FOR WEB VIEWING ONLY

DART+ WEST - MCA Stage 1 Ashtown Level Crossing Assessment

Sub-Criteria (Quantitative/ Parameter Criteria Do Nothing Do Minimum Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 & 4a Option 4 & 4b Option 5 Option 6 Option 7 Option 8 Option 9 Qualitative)

Under Rail and Canal Mill Lane: This Overbridge on Mill Lane This option would Pedestrian and cycle underpass at Ashtown This option would involve construction of a This option would cross the railway and canal This option would involve the construction of a new This option includes the provision of a new pedestrian and This option provides for lowering the existing railway option would entail re-routing Ashtown entail re-routing Ashtown Road along its old This option is located approximately 1km to the west new road link parallel to the south of canal approximately 250m east of the existing level road in front of Kempton Gardens from the Navan cycle bridge at 5.0m in width only. The bridge provides a sufficient to allow the railway pass under a bridge Road along its old alignment (pre Royal alignment (pre Royal Canal) on Mill Lane and of the existing level crossing at Ashtown at the grade before turning northwards and under the rail crossing. It incorporates a tightly curves plan Road and a new bridge over the canal and railway connection between Ashtown road south of the level constructed at the level of the existing level crossing. Canal) on Mill Lane and passing under both passing over both the railway and the Royal separated junction on the Navan Road serving and canal to connect with Rathborne Avenue layout which facilitates a link to the existing accommodating a cross section of a 6.5m crossing and a proposed platform between the canal and This option would require limited road infrastructure the railway and the Royal Canal. The option Canal. The option can accommodate a cross Phoenix Park Railway Station. At this location there to the north of the Canal. This route would Ashtown road at the train station. The link carriageway with 2m footpaths and 1.75m cycle the railway. The arrangement of the bridge utilises ramps works but would require the existing railway to be can accommodate a cross section of a section of a 6.5m carriageway with 2m is scope to construct a new road link over the canal descend from the Ashtown Road and run would traverse the green area between tracks on both sides. parallel to and to the rear of the station platforme rising to lowered over a length of approximately 2km centred on 6.5m carriageway with 2m footpaths on footpaths on both sides and 2.5m two-way and railway to link to River Road. This could either between Ashtown Railway Station and Martin Ashtown Station and Martin Savage Park and the east before turning perpendicular to the track to cross the existing level crossing. The railway would require both sides and 2.5m two-way cycle track cycle track on the eastern side. An at-grade descend to tie into River Road or be designed to Savage Park residential estate. The route would climb to cross over the railway and The option would bridge over the railway and canal the railway. lowering below the existing water level of the canal on the eastern side. An at-grade turning turning head and drop-off will be provided to pass over it to cross the Tolka River and connect would cross under the railway and canal at canal to tie into the new circulation roads with approach gradients of 6% either side. The rail downstream of the level crossing. It would require head and drop-off will be provided to the the south of Ashtown Station. onwards to the Dunsink lands. In the latter case, a right angles before rising in a cutting to join through the Pelletstown Development. The level at the crossing is approximately 42.1m above The rail level at the crossing is approximately 42.1m above demolition and reconstruction of the train station at a south of Ashtown Station. short spur would be provided to link to River Road, into the existing circulatory roads to the north option can accommodate a cross section of a MSL and the canal at 39.3m above MSL with the MSL and the canal at 39.3m above MSL with the bridge lower level - below canal water level. the canal would This online scheme would require a structure spanning the The length of the option is approximately in both cases this would involve significant diversions of the Pelletstown Development. The option 6.5m carriageway with 2m footpaths and bridge level over the railway at 50.00m above level over the railway at 50.00m above MSL. The ramps need to be channelised or relined. The existing railway and canal(overbridge). This would lift the existing The length of the option is approximately 300m each side of the rail line and canal. The and land acquisition. The option can accommodate a This option is considered in combination with can accommodate a cross section of a 6.5m 1.75m cycle tracks on both sides. MSL. The road level crests to a height of 52.0m on either side of the bridge will not exceed 5% gradient. protected canal bridge and locks would likely need to carriageway by at least 7.3m above the railway line, 150m on the northern side and 300m south option would rise to an approximate deck level cross section of a 6.5m carriageway with 2m Option 4 descibed with 4 a. and also includes carriageway with 2m footpaths and 1.75m above MSL, 60m south of the rail line before be demolished. The canal would most likely need to be accommodating a cross section of a 6.5m carriageway with of the rail line. The option would drop to an of 52.9m OD which is a at a level of 45.6m footpaths and 1.75m cycle tracks on both sides. a pedestrian cycle overbridge structure cycle tracks on both sides. The option would bridge over the railway and descending over the rail and canal. Separate pedestrian stairs could