FORMATTED FOR PRINTING

DART+ WEST - MCA Stage 1 Porterstown Level Crossing Assessment

Parameter Criteria Sub-Criteria (Quantitative/ Qualitative) Do Nothing Do Minimum Option 1

Closure of the existing crossings with no alternative provided. All Pedestrian / Cycle Links parallel to canal and rail to ramped access Leave the current level crossings in place. would be diverted to alternative routes around the crossing to Diswellstown location.

Significant comparative advantage over other Significant comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative disadvantage over other options options

Assessment of cost of construction of option, land costs and 1.1 Construction and Land Cost The level crossing is currently manned. The This scheme is similar to other options but it includes an temporary works Cost of removing crossing is low in comparison to provision of ongoing cost associated with this control additional 600m of 5.0m wide cycleway and the land acquisition crossing. mechanism on the railway is significant. costs associated with it.

Significant comparative disadvantage over Significant comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options other options 1 Economy Ongoing annual maintenance costs associated with varied 1.2 Long Term Maintenance costs options The do-nothing scenario would maintain the The closure of the level crossing would remove the maintenance The maintenance costs are associated with regular inspection and existing maintenance costs of the level crossing. requirement of the level crossing. maintenance of the cycleway and the ramp structures

Comparable to other options Comparable to other options Comparable to other options Benefits to vehicular traffic through reduction in journey time Traffic Functionality /economic 1.3 lengths and delays through removal of level crossings. Existing connectivity maintained, albeit with Displacement of traffic onto alternative routes; increase in journey Displacement of traffic onto alternative routes; increase in journey benefit Consideration of potentially longer routes for traffic. increased disruption from increased times for local residents, New already serves for times for local residents, New Link road already serves for frequencies. Economic disbenefit to rail. commuter traffic. commuter traffic.

Some comparative advantage over other Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options options Impact on scope for and ease of between modes. Impact on the operation of other transport services both during Existing connectivity maintained, albeit with construction and in operation. New interchange nodes and increased disruption from increased train 2.1 Transport Integration Reduction in local permeability. The provision of the Porterstown Some indirect access provided for pedestrians and cyclists, but facilities; Reduced walking and wait times associated with frequencies. There is no cycle route proposed on Viaduct has reduced the utility of Porterstown Road for anything less preferable than other options. No access provided for other interchanges. Modal shift figures during construction and Porterstown Road in the GDA Cycle Network more than local traffic. transport modes. operations. Changes to journey times to transport nodes. Plan.

Some comparative advantage over other Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options options

At local level, The Do - Minimum Option goes against Fingal DP This Option does not support Fingal DP map-based Specific This option supports local planning policy map map-based Specific Objectives; Objective 137; “Preserve the existing pedestrian and vehicular based "Objective 137: Preserve the existing Specific Objective 137 "Preserve the existing pedestrian and right of way at the level crossing at Porterstown”. pedestrian and vehicular right of way at the level vehicular right of way at the level crossing at Porterstown” and the Impact on land use strategies and local plans. Assessment of crossing at Porterstown” . There is also a Specific Objective of "Indicative Cycle/Pedestrian Route". Option 1 supports pedestrian access to Dr Tory Bridge 2.2 Land Use Integration support for land use factors local land use and planning. Specific Objective on Porterstown Road running (Porterstown Viaduct) which would provide a pedestrian link to Inclusion of project in relevant local planning documents. north south for an "Indicative Cycle/Pedestrian The closure of the level crossing with no alternative would sever proposed ' corridor' and a light rail stop at Porterstown 2 Integration Route" that would be impacted. However, it is vehicular and pedestrian/cycle access to lands to the south zoned (travelling north south along the R121). The surrounding area is considered that there would be modifications for "Residential Area", for which the Draft Kellystown LAP will apply zoned for 'Residential Area" for which the Draft Kellystown LAP will required to the current road widths and narrow (map based objective LAP13.C ) - currently at consultation stage. apply (map based objective LAP13.C ) - currently at consultation bridge over the canal should this objective be The Draft LAP supports the DART Expansion programme. The LAP stage. he Draft LAP supports the DART Expansion programme. realised as it could not be safely implemented in includes the potential development of a 'Future and/ or The LAP includes the potential development of a 'Future train it's current form. Metro West node' on the southern side of the tracks on Porterstown station and/ or Metro West node' on the southern side of the tracks Road. on Porterstown Road.

