards Mr Browne’s dwelling house, which due to topography would save construction costs and overall land-take.
6.9.5 Written submission presented at the oral hearing
6.9.6 This submission urges the board to reject the proposal for Section A of the roadway as it now stands, and request that Mayo County Council go back to the Drawing Board to propose a new plan that would be less detrimental to Mr Browne.
6.9.7 The submission is accompanied by annotated section drawings [not previously submitted to the board], and a copy of a table of the EIS and accompanying text, which shows the visual impacts on the Brownes’ houses as being profound and significant. These are the only two houses in Section A where such impacts are predicted.
6.9.8 The submission is also accompanied by a copy of the applicant’s response to Mr Browne, as summarised below
6.9.9 Response by the applicant to specific matters raised
6.9.10 The response acknowledges the impacts on Mr Browne’s property and refers to the mitigation proposed in the EIS.
6.9.11 In relation to Mr Browne’s suggestion that the planning authority have wished/would wish to acquire is property for incorporation into the Greenway, the submission states that the planning authority have no interest in acquiring Mr Browne’s dwelling house. The CPO cannot be modified to include his house at this stage. There is no justifiable reason to acquire his house. Refers to the arbitration process.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 80 of 145
6.0 SUBMISSIONS FROM 3RD PARTIES – with applicant’s responses
6.9.12 Document OH43, presented on behalf of Mr Browne, is a letter from the applicant to Mr Browne, dated 8 th January 2014, addressing the issues he had raised to date. It reflects the position above.
6.10 MICHAEL MCCORMACK AND OTHERS - SUBMISSION # 70
Plot(s) # P0520 - House # H0520 - Chainage 4+100 south - Deposit Map # 2
6.10.1 Written submission to the board in the first instance
6.10.2 The Knockranny Link Road (KLR), the Knockranny South Roundabout, and associated access roads are over-engineered and are excessive in terms of land take.
6.10.3 Written submission presented at the oral hearing
6.10.4 Best practice dictates that an incremental analysis of key design features should be undertaken, as per the NRA’s Project Management Guidelines. The applicant’s Design Report (section 21) states that incremental analysis was undertaken for ‘any section of the preferred route with an AADT in the range of 8,000 to 15,000 AADT’. However, there is no evidence of such incremental analysis in respect of the KLR, despite the forecasted traffic flows falling at the lower end of this range.
6.10.5 The capacity of a Type 2 ducal carriageway is 20,000 AADT, whereas the applicant’s projected future traffic flows for the KLR are only 8,400 AADT for 2033. A type 1 single carriageway is appropriate for traffic flows up to 11,600 AADT. Given that the KLR is just 280m, the likelihood of overtaking is minimal. There is no justification in terms of constancy of alignment. The possible future delivery of the N59 South Westport Relief Road does not represent sufficient grounds for over-specification. A single carriageway should be provided in the interests of land take, costs, and safety.
6.10.6 A single carriageway KLR would reduce the size of the roundabout at the Knockranny Junction South from 80m to 50m. It would also allow a repositioning of access road A3 as a left in / left out junction on the KLR.
6.10.7 The submission is accompanied by a ‘Transport Submission’ report by Transport Insights (Transport Planning Consultants), which provides content that feeds into the primary submission, as summarised above.
6.10.8 Response by the applicant to specific matters raised
6.10.9 The applicant challenged the costings from Mr McCormack’s ‘Transport Submission’. In relation to the width of road used, a T2DC would require minimal (3m) additional land take over a single
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 81 of 145
6.0 SUBMISSIONS FROM 3RD PARTIES – with applicant’s responses
carriagway with hard shoulder. Two lanes would in any event be required on approaches to the roundabouts at both ends of the KLR to address gap acceptance, and given the length of the road (280m), it is reasonable to provide 2 lanes over the entire length. A 2 nd lane on the northern end of the southbound section is also required due to the slip lane from Section B.
6.10.10 Providing a T2DC also provides a consistency of cross section. It is not necessary to consider the KLR separately for incremental analysis. The applicant also referred to the future provision of a southern bypass for Westport, which would extend south from the Knockranny South Roundabout.
6.10.11 In response to questioning, the applicant stated that had a single carriageway been proposed for the KLR, a 60m roundabout for Knockranny South would have sufficed [an 80m roundabout is proposed].
6.11 WESTPORT TOURISM ORGANISATION - SUBMISSION # 75
6.11.1 Written submission to the board in the first instance
6.11.2 This voluntary group, which promotes Westport as a quality visitor destination, pledges its support for the new road development. Access plays a pivotal road in the progress and future growth of the area.
6.12 ALLERGAN PHARMACEUTICALS IRELAND - SUBMISSION # 76
Plot(s) # n/a - House # n/a - Chainage 3+500 south - Deposit Map # 1
6.12.1 Written submission to the board in the first instance
6.12.2 Allergan employs circa 850 staff and is adjacent to the N5 route in Westport. Allergan welcomes the scheme as a positive improvement to the infrastructure of the area. The existing flagship Westport operation is deemed the ideal location for expansion of the company’s interests, and the new N5 road project would enhance Allergan Westport’s operations while simultaneously addressing a local infrastructure deficit.
6.13 SYNERGY HEALTH WESTPORT LTD - SUBMISSION # 77
Plot(s) # n/a - House # n/a - Chainage 3+800 - Deposit Map # 1
6.13.1 Written submission to the board in the first instance
6.13.2 Synergy Health is a contract irradiation facility which handles upwards of 40,000 pallets per annum, all transported to the Westport
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 82 of 145
6.0 SUBMISSIONS FROM 3RD PARTIES – with applicant’s responses
site by road, and the majority using the current N5 infrastructure. Synergy Health supports the proposed development.
6.14 WESTPORT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE - SUBMISSION # 79
6.14.1 Written submission to the board in the first instance
6.14.2 Supports the proposed development. Mayo is heavily dependent on manufacturing industries such as Allergan Pharmaceuticals, Baxter Healthcare, Hollister, and Chesapeake to name a few, and all these are in turn heavily dependent on a modern and efficient road structure for their export business. Millions of euro worth of product is lost from the locally based multinational industries each year, owing directly to problems arising from the deficient and substandard road network.
6.14.3 While the N5 has been developed to a high standard from Strokestown to Dublin, the condition of the road in the west, and especially the Westport to Turlough section is far less than desirable. This is a project on which Westport Chamber of Commerce has lobbied for several years. Tourism also depends on good road infrastructure.
6.15 DOMINIC DI LUCIA - SUBMISSION # 81
Plot(s) # n/a - House # H0094 - Chainage 2+000 north - Deposit Map # 1
6.15.1 Written submission to the board in the first instance
6.15.2 Lands in the vicinity of Mr Di Lucia’s house fall within the CPO boundary. If these lands are in the ownership of Mayo County Council, then it would be possible to develop them in the near future as infrastructure related to the Great Western Greenway, possibly as a car park and point of access to the greenway. These lands are unnecessary.
6.15.3 Response by the applicant to specific matters raised
6.15.4 The lands in the vicinity of Mr Di Lucia’s house have been acquired to facilitate the construction of the road project. Mayo County Council have no proposals to construct a Great Western Greenway car park at this location.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 83 of 145
6.0 SUBMISSIONS FROM 3RD PARTIES – with applicant’s responses
6.16 ANNAGH RESIDENTS - SUBMISSION # 82
Plot(s) # n/a - House # n/a - Chainage 19+600 north - Deposit Map # 7
6.16.1 Written submission to the board in the first instance
6.16.2 The existing access from the L17107 (Annagh Road) to the existing N5 is dangerous and substandard. The residents ask the board to consider an alternative access route between the Annagh lands and the existing N5. This alternative route would run west from the north side of the Lough Lannagh crossing as far as ‘Fore Annagh Road’ (chainage 19+200), and from there to provide access south to the N5 along Fore Annagh Road via an underbridge. A field access is also proposed for lands to lands to the south of the proposed mainline, east of Fore Annagh Road, on an alignment parallel to the mainline. This route is marked in red on a plan attached to the submission.
6.16.3 Written submission presented at the oral hearing
6.16.4 This submission (Document OH45) included screengrabs from a video depicting a computer model of the proposed Annagh Bridge. The applicant confirmed that this video had been produced for public consultation purposes, and was not before the board for consideration.
6.16.5 Response by the applicant to specific matters raised
6.16.6 The alternative access proposal from the Annagh Residents would require additional land take from a landowner who is not party to their submission. It would require a cutting. The existing ‘Fore Annagh Road is very narrow, and accesses the existing N5 adjacent to a bungalow with poor visibility. The intervening T junction may not be ideal, but may be possible. The alternative access arrangements would result in an additional 1km onto the journey to Castlebar.
6.16.7 The computer simulated ‘fly by’ video does not do justice to the bridge.
6.17 JAMES BURKE AND MARY AMELIA MCNALLY - SUBMISSION # 86
Plot(s) # P0850 - House # n/a - Chainage 13+900 south - Deposit Map # 4
6.17.1 Written submission to the board in the first instance
6.17.2 The need for the road has to be questioned. There are existing forms of transport which are not fully utilised in the form of buses and trains, which are supported by the policies of the county
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 84 of 145
6.0 SUBMISSIONS FROM 3RD PARTIES – with applicant’s responses
development plan. There would appear to be no mention in the EIS of travel to work and school plans. The proposed dual carriagway would encourage additional car usage and associated parking and congestion. The saving in travel time will be minimal.
6.17.3 Safety on the existing N5 could be addressed by other means such as speed limits and speed cameras.
6.17.4 If consent is granted for the new N5, the old N5 would potentially be subject to more development due to its de-classification.
6.17.5 The available funding could instead be used on sections of the N5 route in Roscommon where the road is dangerous due to its narrowness and configuration.
6.17.6 If the board is minded to approve the proposal, consideration should be given to requiring the inclusion of bus bays and drop off points along both the route of the new road and the existing N5.
6.17.7 Written submission presented at the oral hearing
6.17.8 The declassification of the existing N5 would precipitate more sporadic development.
6.17.9 Response by the applicant to specific matters raised
6.17.10 In relation to public transport, the applicant stated that the evidence from Dublin in addressing modal shift, even with investment, is that it is difficult to achieve 10%. The priority has to be to address to the road network. Rail freight in Ireland is nominal.
6.17.11 On the issue of a relaxation of the restriction of development on the existing N5, the applicant staged that the development plan would resist these pressures as the area is designated as ‘under strong urban pressure’, and as such is restricted to family needs and rural activities.
6.17.12 A submitted written response from the applicant (OH75) states in relation to bus stops that the funding for the road project would include an allocation of function for the ‘residual road network’. Part of this may be used to enhance bus stop facilities along the route of the existing N5 is required by the bus operators.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 85 of 145
6.0 SUBMISSIONS FROM 3RD PARTIES – with applicant’s responses
6.18 CAROLINE AND PAUL RYDER - SUBMISSION # 89
Plot(s) # n/a - House # H0671 - Chainage 11+000 north - Deposit Map # 2
6.18.1 Written submission to the board in the first instance
6.18.2 In the context of speculation that a local pharmaceutical company will transfer elsewhere if the N5 is not completed, the Ryders question why a road would be build that offers no real benefit to Westport. Anybody in the areas of Achill, Mulranny, Ballycroy, can turn left at Newport [R3111] to go to Castlebar, and so bypass Westport.
6.19 JOHN JORDAN - SUBMISSION # 92
Plot(s) # P2060 & P2075 - House # n/a - Chainage 38+300 east - Deposit Map # 12
6.19.1 Written submission to the board in the first instance
6.19.2 The proposed new road is not necessary. The money would be better spent on the improvement of Knock Airport and/or the local railway system and/or the Tourist and Greenway infrastructure. It would lead to a massive extension of the road network in the county in circumstances where the local authority and the NRA do not have sufficient funds to maintain or improve the existing road infrastructure.
6.20 HELEN SARSFIELD - SUBMISSION # 93
Plot(s) # P2060 & P2075 - House # n/a - Chainage 38+300 east - Deposit Map # 12
6.20.1 The submissions to the board reflect those given by Mr John Jordan in Submission #92 (see above)
6.21 THOMAS HORKAN, PARAIC HORKAN AND JOHN HORKAN - SUBMISSION # 100
Plot(s) # P2951 - House # n/a - Chainage 44+000 north - Deposit Map # 15
6.21.1 Written submission to the board in the first instance
6.21.2 The Horkans run a Lifestyle and Garden Centre. A road sign relating to this business is located on the existing N5, and they wish to have a comparable replacement sign put in place post-construction on this ‘retrofitted’ section of the N5 [Section D].
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 86 of 145
6.0 SUBMISSIONS FROM 3RD PARTIES – with applicant’s responses
6.21.3 The proposed development would result in a deterioration of access for customers of Horkans.
6.21.4 Improvements are needed on the L-1719 by way of compensatory measures. Additional cycle lanes will be needed along the L-1719 to connect with the Castlebar-Turlough Greenway.
6.21.5 Submission at the oral hearing
6.21.6 Requests a left-in/left-out junction at the meeting of the L-1719 and the N5 so as drivers from Castlebar can avail of a 2 nd exit if they miss the first. They would only see the signage from the site after they pass the proposed exit. There is a currently an all-movements T-junction at this location. It is proposed to close off this junction in its entirety.
6.21.7 Refers to a precedent for business-specific signage at one of their other branches on the N11 in County Wicklow.
6.21.8 Response by the applicant to specific matters raised
6.21.9 The existing signage within the current round boundary at chainage 42+900, which has planning permission, will be re-erected. Refers to NRA guidance and requirements re signage at junctions – ‘Policy on the Provision of Tourist and Leisure Signage on National Roads’. There will be a ‘brown sign’ for the museum at Turlough. ‘Garden Centre’ may be referred to in a generic sense - but not the name ‘Horkans’ - although this would be a matter of detail. More specific signage may be provided at the Gortnafolla junction, off the N5 mainline.
6.21.10 Document OH78, submitted to the hearing by the applicant, reflects this response. In addition, this document states that the issue of providing for a continuation of the riverside greenway beneath the N5 will be brought to the attention of those within Mayo County Council who are planning for the greenway at this locality.
6.22 H BRO - SUBMISSION # 101
Plot(s) # P2950 - House # H2950 - Chainage 44+000 north - Deposit Map # 15
6.22.1 As per Submission #100 above.
6.23 PETER SWEETMAN - SUBMISSION # 104
6.23.1 Written submission to the board in the first instance
6.23.2 This submission to the board did not include any matters relevant to the terms of reference of this report.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 87 of 145
6.0 SUBMISSIONS FROM 3RD PARTIES – with applicant’s responses
6.23.3 Submission at the oral hearing
6.23.4 Mr Sweetman raised the question of existing examples of T2DCs, and queried the level of use that may be expected in respect of the proposed development with respect to the proposed road’s capacity. He asserted that the cost of the proposed road is excessive with reference to the predicted traffic, and that the roads authority wants big roads. The proposed N26 was overdesigned.
6.23.5 Mr Sweetman asserted that the projected traffic figures are inconsistent with the population figures for Westport.
6.23.6 A local rail service [Westport-Castlebar-Ballina] should have been considered.
6.23.7 We had previously been told that the road was for the ‘big picture’ [long distance traffic], whereas at the oral hearing we are being told that it is for the ‘small picture’ [local traffic].
6.23.8 The cost benefit analysis should be provided. The board needs to know whether a project is financially and environmentally sustainable. [This document – authorised by the applicant, but submitted by Mr Sweetman - was subsequently submitted to the hearing as Document OH 91].
6.23.9 The downgrade of the existing N5 would result in development pressure.
6.23.10 Response by the applicant to specific matters raised
6.23.11 The applicant asserted that it is unwise to construct roads such that they would be at or near capacity when opened. The predicted level of 10,600 AADT would equate to 91% of capacity for a signal carriagway. Platooning starts at this level.
6.23.12 ‘Regional’ movements are more important than long distance movements.
6.24 ISLANDEADY COMMUNITY COUNCIL - SUBMISSION # 107
6.24.1 Note: this party did not make a submission to the board in advance of the oral hearing.
6.24.2 The written submissions to the board from this party at the oral hearing reference the severance impacts on the community from both the exiting N5 and the new road. Concerns are raised that the current N5 will not be properly maintained.
6.24.3 Requests that pathways and cycleways be provided along the existing N5 so that people from the community can sever access key locations; school, cemetery, playschool, church, GAA pitch,
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 88 of 145
6.0 SUBMISSIONS FROM 3RD PARTIES – with applicant’s responses
community centre, etc. Requests traffic calming on the existing N5, along with provision for pathways to facilitate loop walks. Requests bus stops/shelters along the existing road.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 89 of 145
7.0 ASSESSMENT
7.0 ASSESSMENT
Having inspected the site and reviewed the file documents, I consider that the issues raised in this application can be assessed under the following broad headings, within the terms of this report’s brief:
• Policy context • Need for the scheme • Appropriateness of cross-section/road type • Impacts on traffic flows and travel patterns • Junction strategy and Design • Interaction with non-motorised users • Interaction with public transport • Interaction with land-use policy • Alternatives considered • Suggested amendments by observers
7.1 POLICY CONTEXT
7.1.1 There is spatial and infrastructural policy applicable to the subject scheme at European, national, regional, and county level. Some policies directly support the scheme, while others do not. Each is assessed in turn below. See section 5.0 above for full details of these policies.