be provided with this lowered west of the existing level crossing over a 2m footpaths across the bridge. There would be insufficient approximate level of 37.5m above MSL OD at the crossing point. On the southern side with a 4m wide cross section (Option 4B) canal with approach gradients of 6% either The route would then tie into the new circulation option as well to ease pedestrian access and rails for length of approximately 1km with the associated width for a cycleway across the bridge. under the rail which is a at a level of 45.6m a separate pedestrian and cyclist link and link The road would be at a similar level as the existing over the canal and railway, It include the The railway is at a level of 42.5m OD and the side. The rail level at the crossing is roads through the Pelletstown Development to the pushing cycle on if required. construction of locks to facilitate changes in level.2 above MSL at the crossing point. On the to the riding school are proposed to maintain junction Phoenix Park crossing the rail at a level of demolition of the existing cable stayed ground level at the canal is 39.5m OD with approximately 42.1m above MSL and the north of the canal. Separate 4m wide shared Closure of the existing crossings with no The topography is such that the northern approach (where southern side a separate pedestrian and access for non-motorised use these would approximately 55.4m above MSL before descending footbridge at the level crossing and the this road option lowered to a level of 32.0m canal at 39.3m above MSL with the bridge space cycle and pedestrian facilities to be Constraints on bridge crossing here include the train alternative provided. All traffic would be the ground falls away towards the Tolka River) would Leave the current level crossings in place. cyclist link and link to the riding school are have cross section of 4.0m. to tie into the level of the River Road at a level of station footbridge to provide space for the OD providing 3.7m clearance. Due to the level over the railway at 50.00m above MSL. provided both north of south of the canal linking station, the Royal Canal, the listed railway structures, and diverted to alternative routes around the necessarily be very steep and would also require significant proposed to maintain access for non- 34.7m above MSL. The road on the northern side proposed bridge. required levels for tying into the existing road The road level crests to a height of 52.0m from Ashtown Road to the proposed option. the canal bridge. Vehicular traffic will need to divert around crossing location. modifications to the recent village centre developments of motorised use these would have cross It is feasible to cross at this location, as it is would be at a gradient of approximately 6% over network the normal clearance envelope under above MSL, 60m south of the rail line before the crossing, the diversion being an estimated 4.3km. the area overground. section of 4.0m. upstream of the double lock on the canal and 300m. The proposed bridge would cross the rail and the railway would have to be reduced. descending over the rail and canal. The This option will have impacts on the residents of the canal is at the same approximate level as Canal at a level of approximately 50.0m This option would have the disadvantage that option can be walled or can be constructed Kempton Gardens. Furthermore, it would require The length of the approach on the northern side would be It is feasible to cross at this location, as it is the adjacent railway. This option would require This option also includes the construction of a new above MSL where the rail is at a level of it would not have the necessary design with open embankments to provide a softer the construction of a significant new junction on the approximately 220m(overbridge) and be at a maximum upstream of the double lock on the canal some property acquisition and modifications to tunnel under the rail line and canal at Ashtown to 44.8m above MSL and the canal at a level of clearance for double decker buses, other texture to the scheme. The provision of Navan Road. There would also be impacts on gradient of 8% and 140m on the southern side at a and the canal is at the same approximate existing accesses. It would pass hrough the provide pedestrian and cycle access (Option 4A). 39.4m above MSL. higher delivery vehicles and service vehicles landscaped embankments would result in a Martin Savage park home to St Oliver Plunket’s maximum gradient of 5%. The bridge over the rail line would level as the adjacent railway. This option grounds of the listed Ashton House. This option would drop to a level of approximately that use this route at present. As the option need for more land acquisition. GAA club to the south and would be located within be at an approximate level of 51.9m OD. would require some property acquisition 40.1m above MSL to tie in with the existing road to would be in a cutting form most of its length zoned housing development land within the and modifications to existing accesses. the north of the rail line providing a pedestrian and this would be a disadvantage to cyclists, There would also be impacts on Martin Ashtown - Pelletstown SDZ to the north of the rail cycling link north and south of the rail line with a 4m pedestrians and vulnerable road users. The Savage park home to St Oliver Plunket’s line and canal. wide cross section underpass would also require a pumped GAA club to the south and would be located drainage system. within zoned housing development land within The option can be walled or can be constructed the Ashtown - Pelletstown SDZ to the north with open embankments to provide a softer texture of the rail line and canal. to the scheme. The provision of landscaped embankments would result in a need for more land acquisition.