Page 1 FORMATTED FOR PRINTING

DART+ WEST - MCA Stage 1 Porterstown Level Crossing Assessment

Parameter Criteria Sub-Criteria (Quantitative/ Qualitative) Do Nothing Do Minimum Option 1

Alternative level crossing options are mostly neutral in respect Comparable to other options Comparable to other options Comparable to other options of Geographical Integration due to localised nature of the level 2.3 Geographical Integration crossings. As a consequence all options are rated comparable to one another. No impact on Geographical Integration No impact on Geographical Integration No impact on Geographical Integration

Some comparative disadvantage over other Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options options

Other Government Policy Integration with the other Government policy such as the NPF This option would not support the delivery of the 2.4 Integration and RSES. higher level national and regional planning This option would support the delivery of the DART Expansion This option would support the delivery of the DART Expansion policies regarding the DART Expansion programme in the higher level national and regional planning programme in the higher level national and regional planning policy programme (NPF- (NS04), RSES & GDA policies however it would impact on Smarter Travel policy. documents. Transport Strategy). Some comparative disadvantage over other Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Estimated number of sensitive properties within 100m of the options works. Options closer to more sensitive locations will have an Retains vehicular traffic which will impact the low 3.1 Noise and Vibration increased risk of generating a noise impact. However, number of sensitive receptors in proximity. 9 dwelling within 100m. Note that only construction stage impacts qualative criteria are also used where necessary to Removes vehicular traffic and minimal construction phase. expected as this is a . differentiate between the options.

Some comparative disadvantage over other Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options options

Estimated number of number of receptors within 50m reviewed as part of appriasal. Options closer to more sensitive locations will have an increased risk of changes in Removes low level of vehicular traffic onto Diswellstown Viaduct 3 dwelling within 50m. Note that only construction stage impacts 3.2 Air Quality and Climate air quality during construction or operational phases. Retains vehicular traffic which will impact the low 300m away and the construction phase is minimal. Potential for expected as this is a pedestrian crossing. No bridge so lower However, qualative criteria are also used where necessary to number of sensitive receptors in proximity. construction phase dust impact is not significant when mitigation construction impacts. Potential for construction phase dust impact differentiate between the options. measures are put in place. is not significant when mitigation measures are put in place.

Significant comparative advantage over other Significant comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options options Key landscape characteristics affected; Impact on landscape character; Impacts on landscape features, protected Landscape and Visual (including landscapes. 3.3 Loss of local connectivity. Minimal impact on existing landscape or light) Key visual characteristics affected; Impacts on properties, No impact on existing landscape or visual visual characteristics - no likely significant landscape or visual Significant impact on trees to north of canal - which provide amenities, protected views, key views. characteristics impacts. screening for residential property.

Significant comparative advantage over other Significant comparative advantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options options

Hydrologically connected to South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Potential compliance/conflict with biodiversity objectives; Estuary SPA. No risk of LSE. Potential impacts to Royal Canal 3.4 Indirect impacts on protected species, designated sites; Biodiversity (flora and fauna) pNHA. Potential impact to woodland habitat adjacent to canal. Overall effect on nature conservation resource. No likely significant impacts. No likely significant impacts. Potential impacts to bats foraging and roosting in existing bridge, buildings and trees nearby. Given that that this option will follow existing pedestrian bridge at Porterstown Viaduct there is less impact to canal corridor than option 2 and 3.

Page 2 FORMATTED FOR PRINTING

DART+ WEST - MCA Stage 1 Porterstown Level Crossing Assessment

Parameter Criteria Sub-Criteria (Quantitative/ Qualitative) Do Nothing Do Minimum Option 1

Some comparative advantage over other Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options options Overall effect on cultural, archaeological and architecture 3 Environment heritage resource. Likely effects on RPS, National Potential indirect impacts on Keeper's Cottage (RPS No. 699) and Cultural, Archaeological and 3.5 Monuments, SMRs, Conservation areas, etc. Former Clonsilla School (RPS No. 700) and the Royal Canal (RPS Architectural Heritage No direct impacts. Number of designated sites/structures (by level of No direct impacts. No. 944a). Potential to encounter archaeological deposits that may designation) directly impacted by scheme (landtake) survive in undeveloped areas.

Some comparative disadvantage over other Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options options

Overall potential significant effects on water resource Option likely to have no significant effect on flood regime. Potential 3.6 Water Resources attributes likely to be affected during construction and Potential negative impact on surface water Removes vehicular traffic borne pollutants and minimal for minor impact on surface water quality during construction operation. quality during operational phase. Has some construction phase. The Do Minimum Option has some though removal of vehicular traffic likely to have a positive impact comparative disadvantage over other options. comparative advantages over other options. on water quality of Royal Canal overall. Likely minimal impact on groundwater quality.

Some comparative advantage over other Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options options Overall impact on land take & property. Number of properties 3.7 Agriculture and Non-Agricultural to be impacted/acquired. Likely temporary or permanent No direct impacts to property however severence to local land uses Option 1 will have a direct impact on non-agricultural lands in use severance effects, etc. No direct impacts. in the area. as a car park for St. Mochta’s GAA club.