7.1.2 European-level strategic infrastructure policy
7.1.3 TEN-T Trans European Transport Network.
7.1.4 This is the only policy at European level that was raised by the parties to this case. The maps associated with this policy do indeed depict the N5 as far as Westport, although it is not clear whether this document is being descriptive or prescriptive in this instance. Furthermore, it does not specify the standard to which this route should be constructed.
7.1.5 It is not clear whether TEN-T has direct applicability in this instance; whether it ‘bypasses’ national policy, or is intended to inform it.
7.1.6 National-level planning and infrastructure policy
7.1.7 The policies, studies, and programmes in this section are presented in chronological order.
7.1.8 NRA National Roads Needs Study – 1998
7.1.9 This study/policy is no longer in force, and is 16 years old at the time of writing. It is, however, the most recent study or ‘de facto’ policy document on national roads needs. I note that there has been a
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 90 of 145
7.0 ASSESSMENT
National Secondary Roads Needs Study as recently as 2011. The absence of a revision to the 1998 study is notable in this context.
7.1.10 The 1998 study supports and recommends improvements to the Castlebar-Westport section of the N5. It is depicted as ‘Backlog’. It does not, however, support construction to the standard/capacity currently proposed. The 1998 study recommends ‘Wide 2-lane with hard shoulder’
7.1.11 This study could reasonably be considered a very conservative policy with regard to proposals for motorways and dual carriageways compared to the network that has been constructed in the intervening decade and a half.
7.1.12 National Spatial Strategy (NSS) – 2002 - 2020
7.1.13 The applicant presents the NSS as being no longer in force. However, on the basis of DoECLG circular PL2/2013, it is clear that it remains a valid document. A successor to the NSS is planned, but the 2002 document ‘continues to serve as Irelands’ national level spatial planning framework’ in the interim.
7.1.14 Perhaps the cornerstone of the NSS was the designation of 9 top- tier ‘Gateways’ and 9 second-tier ‘Hubs’. Castlebar/Ballina is identified as one of the 2 nd -tier (linked) Hubs. Much of the policies of the NSS flow from these designations.
7.1.15 The NSS does not support the proposed road. Map 3 sets out the ‘National Transport Framework’, which indicates the N5 corridor only as far as Castlebar. Map 10 is one of a series of maps that shows objectives at a regional level, and is the map that applies to the ‘West Region’. ‘National Transport Corridors’ are shown, and again, the N5 corridor does not pass Castlebar.
7.1.16 The NSS references both Castlebar and Westport explicitly, but treats them somewhat differently. In the area of infrastructural improvements, Castlebar is referred to in terms of roads, public transport, airports. Westport is referred to in terms of water services, heritage conservation, and communications.
7.1.17 Turning to the potential implications of the proposed road for the objectives of the NSS, it would indeed remove what congestion there is on the Castlebar relief road and surrounding roads, albeit that just a 25-35% drop is forecast. In doing so, the road would improve access for business and industry in Castlebar, in its role as a ‘Linked Hub’ with Ballina. As stated by the applicant, 43.8% of the county’s economy is dependent on access to the east.
7.1.18 However, it would appear that the majority of economic benefits would accrue to Westport, which is neither gateway nor a hub in the NSS. This is perhaps evidenced by the submissions of support from
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 91 of 145
7.0 ASSESSMENT
Westport; 2 major employers, chamber of commerce, and tourism organisation. There are no comparable submissions from businesses or organisations in Castlebar.
7.1.19 In comparative terms, it is worth noting that only two of the nine 2 nd tier ‘hubs’ are served by dual carriageway or higher at present. Indeed, at seven of nine, not all of the top-tier ‘gateways’ are so served either.
7.1.20 Transport 21 - 2005
7.1.21 This policy document is no longer in force, although it did support the proposed road. It referred to (inter alia) “major improvements on the Castlebar/Westport section of the route”.
7.1.22 National Development Plan (NDP) 2007-2013
7.1.23 This policy document is no longer in force. It did not support the proposed road. The N5 is shown on a map in its entirety, but I would interpret this as descriptive rather than prescriptive in context of accompanying text.
7.1.24 On the issue of infrastructure, it makes reference to Interurban motorways, linking NSS gateways (not hubs), Atlantic corridor, and targeted national secondary routes; an objective which may have led to the to 2011 Secondary Roads Needs Study by the NRA.
7.1.25 Smarter Travel – 2009
7.1.26 This document does not support the proposed development. However, it should be noted that the focus of Smarter Travel was on public transport and sustainable transport modes, and as such, it would not be expected to cover such areas.
7.1.27 Infrastructure and Capital Investment 2012
7.1.28 This programme does not support the proposed development. On the topic of roads development, it states that only a limited number of National Primary schemes are to be progressed. The Ballaghadereen bypass, east of the subject scheme along the N5, is the only scheme referenced. Other major national roads projects are ‘deferred’. There are to be low-cost targeted roads improvements on National Secondary routes, and in tourist areas.
7.1.29 This programme addresses funding, and should not be read as planning or infrastructure policy. It does not, in my opinion, preclude the planning phase of roads schemes, should that scheme be supported by relevant policy.
7.1.30 Regional planning and infrastructure policy
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 92 of 145
7.0 ASSESSMENT
7.1.31 West Regional Planning Guidelines 2010
7.1.32 The RPGs do support the scheme, and effectively extend the N5’s ‘blue line’ corridor from the NSS past Castlebar to Westport.
7.1.33 By way of comparison, there are 8 Regional Authorities in the state, all of which have produced regional planning guidelines that run from 2010-2022. As would be expected, all include objectives relating to roads proposals. The guidelines approach such policies and objectives in differing ways, from new-build works, to reclassification, to bypasses, to on-line improvements. Some merely replicate a list of NRA proposals in train at the time of writing, while others incorporate additional schemes. The table below shows the National roads that are incorporated in the policies and objectives of each of the regional authorities.
Regional National Roads objectives Authority
Border 37 N1, N2, N14, N3/M3, N4/M4, N13, N15. N17, N16, N54, N55, N53
West 38 N5, N17, N18/M18, N26, N59, N83, N60, N61, N67
Midlands 39 N4, N5, N51, N52, N55, N61, N62, N63, N77, N78, N80
Mid-East 40 M50/M11. Protect corridors for Eastern Bypass and Leinster Outer Orbital Route.
Dublin As above (joint RPGs)
South-East 41 N25, N11, N30, N72, N76, N24, N77
South-West 42 M8, M20, N25, (N40), N28, N22, N21, N27, N86, N69, N67, N23
Mid-West 43 N18, N7/M7, N68, N85, N20, M8, N21, N62, N69, N52, N24, N67
Table 16
37 http://www.border.ie/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=60&Itemid=80 38 http://www.galway.ie/en/Business/WestRegionalAuthority/RegionalPlanningGuidelinesOtherPl ans/ 39 http://www.midlands.ie/ 40 http://www.rpg.ie/ 41 http://www.sera.ie/Projects/Title,3310,en.html 42 http://www.swra.ie/index.cfm/page/regionalplanningguidelines 43 http://www.mwra.ie/Regional_Planning/index.shtml
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 93 of 145
7.0 ASSESSMENT
7.1.34 An analysis of the above table shows that of the 33 National Primary routes in the country, 25 (76%) are mentioned for upgrade in at least one set of Regional Planning Guidelines. Of the remaining eight, two are urban roads within the M50 ring (N31, N32), while four are roads that have already been constructed to motorway or dual carriageway standard (N/M6, N/M9, N10, N19). The remaining two consist of short links from the national primary network to other major infrastructure (N29 to Belview Port, and N12 Monaghan to A3 in Northern Ireland). In the case of the latter, it would appear that Section 5.2.2.2 of the Border Regional Guidelines, which refer to the A3/N54/N55 ‘Midlands Corridor’, may have intended to refer to this section of intervening national road, but have omitted it in error.
7.1.35 As such, were there to have been no objectives to improve the N5 to within the West Regional Planning guidelines, it would have been effectively unique at a national scale. The corollary of this is that the inclusion of such policies is the RPGs applicable to this scheme is unremarkable.
7.1.36 County-level planning and infrastructure policy
7.1.37 Mayo County Development Plan.
7.1.38 The County Plan supports the scheme without ambiguity. However, the roads proposals at county level could reasonably be considered as ambitious. New-build greenfield alignments are proposed for (all of or part of) every national primary route in the county. The plan also looks to examine option of enhanced cross section for the remainder of the N5, a greenfield N60 route, and a Westport eastern bypass (N59). It could reasonably be argued that the County Plan effectively ‘overshoots’ national planning policy on the issue of infrastructure, or at the least the 6-year horizon to which county plans are intended to apply.
7.1.39 I note the plan presents Westport as an ‘Extension of Linked Hub’ and as a ‘logical third member of the economical [sic] spine’, with reference to the NSS’s ‘Linked Hub’ of Castlebar/Ballina. This extrapolation of the spatial policies of the NSS, is noted. The clear intention of the hierarchy of spatial planning policy from national through regional to local is that a quantitative subsidiarity should run though this hierarchy. If key substantive elements are added to spatial policy at lower tiers, the integrity of the higher tiers is undermined. The subsequent county-level policies that flow from this extrapolation of the NSS have relevance for the planning context of the subject scheme.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 94 of 145
7.0 ASSESSMENT
7.1.40 Town and environs DPs
7.1.41 Again, as with the County Development Plan, both the Castlebar and Westport Town and Environs Development Plans fully support the proposed development. Indeed, both plans have been the subject of a variation to include the alignment of the scheme. These amendments have resulted in the plans being ‘retrofitted’ to include corridors depicting the subject scheme’s detailed design.
7.1.42 I note the applicant’s assertions that this road and its predecessors have been included in previous iterations of Town and Environs plans for some time.
7.1.43 Conclusion on Policy Context
7.1.44 It is worth presenting the above analysis in table format.
Policy Policy Year In Directly Supports level force? Relevant the to scheme? scheme?
European TEN-T 2013 Yes Possibly Possibly
National National Roads 1998 No Yes Yes, but Needs Study not to the standard proposed.
NSS 2002 Yes Yes No
Transport 21 2005 No Yes Yes
NDP 2007 No Yes No
Smarter Travel 2009 Yes No No
Infrastructure and 2012 Yes No No Capital Investment
Regional West RPGs 2010 Yes Yes Yes
County Mayo CDP 2008 Yes Yes Yes
Castlebar Town & 2008 Yes Yes Yes Environs
Westport Town & 2010 Yes Yes Yes Environs
Table 17
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 95 of 145
7.0 ASSESSMENT
7.1.45 As can be seen from the table above, the only policies that, by my assessment, are in force, relevant to the scheme and support the scheme are at regional level and below. National level policy support is absent, or at best contradictory. In my opinion, the scheme cannot be supported on the basis of national policy, but can be supported if regional and county level support are considered sufficient.
7.2 NEED FOR THE SCHEME
7.2.1 In my opinion, the basis for the scheme’s justification from first principals - leaving policy aside - can potentially derive from a number of sources, namely.
• Demand - v - capacity on current route • Road safety considerations • Scheme priority
7.2.2 Demand - v - capacity on current route
7.2.3 As presented by the applicant, the existing road is currently operating above capacity. Indicators of this are presented by the applicant across a number of metrics, including the following, which are, in my opinion, valid and accurate indicators of the baseline scenario.
• The approach road to Castlebar and the Castlebar relief road are currently exceeding their design capacity by 72% and 67% respectively. This is equivalent to sections C and D of scheme
• The modelled traffic flow on Castlebar relief road in design year in ‘do nothing’ scenario is 16,700 AADT. [albeit that it is forecast to drop by just drop 25-35%]
• There are 50/60kph restrictions on Castlebar relief road, which increase journey time.
• 75% of journeys delayed. [albeit that it is a 15-20min journey, in my experience]
• A speed limit of 100kmph is posted on the Castlebar-Westport section. These speeds are not, however, achievable.
7.2.4 Road Safety Considerations
7.2.5 The safety record of existing road is presented by the applicant, both numerically and spatially. This safety record is not, however, put in a comparative context, which may have been helpful. Furthermore, it could reasonably be said that any road improvements on any stretch of roadway will improve safety to some extent, and that as such this
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 96 of 145
7.0 ASSESSMENT
consideration can be taken as a given. Nevertheless, the proposed development would indeed result in a safer road environment for those travelling through and within the area by motor vehicle. This would be a clear and incontrovertible benefit to the area.
7.2.6 It must be recognised, however, that while the proposed road would address many existing road safety issues, it would create new ones. It would tend to increase the commuting catchments of the two towns served (see section 7.8 below), resulting in greater distances travelled and a relative modal shift towards car-borne travel. The proposed development also represents some specific safety concerns regarding non-motorised users, as addressed in sections 7.5 and 7.6 below.
7.2.7 I note that Road Safety Audits (RSA) have been undertaken in respect of this scheme, as referred to in Chapter 23 of the design report. This is a requirement of NRA DMRB HD19. A ‘Stage F’ RSA was undertaken at route selection stage, and ‘Stage 1’ RSA at the completion of preliminary design, in July 2011. Stage 2, 3, and 4 RSAs would be required post-consent. The RSA process is intended to provide safety-related feedback to the design team from independent assessors. It might be considered informative to have sight of the documents pertaining to this process under the subject application.
7.2.8 Scheme priority
7.2.9 The question has arisen as to the need for this scheme relative to the need for other road schemes in the county, region, or at a national level.
7.2.10 The issue of funding and priority is not a matter for the board to determine, either under this case or any other. This matter would ultimately be determined at a national level, and is independent from this consent process.
7.2.11 While this is not necessarily a direct consideration, it is worthy of some discussion at this juncture, given the lack of national policy on this matter, and given that it has been raised by the parties to the appeal.
7.2.12 Scheme priority with reference to other national examples
7.2.13 It is worth considering the current extent of inter-urban motorways and dual carriageways, and how an order of priority for past and ongoing development of the network might be inferred from the sizes of the urban areas they connect. Appendix 1 to this report includes a table that depicts the major cities, towns, and urban areas of Ireland and whether they are connected to a second, larger urban area by motorway or dual carriageway. A number of patterns can be drawn from this list, as drawn out in Appendix 1.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 97 of 145
7.0 ASSESSMENT
7.2.14 It is not my suggestion that the construction of motorways / dual carriageways has been based on a progressive programme of linking urban areas from largest to smallest, nor is it my suggestion that this is now priorities should be determined. Nevertheless, it would appear that there has been a strong correlation in this regard.
7.2.15 In the case of Castlebar, a motorway or dual carriageway linking this town to a larger town would be notably unusual in the wider national context of towns of this size. Castlebar is less than half the size of towns like Ennis and Navan which can be considered as having been served directly by motorways/dual carriageways in their own right. Furthermore, it is not ‘en route’ between any larger urban areas, as is the case with all other towns of Castlebar’s size that are now served by motorways/dual carriageways. In any event, the proposed road does not propose to connect Castlebar to any larger town. As such, this is a moot point, and I present it here for comparative purposes only.
7.2.16 Turning to the case of Westport (pop ~6,000), it would be linked to a larger town (Castlebar) by virtue of the proposed road. This scenario would be notable among the towns of this size or smaller. Of those that are served by a motorway/dual carriageway are all either
a) on the route between two larger urban areas (e.g. Fermoy ~6.5k, Roscrea ~5.5k), or
b) at the ‘head’ of a high capacity network that serves a significant ‘upstream’ or ‘tributary’ network (e.g. Kells ~6k).
There is no smaller town that is at the head of a motorway or dual carriageway ‘in its own right’. Indeed, it could reasonably be considered that the next smallest urban area served directly, without a significant ‘upstream’ or ‘tributary’ road network is Waterford City, which is over 10 times larger than Westport.
7.2.17 However, there is a precedent for the model of road development whereby smaller towns are linked by motorway/dual carriagway to their larger regional neighbours. These links were constructed independent of the wider nationwide road network, to provide for high ‘local’ traffic volumes. Notable examples of this are Middleton to Cork, Bray to Dublin, and Ennis to Limerick. However, applying contemporary populations for comparative purposes, the smallest of these pairings (Limerick-Ennis) is still 635% of the aggregate size of Castlebar and Westport, and the smallest of the ‘minor’ towns (Middleton) is almost twice the size of Westport, and is located along the N25 Cork-Waterford-Rosslare south coast corridor. From first principles, it would be reasonable to assume that trip generation along the connecting corridor in the case of the subject pairing would be significantly less than the 3 existing examples I have cited.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 98 of 145
7.0 ASSESSMENT
7.2.18 On the basis of the above comparisons and analysis, it would be difficult, in my opinion, to derive a justification for the proposed scheme from the pattern of existing inter-urban dual carriageways and motorways that have been constructed to date. The towns of Westport and Castlebar are significantly smaller than towns that are currently linked by high-capacity roads, and do not benefit from being located on a major corridor between larger population centres, as is the case with other towns of this size that are served by such roads.