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

Construction of the bridge under the train This option is considered to be impracticable due to the station presents significant engineering direct impacts on the community immediately in the vicinity challenges. The station structure is supported Assessment of cost of of the level crossing. Additional pedestrian / cycle underbrdge required in Additional pedestrian / cycle overrbrdge on piles and the track is suupported on the Construction and construction of option, land This option requires a crossing of the canal The costs for this option include the fixed pedestrian and 1.1 Construction cost impacts are high due to Ashtown. Some realignment and improvement works required in Ashtown. Some realignment and ground. It is considered a section of the train Construction cost lowest of road bridge Land Cost costs, acquisition costs and The proposed signaling system will need and railway on skewand an extended road Construction costs higher than option 6 and cycle bridge over the canal and railway with associiated The cost and disruption of a scheme of this nature Cost of removing crossing is nominal in The multistorey complex to the north incorporates a direct impacts on canal and existing rail and required on River Road. A two or three span bridge improvement works required on River Road. station would need to be demolished and options but impact on zoned lands to the temporary works augmentation to accommodate the level crossing alignment through the listed Ashton House greater impact on lands north and south would ramps, turning facilities and set down facilitles and would be unsustainable and unjustifiable in comparison comparison to provision of road crossing. streetscape and extensive underground carpark. The impact more difficult construction. Land costs lower configuration is anticipated here requiring A two or three span bridge configuration is recnstructed to facilitate this option. This north and impact on sports facilities to the left in place property to facilitate a tie in to the north of the result in higher costs. associated land acquisition costs. There is no road bridge to other options available. It is proposed to discard this on these properties of a bridge over or under the than option to east into zoned lands. construction activity between the canal and the anticipated here requiring construction activity option also requires construction in rodk south would result in higher costs. canal and railway. associated with this option. option without further consideration. streetscape would be inordinately impactful. railway between the canal and the railway below canal level to provide a structure of substandard vertical clearance which would only cated for cars and small commercial vehicles

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

A fixed bridge will reduce maintenance Ongoing annual maintenance requirements over a level crossing or other Long Term The existing crossing is manned resulting in an A fixed bridge will reduce maintenance In droppng the railway adjacent to the canal a new 1.2 costs associated with varied A fixed bridge will reduce maintenance mechanical solution. Bridge option would A fixed bridge will reduce maintenance requirements An overbridge would increase the A pedestrian/cyclist overbridge would require minimal 1 Economy Maintenance costs ongoing annual cost. The closure of the level crossing would remove This option is characterised on the basis of fixed unmovable requirements over a level crossing or other There is additional costs for maintenance of a An overbridge would increase the maintenance drainage system will be needed which is likely to be options requirements over a level crossing or other determine overall maintenance costs. The over a level crossing or other mechanical solution. maintenance requirements over a level maintenance in short term with regular inspections and The level crossing equipment incurs an annual the maintenance requirement of the level structures and a robust structural interface with the mechanical solution. Bridge option would pumped drainage system associated with this requirements over a level crossing, though it would sealed and pumped. In addition the earth retaining mechanical solution. Bridge option would likely need for elevated approach ramps along Bridge option would determine overall maintenance crossing, though it would not be significantly remedial works in the long term. The long term maintenance cost and replacement cost on a 15yr crossing. multystorey structure to the north of the level crossing. determine overall maintenance costs, 2No. In option. not be significantly more so than other options structured required over the full length of the proposed determine overall maintenance costs. the northern approach to the bridge from the costs, 2No. In this case. more so than other options maintenance low compared to other options. cycle this case. cut will require maintenance level crossing results in an additional ongoing maintenance cost