Some comparative advantage over other Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Soils and Geology and likely impact on geological resources options based on preliminary/likely construction details. Soil or topsoil resources to be developed/removed based on cut or fill requirements and potential for soft ground which may also Geology and Soils (including 3.8 need replaced. Existing information relating to potential to Waste) Comparative disadvantage is considered as construction is encounter contaminated land. High-level assessment based No significant direct impacts. No significant direct impacts. on the likely structures/ works required and the potential for proposed, no likely significant impacts. ground contamination due to historic landfills, pits and quarries.

Some comparative advantage over other Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options options

It is assumed that the routing of the cabling, the location of existing 3.9 Radiation and Stray Current No changes from an EMI perspective transverse substations, hubs etc. along the line will be changed or impacted by Overall likely impact on existing sources of electromagnetic No changes from an EMI perspective transverse to the railway to the railway therefore advantage over other the selection of any of the options over the entire project. All Do- radiation. therefore advantage over other options. options. Something options are comparable from an EMI perspective at this stage in the assessment.

Some comparative disadvantage over other Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options options With the level crossing becoming effectively Impacts on low income groups, non-car owners, mobility closed on implementation of the proposed 4.1 Impact on Vulnerable Groups With removal of the level crossing and with no provision for The alternative access proposed as part of this option for impaired, visually impaired and people with a disability. working timetable and with no provision for supplementary for vulnerable groups, the majority of vulnerable groups includes a diversion of approximately 1.0km. supplementaty infrastructure for vulnerable users will be diverted onto the adjacent viaduct. This if not evident for other bridge options groups, the majority of users will be diverted onto the adjacent viaduct.

Comparable to other options Comparable to other options Comparable to other options Quantification of increased service levels to the vulnerable 4.2 Stations Accessibility groups. It is considered that alterations at Porterstown It is considered that alterations at Porterstown will not significantly It is considered that alterations at Porterstown will not significantly will not significantly affect access to stations in affect access to stations in the locality affect access to stations in the locality the locality

Page 3 FORMATTED FOR PRINTING

DART+ WEST - MCA Stage 1 Porterstown Level Crossing Assessment

Parameter Criteria Sub-Criteria (Quantitative/ Qualitative) Do Nothing Do Minimum Option 1

Significant comparative disadvantage over Significant comparative disadvantage over other options Significant comparative disadvantage over other options other options Accessibility & Social 4 inclusion

Cross Railway journey = nil as crossing remains Cross Railway journey = nil as crossing remains in place; Full in place; Inaccessible when crossing is closed. Cross Railway journey = nil as crossing remains in place; access remains for pedestrians and cyclists on closure of the level Inaccessible when crossing is closed. crossing. Diversion for cars, pedestrians and cyclists when level crossing closed 1.1km Service levels impacts including severance of community Premanent diversion for cars, pedestrians and cyclists 1.1km Diversion for cars when level crossing closed 1.1km. Diversion for 4.3 Social Inclusion groups; pedestrians, cyclists and mobility impaired - ~1km The principal affected amenities in the vicinity of Severance from community facilities consequent on an option. The principal affected amenities in the vicinity of the level crossing the level crossing include St Mochta's football include St Mochta's football grounds south of the railway, Scoil The principal affected amenities in the vicinity of the level crossing grounds south of the railway, Scoil Choilm and Choilm and Luttrelstown Community College and Centre south of include St Mochta's football grounds south of the railway, Scoil Luttrelstown Community College and Centre the railway, St Mochta's National School and the Healthwell Clinic, Choilm and Luttrelstown Community College and Centre south of south of the railway, St Mochta's National School north of the railway. Removal of the level crossing require detour the railway, St Mochta's National School and the Healthwell Clinic, and the Healthwell Clinic, north of the railway. for access to each of them. north of the railway. Removal of the level crossing require detour Removal of the level crossing require detour for for access to each of them. access to each of them.

Significant comparative disadvantage over Significant comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options other options

Safety for Rail users – removal of Level crossings is 5.1 Rail Safety Maintaining the crossing would have a significant considered a significant safety enhancement Closing the crossing will remove the interface between rail and All overbridges have a significant advantage as they are a great disadvantage to rail safety for people still other traffic. crossing alternative crossing the rail.

Comparable to other options Comparable to other options Comparable to other options

With the level crossing becoming effectively closed on implementation of the proposed Quality of Access for these road users, lengths of diversions, Closure of the level crossing with no additional road access Closure of the level crossing with no additional road access 5.2 Vehicular Traffic Safety working timetable and with no additional road removal of interface with rail and other modes of transport proposed, traffic will be diverted onto the adjacent viaduct resulting proposed, traffic will be diverted onto the adjacent viaduct resulting access proposed, traffic will be diverted onto the 5 Safety a slight increase in traffic. a slight increase in traffic. adjacent viaduct resulting a slight increase in traffic.