7.2.19 Scheme priority with reference to other stretches of the N4/N5
7.2.20 This matter is raised by several observers to the application, the contention being that it would be prudent to improve ‘downstream’ sections of the N4/N5 corridor in advance of pursuing improvements to the Castlebar-Westport section. I refer the board to the table at 3.12.34 above, which summarises the contemporary traffic flows for the N4/N5, as presented by the applicant to the oral hearing, on request.
7.2.21 Current traffic levels on the Westport -Castlebar section are comparable to the most easterly section of single carriagway on this corridor, the N4 between Mullingar and Longford. The mid-section from Longford to Castlebar (N5) is significantly lower. While some sections of Mullingar-Castlebar route are of a poor standard comparable to the existing N5 within the scheme corridor, many stretches have been upgraded to good-standard single carriagway by way of bypasses and online improvements.
7.2.22 As such, on the basis of traffic flows, the scheme is justifiable in relative terms compared to the remainder of the N5 west of Longford.
7.2.23 Conclusion on need for scheme
7.2.24 Improvements to this road are warranted on the basis of the existing traffic levels relative to the capacity of the existing road infrastructure. The proposed development is also justifiable from the perspective of improving safety, as there would most likely be a net improvement. It is also justifiable to consider improvements to this section of the N4/N5 corridor in advance of sections to the east as far as Longford, albeit that the Mullingar-Longford stretch is comparable in terms of traffic flows and arguably more strategically important on a national level.
7.3 APPROPRIATENESS OF CROSS-SECTION/ROAD TYPE
7.3.1 Evolution of cross section on this route
7.3.2 Roads proposals on this section of N5 have been progressed to various stages in recent years, as documented in Section 4.1 above,
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 99 of 145
7.0 ASSESSMENT
but a dual carriagway cross-section is a relatively recent element of these proposals. A 2 lane single carriagway was proposed under the 1998 National Roads Needs Study, through the Westport-Castlebar and Ballyvary-Bohola schemes in the early 2000’s, and through the 2004 Castlebar Ring Road scheme. The Westport-Bohola scheme, developed between 2008 and 2010 was the first scheme to propose a dual carriageway.
7.3.3 This longer scheme was the immediate antecedent of subject proposal. Following the refusal of consent for the N26, this proposal was curtailed at Turlough, and is now before the board for consideration. It is worth noting that this 2008-2010 phase of scheme development was undertaken in the years immediately preceding the downward revision of NRA growth figures, in 2011.
7.3.4 Justifications for cross section proposed
7.3.5 The applicant presents a detailed and considered rationale for the cross-section, as detailed in section 3.9 above. The NRA standards set out in DMRB TD9 (see section 5.6.1 above) set out the recommended road types for varying traffic flows.
7.3.6 T2DC
7.3.7 The proposed road type has capacity - to level of service D - of 20,000 AADT (Annual Average Daily Traffic). This is the proposed cross section for sections B, C, and D of the subject scheme, albeit that the projected demand in the design year ranges from just 7,000 AADT to 10,600 AADT.
7.3.8 Type 3 Dual Carriageway
7.3.9 This next type ‘down’ the hierarchy has a capacity of 14,000 AADT. These are the 2+1 cross section, with each carriagway alternating between single and double lane. The middle lane essentially swaps between the carriageways.
7.3.10 In capacity terms, this cross section would suffice for Sections B and C, but not D, which has a projected AADT figure 5% above the rated capacity for the design year. However, the applicant states that this carriagway type is intended for online upgrades only, and has in any event fallen out of favour.
7.3.11 Type 1 Single Carriagway
7.3.12 Moving one step ‘down’ again, this road type has a single lane in each direction, with hard shoulders, and no median barrier. This road type has a capacity of 11,600 AADT. Sections B and C would be within 11,600 capacity for opening year, with just one section going above this figure in the design year.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 100 of 145
7.0 ASSESSMENT
7.3.13 Incremental analysis and Cost Benefit Analysis
7.3.14 The applicant was required to undertake an ‘incremental analysis’ of the scheme, whereby lower ‘grade’ cross sections were analysed for discrete sections of the route. Two alternative schemes involving introducing a Type 1 Single Carriagway for all or part of sections B and C were evaluated against the proposed scheme, as detailed in section 3.9.6 above. The accompanying table shows the Ratio of Flow to Capacity (RFC) for each section and alternative.
7.3.15 Alternative A would have involved an isolated section of single carriagway, contrary to TD10, whereas Option B would result in one section approaching capacity in the design year. This analysis is robust, in my opinion.
7.3.16 An accompanying Cost Benefit Analysis also favours the proposed cross-section, which performs better than Alternatives A and B. It would have been informative to see the CBA figures for a ‘higher’ grade road – Type 1 Dual Carriagway or Motorway – too see if the performance on this metric simply rises with ‘grade’ or whether it peaks at T2DC in this instance.
7.3.17 Cross section for Section A
7.3.18 A Type 2 Single carriagway is proposed for Section A. This has a single lane in each direction, with narrow ‘hard strips’ either side rather than a full hard shoulder. These have a rated capacity from TD9 of 8,600 AADT. The Design Year demand is modelled to be 4,600 AADT. As such, a Type 3 Dual Carriageway would have sufficed, with a rated capacity of 5,000 AADT. However, it should be noted that the only major difference between these two road types is a 7m as opposed to a 6m carriageway. I consider the proposed cross section to be acceptable and proportionate for this section of the route.
7.3.19 Examples of T2DC roads nationwide
7.3.20 There are limited examples of the T2DC cross section nationally, as detailed in Section 3.4.4 above. By way of comparison, it is perhaps worth considering the RFC figures for other comparable road schemes discussed at the oral hearing (see Section 3.12.31 above). The AADT figures from these schemes can be summarised as follows:
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 101 of 145
7.0 ASSESSMENT
Figure 1
7.3.21 The proposed road, at 0.53, would have the lowest RFC for any of the 4 comparable T2DC schemes greater than 10km in length 44 previously adjudicated upon by the board under this process. Leaving aside the very high figures presented in respect of HA0004, which I would query, the remaining 3 schemes have an average RFC of 0.73.
7.3.22 The next lowest design year RFC was the N22 scheme, at 0.56. I note that the inspector in that instance recommended refusal, concluding that the projected traffic flows did not justify a road of this type.
7.3.23 It is also notable that the design year AADT for the new-build section of the subject proposal is also just 67% of the figure for the nearby Ballina-Bohola (N26) road scheme, also a proposed T2DC, which
44 Two additional T2DC schemes have been adjudicated by the board that involve roads of less than 10km in length; the Tralee Bypass and the Adare Bypass. The RFC figures in these instances were 0.94 and 0.56 respectively, based on the inspectors’ reports available.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 102 of 145
7.0 ASSESSMENT
was refused permission due to (inter alia) the forecast traffic volumes and road type with reference to its impacts.
7.3.24 It should be noted that the figures given for the subject road are based on the highest AADT figures presented for the design year in respect of Sections B and C, the ‘greenfield’ section of the road. Section D – the retrofit section – would have an RFC of 0.73, which compares favourably with the precedent for this road type
7.3.25 Conclusion on appropriateness of cross-section/road type
7.3.26 Parties to the application, including Mr Sweetman, presented the assertion that the current proposal is ‘over engineered’, and should be provided as a lower ‘class’ of road. Indeed, there are strong arguments to this effect, not least from the NRA’s own design standards.
7.3.27 The applicant presents the argument at a number of junctures that the land take required for a T2DC in terms of width is just 3.2m above what is required for a Type 1 Single Carriageway, which instead of having 2 vehicular carriageways in each direction has a vehicular carriagway and a hard shoulder. This could perhaps be glibly characterised as the inferred proposition that if you are building a Type 1 Single Carriageway, you might as well build a T2DC. This logic is not without merit.
7.3.28 In addition, the applicant has presented a robust justification of the cross section by way of incremental analysis. They have also, correctly in my opinion, presented the defence that it is not wise, or an efficient use of resources to design a road ‘to capacity’, such that the carrying capacity of the road cross section is tailored to barely exceed the forecast demand.
7.3.29 In conclusion, and accepting that the proposed road would have notably high ‘headroom’ in terms of capacity, I consider that the cross-sections proposed are acceptable in terms of carrying capacity.
7.3.30 This cross section is, however, arguably the least favourable cross- section for non-motorised users of all road types considered under TD9. I will address this matter in section 7.6 below
7.4 IMPACTS ON TRAFFIC FLOWS AND TRAVEL PATTERNS
7.4.1 Traffic modelling
7.4.2 Traffic Surveys
7.4.3 I have some concerns regarding the timing of the traffic surveys within the survey - modelling - design process. Surveys are presented by the applicant from 2010, 2012, and 2013, but not until
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 103 of 145
7.0 ASSESSMENT
March 2013 that there was survey information within scheme’s boundary. See Section 3.12.1 above. The scheme’s predecessor (Westport –Bohola) was developed in 2008-2010, the current scheme’s Stage 1 Road Safety Audit was undertaken in 2011, and its Design Report is dated September 2013.
7.4.4 The question arises as to whether the surveying and modelling related to this scheme had been progressed to a level appropriate to inform the scheme’s design. It is quite likely, however, that this concern arises from the shortcomings in information presented to the board for consideration, rather than any shortcomings of the scheme’s design.
7.4.5 Existing trip profile and growth forecasts
7.4.6 The traffic surveys that fed into the EIS are documented in detail in Section 3.12.1 above. The applicant asserts that the majority of trips on the proposed road would be of a relatively short distance. When queried on the source of this assertion at the oral hearing, the applicant stated that this would have been in the Traffic Modelling Report which fed into the Business Case, be used by the NRA in deciding priorities. While it might have been useful to have sight of this Modelling Report, this broad contention is consistent with the information that is presented, and indeed could possibly be interpreted by the rapid drop-off in AADT figures east of Bohola.
7.4.7 The forecast traffic patterns are a product of baseline figures, a constructed model, and growth factors. I note that the growth factors were revised significantly downwards in 2011 as reflected in Unit 5.3 of the 2011 Project Appraisal Guidelines. This new approach reflects a ‘zonal’ approach to growth figures, and cannot be compared directly with the previous growth factors. However, on questioning at the oral hearing, the applicant suggested that in broad terms, the new approach represents around a 15% reduction.
7.4.8 Table 2 of Section A of Document OH65 shows 7-19% drop between models, as applicable to this corridor. However, these figures are presented for the ‘do nothing’ scenario, i.e. without the proposed road. As such, it is impossible to compare AADT or RFC figures for the proposed road for the ‘old’ and ‘new’ traffic growth scenarios.
7.4.9 Traffic model used
7.4.10 See section 3.12.8 above. As per table 5.2.1 of the NRA’s Project Appraisal guidelines, the ‘assignment model’ is indeed the appropriate model type for this scheme. The only criticism I would have of the model is that Document OH7 states that only ‘committed infrastructural improvements’ were considered, yet the M17 to Tuam was not included. I understand that the M17 has remained a fixture of government programmes throughout recent years I will return to
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 104 of 145
7.0 ASSESSMENT
this matter in section 7.4.14 below. Had the M17 been included, it may have been necessary to extend the ‘cordoned off’ area of the National Traffic Model.
7.4.11 In terms of the information presented to the board for consideration, it may have been useful to have sight of the configuration/layout of the Local Area Model, which consisted of 64 internal and 12 external zones, as referred to at the Oral Hearing. I also note that Document OH7 states that peak matrices were developed. However, only aggregate AADT figures have been submitted. Presentation of further analysis in this area may have been appropriate given major employers at the proposed Carrowbeg and N60 junctions, and the associated peak flows that might reasonably be expected.
7.4.12 Modelled traffic flows
7.4.13 The link flows presented in Tables 5.3 and 5.4 seem generally to be reasonable, and consistent with the network modelled and the assumptions made. Junction flows are not contained in the EIS, but Figures 8.1 to 8.8 of the Design Report does present some information in this area. While this is sufficient to portray the modelled scenario for the simpler junctions, the full picture for the more complex junctions is not clear. For example, the AADT figures for both lanes merging on and off the mainline carriageways at the CGSIs are combined.
7.4.14 Some concerns regarding N60 junction
7.4.15 There is evidence to suggest that the proposed N60 (Breaffy Road) junction may be subject to significant loading, particularly as regards turning movements, and that the flow to capacity relationship might be less benign than presented by the applicant. In particular, the applicant’s contention that the significant majority of traffic movements will be east-west and north-south at this junction, i.e. remaining on the N5 or N60 through the junction warrants closer examination. In this section, I will examine the flow side of the equation, and will return to the junction’s design in section 7.5.70 below.
7.4.16 Relationship between modelled movements at the N60 junction and existing comparable movements
7.4.17 The current equivalent of the N60 Junction on the existing Castlebar relief road is the ‘Cathal Duffy’ roundabout, which accommodates the traffic approaching the town from both the N84 and the N60, which combine at a T-junction a short distance to the south, on Station Road. The 2013 Manual Traffic Count surveys for this junction, presented at the oral hearing (OH65) show a significant proportion of traffic movements through this junction being turning movements, particularly between the ‘south’ (N5 Westport) and
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 105 of 145
7.0 ASSESSMENT
‘east’ (N60/N84 Claremorris/Ballinrobe) arms. In the 12hr count submitted, the 2-way movement between these arms equated to 79% of the N5 mainline through-flow, by my calculations.
7.4.18 It is not possible to directly compare the existing traffic movement profile at the Cathal Duffy Roundabout to the modelled movements at the proposed N60 junction due to the format in which the information has been presented, and due to the separation of the N84 and N60 junctions under the proposed scheme. However, by aggregating some of the turning flows from the Manual Traffic Counts, and combining the modelled flows at the proposed N84 and N60 junctions, some proportional comparisons can be made, as per the following table.
‘Cathal Duffy’ N60 N84 N60+N84 Roundabout 45 Junction Junction combined Dgn Yr 46 Dgn Yr Dgn Yr 47 North (Dublin) 13,585 7,000 7,000 7,000 South (Westport) 14,989 7,900 8,000 8,000 East (Ballinrobe/ 13,500 12,200 8,400 20,600 Claremorris) West (Castlebar) 8,036 11,700 7,900 19,600 Turning movements 6,967 1,800 900 2,700 ‘X’ (N-E link) Turning movements 5,837 1,700 1,300 3,000 ‘Y’ (W-S link) West arm as a 60% 96% 94% 95% proportion of East arm (inside v outside ‘bypass) Turning movements 94.84% 28.69% 26.19% 27.67% (X+Y) as a % of minor road mainline flow (east arm) Turning movements 85.42% 44.30% 27.50% 71.25% (X+Y) as a % of major road mainline flow Table 18
7.4.19 The last 3 rows offer some useful comparisons between the existing and proposed scenarios. Firstly, there is a significant difference between the national secondary traffic passing ‘through’ the N5 ‘cordon’ towards Castlebar. Under the current scenario, it is 60%,
45 From Fig 1.3 of OH65 - 2013 12 hour Manual Traffic Counts. 46 From Fig 8.6 of Design Report - 2033 AADT 47 From From Fig 8.5 of Design Report - 2033 AADT
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 106 of 145
7.0 ASSESSMENT
whereas under the proposed scenario, it rises to 95%. Secondly, the turning movements at the junction, represented as a percentage of the traffic on the national secondary road drops from 95% to 28%.
7.4.20 These two observations are, to an extent, corollaries of one another. While it may appear that the modelled scenario differs significantly from the surveyed situation at the equivalent junction, there is good reason for this divergence, when the existing road network within the town is considered. Traffic approaching Castlebar from the south and east (N84/N60), is quite likely to enter the Cathal Duffy Roundabout and turn left or right to enter locations within the town via one of the other entrances to the town, primarily the Moneen Road Roundabout or the Westport Road Roundabout. This is consistent with the location of major trip generators in the town centre, the road layout, the one-way system, and the capacity of elements in the local road network.
7.4.21 As such, the large proportion of turning movements at the existing Cathal Duffy Roundabout is not necessarily indicative of large turning movements at the proposed N60 junction.
7.4.22 Trip generators in the southeastern quarter of Castlebar.
7.4.23 On request, the applicant presented to the oral hearing maps depicting the Origin-Destination surveys undertake in March 2013. The information presented in relation to Castlebar is particularly useful in that it breaks down the town into zones, internal and external, and assigns a proportion to each from the perspective of each approach road. In all instances, the town centre is the most significant destination. However, Zone 1002, which sits to the east of the town centre on a tract of land stretching from the Castlebar River to the railway line, is the 2 nd or 3 rd most significant destination for all 5 approaches surveyed. This would be the land that is would sit just ‘inside’ of the new town ‘bypass’ and would be served by the N60 junction of the new N5 mainline.
7.4.24 These traffic movements are reflective of the land use pattern in this zone, which accommodates Baxter Healthcare, Retail Parks, and McHale Park (GAA).