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

Displacement of mobility impaired and cycle traffic onto Reduced capacity as train frequencies ramped alternative routes; increase in journey times for Some improvement in journey time; potential Benefits to vehicular traffic Reduced capacity as train frequencies increase; increase; increase in journey times for local Some improvement in journey time; potential for local residents. for induced trips. through reduction in journey increase in journey times for local residents. residents. induced trips. Journey Time deterioration - 14% on opening Traffic Functionality time lengths and delays through Improvement in journey times; potential for Improvement in journey times; potential for vs existing, 38% on opening vs replacement Improvement in journey times; potential for Removal of vehicular access over the level crossing 1.3 Improvement in journey times; potential for induced trips; Journey Time deterioration - 7% on opening Improvement in journey times; potential for induced Improvement in journey times; potential for induced /economic benefit removal of level crossings. Journey Time deterioration - 14% on opening vs Journey Time deterioration - 14% on opening induced trips; potential to increase induced trips; potential to increase congestion Journey Time deterioration - 7% on opening vs route induced trips; potential to increase congestion results in displaced flows - 867 vehicles AM peak hour and potential to increase congestion at Ashtown Roundabout as vs existing, 19% on opening vs replacement trips; potential to increase congestion on Navan trips; potential to increase congestion at Ashtown Consideration of potentially existing, 38% on opening vs replacement route vs existing, 38% on opening vs replacement congestion at Ashtown Roundabout as a at Ashtown Roundabout as a result of induced existing, 19% on opening vs replacement route on surrounding road network as a result of 705 vehicles PM peak hour. a result of induced traffic route Road at proposed new junction. Roundabout as a result of induced traffic. longer routes for traffic. route result of induced traffic. traffic. Traffic diversions in the peak hour - 867 No. induced traffic. Traffic diversions in the peak hour - 867 No. 4.5km Traffic diversions in the peak hour - 867 No. 2.1km 4.5km minimum Additional traffic delay will result along adjacent access Traffic diversions in the peak hour - 867 No. minimum Traffic diversions in the peak hour - 867 No. minimum routes - 18% AM peak hour and 12% PM peak hour. 2.1km minimum 4.5km minimum Benchmark journey times will increase by up to 38%,

Some comparative disadvantage over other Significant comparative disadvantage over Significant comparative advantage over Some comparative advantage over other Some comparative advantage over other Some comparative disadvantage over Some comparative disadvantage over Some comparative disadvantage over other Significant comparative disadvantage over other Some comparative disadvantage over other Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Impact on scope for and ease options other options other options options options other options other options options options options of interchange between modes. Impact on the operation of other transport services both during construction and in Improved interchange between modes, Improved interchange between modes, subject to satisfactory access to train station Improved interchange between modes, subject to operation. New interchange Improved interchange between modes, Improved interchange between modes, subject to Improved interchange between modes, Improved interchange between modes, subject to satisfactory access to train station platforms. General reduction in journey times. satisfactory access to train station platforms. General reduction in journey times. Disimproved 2.1 Transport Integration nodes and facilities; Reduced GDA Cycle Network Plan cannot be realised with Inconsistent with GDA Cycle Network Plan - subject to satisfactory access to train satisfactory access to train station platforms. subject to satisfactory access to train station subject to satisfactory access to train station platforms. General reduction in journey times. There may be severance to existing General reduction in journey times. There may be interchange between modes - Ramp/steps and/or walking and wait times such poor connectivity. Increased delays on bus which shows a secondary route on Ashtown General reduction in journey times. Cycle tand pedestrian station platforms. General reduction in General reduction in journey times. Bus services platforms. General reduction in journey times. This option reduces the scope for interaction between platforms. General reduction in journey times. Bus services may be impacted as a result of connectivity on the northern side of the canal severance to existing connectivity on the northern elevator required for access to platforms. Not explicitly associated with interchanges. routes. Reduced access to train station and car Road; Disruption to bus routes; Slight reduction routes provided. journey times. The route is largely on the may be impacted as a result of the proposed Bus services may be impacted as a result of modes of transport in comparison to all other options The route is largely on the desire line of headroom restrictions on the proposed route. and railway as a result of the construction of side of the canal and railway as a result of the stated if cycle track is provided on new bridge, but tie- Modal shift figures during park. in accessibility of train station. desire line of transport customers. Cycle diversion along the narrow River Road. Cycle track the proposed diversion along the narrow River transport customers. Cycle track provided Slightly more circuitous route for pedestrians the required approach ramps. Slightly more construction of the required approach ramps. in with existing bridge would suggest not. construction and operations. track provided provided Road. Cycle track provided. Changes to journey times to & cyclists. Cycle track provided. circuitous route for pedestrians & cyclists. Cycle track provided transport nodes. Cycle track provided.