Some comparative disadvantage over other Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options options

With the level crossing becoming effectively Pedestrian, Cyclist and Vulnerable closed on implementation of the proposed 5.3 Quality of Access for these road users. removal of interfaces With removal of the level crossing and with no provision for The alternative access proposed as part of this option for Road user Safety working timetable and with no provision for supplementaty infrastructure for vulnerable road users, the majority vulnerable road users includes a diversion of approximately 1.0km. supplementaty infrastructure for vulnerable road of users will be diverted onto the adjacent viaduct. This if not evident for other bridge options users, the majority of users will be diverted onto the adjacent viaduct.

Page 4 FORMATTED FOR PRINTING

DART+ WEST - MCA Stage 1 Porterstown Level Crossing Assessment

Parameter Criteria Sub-Criteria (Quantitative/ Qualitative) Do Nothing Do Minimum Option 1

Significant comparative disadvantage over Significant comparative disadvantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options other options

Connectivity to adjoining cycling Analysis of the extent that the scheme connects with cycle No cycle tracks currently present on the 6.1 immediately surrounding road network, but No cycle tracks on the immediately surrounding road network, but facilities tracks. Local severance on Porterstown Road mitigated to a degree by increased closures of the level crossing would the closure of the level crossing would reduce access to the Royal access to Porterstown Viaduct reduce access to the Royal Canal Greenway. Canal Greenway. See also Transport Integration above. See also Transport Integration above.

Significant comparative disadvantage over Significant comparative disadvantage over other options Significant comparative disadvantage over other options other options

6 Cross Railway journey = nil as crossing remains in place; Full Physical Activity Cross Railway journey = nil as crossing remains Cross Railway journey = nil as crossing remains in place; access remains for pedestrians and cyclists on closure of the level in place; Inaccessible when crossing is closed. Inaccessible when crossing is closed. crossing. Journey Time and lengths of diversions for active modes and Diversion for cars, pedestrians and cyclists when Permeability and local access numbers affected. Analysis of the connectivity between level Premanent diversion for cars, pedestrians and cyclists 1.1km Diversion for cars when level crossing closed 1.1km. Diversion for 6.2 level crossing closed 1.1km opportunity crossing and green areas/key attractions related to active pedestrians, cyclists and mobility impaired - ~1km mode The principal affected amenities in the vicinity of The principal affected amenities in the vicinity of the level crossing the level crossing include the Royal canal,and include the Royal canal,and the amenity zoned lands south west of The principal affected amenities in the vicinity of the level crossing the amenity zoned lands south west of the level the level crossing. Removal of the level crossing require detour for include the Royal canal,and the amenity zoned lands south west of crossing. Removal of the level crossing require access to each of them. the level crossing. Removal of the level crossing require detour for detour for access to each of them. access to each of them.

Criteria Do Nothing Do Minimum Option 1

1 Economy Significant comparative disadvantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative disadvantage over other options

2 Integration Significant comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options

3 Environment Some comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options

4 Accessibility and social inclusion Significant comparative disadvantage over other options Significant comparative disadvantage over other options Significant comparative disadvantage over other options

5 Safety Significant comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options

6 Physical Activity Significant comparative disadvantage over other options Significant comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options

Progress To Stage 2 No No No

Page 5 FOR WEB VIEWING ONLY

DART+ WEST - MCA Stage 1 Porterstown Level Crossing Assessment

Parameter Criteria Sub-Criteria (Quantitative/ Qualitative) Option 2 Option 3 Option 4

Pedestrian / Cycle Bridge with Ramps extending along Pedestrian / Cycle Bridge with Nested Ramps (Same as Pedestrian / Cycle Bridge with Nested Ramps in Porterstown Road; realignment of Porterstown Road South to Option 2 except the northern ramps and abutment are to Sports Grounds and Grounds of Disused School Accommodate this. the east of the Porterstown Road)

Some comparative advantage over other Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options options

The costs presented here are the capital costs for Assessment of cost of construction of option, land costs and The costs presented here are the capital costs for the The costs presented here are the capital costs for the 1.1 Construction and Land Cost the proposed bridge structure and those of turnign temporary works proposed bridge structure and those of turnign facilities to be proposed bridge structure and those of turnign facilities to facilities to be provided on closure of the proposed provided on closure of the proposed road. An estimated of be provided on closure of the proposed road. An estimated road. An estimated of land acquisition costs is land acquisition costs is also included. of land acquisition costs is also included. also included.