7.4.25 Aside from the existing trips that this zone generates, it is also notable that this area holds the vast majority of ‘enterprise and employment’ lands zoned in the Castlebar Town and Environs Development Plan. I note that the new (post 2011) growth forecast methodology allows for the incorporation of zonal considerations of such landbanks. However, the extent to which these factors have been included in the traffic model is not clear from the information presented.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 107 of 145
7.0 ASSESSMENT
7.4.26 Use of the N60 junction by traffic approaching Castlebar from the west and east
7.4.27 The considerations above are indicative of a scenario whereby there would be significant trip generators between the town of Castlebar and the proposed N60 junction. The applicant stated at the oral hearing that motorists would have the option of using the existing road network or the new N5 to access such locations. However, in my opinion, it would be reasonable to expect that a significant proportion of motorists approaching the town from the east or west will – all else being equal – choose to access ‘Zone 1002’ via the N60 Junction.
7.4.28 Likely impacts on traffic flow
7.4.29 In general terms, the modelled changes in flow across the wider network seem reasonable.
7.4.30 The minor road diversions detailed at Section 3.4.9 above (Table 5) would not result in unduly circuitous alternative routes. These diversions are appropriate and proportionate to these roads’ position in the network’s hierarchy. I note that the proposed diversions as a result of the amendments to the Windsor Road junction on Section D are explicitly described.
7.4.31 Conclusions on impacts on traffic flows and travel patterns
7.4.32 The surveying and modelling undertaken is generally robust, and the resultant impacts on traffic flows are generally favourable or benign.
7.4.33 I have some concerns regarding the extent to which the modelling captures all factors that would influence the likely movements at the proposed N60 junction, and to a lesser extent, the N84 junction. The factors of concern may well be incorporated in the modelling undertaken, but without having sight of the ‘Modelling Report’ referred to by the applicant, this remains an uncertainty.
7.4.34 These are not concerns in their own right, but rather they relate to the decision to pursue the CGSI junction type, which required a departure from DMRB due to AADT levels. This matter is discussed further in section 7.5.70 below.
7.5 JUNCTION STRATEGY AND DESIGN
7.5.1 Overall junction strategy
7.5.2 Junction Strategy for Sections B, C, and D,
7.5.3 The layout and spacing of the junctions proposed within the T2DC section of the scheme are largely consistent with DMRB, and in my opinion, are appropriate to the existing road network and settlement
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 108 of 145
7.0 ASSESSMENT
pattern. The junction spacing for sections B, C, and D breaks down as follows.
Junction Junction Spacing Junction Spacing between Knockranny North Roundabouts 10.3 km 10.3km Castlebar West 3.7 km N84 3.4 km 9.4km N60 2.3 km Castlebar East 0.6 km 4.6km (to end of (Windsor Road) scheme) 3.0km Turlough Interchange.
Table 19
7.5.4 Junction Strategy for Section A
7.5.5 The rationale for providing a junction from a national route directly into the local road network at Carrowbeg is the least clear-cut element of the junction strategy, in my opinion. The applicant’s position on this matter is presented in section 3.10.2 above, and is based on both an objective to provide access to Allergan Pharmaceuticals in the first instance, and secondly to provide general access to the town of Westport.
7.5.6 On the first issue, I note that the original objective was based on – at least in part - attracting inward investment to an IDA site that was located to the north of Allergan. This site is currently being developed as an expansion to the Allergan facility (see section 4.4 above). Were the Carrowbeg junction to be omitted, I do not consider that the Allergan facility would be unduly disadvantaged in terms of the quality, capacity, route lengths, or journey times that would be involved in accessing the new N5 via the existing N5 junction and the Knockranny interchange, rather than directly via the proposed Carrowbeg Junction.
7.5.7 I would characterise the objective to improve access to this and other employment-generating uses as being met primarily by
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 109 of 145
7.0 ASSESSMENT
improvements in the inter-urban road network, rather than the local road network, which in my opinion is fit for purpose.
7.5.8 In terms of employee access, a junction at Carrowbeg would be of little advantage to employees commuting from within Westport, but would be of some advantage to those commuting by car from outlying rural areas and surrounding towns. I would query whether it would be appropriate to facilitate such improvements that would represent a minor decrease in journey times as compared with routes via the Knockranny interchange. This road network would also have a potentially negative impact on the relationship between this major employer and complementary businesses within the town of Westport.
7.5.9 On the issue of the junction’s role within the overall road network, I cannot envisage many trips that would almost as easily and perhaps more appropriately, be facilitated by the Knockranny Link Road (KLR). There is perhaps a risk that Carrowbeg Road could take on a role of primary access to the town that is not envisaged by the proposed road hierarchy. In particular, eastbound trips from the town centre may choose to route via Carrowbeg road rather than the KLR.
7.5.10 In my opinion, there is a strong case for omitting this junction for the scheme on the grounds of its role in the road network. If it is to be provided, it may be appropriate to consider design measures at both ends of Carrowbeg Road that would prevent excessive and inappropriate traffic on this road.
7.5.11 Applicability of DMURS
7.5.12 While the applicability of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) may be taken as read for a national roads scheme of this nature, the applicability of the more recent Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets (DMURS – see section 5.7.3 above) is less clear cut.
7.5.13 The applicant’s position on this matter is set out in section 3.11.12 above. Essentially, the contention is that all speed limits on the N59, the N5/N59 link road, and the N5 mainline would be above the ‘60kph or less’ DMURS threshold below which a derogation is required.
7.5.14 However, Carrowbeg road is currently inside the existing 50kph zone for the town. Furthermore, table 3.4 of EIS states that the design speed of this road is to be 60kph. As such, DMURS is applicable to Carrowbeg road and the adjacent Carrowbeg junction, unless a derogation is in place, which it is not.
7.5.15 The two other proposed ‘tie in’ points to the existing road network at Westport, the N59 Newport road and the existing N5 at the proposed KLR junction are both just outside 50kph zone at present. The signs
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 110 of 145
7.0 ASSESSMENT
are just north of Attireesh Road West and just east of Lodge Road respectively. However, notwithstanding the applicant’s assertions at the oral hearing, Table 3.4 of the EIS states that the design speed of Newport Road north and south of the proposed roundabout is to be 60kph. As such, and on the basis of the EIS information, DMURS is applicable to the Newport Road junction, unless derogation is in place, which it is not.
7.5.16 Neither the existing speeds nor the proposed design speeds at Knockranny South require it to be considered under DMURS.
7.5.17 I do not propose to provide a detailed set of recommendations on how the scheme might be amended to comply with DMURS, as the nature of DMURS does not lend itself to such direct recommendations. Unlike DMRB it is not prescriptive.
7.5.18 Sections to follow
7.5.19 There now follows an analysis of each of the major junctions from the perspective of their vehicular performance relative to applicable standards and policies, and also their performance in accommodating Non-Motorised Users (NMUs) where relevant. This analysis orders the junctions from west to east except for N60/N84 junctions which I have swapped as the N84 commentary is consequent on the N60 commentary.
7.5.20 In general terms, the departures from DMRB are documented in Section 10 of the Design Report.
7.5.21 Newport Road – N59
7.5.22 Vehicular performance
7.5.23 The subject scheme proposes a 3-arm roundabout at the junction between the existing N59 Westport-Newport Road and the proposed N5/N59 link road. The maximum modelled AADT figure, as presented in document OH66 and the Design Report is 9,000, which occurs on the southern arm. I note that this is 191% of base year flow, which does seem somewhat high given the growth rates applicable. However, a proportion of trips from the north, centre, and southwest of the town that are associated with locations to the east of Westport, and which currently use the existing N5 approaches, would divert to the N59.
7.5.24 This level of AADT requires a ‘normal’ roundabout under TD16, as it is above 8,000 AADT figure where ‘compact’ roundabouts are recommended. A normal roundabout is indeed what is proposed. It is likely that if the southern bypass of Westport were to progress as planned, that a compact roundabout would suffice at this location, as traffic from the centre, south, and southwest of the town would divert
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 111 of 145
7.0 ASSESSMENT
to this route. A compact roundabout would require a 28-35m inscribed circle as opposed to proposed 50m (UKDMRB).
7.5.25 NMU performance
7.5.26 8,000 AADT is also the TD16 threshold between ‘informal’ and ‘signal controlled’ crossings for NMUs. ‘Signal controlled’ is required (with a footnote stating that grade separation is an alternative), but ‘Informal’ is provided. The applicant asserted at the oral hearing that the informal crossings are adequate for design year AADT, and that the local authority will monitor the situation with a view to providing additional facilities, if required.
7.5.27 I do not consider that it is appropriate to use the design year figures to determine the vehicular aspects of the junction, but the opening year figures to determine the NMU aspects. The applicant cannot have it both ways. Nor is it appropriate to countenance a situation whereby unspecified works may be retrofitted to a junction at a later stage. The proposed junction configuration may well inhibit, or indeed preclude such interventions.
7.5.28 In resolving this matter, I would consider that either the opening year or the design year AADT figures could arguably be applied, but they should at least be applied consistently. This junction should – on the basis of TD16 - either be a compact roundabout with informal crossings or a normal roundabout with signal controlled (or grade separated) crossings.
7.5.29 This junction would also be contrary to DMURS, which I consider applicable to this scheme as per my assessment at 7.5.11 above. Consideration of the junction under DMURS may well indicate a junction other than a roundabout at this location.
7.5.30 I note that the West Regional Authority expressly recommend that a suitable safe crossing method be integrated into the final design at this junction (and 4 others) in the final design.
7.5.31 Attireesh Road West
7.5.32 Vehicular performance
7.5.33 It is proposed to provide direct access from the N5/N59 link road to the northern portion of Attireesh Road West. Notwithstanding the proximity to the N59 junction above, I consider that this is appropriate to this class of roadway, and is fit for purpose in vehicular terms.
7.5.34 NMU performance
7.5.35 The realigned north-south route for NMUs between the two severed portions of Attireesh Road West is described in detail in section
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 112 of 145
7.0 ASSESSMENT
3.11.17 above. It is very circuitous and often narrow, with parts incorporating cycle and pedestrian paths, and parts consisting solely of pedestrian paths.
7.5.36 It is proposed to cross the N5/N59 at an uncontrolled crossing point to the east of the proposed N59 junction. This is contrary to standard of crossing required by Section 7 of IAN 3/12 and is contrary to the recommendations of the National Cycle Manual, which is itself referred in TD27.
7.5.37 It should be noted at this juncture that this route is part of the Western Way walking route, as discussed further in section 7.6.76 below.
7.5.38 Carrowbeg Road / Attireesh Road East
7.5.39 Vehicular performance
7.5.40 It is proposed to extend the existing cul-de-sac of Carrowbeg Road to meet the proposed N5/N59 link road at a roundabout of 50m inscribed circle – a ‘normal’ roundabout under TD16. Attireesh Road East, a minor access road and pedestrian/cycle link that runs north from Carrowbeg Road is proposed to meet the N5/N59 link road at an uncontrolled T-junction to the east of this roundabout.
7.5.41 Document OH66 confirms that TD16 would only require a ‘Category 5’ roundabout for the modelled design year AADT. This would be a ‘compact’ roundabout of 28-35m inscribed circle, as per the UK DMRB. As such, this roundabout is over-specified from a vehicular perspective.
7.5.42 The applicant conceded at the oral hearing that a ‘ghost island’ would suffice for this junction, but argued that the roundabout allows for a ‘kink’ in the alignment of the N5/N59 link road at this point. Whether this is or is not a fundamental constraint that could not be overcome, the option of a smaller roundabout, consistent with TD16, remains.
7.5.43 On the vehicular performance of the realigned Attireesh Road East, it would fulfil its function in maintaining a vehicular right of way and agricultural access, and is fit for purpose.
7.5.44 NMU performance
7.5.45 Carrowbeg Road and Attireesh Road East currently form part of the Great Western Greenway, as described in section 2.5.3 above. This is a long-distance waling and cycle route from Westport to Achill, via Newport and Mulranny, which is almost entirely off-road.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 113 of 145
7.0 ASSESSMENT
7.5.46 The proposals for NMU provision at this location consist of an uncontrolled crossing point east of proposed roundabout. There is a 2-way cycle path and footpath on southern side of link road.
7.5.47 This crossing point is contrary to IAN 3/12, which gives specific advice on crossing such roads, and is contrary to the National Cycle Manual.
7.5.48 In specific terms, there is no ‘refuge’ shown on either side of the road, and there is No ‘jug handle’ alignment on south side, as per the recommendations of the standards and guidelines.
7.5.49 The approach on the north side of the N5/N59 link road is particularly problematic. Southbound cyclists on the Great Western Greenway would be funnelled around blind tight-radius bend on very steep downhill section, straight into the vehicular carriageway after 12km of full grade separation (post N59 works – see section 4.2.6 above). This situation would be notably hazardous.
7.5.50 Aside from north-south moments, east-west cyclists and pedestrians on the N5/N59 link road would have to divert to the south and make an uncontrolled crossing across 4 lanes of traffic. The applicant argues that Category 5 roundabouts do not require controlled crossing points. While this is indeed the case, this is not a Category 5 roundabout (see above)
7.5.51 I note that the West Regional Authority expressly recommend that a suitable safe crossing method be integrated into the final design at this junction (and 4 others) in the final design.
7.5.52 This junction would also be contrary to DMURS, which I consider to be applicable to this scheme as per my assessment at 7.5.11 above. Consideration of the junction under DMURS may well indicate a junction other than a roundabout at this location.
7.5.53 Knockranny North and South
7.5.54 Vehicular performance
7.5.55 The roundabout type selected for these two linked junctions is consistent with TD16. The highest class of road is T2DC, and the highest speed limit on the approaches is >60kph. A Category 2 ‘normal’ roundabout is what is required, and is proposed.
7.5.56 NMU performance
7.5.57 The provision for NMUs at this junction is inconstant with TD16, which requires ‘signal controlled (or grade separated) pedestrian and cyclist crossings.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 114 of 145
7.0 ASSESSMENT
7.5.58 I note that the West Regional Authority expressly recommend that a suitable safe crossing method be integrated into the final design at these junctions (and 3 others) in the final design.
7.5.59 While cyclist provision on the N5 mainline is not envisaged by the applicant, it remains the case that this is an ‘all-purpose road’. In this context, the proposed ‘slip lane’ at Knockranny north is particularly cyclist-unfriendly. It is very confined, has a tight radius as compared with the N5 mainline, and will encourage greater vehicular speeds than would otherwise be the case for a roundabout.
7.5.60 Castlebar West (junction with existing N5)
7.5.61 Vehicular performance
7.5.62 As per the analysis in respect of the Knockranny Junction(s) above, the proposed Category 2 ‘normal’ roundabout is consistent with TD16.
7.5.63 NMU performance
7.5.64 The proposed arrangements at this junction are shown in detail in Figure 18.12 of Design Report, and are described in section 3.11.24 above. Essentially, the through-route for NMUs on the existing N5 would be accommodated by way of uncontrolled crossing points on the south, north, and east (T2DC) arms of the junction, a short distance away from the roundabout.
7.5.65 In practical terms, an east-bound cyclist/pedestrian on the existing N5 would need to cross 4 double-lanes of traffic without any signals or facilitating infrastructure; 8 lanes in total - two single carriageways and a dual carriagway - all within 250m. The arrangements for a west-bound cyclist/pedestrian would be slightly easier.
7.5.66 This is inconstant with IAN 3/12, which provides specific advice on crossings of T2DCs in Section 7.37. Specifically, IAN 3/12 requires a minimum median width of 5m for staging at uncontrolled crossings, along with a left-right stagger, with a minimum length of 10m.
7.5.67 Provision for NMUs is also inconstant with TD16, which requires ‘signal controlled (or grade separated) pedestrian and cyclist crossings. The junction is also contrary to the National Cycle Manual.
7.5.68 At the oral hearing, the applicant acknowledged the non-compliance with TD16, but pointed to the proposed Castlebar-Islandeady greenway. Given the distance of the proposed greenway from this junction, its location on the opposite side of the Islandeady Lough / Lough Lannagh linked waterway (without a crossing point between Castlebar and Islandeady), and the likely location of entry/exit points to this greenway, its relevance to this junction is questionable.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 115 of 145
7.0 ASSESSMENT
7.5.69 I note that the West Regional Authority expressly recommend that a suitable safe crossing method be integrated into the final design at this junction (and 4 others) in the final design.
7.5.70 Breaffy Road (N60)
7.5.71 The junction proposed in this instance is a Compact Grade Separated Interchange (CGSI). This would involve the N5 passing beneath the N60, with 2 no. 2-way link roads providing for turning movements. Each link road is connected to the N5 by way of ‘left in/left out’ junctions and to the N60 by way of a simple T-junction with right-turn ghost island on the N60 mainline.