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

Option 5 (is similar to 6 and 7), located At local level, the majority Option 4 is located entirely within the DCDP area. This option is Overbridge on Mill Lane: At local planning At local level, the majority Option 4 is located within within lands zoned by Fingal DP as “High located on lands zoned Z11 'canal, coastal Option 6 (is similar to 5 and 7) located policy level, Option 3 is similar to Option 2, lands zoned by Fingal DP as “High Amenity”. The Amenity”. The route travels close to the however its entire extent is located within the and river amenities' associated with the royal entirely within the DCDP area. This option is Option 7 (is similar to 5 and 6) and is located route travels close to the boundary of the existing boundary of the existing Coolmine Rugby Club canal and travels along the north edge of the located on lands zoned Z11 'canal, coastal entirely within the DCDP area. This option is FDP area only: relevant zoning includes “High Coolmine Rugby Club and could support Fingal DP and could support Fingal DP local map- (Z9 zoned) existing Martin Savage Park (GAA and river amenities' associated with the royal located on lands zoned Z11 'canal, coastal and Technology’ (to the south of the Canal). This local map-based Specific Objective 136 “Facilitate based Specific Objective 136 “Facilitate Underbridge online option on mill lane: At route travels along the eastern boundary of a pitch). North of the Canal it travels through canal and travels along the north edge of the river amenities' associated with the royal canal local planning policy level, a small section of pedestrian access from Coolmine Rugby Club pedestrian access from Coolmine Rugby Club At local planning policy level, this option would large area of land zoned ‘High Amenity’ (north currently a greenfield site, zoned for existing Martin Savage Park (GAA pitch) (Z9 and travels through Zoned Z9 (associated with this option is located on DCC (DP) lands grounds over the Canal adjacent to the Phoenix Park grounds over the Canal adjacent to the not significanly impact on either the Fingal DP of the canal). The introduction of a new residential use in the Pelletstown Action Area zoned - recreational, amenity and open Amenity,Open Space, Green Network) associate The Ashtown – Pelletstown LAP 2014 has defined the area close to Ashtown Station, zoned Z11 and Railway Station”. However, the introduction of a new Phoenix Park Railway Station” However, the Impact on land use strategies or DCC planning policies/objectives. However, overbridge in a High Amenity area would not Plan 2014. This option goes against the LAP space). North of the Canal it travels through with the existing Martin Savage Park (GAA pitch). north of the level crossing as "village node" which is an also contains the conservation area of the road infrastructure in 'High Amenity' zoned land introduction of a new road infrastructure in Option 8 is located entirely within the DCDP area. Option and regional and local plans. The retention of the level crossing in it's current closure of the level crossing with no cycle or work towards 'Objective NH51 (FCDP) residential zoning however, subject to traffic currently a greenfield site, zoned for North of the Canal it travels through currently a established mixed use local retail and commercial space. Royal Canal. The remainder of this option is would go against Objective NH51 (FCDP) “Protect 'High Amenity' zoned land would go against 8 is located within lands zoned for Z9 (Amenity,Open Assessment of support for land form would not support the delivery of a vehicular alternatives provided will negatively “Protect High Amenity areas from and design studies it may support the overall residential use in the Pelletstown Action Area greenfield site, zoned residential in the Pelletstown The area has a high quality public realm and community located in FDP area: relevant zoning High Amenity areas from inappropriate development Objective NH51 (FCDP) “Protect High Space, Green Network) and Z11 (canal, coastal and river 2.2 Land Use Integration use factors local land use and sustainable public transport system for a growing impact connectivity in the area and all modes of inappropriate development and reinforce future land use and transport planning Plan 2014 . This option goes against the LAP Action Area Plan 2014. function. The introduction of an overbridge option and raised includes “High Technology’ (to the south of and reinforce their character, distinctiveness and Amenity areas from inappropriate amenities) associated with the Royal Canal. Option 8 Upgrades the Irish Rail's railway infrastructure. No planning. Inclusion of project in population. Do-Nothing would not bring forward transport. No alternatives access is likely to their character, distinctiveness and sense of integration. residential zoning. roadway along Ashtown Road would result in significant the Canal) and travel north of the canal into sense of place”. development and reinforce their character, provdes walking and cycling access only which would direct impacts to planning policy/ zoned lands. 2 Integration relevant local planning objectives regaerding supporting the DART impact on existing and future planning & place” . planning/development, landscape impacts, community the start of a large area of land zoned ‘High distinctiveness and sense of place”. impact vehicular connectivity to existing and future documents. Expansion contained in Dublin MASP, FDP and transport development which is due to take severance and connectivity issues that would negatively Amenity’. This option is within close developments . The GDATS includes an objective to DCC . place in the area. (e.g. lands associated with impact on the function of this core retail area. These proximity to the future Navan Road enhance linkages to planned developments. Navan Road Parkway LAP and the Ashtown – However, for the most part this option follows However, in terms of future land use factors. Option However, in terms of future land use factors. Option 5 is at some disadvantage due to the Option 6 is at some advantage (over option This option would go against the LAP. Option 7 is changes would also influence future land use factors. Parkway LAP (map based objective: LAP Pelletstown LAP 2014. (subject to details of existing road networks which woudl reduce 4 could create a direct link into map based objective Option 4 could create a direct link into map impact on the functionality of the GAA/ 7) as it will have less of an impact on the more disadvantageous than 5 and 6 due to impact 13.B) and is likely to support overall land these plans and traffic studies). the overal impact on those lands. The option (LAP13.B - Navan Road Parkway Local Area Plan) based objective (LAP13.B - Navan Road amenity lands however it is still at a functionality of the GAA/ amenity lands on the continued functionality of the GAA/ amenity use and transport planning integration. travels east of the future Navan Road and also linking into LAP13.C. Option 4a section Parkway Local Area Plan) and also linking disadvantage due to the negative effects on however it will also have a disadvantage due lands, larger area of zoned residential land Subject to further deisgn and traffic data. Parkway LAP (map based objective: LAP would result in a direct pedestrian and cycle access into LAP13.C. Option 4b section would result zoned residential land. (even though it is less on future zoned residential land. impacted and impacts to residential amenity. 13.B) which would be linked by vehicular, from the station into the "The Village Centre" via a in a direct pedestrian and cycle access from than options 6 and 7). On the north side of pedestrian and cycle access. This option is new tunnel structure. This has some comparative the station into residential zoned lands the canal, Option 5 is routed through a On the north side of the canal, Option 6 is On the north side of the canal, Option 6 is routed likely to work towards overall land use and disadvantage due to the impact on zoned high associated with Ashtown – Pelletstown LAP permitted residential development (DCC Ref. routed through a permitted residential through a permitted residential development transport planning integration in this local area. amenity lands. 2014. This has some comparative 3666/15, ABP ref. PL29N.246373). This development (DCC Ref. 3666/15, ABP ref. (DCC Ref. 3666/15, ABP ref. PL29N.246373). Subject to further deisgn and traffic data. disadvantage due to the impact on zoned high option is likely to have an impact on this PL29N.246373). This option will impact on this permitted amenity lands. development. development.