Significant comparative advantage over other Significant comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options options 1 Economy The maintenance costs are associated with regular inspection Ongoing annual maintenance costs associated with varied 1.2 Long Term Maintenance costs The maintenance costs are associated with regular and maintenance of the bridge structure. options The maintenance costs are associated with regular inspection and maintenance of the bridge No additional maintenance cost is allocated to the realigned inspection and maintenance of the bridge structure. structure. section of Porterstown Road as this is currently in the charge of Fingal county Council and it is likely to remain so.

Comparable to other options Comparable to other options Comparable to other options Benefits to vehicular traffic through reduction in journey time Traffic Functionality /economic 1.3 lengths and delays through removal of level crossings. Displacement of traffic onto alternative routes; Displacement of traffic onto alternative routes; increase in Displacement of traffic onto alternative routes; increase in benefit Consideration of potentially longer routes for traffic. increase in journey times for local residents, New journey times for local residents, New Link road already journey times for local residents, New Link road already Link road already serves for commuter traffic. serves for commuter traffic. serves for commuter traffic.

Some comparative advantage over other Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options options Impact on scope for and ease of interchange between modes. Impact on the operation of other transport services both during construction and in operation. New interchange 2.1 Transport Integration nodes and facilities; Reduced walking and wait times Reasonable access provided for pedestrians and Reasonable access provided for pedestrians and cyclists. No Reasonable access provided for pedestrians and cyclists. associated with interchanges. Modal shift figures during cyclists. No access provided for other transport access provided for other transport modes. No access provided for other transport modes. construction and operations. Changes to journey times to modes. transport nodes.

Some comparative disadvantage over other Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options options

This Option does not support Fingal DP map- This Option does not support Fingal DP map-based Specific based Specific Objective 137; “Preserve the At local level, Option 4 goes against Fingal DP map-based Objective 137; “Preserve the existing pedestrian and existing pedestrian and vehicular right of way at the Specific Objective 137; “Preserve the existing pedestrian vehicular right of way at the level crossing at Porterstown”. level crossing at Porterstown”. and vehicular right of way at the level crossing at However, an alternative right of way for pedestrians and also However, an alternative right of way for Porterstown” by closing the existing level crossing. the development of is provided therefore pedestrians is being provided as part of this option However, an alternative right of way for pedestrians is would support the 'indicative-Cycle/Pedestrian access' at the Impact on land use strategies and local plans. Assessment of at the existing level crossing location. being provided as part of this option at the existing level existing level crossing location (gradients & length not taken 2.2 Land Use Integration support for land use factors local land use and planning. crossing location. into consideration). Inclusion of project in relevant local planning documents. This option supports the future development of 2 Integration lands zoned for "Residential Area" as part of the This option supports the future development of lands zoned This option supports the future development of lands zoned future Kellystown LAP by maintaining pedestrian for "Residential Area" as part of the future Kellystown LAP for "Residential Area" as part of the future Kellystown LAP by and cycle access at this location. The Draft LAP by maintaining pedestrian and cycle access at this location. maintaining pedestrian and cycle access at this location. he supports the DART Expansion programme. The The Draft LAP supports the DART Expansion programme. Draft LAP supports the DART Expansion programme. The LAP includes the potential development of a The LAP includes the potential development of a 'Future LAP includes the potential development of a 'Future train 'Future train station and/ or Metro West node' on train station and/ or Metro West node' on the southern side station and/ or Metro West node' on the southern side of the the southern side of the tracks on Porterstown of the tracks on Porterstown Road. tracks on Porterstown Road. Road.

Page 6 FOR WEB VIEWING ONLY

DART+ WEST - MCA Stage 1 Porterstown Level Crossing Assessment

Parameter Criteria Sub-Criteria (Quantitative/ Qualitative) Option 2 Option 3 Option 4

Alternative level crossing options are mostly neutral in Comparable to other options Comparable to other options Comparable to other options respect of Geographical Integration due to localised nature of 2.3 Geographical Integration the level crossings. As a consequence all options are rated comparable to one another. No impact on Geographical Integration No impact on Geographical Integration No impact on Geographical Integration

Some comparative advantage over other Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options options

Other Government Policy Integration with the other Government policy such as the 2.4 Integration NPF and RSES. This option would support the delivery of the DART This option would support the delivery of the DART Expansion This option would support the delivery of the DART Expansion programme in the higher level national programme in the higher level national and regional planning Expansion programme in the higher level national and and regional planning policy documents. policy documents. regional planning policy documents.

Some comparative advantage over other Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Estimated number of sensitive properties within 100m of the options works. Options closer to more sensitive locations will have an 3.1 Noise and Vibration increased risk of generating a noise impact. However, 27 dwelling within 100m. Note that only 13 dwelling within 100m. Note that only construction stage 8 dwelling within 100m. Note that only construction stage qualative criteria are also used where necessary to construction stage impacts expected as this is a impacts expected as this is a pedestrian crossing. impacts expected as this is a pedestrian crossing. differentiate between the options. pedestrian crossing.