7.5.72 Vehicular flows
7.5.73 As stated in section 7.4.14 above, I have some concerns regarding the extent to which the likely turning movements at this junction have been successfully captured by the modelling. This is of particular relevance given the extent to which the applicant relies on an assertion of the dominance of through-traffic on the N5 and N60 through this junction to avoid undue pressure on the link roads. However, within this part of my assessment, I will leave aside these concerns, and will undertake an analysis of the proposed junction solely on the basis of the figures as presented.
7.5.74 The forecasted minor road (N60) flow in this instance (12,200 AADT – Table 5.4 of EIS) is 154% of forecasted mainline (N5) flow for the design year. This is, as referred to by the applicant, an unusual situation. As an aside, if traffic figures alone were to be applied, there would be an argument to ‘flip’ the CGSI whereby the ‘left in/left out’ junctions would be provided on the N60, and the priority junctions on the N5 mainline.
7.5.75 Junction design
7.5.76 DMRB TD10 sets out the threshold between CGSI and roundabout, which is based on the minor road flows. Below 3000 AADT on the minor road, a CGSI may be used. Above 3000 AADT, a roundabout is recommended. At this junction, the AADT on the minor road is more than 4 times the threshold for CGSI. As such, a roundabout is required by TD10. However, a CGSI is proposed.
7.5.77 The justification for this departure from TD10 was presented at the oral hearing (see section 3.10.9 above), and indeed is documented in the Design Report. Essentially, the applicant argues that the 3,000 AADT cap should apply to turning movements, not minor road flow. The applicant discussed the standard’s roots in the UK DMRB with the NRA. The applicant asserts that the UK standards envisage a situation whereby traffic turning on/off a dual carriageway is approximately 10% of mainline flow, and that if this figure is applied
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 116 of 145
7.0 ASSESSMENT
to the road’s capacity of 12,500-30,000 AADT, it gives a figure of 1,000-3,000 AADT as the effective threshold for turning movements.
7.5.78 Section 5.3 of UK DMRB TD40/94 states the following.
“Compact grade separated junctions appear to be suitable for use where mainline flows are between approximately 12,500 AADT and 30,000 AADT and are normally associated with very low flows (generally below 10% of mainline flow) on the minor road.”
7.5.79 There are perhaps a number of interpretations of this standard, as follows.
Interpretation of TD40/94 Application to the Compliant? subject scheme.
1. CGSI is suitable where In this instance, it’s No minor road flows are below 154% 48 10% of mainline flow.
2. CGSI is suitable where In this instance it’s No turning movements at the 44% 49 junction are below 10% of mainline flow.
3. CGSI is suitable where The N60 junction No turning moments are would have turning below 10% of mainline movements of 3,500 capacity ( 3,000 AADT) AADT 50 - 16% above threshold.
Table 20
7.5.80 While interpretation No. 1 is the most likely, in my opinion, it is interpretation No. 3 that the applicant is asserting. The applicant acknowledges in Document OH65 that “the combined turning flows from both carriageways was 15% above the 3,000 AADT figure”, but goes on to state that detailed modelling of the turning movements showed that the junction would be operating at just 25% of capacity. The Design Report states that queue lengths are not anticipated to exceed 1 vehicle [at the N60/link road junctions].
7.5.81 Given that performance issues arise at an RFC figure of 0.85, the applicant asserts that there is capacity ‘headroom’ of 60% at this junction. This figure was referred to in relation to all 4 potential
48 Based on my calculations in Table 8 at 7.4.14 above. 49 Based on my calculations in Table 8 at 7.4.14 above. 50 Based on document OH65, which is consistent with figure 8.6 of the Design Report.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 117 of 145
7.0 ASSESSMENT
modelling issues raised with the applicant at the oral hearing, and as documented in Table 11 in section 3.12.25 above, namely:
• High demand from ‘Zone 1002’ to the southeast of Castlebar.
• Potential redistribution from the N84 to the N60 on account of the construction of the M17.
• Proposed upgrade/’up-designation’ of the N60.
• Peak flow events, such as matches at McHale Park.
7.5.82 Given the following circumstances –
a) The modelled flows exceed the thresholds set out in the Irish DMRB (TD10) by a factor of 4
b) The modelled traffic flows exceeded even the most favourable interpretation of the thresholds set out in the UK DMRB by 15%
c) My concerns regarding the modelling of turning movements at this junction, as per section 7.4.14 above.
d) The assertion from the applicant that the junction would operate at 25% of capacity
I consider that it is not possible to come to a favourable position on the carrying capacity of this junction without having had sight of the detailed modelling undertaken (figures, assumptions, methodology).
7.5.83 As an aside, I note the N5/N17 junction on Charlestown Bypass, which is a modified version of CGSI. Given the likely regional traffic flows in this area, and the resultant dominance of east-west and north-south movements, it is my opinion that this junction is eminently suitable for CGSI. I also note that this junction has roundabouts on minor road (N17) rather than T-junctions.
7.5.84 Other cited reasons for CGSI instead of roundabout
7.5.85 Aside from the modelling-based justifications above, the applicant presented a number of other reasons for selecting a CGSI over the ‘off the peg’ roundabout recommended by TD10.
7.5.86 Firstly, the applicant states that a roundabout at this location would require significant additional land take, and would require the acquisition/demolition of an additional number of houses. This is inarguably the case.
7.5.87 Secondly, the applicant asserts that it would not be appropriate to provide a roundabout at this location, as the junction spacing between this and other roundabouts would be to frequent. There do
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 118 of 145
7.0 ASSESSMENT
not appear to be any specific standards or guidance on this issue. However, I note that if a roundabout were to be provided at this location, it would be 2.2km to the nearest roundabout at Castlebar East. By way of comparison, the junction spacings on the Tralee Bypass are 3.2km, 2.5km, 1.5km, and 900m, and on the Castleisland Bypass they are 5.6km and 1.6km. Both these roads are T2DC, and all junctions are roundabouts. As such, there is clear precedent for roundabout spacings of this order.
7.5.88 Lastly, the applicant suggests that the use of roundabouts solely at crossover points with the existing N5 would help legibility, and that the ‘nature of the road would have reflected that of the existing distributor road’ if more roundabouts had been included. While this argument borders on considerations of aesthetic, it has some merit. I would not, however, attach significant weight to this factor.
7.5.89 While not cited by the applicant, it should also be noted that a roundabout at the N60 would introduce an element that would result in a degree of severance of lands east of the roundabout. Notwithstanding the town’s development boundary, there is significant ribbon development and dispersed housing to the east of this location that is within walking/cycling distance of Castlebar town centre. However, if a roundabout were to be introduced in such a location, appropriate provision for NMUs, as per the standards applicable, would address this matter.
7.5.90 Potential impacts of under-designed junction
7.5.91 Notwithstanding the applicant’s assertions that this junction would operate at 25% of capacity (RFC 0.25), it is worth considering the potential implications of an under capacity junction at this location.
7.5.92 In practical terms, one example would be if there were heavy flows on N60 outbound, it would result in queuing on the right turn lane from the N60 inbound to N5 westbound. With a queue of just 3 or 4 vehicles, traffic leaving the N5 westbound on this link road for both the N60 inbound and outbound would be blocked. If this queuing of 3 to 4 vehicles were to persist for a significant length of time, it could cause potential queuing on N5 mainline.
7.5.93 The further knock-on implication of an under capacity junction in this instance would be that it could precipitate a situation whereby development of an offline N60, with ‘greenfield’ junction north of the current N60 alignment becomes necessary in short term. This potential scheme is referred to by the applicant.
7.5.94 NMU performance
7.5.95 Grade separation allows for through-flows of NMUs along the N60, albeit across uncontrolled crossings of 35-40m at the splayed entrance to the slip roads. It may be worth considering whether, if
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 119 of 145
7.0 ASSESSMENT
pedestrian lights were to be retrofitted at these points to provide for residential areas to east, whether this would impact significantly on junction performance.
7.5.96 N84
7.5.97 A CGSI is also proposed at the N84 junction. The analysis above in respect of the N60 junction is applicable to the N84 junction, albeit to a lesser magnitude. The combined turning movements at this junction, as per Figure 8.5 of the Design Report, is 2,100 AADT, which is significantly less than the 3,500 AADT figure for the N60 junction. Furthermore, the N84 junction is not proximate to significant amounts of ‘enterprise and employment’ lands, and would experience a drop in demand if there were to be any reallocation of Galway-Castlebar traffic following completion of the M17 to north of Tuam.
7.5.98 Castlebar East (Existing N5)
7.5.99 Vehicular performance
7.5.100 The roundabout type selected for this junction is consistent with TD16. The highest class of road is T2DC, and the highest speed limit on the approaches is >60kph. A Category 2 ‘normal’ roundabout is what is required, and is proposed.
7.5.101 NMU performance
7.5.102 TD16, requires ‘signal controlled/grade separated’ pedestrian and cyclist crossings. However, if there is to be no NMU provision on east and south arms of this 3-arm roundabout, this may be a moot point.
7.5.103 As per my assessment in relation to the Knockranny North roundabout, the proposed ‘slip lane’ at Knockranny north is particularly cyclist-unfriendly. It is very confined, has a tight radius as compared with the N5 mainline, and will encourage greater vehicular speeds than would otherwise be the case for a roundabout. It remains the case that this is an ‘all-purpose road’.
7.5.104 Windsor Road (L5785)
7.5.105 Vehicular performance
7.5.106 The alteration of this junction from an uncontrolled 4-way junction to a pair of ‘left in/left out’ junctions is appropriate to the class of the minor road, and is appropriate to the junction strategy. As stated by the applicant, these junctions are appropriate where there is access to ‘all movements’ junctions in close proximity, which is the case here, being located between Castlebar East and the Turlough Interchange.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 120 of 145
7.0 ASSESSMENT
7.5.107 NMU performance
7.5.108 No provision is to be included at this junction. Given the settlement pattern in the vicinity, I would anticipate very low demand across this junction. However, if desired, an appropriate staggered ‘island’ crossing could be incorporated, in accordance with IAN 3/12.
7.5.109 Clogher Road (L-5784)
7.5.110 Vehicular performance
7.5.111 The alteration of this junction from an uncontrolled 4-way junction to a flyover is appropriate to the class of the minor road, and is appropriate to the junction strategy. This is a minor road. I note that trips with their origin or destination to the south of the N5 mainline will be required to use the L-1719 Turlough Road, and the narrow and poorly aligned northern section of Clogher Road. However, I consider that this route is commensurate to the road’s hierarchy in the wider road network.
7.5.112 NMU performance
7.5.113 As with Windsor Road, I would anticipate low demand at this flyover. I note that there is space left over due to the wide radius bend on a rectangular bridge, which could be used informally by NMUs crossing this bridge.
7.5.114 Gortnafolla Road (Turlough Interchange) (L5779)
7.5.115 Vehicular performance
7.5.116 As with Windsor Road and Clogher Road, this is currently an uncontrolled 4-way junction. However, in this instance, it is proposed to introduce a CGSI at this point. As can be seen from Table 7 and Table 8 at section 3.10.5 above, the modelled flows at this junction sit squarely within the TD10 thresholds for this type of junction. Given the restricted junctions at Windsor and Clogher Road, this junction is a necessary and appropriate response to the likely demand from Turlough village and the dispersed housing in the wider area.
7.5.117 NMU performance
7.5.118 Unlike the CGSI junctions at the N84 and N60, the Turlough interchange is configured such that it is the new-build elements that would provide the through-route on the minor road, via the proposed bridge. However, there is to be no provision for NMUs on this bridge or its approach roads. While there would be relatively low demand from first principles, the location adjacent to the under-construction Turlough Greenway and the bridge’s location between Turlough
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 121 of 145
7.0 ASSESSMENT
church and Turlough village may warrant the consideration of an adjacent pathway.
7.5.119 Conclusion on Junction Strategy and Design
7.5.120 The junction strategy is generally appropriate in terms of location and spacing. It would connect the prosed mainline to high order roads, all of which are existing National primary routes, aside from Carrowbeg Road. I would query the inclusion of Carrowbeg Road given its role in the road network.
7.5.121 Turning to the design of the junctions themselves, the roundabouts on Section A are larger than is recommended by DMRB, which is not appropriate. The junctions at Castlebar East and West are appropriate from a vehicular perspective. The proposed junction at the N60 and possibly the N84 have potential capacity issues as CGSIs. The proposed roundabouts at Knockranny North and Knockranny South are fit for purpose, and complient with relevant standards.
7.5.122 The provision for NMUs throughout is very poor, and contrary to policy and standards.
7.6 INTERACTION WITH NON-MOTORISED USERS
7.6.1 Within this topic, there are a number of discrete areas to assess, namely
• Provision for NMUs on the proposed roads at Westport.
• Provision for NMUs along the Castlebar-Westport corridor, if so required
• Provision for NMUs crossing the proposed N5 mainline
• Interaction with existing trails infrastructure.
7.6.2 Proposed NMU provision on Section A and KLR
7.6.3 This is the only section of the proposed development where cycle and pedestrian infrastructure is being proposed along the new roads themselves. A 2-way cycle track is proposed along the southern side of Section A, the N5/N59 Link Road and along the western side of the Knockranny Link Road (KLR)
7.6.4 This strategy is problematic in the absence of suitable crossing points (as per my findings in Section 7.5 above), particularly given the predominance of roundabouts. In effect, it only works if all westbound cyclists/pedestrians want to turn left at every junction and all eastbound cyclists/pedestrians want to turn right.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 122 of 145
7.0 ASSESSMENT
7.6.5 Provision for NMUs along this roadway is not only important for facilitating existing and projected ‘origin-destination’ movements, but also for ‘leisure’ movements. Recent history have shown that greenfield roads adjacent to towns, often become destination routes for health/recreation walks, contrary perhaps to their intended purpose. I would assume that the straight alignments, consistent surfacing, lack of junctions, and the frequent provision of setback verges are all factors in this regard. On this issue, I note that no verge is proposed in the subject scheme; the footpath, cyclepath, and vehicular carriagway are all adjacent across the cross section. Given the likely leisure use of this road, the provision of a verge may be appropriate. Indeed, TD27 explicitly requires the provision of verges of at least 2m in width (Table 1).
7.6.6 Requirement for NMU provision on this corridor
7.6.7 Firstly, it is necessary to ascertain whether there is a requirement to provide for NMUs along the Castlebar-Westport corridor. There are a number of sources for policy and standards that inform this question, as summarised below.
7.6.8 Statutory development plans
7.6.9 Policy P/TI-PC2 of the Mayo County Development plan is ‘to support development of complete network of interlinked cycleways’. While this does not specify routes, it would, in my opinion, be difficult to envisage a ‘complete network’ in County Mayo that did not link the largest (and county) town with the 3 rd largest town (and top tourist destination).
7.6.10 Planned cycle networks
7.6.11 This corridor is not included with Fáilte Ireland’s 2007 Strategy for the Development of Irish Cycle Tourism, which identifies a north- south route along the N59 corridor through Mayo.
7.6.12 However, this corridor is included in the ‘National Cycle Network’ produced by way of a scoping study in 2010 by the Department of Transport and the NRA. The stated vision for this network is to (inter alia) ‘allow users to cycle between the main urban areas throughout the country’. Relationships with the proposed Fáilte Ireland network are discussed within the strategy. The study asserts that the alignments shown are corridors and not routes, and that the network can be achieved in an incremental manner by small and medium scale projects and integration with other infrastructural plans.
7.6.13 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB)
7.6.14 This is an ‘all-purpose road’, and must permit all road users. Signage to parallel routes can only be advisory. Sections 1.7 of TD10 and IAN 3/12 refer to this matter.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 123 of 145
7.0 ASSESSMENT
7.6.15 TD10 says that NMU provision on T2DCs is to be to be in accordance with TD27. In turn, TD27 says that NMUs are to be considered at early stage in the design process. NMUs should be discouraged from the mainline where the existing route is available and safer. Infrastructure is to be provided where necessary, and where a local need is identified. TD27 advocates consultation on this matter.
7.6.16 As per section 3.5.8 above, I note that the Design Report includes reference to standards and policies that are not referenced in the EIS, namely TD27, IAN3/12, DMURS, and the National Cycle Manual. Both the EIS and the Design Report are dated September 2013.
7.6.17 NRA Project Appraisal Guidelines
7.6.18 The PAGs include a requirement for road schemes to integrate with other transport modes.
7.6.19 Demand
7.6.20 Policy and standards aside, it is worth considering whether there is likely to be significant demand for NMU infrastructure along this corridor. The National Cycle Network Scoping Study refers to 3 main cyclist user groups,
• Commuters
• Leisure cyclists
• Tourist cyclists
I consider it likely from the scheme’s context that all 3 would be present along this corridor.
7.6.21 The applicant refers to figures of less than 5 NMUs at a number of junctions and junctures. There is, however, no survey information in this regard.
7.6.22 As referred to by the applicant at the oral hearing (see section 2.6.6 above), Castlebar/Ballina has the highest car dependence of any NSS hub. The question arises as to whether this might be indicative of latent demand, which might become apparent were the appropriate interventions and infrastructure to be provided.