Alternative level crossing Comparable to other options Comparable to other options Comparable to other options Comparable to other options Comparable to other options Comparable to other options Comparable to other options Comparable to other options Comparable to other options Comparable to other options Comparable to other options Comparable to other options options are mostly neutral in Geographical 2.3 respect of Geographical Integration No significant effect on geographical No significant effect on geographical No significant effect on geographical No significant effect on geographical No significant effect on geographical Integration due to localised No significant effect on geographical integration. No significant effect on geographical integration. No significant effect on geographical integration. No significant effect on geographical integration. No significant effect on geographical integration. No significant effect on geographical integration. No significant effect on geographical integration. integration. integration. integration. integration. integration. nature of the level crossings.

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

Closing the level crossing would support national and regional planning policy and Integration with the other This option supports government policies relating to DART Other Government sustainable mobility (NS04 of the NPF) with This option supports the delivery of the This option supports the delivery of the higher level 2.4 Government policy such as the This option would not support the delivery of the Expansion programme. However, likely significant impacts This option supports the delivery of the higher This option supports the delivery of the higher level This option supports the delivery of the higher This option supports the delivery of the higher This option supports the delivery of the higher This option supports the delivery of the higher level This option supports the delivery of the higher level Policy Integration regards to the delivery of the DART Maynooth: higher level national and regional planning national and regional planning policies regarding the NPF and RSES. higher level national and regional planning policies due to overbridge option along Ashtown Road particlarly level national and regional planning policies national and regional planning policies regarding the level national and regional planning policies level national and regional planning policies level national and regional planning policies national and regional planning policies regarding national and regional planning policies regarding the DART Expansion Programme however the provision of policies regarding the DART Expansion DART Expansion programme (NPF, RSES, GDA regarding the DART Expansion programme (NPF- regarding landscape, access issues, integeration affecting regarding the DART Expansion programme DART Expansion programme (NPF, RSES, GDA regarding the DART Expansion programme regarding the DART Expansion programme regarding the DART Expansion programme the DART Expansion programme (NPF, RSES, Expansion programme (NPF, RSES, GDA Transport no alternatives for cyclists and vehicuilar traffic programme (NPF, RSES, GDA Transport Transport Strategy). No cycling infrastructure (NS04), RSES & GDA Transport Strategy). social & economic development of Rathborne/Ashtown core (NPF, RSES, GDA Transport Strategy). Transport Strategy). (NPF, RSES, GDA Transport Strategy). (NPF, RSES, GDA Transport Strategy). (NPF, RSES, GDA Transport Strategy). GDA Transport Strategy). Strategy). would lead to impacts on Smarter Travel policy, Strategy). provided. village area. GDA Transporrt Strategy and other modes of transport.