Some comparative advantage over other Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options options

Estimated number of number of receptors within 50m 4 dwelling within 50m. Note that only construction 5 dwelling within 50m. Note that only construction stage 5 dwelling within 50m. Note that only construction stage reviewed as part of appriasal. Options closer to more stage impacts expected as this is a pedestrian impacts expected as this is a pedestrian crossing. Potentially impacts expected as this is a pedestrian crossing.Potential sensitive locations will have an increased risk of changes in crossing.Potential for construction phase dust more embodied carbon due to additional construction material 3.2 Air Quality and Climate for construction phase dust impact is not significant when air quality during construction or operational phases. impact is not significant when mitigation measures required. Potential for construction phase dust impact is not mitigation measures are put in place. No traffic distribution However, qualative criteria are also used where necessary to are put in place. No traffic distribution data significant when mitigation measures are put in place. No data available to assess impact on new receptors therefore differentiate between the options. available to assess impact on new receptors traffic distribution data available to assess impact on new assessment only considers current receptors close to the therefore assessment only considers current receptors therefore assessment only considers current level crossing. receptors close to the level crossing. receptors close to the level crossing.

Significant comparative disadvantage over Significant comparative disadvantage over other Significant comparative disadvantage over other options other options options Key landscape characteristics affected; Impact on landscape character; Impacts on landscape features, protected Significant impact on trees to north of canal - which Landscape and Visual (including landscapes. Significant impact on roadside trees and hedgerows. Significant impact on trees to north of canal - which provide 3.3 provide screening for residential property. light) Key visual characteristics affected; Impacts on properties, Significant visual impact for old cottages at level crossing and screening for residential property. Significant visual impact for old cottages at level amenities, protected views, key views. for properties on Porterstown Road, north of the canal. Significant visual impact for old cottages at level crossing. crossing. Visual impact on setting of Keenan bridge, with proposed Visual impact on setting of Keenan bridge, with proposed Visual impact on setting of Keenan bridge, with bridge elevated directly over. bridge elevated directly over. proposed bridge elevated directly over.

Significant comparative disadvantage over Significant comparative disadvantage over other Significant comparative disadvantage over other options other options options

Hydrologically connected to South Dublin Bay and Hydrologically connected to South Dublin Bay and River Potential compliance/conflict with biodiversity objectives; River Tolka Estuary SPA. No risk of LSE. Potential Hydrologically connected to South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Tolka Estuary SPA. No risk of LSE. Potential impacts to 3.4 Biodiversity (flora and fauna) Indirect impacts on protected species, designated sites; impacts to Royal Canal pNHA. Potential impacts Estuary SPA. No risk of LSE. Potential impacts to Royal Canal Royal Canal pNHA. Potential impacts to bats foraging and Overall effect on nature conservation resource. to bats foraging and roosting in existing bridge, pNHA. Potential impacts to bats foraging and roosting in roosting in existing bridge, buildings and trees nearby. buildings and trees nearby. Loss of trees and existing bridge, buildings and trees nearby. Loss of trees at Loss of trees and vegetation at new bridge crossing and vegetation at new bridge crossing and adjacent to new bridge crossing and along Porterstown Road. adjacent to canal and railway. canal and railway.

Page 7 FOR WEB VIEWING ONLY

DART+ WEST - MCA Stage 1 Porterstown Level Crossing Assessment

Parameter Criteria Sub-Criteria (Quantitative/ Qualitative) Option 2 Option 3 Option 4

Some comparative disadvantage over other Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options options Overall effect on cultural, archaeological and architecture Potential indirect impacts on Keeper's Cottage 3 Environment Potential indirect impacts on Keeper's Cottage (RPS No. 699), Potential indirect impacts on Keeper's Cottage (RPS No. heritage resource. Likely effects on RPS, National (RPS No. 699), Former Clonsilla School (RPS No. Cultural, Archaeological and Former Clonsilla School (RPS No. 700). This Option crosses 699), Former Clonsilla School (RPS No. 700). This Option 3.5 Monuments, SMRs, Conservation areas, etc. 700). This Option crosses the canal at the same Architectural Heritage the canal at the same location and has the potential to crosses the canal at the same location and has the Number of designated sites/structures (by level of location and has the potential to indirectly impact indirectly impact the Kennan Bridge (RPS No. 698) and the potential to indirectly impact the Kennan Bridge (RPS No. designation) directly impacted by scheme (landtake) the Kennan Bridge (RPS No. 698) and the Royal Royal Canal (RPS No. 944a) 698) and the Royal Canal (RPS No. 944a). Canal (RPS No. 944a)