7.6.23 Conclusion on requirement for provision on this corridor
7.6.24 In my opinion, and based on the assessment above, provision for NMUs on the Castlebar-Westport corridor is envisaged, and indeed required by policy. The scheme does not make such provision. As for whether this road scheme should have been obliged to provide
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 124 of 145
7.0 ASSESSMENT
for NMUs within the term of its brief (which I have not had sight of), it is my opinion that it should have.
7.6.25 A contrary view might be that provision for NMUs, while ultimately required, falls outside of the brief of this scheme. Under this approach, it should be a requirement at the very least that the scheme would not set up impediments that would be unduly costly – or indeed impossible – to overcome.
7.6.26 At this juncture, it is necessary to examine the forms that NMU provision along this corridor might take, with a view to these options being assessed against either contemporaneous or post- construction provision.
7.6.27 Options for NMU provision on this corridor
7.6.28 It would appear that there are 4 broad options available for the provision for NMUs along this corridor, as follows
• Online – on the proposed N5 carriageway
• Immediately parallel – on a segregated carriagway within the scheme corridor
• Along the existing N5
• Greenways
7.6.29 Online
7.6.30 While the proposed road would in legal terms be an ‘all-purpose road’, available for use by cyclists and pedestrians as well as motorised vehicles, it would in reality offer a notably unpleasant and dangerous environment for NMUs. The combination of high-speed traffic, the lack of hard shoulder, and the relatively confined lanes leads to a situation whereby vehicles in the left lane would have to pull out to occupy at least part of the overtaking lane when passing a pedestrian or cyclist, often at short notice due to the difference in speeds between vehicle and NMU. If this situation were to arise when two motor vehicles were level, or near-level in each lane, a difficult and potentially dangerous situation would unavoidably arise. As stated by the applicant at the oral hearing with reference to cyclists, the T2DC is a ‘particularly unfriendly’ cross section for NMUs.
7.6.31 I have driven on the N3 section of T2DC and had cause to overtake a recreational cyclist who was using the left portion of the left lane, and can confirm that the above principles are applicable in a real- world scenario. By contrast, Type 1 Dual Carriageways, which differ from T2DC primarily by the inclusion of a hard shoulder, are a significantly safer environment for NMUs. There is a long-
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 125 of 145
7.0 ASSESSMENT
established pattern of use of many such dual carriageways by pedestrians and cyclists, particularly recreational cyclists cycling for exercise. Examples include the N11 in North County Wicklow where groups and individuals can often be seen cycling in the hard shoulder, without the need for evasive manoeuvres by motorists.
7.6.32 As such, I concur with the applicant on the assertion that the proposed N5 mainline does not offer a viable primary route for NMUs. It is likely to be used only by the most confident of cyclists, and is unlikely to be used at all by pedestrians, due to the junction spacing.
7.6.33 The corollary of this is that in the absence of viable alternatives, there may be reasonable doubt cast on the appropriateness of the T2DC cross section due to its ‘unfriendliness’ for NMUs. This may challenge my favourable determination on the appropriateness of cross-section in section 7.3 above.
7.6.34 Immediately parallel (Cycle track)
7.6.35 There is provision in policy for this form of NMU infrastructure, with IAN 3/12 advocating connections to local road network where a cycleway is provided alongside a dual carriagway. There is also precedent for cycle tracks alongside T2DCs at both the Tralee Bypass and Castleisland Bypass.
7.6.36 The Tralee and Castleisland examples both provide cycle tracks immediately adjacent to the carriageway, with options for joining/leaving these routes provided at junctions only, as far as I am aware. The junction spacing of the subject scheme is notably less frequent, although if section B were to be ‘broken’ at Islandeady (connection to Islandeady-Castlebar greenway) and Derrada Road (proposed emergency access road infrastructure), the largest unbroken intervals for Section B would drop to 3.5km.
7.6.37 I note that the permitted N59 scheme to the immediate west of the scheme and the currently proposed N60 scheme to the southeast both incorporate cycle/pedestrian paths within the cross section, whereas the subject scheme, which links them, does not.
7.6.38 An alternative model for parallel provision would be at a small remove from the main carriagway. I note that on the north side of the proposed mainline, approximately 50% of Section B already incorporates parallel access roads. Were the gaps to be bridged, along with bollards to prevent vehicular through-traffic, a parallel route for NMUs with low vehicular traffic could be provided without significant intervention into the proposed design. This would also accord with IAN 3/12 in providing connections to the local road network, as well as providing compensatory east-west connectivity in lieu of the lost north-south connectivity.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 126 of 145
7.0 ASSESSMENT
7.6.39 Old N5
7.6.40 At a number of junctures within the written submissions and at the oral hearing, the applicant pointed to the existing N5 as being available for NMUs. However, it is notable that the same road that is being presented as inherently unsuitable for motorised users is being presented as suitable for non-motorised users. While the applicant correctly points to the forecast drop in traffic flows as offering a real improvement in the environment for NMUs, the inherent shortcomings in the existing road’s geometry would remain. Nor is there any evidence that traffic speeds on this road would reduce. Indeed, the lack of ‘platooning’ may actually tend to increase speeds. While the applicant states that the speed limit might be lowered, this would not, in my opinion, be likely to affect a significant change in driver behaviour while the road geometry remains unchanged.
7.6.41 The applicant suggest that road space on the existing N5 might become available for reallocation to NMUs. However, there is no evidence that this would be possible, and indeed, there are indications to suggest that it might not. As per Section 2.4.2 of the EIS, the lane widths for the Castlebar-Westport section of the N5 range from 2.6m to 3.5m, with hard shoulder widths varying between 0m and 3m. It may not be possible to reallocate road space without works to the soft verges and/or additional land take.
7.6.42 Proposals in this regard could conceivably have been explicitly included within the proposal currently before the board. I note that facilitating works to the L-1719 at Turlough are included, which offer a precedent in this regard.
7.6.43 Greenways
7.6.44 In addition to reference to the existing N5 option, the applicant also makes reference to greenways (and on-road cycle infrastructure) as a way of providing for NMUs along this corridor. From east to west, they can be summarised as follows. Full descriptions are provided in section 2.5.27 above.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 127 of 145
7.0 ASSESSMENT
Greenway Status Description Comment
Turlough- Under A path alongside This will be a good quality route. Castlebar construct- the Castlebar The tie-ins at the Castlebar end ion River from are unclear, as is the capacity Turlough to the for future eastern expansion northeastern towards Foxford/Swinford. The outskirts of proposed extended N5 bridge Castlebar over the Castlebar River would not appear to accommodate a greenway passing beneath. Drawing PD/STR405 of the Design Report refers.
Castlebar In Intermittent While of generally low quality footpaths existence sections of pre- and piecemeal, this and cycle- existing roadway infrastructure is, in my opinion, paths and footpath path suitable for its urban context, that are marked where shared use of vehicular out for cycle use carriageways becomes viable. along N5 approach roads and Castlebar relief road.
Castlebar – Has Extending west As documented in section Islandeady ‘Part 8’ from a cycle path 2.5.26 above, the adopted Greenway permission within a park version of this route is of notably adjacent to lower quality than the route Castlebar, the presented in the EIS. route shown is largely on-road.
Islandeady Proposed On-road route. This route is shown entirely on- – Westport road, and involves a significant Greenway 51 diversion to the north of the realistic ‘desire line’. These local roads are narrow and relatively busy. Aside from directional signage, it is difficult to see what meaningful interventions could be made on this route.
Table 21
51 Presented as a potential alternative for this corridor is an alignment alongside the Castlebar-Westport Rail line. This proposal is notably underdeveloped and would appear to be particularly constrained on cuttings, embankments, over/underbridges (single track). It would likely require adjoining land take. It would require a suitable crossing of the existing and proposed N5 corridors at Islandeady.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 128 of 145
7.0 ASSESSMENT
7.6.45 As can be seen, the greenway network along this corridor is non- existent at present, and in various stages of development. Even if fully implemented as presented by the applicant, it represents a route of varying quality and utility, with some circuitous routings and large sections of shared use with relatively busy local roads.
7.6.46 If the above network is to be developed, it is clear that Islandeady would be a significant entry and exit point to the route. In this context, I consider that it would be prudent and necessary to provide for NMU movements on the proposed Islandeady Road crossing, to allow for a number of route options for connecting this corridor, and to allow connection to the wider hinterland.
7.6.47 Conclusion on NMU options for the Castlebar-Westport Corridor.
7.6.48 The utility of the 4 broad options above against the 3 types of cyclists identified in the National Cycle Manual can be summarised as follows, in my opinion.
Cyclist Online Immediately existing Greenways category parallel N5
Commuter Poor Good Fair Poor
Leisure Fair Good Fair Fair
Tourist Poor Fair Poor Good
Table 22
A similar relative ranking would be applicable to pedestrians, in my opinion, albeit that the geographical ‘range’ of each class of user would be reduced.
7.6.49 The applicant refers at times to greenways and at other times to the existing N5 as ways to provide for NMUs. In considering the different user profiles, there may be a role for both. Whatever the option (or options) pursued, consideration needs to be given to this issue under the subject scheme. In my opinion, one potential solution might derive from consideration of the above analysis against the 4 sections of the proposed scheme.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 129 of 145
7.0 ASSESSMENT
Route Recommended approach Modifications to scheme Section
A The existing infrastructure on Relatively minor this section is generally appropriate, subject to improvements at junctions and route crossings (see below).
B A parallel route could be Significant revisions would provided to the north of the be required. This may be mainline carriagway, by possible within the linking up the proposed proposed land take, or access roads. Local road tie- may require additional ins could be provided. lands.
C As per the applicant’s None/minor contention, the existing provision through the town from Castlebar West to the Turlough Interchange, along with the permitted Castlebar- Islandeady greenway is generally appropriate.
D The under-construction None/minor Castlebar-Turlough Greenway is appropriate for all user types. Tie-in and extension issues at the west and east ends may need to be resolved.
Table 23
7.6.50 Proposed NMU provision at Junctions
7.6.51 This issue is assessed in detail on a junction-by-junction basis in section 7.4 above. By way of a recap in a general sense, the provision for NMUs at most of the junctions is poor, and contrary to the requirements of DMRB and/or DMURS as applicable, and contrary to additional guidance in this area.
7.6.52 The performance of individual junctions has local relevance in the first instance, but also wider relevance when considering the ‘corridor’ options above and the interactions with existing trails infrastructure, as discussed below.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 130 of 145
7.0 ASSESSMENT
7.6.53 Interaction with Great Western Greenway
7.6.54 The Great Western Greenway (GWG) is a highly successful cyclist and pedestrian route linking Westport with Newport, Mulranny, and Achill. It is undoubtedly the flagship element of cycle/pedestrian infrastructure in Mayo, and has received significant attention and plaudits at national level. It is widely regarded as a signifcantly successful intervention.
7.6.55 It is built largely on an abandoned rail bed, with an on-road section through Newport and a number of local diversions, some on minor local roadways, others on new-build off-road alignments. It is proposed to remove all remaining at-grade crossings of the N59 under a permitted roads scheme (see section 4.2.6 above).
7.6.56 The route approaches the town of Westport from the northwest along the old rail bed, but undergoes a diversion at Attireesh Road North and Attireesh Road East, up and down a significant hill, re- joining the original railbed alignment at Carrowbeg Road. At the junction of Carrowbeg Road and the existing N5, it becomes the Westport greenway, and continues – again largely on an abandoned rail bed – to Westport Quay. The route is descried in full in section 2.5.3 above.
7.6.57 Given that the GWG runs into Westport on a roughly north-south alignment, and Section A of the proposed roadway crosses the north of the town on an east-west alignment, it is inevitable that these two alignments will interact. As currently proposed, the scheme offers 3 potential crossing points for the GWG, as follows.
7.6.58 GWG on Attireesh Road East/Carrowbeg Road
7.6.59 This is the current route of the GWG. As per my assessment at 7.5.38 above, the NMU crossing of the N5/N59 link road at this point is substandard and contrary to minimum requirements. Northbound NMUs would face an uncontrolled crossing point with no ‘staging’ locations, while southbound NMUs would face a downhill section of Attireesh Road East, turning a tight blind corner directly into an uncontrolled T-junction with no hard shoulder.
7.6.60 Furthermore, the creation of a junction at Carrowbeg Road would introduce through-traffic to this road, which is currently a cul-de-sac. While there are paths and cycle tracks on part of Carrowbeg Road, parts have narrow paths with cyclists required to use the vehicular carriagway. This is currently the only ‘on road’ section of the GWG south of Newport.
7.6.61 The National cycle manual guidance graph says shared streets are not appropriate above 50kph design speeds. While relatively low traffic flows and a 50kph speed limit currently apply for Carrowbeg Road, the subject scheme proposes a 60kph design speed and
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 131 of 145
7.0 ASSESSMENT
2,600 AADT. As such, a segregated cycle track is required, which would require land take, most likely from the landscaped areas to the front of the Allergan facility.
7.6.62 GWG on the old rail bed
7.6.63 This option would ‘realign’ the GWG to back to the rail bed, and provide a direct and level connection between the existing ‘divergence points’ at Attireesh Road West and Carrowbeg Road.
7.6.64 The southern portion of this route currently provides access to two houses owned and occupied by the Brownes, who have made submission to this case (see section 6.9 above). The southernmost house is to the side of the old rail bed, whereas the most recent of the pair is located directly on the rail bed alignment. This northern house would need to be acquired or demolished, or a local diversion made to the north/south, as has been implemented on the Newport- Mulranny section of the GWG. In addition, it wold be necessary to reconfigure a farmyard at the junction of Attireesh Road North and Attireesh Road West, at the other end of this route.
7.6.65 Critically, this specific alignment is enshrined in the Westport Town and Environs Development plan. It is shown on Map 2, as referenced in Objective OO-12.
7.6.66 The subject proposal would not only fail to provide for this alignment, but it would realistically prevent any chance of it ever being fulfilled. The prosed alignment of this portion of Section A crosses the old rail bed alignment at a very acute angle, and its embankment effectively runs along the rail bed for around 250m. To bridge a cycle/pedestrian route over or under the proposed alignment would be a significant undertaking in financial and/or engineering terms.
7.6.67 Effectively, the County Council is pursuing an element of infrastructure under the subject proposal that, while an objective of the statutory development plan, would signifcantly impeded, and most likely preclude, the delivery of another element of infrastructure that is an objective of the statutory development plan.
7.6.68 I note that Mr Browne asserts the issue of providing a route for the GWG through his lands was discussed with Westport Town Council in 2006, and that Mr Browne asserts that he was amenable to this subject to compensatory measures. Indeed, in Mr Browne’s submission to the board in relation to the subject case, he highlights the significant recreational development potential that would accrue to the planning authorities from pursuing this route. However, the applicant asserted at the oral hearing that they have no interest in acquiring Mr Browne’s house, and that there is no justifiable reason to do so. This position would appear to be directly contrary to the policies of the statutory development plan for the area.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 132 of 145
7.0 ASSESSMENT
7.6.69 GWG on Attireesh Road West and Newport Road
7.6.70 This route currently offers an alternative ‘feeder route’ to the GWG from the town centre. While Attireesh Road West is a narrow shared carriagway, it is relatively lightly trafficked. However, this route does link back to the town centre via a section of Newport Road with narrow paths and no cycle lanes.
7.6.71 Under the subject scheme, a new crossing of the N5/N59 link road would be required. As detailed in section 7.5.31 above, this proposed crossing is substandard and contrary to minimum requirements.
7.6.72 Conclusion on options for the GWG
7.6.73 The subject scheme fails to address the opportunity to realign the existing route of the GWG in line with development plan objectives. Furthermore, it represents a significant deterioration to the existing route. At a time when the applicant is removing at-grade crossings of the GWG on the N59, it is proposing to introduce notably substandard crossings of the GWG on the new N5/N59 link road.
7.6.74 Westport has been designated as one of three centres in Ireland that have become Ireland's first Smarter Travel Demonstration Areas 52 . I note that Section 3.2.4 of the EIS states that the Westport Smarter Travel Design Team has been consulted on the N5 proposals, and that they were satisfied that they do not conflict with their proposals, and in some cases compliment the Smarter Travel strategy. I would disagree with this assessment of the proposed impacts.
7.6.75 One potential option for reconciling the broad alignment of the subject scheme with the GWG would be to combine the northern portion of the Attireesh Road West crossing with the southern portion of the Attireesh Road East crossing, while using the 2-way cycleway along the proposed N5/N59 link road. This would require a number of amendments to the scheme in order to address identified shortcomings.
1. The introduction of a grade separated crossing (overbridge or underbridge) at Attireesh Road West, to link to the cycleway on the south side of the N5/N59 link road.
2. Separation (verge) between the traffic lanes and the proposed cycle path along the N5/N59 link road, converting it from a cycleway to a cycle track, in order to provide for all classes of NMUs – commuter, leisure, tourist.
3. Additional/alternative cycle track along the west side of the prosed Carrowbeg Road extension.
52 http://www.westportsmartertravel.ie/about.html
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 133 of 145
7.0 ASSESSMENT
4. Sufficient land take along the existing portion of Carrowbeg Road to allow for a segregated cycleway or cycle track for the remainder of the distance to the signalised crossing at the existing N5 at Knockranny.