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

Estimated number of sensitive properties within 100m of the works. Options closer to more For the overbridge option the elevated rood way will result in Moves traffic to rear of apt block from Moves traffic to rear of apt block from current Moves traffic to rear of apt block from current Moves traffic to rear of apt block from current significant elevated structures which is likely to increase current road layout. This option will road layout. This option will introduce road layout. This option will introduce road layout. This option will introduce The construction stage impacts of this option are sensitive locations will have an Operational traffic impacts only affects 2 noise levels at local receptors and require noise mitigation introduce additional noise to the rear additional noise to the rear apartments while Operational traffic impacts only affects 2 dwellings. additional noise to the rear apartments while additional noise to the rear apartments while potentially significant on a greater number of properties increased risk of generating a dwellings. Pedestrian crossing will have Moves traffic to new route away from current Pedestrian crossing will have impacts during construction. 3.1 Noise and Vibration measures along it's extent/ as it would run directly in front of apartments while also decreasing road also decreasing road traffic noise levels to the Pedestrian crossing will have impacts during also decreasing road traffic noise levels to the also decreasing road traffic noise levels to due to the 2km extent either side. Operational noise noise impact. However, Retains vehicular traffic which will impact a low Removes vehicular traffic and minimal impacts during construction. 148 dwellings route and therefore introduces traffic - related 147 dwellings within 100m of both vehicular route and a number of mixed-use multi-storey buildings in the core traffic noise levels to the apartments apartments currently facing the front of the construction. 130 dwellings within 100m of both apartments currently facing the front of the the apartments currently facing the front of impacts are not expected to change compared to the qualative criteria are also used number of sensitive receptors in proximity. construction impacts. within 100m of both vehicular route and impacts on other properties. 316 properties within pedestrian crossing. Traffic is removed in during the village area along Ashtown Road. The construction phase currently facing the front of the apartment apartment block. Construction phase of this vehicular route and pedestrian crossing. 2 apartment block. Construction phase is the apartment block. Construction phase is Do Nothing scenario. where necessary to pedestrian crossing. 2 properties within 100m. operational phase. noise and vibration impacts would also be significant. The block. Construction phase of this option will option will be less siignificant than Option 2 properties within 100m of the vehicular route. potentially more significant than Option 6 due potentially less significant than Option 5 due differentiate between the 100m of the vehicular route. options. noise environment has the potential to change for the 199 be more significant due to the excavation due to less excavation required. 150 dwellings to greater excavation required. 119 dwellings to lesser excavation required. 220 dwellings properties located within 100m. required. 198 properties within 100m. within 100m. within 100m. within 100m.

Page 1 FOR WEB VIEWING ONLY

DART+ WEST - MCA Stage 1 Ashtown Level Crossing Assessment

Sub-Criteria (Quantitative/ Parameter Criteria Do Nothing Do Minimum Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 & 4a Option 4 & 4b Option 5 Option 6 Option 7 Option 8 Option 9 Qualitative)