Some comparative disadvantage over other Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options options

Option likely to have no significant effect on flood Overall potential significant effects on water resource Option likely to have no significant effect on flood Option likely to have no significant effect on flood regime. regime. Potential for minor impact on surface water 3.6 Water Resources attributes likely to be affected during construction and regime.Potential for minor impact on surface water quality Potential for minor impact on surface water quality during quality during construction though removal of operation. during construction though removal of vehicular traffic likely to construction though removal of vehicular traffic likely to vehicular traffic likely to have a positive impact on have a positive impact on water quality of Royal Canal overall. have a positive impact on water quality of Royal Canal water quality of Royal Canal overall. Likely minimal Likely minimal impact on groundwater quality. overall. Likely minimal impact on groundwater quality. impact on groundwater quality.

Some comparative disadvantage over other Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options options Overall impact on land take & property. Number of properties 3.7 Agriculture and Non-Agricultural to be impacted/acquired. Likely temporary or permanent Option 2 will have a direct impact on non- Option 3 will impact on lands used by St. Mochta’s GAA club, Option 4 will have a direct impact on non-agricultural lands severance effects, etc. agricultural lands in use as a car park for St. St. Mochta’s FC and St. Mochta’s National School in use as a car park for St. Mochta’s GAA club. Mochta’s GAA club.

Some comparative disadvantage over other Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Soils and Geology and likely impact on geological resources options based on preliminary/likely construction details. Soil or topsoil resources to be developed/removed based on cut or fill requirements and potential for soft ground which may also Geology and Soils (including 3.8 need replaced. Existing information relating to potential to Comparative disadvantage is considered as Waste) Comparative disadvantage is considered as construction is Comparative disadvantage is considered as construction is encounter contaminated land. High-level assessment based construction is proposed, no likely significant proposed, no likely significant impacts. proposed, no likely significant impacts. on the likely structures/ works required and the potential for impacts. ground contamination due to historic landfills, pits and quarries.

Some comparative disadvantage over other Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options options

It is assumed that the routing of the cabling, the It is assumed that the routing of the cabling, the location of It is assumed that the routing of the cabling, the location of 3.9 Radiation and Stray Current location of existing substations, hubs etc. along the existing substations, hubs etc. along the line will be existing substations, hubs etc. along the line will be changed Overall likely impact on existing sources of electromagnetic line will be changed or impacted by the selection of changed or impacted by the selection of any of the options or impacted by the selection of any of the options over the radiation. any of the options over the entire project. All Do- over the entire project. All Do-Something options are entire project. All Do-Something options are comparable from Something options are comparable from an EMI comparable from an EMI perspective at this stage in the an EMI perspective at this stage in the assessment. perspective at this stage in the assessment. assessment.

Some comparative advantage over other Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options options

Impacts on low income groups, non-car owners, mobility 4.1 Impact on Vulnerable Groups High Quality access for vulnerable groups impaired, visually impaired and people with a disability. High Quality access for vulnerable groups proposed with thhe High Quality access for vulnerable groups proposed with proposed with the inclusion of bridge infrastructure inclusion of bridge infrastructure in this option. thhe inclusion of bridge infrastructure in this option. in this option.

Comparable to other options Comparable to other options Comparable to other options Quantification of increased service levels to the vulnerable 4.2 Stations Accessibility groups. It is considered that alterations at Porterstown will It is considered that alterations at Porterstown will not It is considered that alterations at Porterstown will not not significantly affect access to stations in the significantly affect access to stations in the locality significantly affect access to stations in the locality locality

Page 8 FOR WEB VIEWING ONLY

DART+ WEST - MCA Stage 1 Porterstown Level Crossing Assessment

Parameter Criteria Sub-Criteria (Quantitative/ Qualitative) Option 2 Option 3 Option 4

Significant comparative advantage over other Significant comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options options Accessibility & Social 4 inclusion Cross Railway journey = nil as crossing remains in Cross Railway journey = nil as crossing remains in place; place; Full access remains for pedestrians and Cross Railway journey = nil as crossing remains in place; Full Full access remains for pedestrians and cyclists on closure cyclists on closure of the level crossing. access remains for pedestrians and cyclists on closure of the of the level crossing. level crossing. Diversion for cars when level crossing closed Diversion for cars when level crossing closed 1.1km. Service levels impacts including severance of community 1.1km. Diversion for pedestrians, cyclists and Diversion for cars when level crossing closed 1.1km. Diversion for pedestrians, cyclists and mobility impaired - groups; mobility impaired - ~0.35km Diversion for pedestrians, cyclists and mobility impaired - 4.3 Social Inclusion ~0.35km Severance from community facilities consequent on an ~0.35km option. The principal affected amenities in the vicinity of The principal affected amenities in the vicinity of the level the level crossing include St Mochta's football The principal affected amenities in the vicinity of the level crossing include St Mochta's football grounds south of the grounds south of the railway, Scoil Choilm and crossing include St Mochta's football grounds south of the railway, Scoil Choilm and Luttrelstown Community College Luttrelstown Community College and Centre south railway, Scoil Choilm and Luttrelstown Community College and and Centre south of the railway, St Mochta's National of the railway, St Mochta's National School and the Centre south of the railway, St Mochta's National School and School and the Healthwell Clinic, north of the railway. Healthwell Clinic, north of the railway. Removal of the Healthwell Clinic, north of the railway. Removal of the level Removal of the level crossing require detour for access to the level crossing require detour for access to each crossing require detour for access to each of them. each of them. of them.