This option would allow for the approximate delivery of the development plan mandated ‘rail bed’ alignment without a complete redesign of the scheme. It would also remove the significant hill from the current Attireesh Road East alignment.
7.6.76 Interaction with other trails infrastructure
7.6.77 The Western Way walking route passes along Attireesh Road West. In terms of performance, and as per 7.6.69 and 7.5.31 above, this crossing is not fit for purpose. An alternative grade separated pedestrian crossing could perhaps be incorporated with modification #1 above.
7.6.78 One of the Westport Cycle Hub looped routes passes along Lodge Road. There are no footpaths or cycleways on this road at present, and indeed no footpaths or cycleways are proposed on the proposed passing beneath the N5/N59. In order to ‘future proof’ the scheme, it may be necessary and appropriate to provide for same in the proposed section. Furthermore, it may be prudent to provide for a pedestrian/cycle link between the Lodge Road and the N5/N59 link.
7.6.79 Conclusion on interaction with non-motorised users
7.6.80 Appropriate consideration has not been given to provision for NMUs on the Castlebar-Westport corridor
7.6.81 Provision for NMUs at crossing points with the scheme is very poor.
7.6.82 The scheme would significantly damage existing trails infrastructure at the Westport end.
7.6.83 In my opinion, modifications are required to address these shortcomings.
7.7 INTERACTION WITH PUBLIC TRANSPORT
7.7.1 Requirement to consider
7.7.2 The NRA Project Appraisal Guidelines (2011) state that there may be a need to integrate the road network with other transport modes.
7.7.3 The previous (2003) County Development Plan, which was mistakenly quoted in document OH9 (see section 5.4.1 above) would appear to have had a requirement to consider ‘the incorporation of public transport infrastructure development’ in ‘new
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 134 of 145
7.0 ASSESSMENT
major developments’ such as the subject proposal, although no comparable policy exists in the current plan.
7.7.4 Specific interaction with scheme
7.7.5 The current situation is that there is a regular, if somewhat complex and confusing bus service operating between Castlebar and Westport (see section 2.6.8 above). There are no intermediate bus stops between Castlebar and Westport.
7.7.6 If the issue of the existing N5 is to be revisited on the issue of NMU provision, it might be appropriate to consider bus stops or lay-bys, as suggested by Mr Burke in his submission. Islandeady, although dispersed, and centred to the north of the existing N5, would perhaps be the natural first choice for an intermediate stop.
7.7.7 Conclusion on interaction with public transport
7.7.8 This is not a significant issue, in my opinion.
7.8 INTERACTION WITH LAND-USE POLICY
7.8.1 Land use as driver of the scheme
7.8.2 The current road, while a national primary route, has a significant local function. Both the demographic information and the traffic flows, as summarised in sections 2.6 above are indicative of a significant quantum of housing in the hinterland of Castlebar and Westport.
7.8.3 It is evident from inspection of the area, and from the issues raised in the subject case, that a significant proportion of the population that are functionally connected with Castlebar and Westport live in housing dispersed throughout the surrounding rural areas, as well as towns and villages nearby.
7.8.4 While there are houses along the exiting N5 itself, it is notable that housing stock from recent decades is largely absent. However, the surrounding local road network is characterised by a significant quantum of recent housing stock.
7.8.5 I note the contention raised by An Taisce; that dispersed settlement patterns, as facilitated by the local authority have driven the existing pattern of traffic movements and hence have contributed to the need for this proposal. There would appear to be merit in this contention.
7.8.6 An Taisce question the lack of an evaluation of the impact of dispersed settlement on the road. I do not consider that such an investigation by the applicant is necessarily warranted. If such a relationship exists, as appears to be the case, the resultant travel
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 135 of 145
7.0 ASSESSMENT
movements have been reflected in the traffic surveys, which have been incorporated into the design.
7.8.7 I note that ‘ribbon development’ around Castlebar in particular has presented itself as a significant constraint to the scheme, as highlighted by the applicant. It has influenced route selection, and has contributed to proposal for CGSI at N60.
7.8.8 Impacts on land use from scheme
7.8.9 Commuting catchments
7.8.10 The proposed road would be likely to increase the effective size of both Westport and Castlebar’s catchments. They are already quite large, as evidenced by mapping produced by the Western Development Commission, which depicts the relative ‘boundaries’ between towns’ catchments in the region 53 . The applicant contends that the scheme would not increase communing catchments due to the junction spacing. I do not concur with this contention. The effective catchments already extend beyond the proposed junctions. The subject proposal would offer route alternatives within those catchments that would provide faster and higher capacity sections within an overall commuting trip.
7.8.11 Effects on modal split
7.8.12 An Taisce assert that the road would undermine sustainable modes of transport. This matter was also raise by Mr Burke at the oral hearing. The applicant’s response on this matter asserted that modal shift would be difficult to achieve, and that the priority in this instance has to be the road network.
7.8.13 It is an inescapable principle that improvements to the infrastructure relating to any transport mode will have a positive impact on that mode’s share of trips, and a consequential negative impact on other modes. The subject proposal would therefore tend to increase modal share in the county towards car-borne transport.
7.8.14 Development pressures on the existing N5
7.8.15 Several of the parties to the application raise the issue of consequent development pressure on lands adjacent to the existing N5. Mr Burke, Mr Sweetman, and An Taisce all raise this issue. The applicant refutes this contention, and asserts that development controls will remain in place. On this issue, I can only note the lack of recent development on the existing N5, as noted above, and to the relatively liberal regime evident elsewhere along this corridor.
53 http://www.wdc.ie/publications/reports-and-papers/reports-2009/
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 136 of 145
7.0 ASSESSMENT
7.8.16 I consider that it is unavoidable that development pressure would result in connection with the existing N5, particular in proximity to the proposed junctions. I note that there is already a large warehouse/distribution facility located a short distance north of the proposed N84 interchange, on unzoned lands outside of the Castlebar Development boundary on lands zoned ‘Rural Character’. This facility would appear to have been constructed between 1995 and 2000.
7.8.17 While development pressure would unavoidably exist on the N5, which would presumably be ‘downgraded’ to regional road status, the extent to which the planning authority would resist such pressure is a matter of conjecture. I note that proposed amendments to the Draft Mayo County Development Plan 2014-2020, currently under consideration by the planning authority, includes a proposal to drop all regional roads from the list of roads subject to capacity protection (restriction on development). This protection would be retained for national roads only.
7.8.18 Conclusion on interactions with land use policy
7.8.19 The proposed road is a product of land use patterns, part of which is the settlement pattern within the county. One aspect of the settlement pattern is the dispersed nature of housing in the rural hinterland of Castlebar and Westport.
7.8.20 The prosed road would facilitate increased dispersal of development in the hinterland of these towns to some unspecified degree, and would tend to increase modal share towards car-borne transport.
7.9 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
7.9.1 Route Selection
7.9.2 The process of route selection is detailed in full in section 3.8 above. The Constraints Report and Route Selection Report are both currently available online, as per Section 3.5 above.
7.9.3 I note the constraint of housing development in the route corridor, as referred to by the applicant, which was one of the significant constraints encountered.
7.9.4 In strategic terms, the decision to pass the road to the south of Castlebar is appropriate, in that it allows for junctions with the two national secondary routes entering the town. This logic is a principle with universal applicability, and is evident in many bypass routes nationwide.
7.9.5 At a more detailed level, the proposed horizontal and vertical alignments respond well to the existing topography. The drumlin landscape to the east of Westport is particularly challenging. While a
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 137 of 145
7.0 ASSESSMENT
significant amount of cut and fill wold be required along this section, this is unavoidable.
7.9.6 Alternative approaches
7.9.7 Rail and sea transport is raised by some of the parties to the application, namely Mr Burke and Ms McNally, Mr Jordan, and Mr Sweetman, who all recommend investigating other transport modes in lieu of road. I concur with the applicant’s position that such matters lie outside of the brief of this scheme.
7.9.8 The possible provision of ‘online’ scheme, with improvements to the existing N5 is addressed by the applicant at a number of junctures. This is described in detail in section 3.8.8 above. The main constraints to this option is the multiple local roads and private entrances along the equivalent of Section B of the road, as well as the additional severance (and demolition) that would arise in Castlebar due to the town’s straddling of the inner relief road. I would concur with the applicant’s position on this matter.
7.9.9 Conclusion on alternatives considered
7.9.10 The route selection process was robust and the route selected is appropriate. Alternative modes of travel are outside of the scheme’s remit. Upgrading the existing N5 is not viable.
7.10 SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS BY OBSERVERS
7.10.1 Annagh Residents
7.10.2 The submission from the Annagh Residents, as detailed in section 6.16 above, suggests that road access to their properties could be provided via ‘Fore Annagh Road’ as opposed to the proposed Annagh Road Overbridge across Lough Lannagh.
7.10.3 There would appear to be significant merit in this proposal. The proposed Annagh Road Overbridge seems to be a major intervention in a sensitive area, particularly in light of the road’s function and the number of properties it serves.
7.10.4 The applicant’s rebuttal on the issue of the current standard of Fore Annagh Road and the existing condition of junction is indeed borne out by site inspection. I would, however, query whether these challenges are insurmountable. If the scheme is to be revisited, this option may warrant further consideration.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 138 of 145
7.0 ASSESSMENT
7.10.5 Padraig McLoughlin, Michael McCormack
7.10.6 These parties suggest reducing the Knockranny Link Road (KLR) to a single lane in each direction. See sections 6.7 and 6.10 above. Their argument is that this would reduce land take, reduce the size of the resultant roundabouts, and allow for more relaxed arrangements in respect of nearby access roads.
7.10.7 Applicant’s rebuttal on this matter is based on the assertion that the road is too short (280m) to bring down to one lane and up again over such a short distance. In terms of demand, the applicant asserts that no independent incremental analysis was required for the KLR.
7.10.8 I would tend to concur with the applicant’s position in this regard if the matter is predicated on the need for 2 lanes at all entry and exit points to the KLR from the Knockranny North and Knockranny South roundabouts. It might, however, be informative to see comparative analysis of how the roundabouts would perform with single lane approaches, which would allow for a single lane in each direction.
7.10.9 Horkans
7.10.10 The proprietors of Horkans Lifestyle and Garden Centre, which is located to the east of Turlough with frontage onto the N5 but access from the L-1719, assert that it would be appropriate for the scheme to incorporate signage alerting passing motorists on the N5 to their presence. They cite the presence of existing signage on the N5 along with precedent for this sort of signage on the N11 in North Wicklow.
7.10.11 The applicant resists this request, stating that it would be contrary to the NRA’s document ‘Policy on Tourist and Leisure Information Signage’, which does not make provision for directional signage to commercial entities such as Horkans.
7.10.12 In my opinion, the NRA’s policy in this regard is fair, reasonable, and clear. I can see no justification for recommending a divergence from its recommendations in this instance.
7.10.13 The proprietors of Horkans also raise the proposed closure of the existing N5/L-1719 junction east of their premises, both in its own right, and with reference to the requirement for signage, given the reduced opportunities for patrons to turn off the N5. In my opinion, the junction strategy along this stretch is correct and appropriate. The closure of this junction and the rationalising of a number of junctions at the proposed Turlough Interchange is an appropriate design response.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 139 of 145
7.0 ASSESSMENT
7.10.14 Balloor residents
7.10.15 A number of parties including Mary B. Rice, Eddie Grogan, Kieran Horkan, Mick Kane raise the issue of stray golf balls from Castlebar Golf Course, and the consequent impact on safety on this section of the proposed N5.
7.10.16 It would appear likely that if the road were to proceed, that Castlebar Golf Course would be reconfigured to some extent. As such, the likely geometry of potential hazards in this regard is unknown at this time, and it would not be appropriate to make any recommendations for ameliorative measures. If such a hazard were to arise, I would have little doubt that both the applicant and the proprietors of the golf course would seek to address this matter without delay.
7.10.17 Islandeady Community Council
7.10.18 I note that this party request that footpaths and cycleways be provided along the exiting N5. This is consistent with my assessment under section 7.6 above. If the issue of interventions on the existing N5 were to be revisited, I consider that this suggestion would warrant consideration.
7.10.19 Conclusion on suggested amendments by observers
7.10.20 I would not recommend any specific amendments to the scheme on foot of the suggestions made. The suggestions from the Annagh Residents, Padraic McLoughlin/Michael McCormack, and the Islandeady Community Council may warrant further consideration if the scheme is to be revisited.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 140 of 145
8.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
8.1.1 In overall terms, it is my opinion that the need for the scheme has been proven, and that the general form of development is appropriate to the circumstances. While the project brief – a requirement of the Project Appraisal Guidelines – has not been provided to the board, I consider it highly likely that the scheme’s designers have fulfilled the terms of the brief given to them.
8.1.2 However, elements of the scheme, namely some junctions, are excessively large in respect of the forecast demand. Furthermore, there has not been due regard for the needs of non-motorised users along the scheme corridor, at crossing points, and critically at the scheme’s interaction with existing trails infrastructure at Westport.
8.1.3 I also have concerns regarding the demand/capacity relationship at the proposed N60 junction, and the potential impacts were this junction to be overloaded. It might be possible to address these concerns by way of the provision of information currently within the applicant’s possession, or it may be that these concerns are indicative of a requirement to reconsider the junction strategy at this point.
8.2 DETAILED CONCLUSIONS
8.2.1 I refer in the first instance to my interim conclusions at the end of each of Sections 7.1 to 7.10 above.
8.2.2 It is my opinion that there is an absence of policy, or at least a conflict of policy at national level as applies to this scheme. The scheme is supported by policy at regional and local (county) level, although this, to an extent, is to be expected.
8.2.3 It is my opinion that there are different metrics/objectives by which the scheme can be justified, and indeed these factors are applicable in different measures to the 4 sections of the route, as follows:
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 141 of 145
8.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Route Primary Justifications Section
A The removal of national route traffic and through-traffic from a historic town centre of high heritage value.
B The improvement in safety on a section of roadway of poor horizontal and vertical alignment.
C The delivery of a strategic bypass to a town (Castlebar) designated as part of a ‘hub’ in the NSS, and the removal of traffic from a route (inner relief route) that results in severance of an existing town.
D The addressing of current capacity issues, and the improvement of (a small part of) the main access route to a part of a designed NSS ‘hub’.
Table 24
8.2.4 Another approach to considering the need for the proposed scheme is to ask a series of linked questions, which I would construe and answer as follows.
Linked questions regarding need for scheme My assessment
Is the existing road substandard? Yes
Is intervention justified? Yes
Is online upgrade a viable option? No
If a greenfield scheme is being pursued, would a Yes single carriagway suffice? If constructing a single carriagway, would it be Yes prudent to ‘up spec’ the cross section to dual carriagway? Table 25
8.2.5 If the presiding inspector and the board agree with my assessment on the issues above, the scheme’s design can be considered in detail.
8.3 REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO THE BOARD
8.3.1 If the presiding inspector and the board were to concur with my assessment; that the scheme is deficient in a number of areas, there would appear to be 4 broad categories of potential remedies available from the Planning Acts, as follows
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 142 of 145
8.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Further information - 217B(4)(a) of the 2000 Planning Act (as amended).
2. An invitation to the road authority to make ‘certain alterations’ where the board is provisionally of the view that it would be appropriate to approve the scheme subject to these alterations - 217B(4)(a) of the 2000 Planning Act (as amended).
3. A requirement to omit part of the scheme – 217C(1) of the 2000 Planning Act (as amended).
4. A requirement to construct or finance of a ‘facility – 217C(3)(b) of the 2000 Planning Act (as amended).
8.4 RECOMMENDATION
8.4.1 Arising from my conclusions above, and having regard to the potential remedies above, I recommend that the board seek to obtain further information in respect of the scheme, and to affect changes to the scheme itself. The following sections present a range of options available to secure these objectives. They do not, however, amount to a complete set of recommendations, as multiple measures may bring about the same result be different means.
8.4.2 Further information
8.4.3 In my opinion, there are a number of documents that were referred to by the applicant, that informed the design process, and that might reasonably be considered by the board to be helpful in informing the issues raised in the appeal, namely:
1. Traffic Modelling Report
2. Correspondence between the applicant and the NRA regarding departures from standards at the proposed N60 junction
3. Road Safety Audits (Stages 1 and F)
4. Design Report (albeit that this is readily available online, and is incorporated into my assessment above)
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 143 of 145
8.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8.4.4 Alterations
8.4.5 A number of potential alterations to the scheme could serve to address the issues raised in my assessment, as follows:
1. Alterations to junctions as follows:
Junction Reduction in Provision for Redesign in junction size NMU accordance in crossing with DMURS accordance points in with DMRB accordance with DMRB
Newport Road Yes Yes Yes – N59 and Attireesh Road West
Carrowbeg Yes Yes Yes Road / Attireesh Road East
Knockranny Yes North and South
Castlebar Yes West
Gortnafolla Yes Road (Turlough Interchange) (L5779)
Table 26
In addition to the requirements above, the slip-roads at Castlebar East and Knockranny North should be omitted.