Significant comparative advantage over other Significant comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options options

Safety for Rail users – removal of Level crossings is 5.1 Rail Safety considered a significant safety enhancement All overbridges have a significant advantage as All overbridges have a significant advantage as they are a All overbridges have a significant advantage as they are a they are a great crossing alternative great crossing alternative great crossing alternative

Comparable to other options Comparable to other options Comparable to other options

Closure of the level crossing with no additional Quality of Access for these road users, lengths of diversions, Closure of the level crossing with no additional road access Closure of the level crossing with no additional road access 5.2 Vehicular Traffic Safety road access proposed, traffic will be diverted onto removal of interface with rail and other modes of transport proposed, traffic will be diverted onto the adjacent viaduct proposed, traffic will be diverted onto the adjacent viaduct the adjacent viaduct resulting a slight increase in 5 Safety resulting a slight increase in traffic. resulting a slight increase in traffic. traffic.

Some comparative advantage over other Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options options

Pedestrian, Cyclist and Vulnerable 5.3 Quality of Access for these road users. removal of interfaces High Quality access for vulnerable road users Road user Safety High Quality access for vulnerable road users proposed with High Quality access for vulnerable road users proposed proposed with thhe inclusion of bridge thhe inclusion of bridge infrastructure in this option. with thhe inclusion of bridge infrastructure in this option. infrastructure in this option.

Page 9 FOR WEB VIEWING ONLY

DART+ WEST - MCA Stage 1 Porterstown Level Crossing Assessment

Parameter Criteria Sub-Criteria (Quantitative/ Qualitative) Option 2 Option 3 Option 4

Significant comparative advantage over other Significant comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options options

Connectivity to adjoining cycling Analysis of the extent that the scheme connects with cycle 6.1 facilities tracks. Severance overcome by provision of direct Severance overcome by provision of direct replacement. Severance overcome by provision of direct replacement. replacement.

Significant comparative advantage over other Significant comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options options

Cross Railway journey = nil as crossing remains in Cross Railway journey = nil as crossing remains in place; Full Cross Railway journey = nil as crossing remains in place; place; Full access remains for pedestrians and 6 Physical Activity access remains for pedestrians and cyclists on closure of the Full access remains for pedestrians and cyclists on closure cyclists on closure of the level crossing. level crossing. of the level crossing. Journey Time and lengths of diversions for active modes and Diversion for cars when level crossing closed Diversion for cars when level crossing closed 1.1km. Diversion for cars when level crossing closed 1.1km. Permeability and local access numbers affected. Analysis of the connectivity between level 1.1km. Diversion for pedestrians, cyclists and 6.2 Diversion for pedestrians, cyclists and mobility impaired - Diversion for pedestrians, cyclists and mobility impaired - opportunity crossing and green areas/key attractions related to active mobility impaired - ~0.35km mode ~0.35km ~0.35km

The principal affected amenities in the vicinity of The principal affected amenities in the vicinity of the level The principal affected amenities in the vicinity of the level the level crossing include the Royal canal,and the crossing include the Royal canal,and the amenity zoned lands crossing include the Royal canal,and the amenity zoned amenity zoned lands south west of the level south west of the level crossing. Removal of the level crossing lands south west of the level crossing. Removal of the level crossing. Removal of the level crossing require require detour for access to each of them. crossing require detour for access to each of them. detour for access to each of them.

Criteria Option 2 Option 3 Option 4

Some comparative advantage over other 1 Economy Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options options Some comparative advantage over other 2 Integration Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options options Significant comparative disadvantage over Significant comparative disadvantage over other 3 Environment Significant comparative disadvantage over other options other options options Significant comparative advantage over other 4 Accessibility and social inclusion Significant comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options options Significant comparative advantage over other 5 Safety Significant comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options options Significant comparative advantage over other 6 Physical Activity Significant comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options options

Progress To Stage 2 Yes Yes Yes

Page 10