2. Alterations to the scheme such that a continuous grade- separated route is provided for the Great Western Greenway from a point north of the scheme’s corridor to a point south of the scheme’s corridor, linking suitably with the existing alignment of the greenway on both approaches. A full grade-separated crossing or signal controlled crossing should be provided for the Western way, which may or may not be combined with the crossing for the Great Western Greenway.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 144 of 145
8.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3. Alterations to the scheme in respect of Carrowbeg Road to allow for the continued use of this road as part of the Great Western Greenway by either
a) Omitting the junction between Carrowbeg Road and the N5/N59 link road (Carrowbeg Road to remain a cul-de- sac), or
b) Providing a segregated cycleway or cycle track separate from the vehicular carriagway and footpath along the full length of Carrowbeg Road. This may involve additional land take outside of the existing road corridor.
4. Alterations to the scheme such that would introduce a verge between the vehicular carriagway and footpath/cycleway along the N5/N59 link road and the Knockranny Link Road.
5. Alterations to the scheme such that segregated provision for NMUs would be provided along Lodge Road immediately beneath the N5/N59 Link Road, as well as a pedestrian connection between Lodge Road and the N5/N59 Link Road at this point.
6. Alterations to the scheme to provide for a linking of the parallel access roads to the north of the proposed mainline carriageway from a point east of Castlebar West junction to a point west of the Knockranny Interchange such that vehicular traffic is prevented from availing of through routes, while NMUs are able to avail of a continuous route along this corridor, with connections to crossing roads.
7. Alterations to the scheme to provide for segregated provision for NMUs across the Islandeady Road overbridge.
8. Alterations to the scheme to provide for the potential future continuation of the Castlebar-Turlough greenway alongside the Castlebar River and beneath the proposed N5.
8.4.6 Omission of part of the scheme
8.4.7 If the board is minded to address some of the above issues without having recourse to the above remedies, it might be considered appropriate to omit Section A of the scheme, such that the new N5 would terminate at the Knockranny South roundabout.
8.4.8 Construction/financing of a ‘facility’
8.4.9 As an auxiliary provision to the board’s decision, it may be considered appropriate to mandate the provision of specified improvements to the existing N5 corridor to provide infrastructure for NMUs. On this matter, I would reiterate my concerns that it may not
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 145 of 145
8.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
be possible to provide for full segregation of road users within the existing N5 road corridor.
______G. Ryan Planning Inspector 15 th April 2014
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 146 of 145
------Appendices------
1.0 Appendix 1 – existing inter-urban road connectivity
1.1 The table below depicts the major Cities, towns, and urban areas of Ireland and whether they are connected to a second, larger urban area by motorway or dual carriageway. The population figures and rankings derive from CSO figures for the 2011 census54. These figures include suburbs and environs.
1.2 The column depicting whether the urban centre is or is not linked by motorway is based on my own knowledge, research, and interpretation. By their nature, all towns will be connected to the motorway/dual carriageway network by lower order roads. Where these connecting roads are long in relative terms, I have given a ‘no’. Within the remainder, I have attempted to differentiate between urban areas that have been connected by explicit roads programmes for that purpose, and those that I interpret as having been connected by virtue of being along the route of a roadway linking a higher order urban centre. This is impacted upon by scenarios whereby a road has been constructed in sections, or where a high capacity road terminates at a town with a large onward hinterland. Roads currently under construction or committed are considered as having been constructed; i.e. M17 to Tuam and M11 to Gorey.
1.3 The assumptions and interpretations above are by their nature subjective, and the table below is presented for illustrative purposes only. Castlebar and Westport are highlighted in yellow.
54 http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/census/documents/census2011vol1andprofile1/Tables%207 %20and%2012.pdf
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 1 of 9 (appendices) ------Appendices------
Urban Area Pop. Population Linked by motorway or dual Rank 2011 carriageway to larger urban area. Dublin 1 1,110,627 n/a Cork 2 198,582 yes Limerick 3 91,454 yes Galway 4 76,778 yes Waterford 5 51,519 yes Drogheda 6 38,578 yes Dundalk 7 37,816 yes Swords 8 36,924 yes Bray 9 31,872 yes Navan 10 28,559 yes Ennis 11 25,360 yes Kilkenny 12 24,423 yes - en route to larger centre Tralee 13 23,693 no Carlow 14 23,030 yes - en route to larger centre Newbridge 15 21,561 yes - en route to larger centre Naas 16 20,713 yes - en route to larger centre Athlone 17 20,153 yes - en route to larger centre Portlaoise 18 20,145 yes - en route to larger centre Mullingar 19 20,103 yes Wexford 20 20,072 no Balbriggan 21 19,960 yes - en route to larger centre Letterkenny 22 19,588 no Celbridge 23 19,537 yes - en route to larger centre Sligo [a] 24 19,452 no Clonmel 25 17,908 no Greystones 26 17,468 yes - en route to larger centre Malahide 27 15,846 yes - en route to larger centre Leixlip 28 15,452 yes - en route to larger centre Carrigaline 29 14,775 no Tullamore 30 14,361 no Killarney 31 14,219 no Arklow 32 13,009 yes - en route to larger centre Maynooth 33 12,510 yes - en route to larger centre Cobh 34 12,347 no Castlebar 35 12,318 no Midleton 36 12,001 yes Mallow 37 11,605 no Ashbourne 38 11,355 yes Ballina 39 11,086 no Laytown-Bettystown- 40 10,889 yes - en route to larger centre Mornington Enniscorthy 41 10,838 no Wicklow 42 10,356 yes - en route to larger centre Tramore 43 10,328 no Cavan 44 10,205 no Athy 45 9,926 no Shannon 46 9,673 yes - en route to larger centre Skerries 47 9,671 no Longford [a] 48 9,601 no Dungarvan 49 9,427 no Portmarnock 50 9,285 no Rush 51 9,231 no
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 2 of 9 (appendices) ------Appendices------
Gorey 52 9,114 yes Ratoath 53 9,043 yes - en route to larger centre Nenagh 54 8,439 yes - en route to larger centre Trim 55 8,268 no Tuam 56 8,242 yes New Ross 57 8,151 no Kildare 58 8,142 yes - en route to larger centre Thurles 59 7,933 yes - en route to larger centre Youghal 60 7,794 no Portarlington 61 7,788 no Monaghan 62 7,452 no Lusk 63 7,022 no Edenderry 64 6,977 no Dunboyne 65 6,959 yes - en route to larger centre Buncrana 66 6,839 no Donabate 67 6,778 no Clane 68 6,702 no Ballinasloe 69 6,659 yes - en route to larger centre Bandon 70 6,640 no Fermoy 71 6,489 yes - en route to larger centre Newcastle West 72 6,327 no Westport 73 6,063 no Carrick-on-Suir 74 5,931 no Kells 75 5,888 yes Birr 76 5,822 no Kinsealy-Drinan 77 5,814 no Passage West 78 5,790 no Roscommon 79 5,693 no Kilcock 80 5,533 yes - en route to larger centre Roscrea 81 5,403 yes - en route to larger centre Tipperary 82 5,310 no Sallins 83 5,283 yes - en route to larger centre Loughrea 84 5,062 no Blessington 85 5,010 no Ardee 86 4,927 no Carrickmacross 87 4,925 no Kinsale 88 4,893 no Ballybofey-Stranorlar 89 4,852 no Listowel 90 4,832 no Oranmore 91 4,799 yes - en route to larger centre Mountmellick 92 4,735 yes - en route to larger centre Clonakilty 93 4,721 no Carrigtwohill 94 4,551 no Cashel 95 4,51 yes - en route to larger centre Kilcoole 96 4,049 yes - en route to larger centre Duleek 97 3,988 yes - en route to larger centre Carrick-on-Shannon 98 3,980 no Tullow 99 3,972 no Athenry 100 3,950 yes - en route to larger centre Table 27
1.4 In terms of the population rank of urban centres, the cities and towns from Cork to Ennis (rank 2 to 11) are all connected to a larger urban area by motorway or dual carriageway. In all cases, the larger urban
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 3 of 9 (appendices) ------Appendices------
area is Dublin, except Ennis, which is connected to Limerick in the first instance.
1.5 Moving to the next tier, from Kilkenny to Portlaoise (rank 12 to 18), almost all urban areas are connected to larger urban areas by motorways or dual carriageways except for Tralee. All of these urban areas are connected by virtue of being located along the corridors of motorways that connect larger urban areas. Tralee is notable with regards to it not being located along such a corridor, and also its being served by two major corridors, the N21 (Limerick and Dublin routes) and Cork (N22).
1.6 The next tier down, from Mullingar to Tuam (rank 19 to 56) includes Castlebar at rank 35. Of these 37 urban centres, just 17 (46%) are served by motorway or dual carriageway. All of these 17 are served by virtue of being located along corridors connecting larger urban areas except for Mullingar, Middleton, Ashbourne, Gorey, and Tuam. While the motorways/dual carriageways do terminate at these towns, it is notable that in all cases, there is a large ‘upstream’ road network that feeds into the ‘head’ of the motorway/dual carriageway at this point.
1.7 The final tier of towns assessed, from New Ross to Athenry (rank 57 to 100) includes Westport at rank 73. Of these 43 towns, just 15 (35%) are served by motorway. Of those served, just one, Kells, is at the ‘head’ of the major road. Again, as was the case with the 5 towns in the previous tier, there is a large ‘upstream’ or ‘tributary’ road network feeding into the N3/M3 at this location.
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 4 of 9 (appendices) ------Appendices------
2.0 Appendix 2 – Full list of valid observers
2.1 Any written or oral submission made to the board that was subsequently withdrawn is not included in this list as these submissions are not before the board for consideration.
2.2 Section 6.0 above provides a summary of submissions where their grounds are relevant to the terms of this report.
2.3 Accompanying each submission below, I have provided the following information to assist the board in navigating to the 3 rd party submissions and the location of their lands/properties on the submitted plans.
• Submission # – As per the board’s own numbering system, based on the originally published order of proceedings for the Oral Hearing.
• Plot(s) # – As per the numbering system used in Figures 16.18- 16.34 of the EIS, relating to land holdings.
• House # – As per the numbering system used in Figures 11.xx and 12.xx of the EIS, relating to Landscape & Visual Analysis, and Noise &Vibration, and replicated (with additional suffixes) in the Deposit Maps.
• Chainage – as per the unique identifier along the mainline route’s length, replicated in all drawings submitted. I have indicated north, south, east, or west as appropriate to indicate which side of the proposed mainline the 3 rd party’s house/property is located, or the larger part of their property, where it is to be bisected.
• Deposit Map # – As per the sheet number used in the Deposit Maps submitted.
Health Service Executive - Submission # 1
An Taisce - Submission # 2
Geological Survey of Ireland - Submission # 3
Inland Fisheries Ireland (Mayo) - Submission # 4
The West Regional Authority - Submission # 5
Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht (DAU) - Submission # 6
Padraig McLoughlin - Submission # 13
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 5 of 9 (appendices) ------Appendices------
Plot(s) # P0510 & P0450 - House # H0540 - Chainage 10+000 south - Deposit Map # 2
Linda Pryce - Submission # 16
Plot(s) # P0670 - House # H0670 - Chainage 11+000 north - Deposit Map # 2
Thomas Bourke - Submission # 20
Plot(s) # P1560 - House # H1560 - Chainage 33+200 south - Deposit Map # 9
Henry Brogan - Submission # 21
Plot(s) # P1340 - House # n/a - Chainage 30+000 south - Deposit Map # 7
Representatives of Nora Connor c/o Michael Ruane - Submission # 23
Plot(s) # P1565 - House # H1470 - Chainage 33+400 south - Deposit Map # 10
Marc Lawless - Submission # 44
Plot(s) # p2424 - House # n/a - Chainage 44+500 north - Deposit Map # 15
John Heneghan - Submission # 52
Plot(s) # P1800 - House # n/a - Chainage 36+000 west - Deposit Map # 10
Enda McHale - Submission # 54
Plot(s) # P1770 - House # H31XX - Chainage 35+300 west - Deposit Map # 10
Ronan and Marie O'Cathasaigh - Submission # 59
Plot(s) # P2135 - House # H2135 - Chainage 39+000 east - Deposit Map # 13
Michael Nolan - Submission # 60
Plot(s) # P1690 & P1795 - House # H1690 - Chainage 34+800 south - Deposit Map # 10
Mary B. Rice - Submission # 61
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 6 of 9 (appendices) ------Appendices------
Plot(s) # P1790 - House # H1320 - Chainage 34+900 south and 35+900 west - Deposit Map # 10
Balloor Residents - Submission # 62
Plot(s) # n/a - House # n/a - Chainage 35+900 west - Deposit Map # 10
Eddie Grogan - Submission # 63
Plot(s) # n/a - House # H1788 - Chainage 35+900 west - Deposit Map # 10
Kieran Horkan - Submission # 64
Plot(s) # n/a - House # H178X - Chainage 35+900 west - Deposit Map # 10
Mick Kane - Submission # 65
Plot(s) # n/a - House # H1789 - Chainage 35+900 west - Deposit Map # 10
Edward Browne - Submission # 68
Plot(s) # P0320 - House # H0245 H0246 - Chainage 2+600 south - Deposit Map # 1
Deerpark East Residents Group - Submission # 69
Plot(s) # n/a - House # n/a - Chainage 2+500 south - Deposit Map # 1
Michael McCormack and Others - Submission # 70
Plot(s) # P0520 - House # H0520 - Chainage 4+100 south - Deposit Map # 2
Westport Tourism Organisation - Submission # 75
Allergan Pharmaceuticals Ireland - Submission # 76
Plot(s) # n/a - House # n/a - Chainage 3+500 south - Deposit Map # 1
Synergy Health Westport Ltd - Submission # 77
Plot(s) # n/a - House # n/a - Chainage 3+800 - Deposit Map # 1
Westport Chamber of Commerce - Submission # 79
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 7 of 9 (appendices) ------Appendices------
Joseph Hastings - Submission # 80
Plot(s) # P0430 - House # H0430 - Chainage 4+200 south - Deposit Map # 2
Dominic Di Lucia - Submission # 81
Plot(s) # n/a - House # H0094 - Chainage 2+000 north - Deposit Map # 1
Annagh Residents - Submission # 82
Plot(s) # n/a - House # n/a - Chainage 19+600 north - Deposit Map # 7
Vincent Irwin - Submission # 85
Plot(s) # P0980 - House # n/a - Chainage 16+300 south - Deposit Map # 5
James Burke and Mary Amelia McNally - Submission # 86
Plot(s) # P0850 - House # n/a - Chainage 13+900 south - Deposit Map # 4
Maeve Kelly - Submission # 87
Plot(s) # P0577 & P0579 - House # H0577 H0579 - Chainage 10+000 south - Deposit Map # 2
Marius and Amelia Greef - Submission # 88
Plot(s) # n/a - House # H0667 - Chainage 11+000 north - Deposit Map # 2
Caroline & Paul Ryder - Submission # 89
Plot(s) # n/a - House # H0671 - Chainage 11+000 north - Deposit Map # 2
John Ryder - Submission # 90
Plot(s) # n/a - House # n/a - Chainage 11+000 north - Deposit Map # 2
Dudley Filan and Others - Submission # 91
Plot(s) # P1870 - House # n/a - Chainage 37+200 east - Deposit Map # 12
John Jordan x 2 - Submission # 92
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 8 of 9 (appendices) ------Appendices------
Plot(s) # P2060 & P2075 - House # n/a - Chainage 38+300 east - Deposit Map # 12
Helen Sarsfield - Submission # 93
Plot(s) # P2060 & P2075 - House # n/a - Chainage 38+300 east - Deposit Map # 12
Donal O'Gallachóir - Submission # 96
Plot(s) # P1880 - House # H1880 - Chainage 37+100 east - Deposit Map # 11
Thomas J. Tuohy c/o Mary Tuohy - Submission # 97
Plot(s) # P1980 - House # H1980 - Chainage 37+200 west - Deposit Map # 12
Nora Lunn & Others - Submission # 98
- House # n/a - Chainage 36+200 west - Deposit Map # 11
Thomas Horkan, Paraic Horkan & John Horkan - Submission # 100
Plot(s) # P2951 - House # n/a - Chainage 44+000 north - Deposit Map # 15
H Bro - Submission # 101
Plot(s) # P2950 - House # H2950 - Chainage 44+000 north - Deposit Map # 15
Cyril Moran - Submission # 102
Plot(s) # P2376 - House # n/a - Chainage 42+400 north - Deposit Map # 14
Gerard and Sylvia Scott - Submission # 103
Plot(s) # n/a - House # H1362 - Chainage 30+300 south - Deposit Map # 7
Peter Sweetman - Submission # 104
Niamh Walsh - Submission # 105
Noirin Coyne (Islandeady Community) - Submission # 106
Plot(s) # n/a - House # H1077 - Chainage 18+400 - Deposit Map # 6
Islandeady Community Council - Submission # 107
PL16.HA0042/ KA0028 An Bord Pleanála Page 9 of 9 (appendices)