Some comparative disadvantage over other Significant comparative advantage over Some comparative disadvantage over Some comparative disadvantage over Some comparative advantage over other Some comparative disadvantage over Some comparative disadvantage over Some comparative disadvantage over other Significant comparative disadvantage over other Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options options other options other options other options options other options other options options options Estimated number of number of receptors within 50m reviewed as part of appriasal. Options Pedestrian crossing will have impacts during closer to more sensitive Online options is similar to the current scenario however due Pedestrian crossing will have impacts during Moves traffic to rear of apt block from construction. 31 dwellings within 50m of Moves traffic to new route away from current Pedestrian crossing will have impacts during construction. Air Quality and locations will have an increased to the elevated nature of the structure air impacts would be construction. 47 dwellings within 50m of pedestrian Moves traffic to new route away from current current road layout. 130 dwellings within Pedestrian crossing will have impacts during pedestrian crossing. Pedestrian crossing will route and therefore impacts on properties. 91 30 dwellings within 50m of pedestrian crossing with only The construction stage impacts of this option are Climate risk of changes in air quality located closer to sensitive receptors particularly in the core crossing. Pedestrian crossing will have impacts 22 dwellingswithin 50m. Moves traffic to rear route and therefore impacts on properties. 85 100 3.2 50m where traffic has been moved from construction. 52 dwellings within 50m of both have impacts during construction. Only 1 dwellings within 50m. This option also brings construction phase impacts. Potential for construction potentially significant on a greater number of properties during construction or Removes vehicular traffic and minimal village area at the multi-storey buildings in Ashtown mixed during construction. Only 1 property within 50m of of apt block from current road layout. properties within 50m. Additional road Retains vehicular traffic with which will impact a low front to back. Embodied carbon for new vehicular route and pedestrian crossing. property within 50m of the vehicular route of additional traffic to proximity of a school phase dust impact is not significant when mitigation due to the 2km extent either side. The construction operational phases. However, construction phase. No assessemtn of traffi use area. However no new senstive receptors impacted. the vehicular route of operational traffic. Two Potential for construction phase dust impact is infrastructure would increase embodied carbon for number of sensitive receptors in proximity. bridge. Potential for construction phase dust impact is operational traffic. Two separate bridges will (highly sensitive receptor). Potential for measures are put in place.Traffic is diverted onto the local phase is also likely to have a great embodided energy. qualative criteria are also used redistribution has been completed This option does not reduce the number of senstive separate bridges will increase embodied carbon for not significant when mitigation measures are this option. Potential for construction phase dust Potential for construction phase dust impact not significant when mitigation measures are increase embodied carbon for this option. construction phase dust impact is not road network during the operational phase. Traffic Potential for construction phase dust impact is not where necessary to receptors within 50m of the route - 112 dwellings within this option. Potential for construction phase dust put in place. impact is not significant when mitigation measures is not significant when mitigation measures put in place. Potential for construction phase dust impact is significant when mitigation measures are put requires rerouting a significant distance however traffic significant when mitigation measures are put in place. differentiate between the 50m. Potential for construction phase dust impacts impact is not significant when mitigation measures are put in place. are put in place. not significant when mitigation measures are in place. redisribution has not been considered. options. particularly at Ashtown village core. are put in place. put in place.

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

Alignment will a very significant impact on the Alignment will have a very significant impact on the landscape character and structure, trees and landscape character and structure, trees and woodlands of lands between Ashtown Lodge woodlands of lands between Ashtown Lodge (and Option cuts through a permitted residential Option will have a significant impact on (and its associated lodge) and Coolmine its associated lodge) and Coolmine Rugby Club. development on north side of canal - with very boundary trees/hedgerows along the railway / Rugby Club. Alignment will impact existing Alignment will impact existing landscape character of significant implications for the permitted layout canal corridor (a conservation area in the Online overbridge option is likely to have a significant landscape character of River Road and lands Option will have a very significant impact on Option will have a very significant impact on River Road and lands north to the Tolka River. The (DCC Ref. 3666/15, ABP ref. Dublin City Development Plan). negative impact on landscape and visual amenity and public north to the Tolka River. The majority of the Option will have a significant visual impact along boundary trees/woodlands, entrance gates boundary trees/woodlands, entrance gates majority of the lands are laid out in mature parkland PL29N.246373). Option will have a significant Option will have a very significant impact on Key landscape characteristics realm of Rathborne Village Centre and along the extent of lands are laid out in mature parkland with the canal corridor and for users of the canal (a and lodge at Ashton (Ashtown) House, a and lodge at Ashton (Ashtown) House, a with trees, walks and boundary woodland - all of impact on boundary trees/hedgerows along open space and Oliver Plunket's GAA affected; Impact on landscape Ashtown Road. trees, walks, and boundary woodland - all of conservation area in the Dublin City Development protected structure (No. 690). protected structure (No. 690). which will be impacted by the alignment. The lands the railway / canal corridor (a conservation club/pitches at Martin Savage Park. character; Impacts on Significant visual impact on the architectural heritage setting which will be impacted by the alignment. The Plan). Lands of Ashton House and the corridor of Lands of Ashton House and the corridor of the and the corridor of the Royal Canal are zoned High area in the Dublin City Development Plan). Options would have a very significant impact The bridge overswings the canal in a visually incongruous landscape features, protected of 10th Lock on Royal Canal and thus impacts on the lands and the corridor of the Royal Canal are Option will have a very significant impact on open the Royal Canal west of Longford Bridge Royal Canal west of Longford Bridge are Amenity and identified as a Nature Development Option will have a significant impact on open on mature tree-lined hedgerow and linear manner. Royal canal corridor is identied as a conservation Landscape and Visual landscapes. achievemnet of Objective CH43 of Fingal Development Plan. zoned High Amenity and identified as a Nature space and sports pitches at Martin Savage Park. Signficant loss of trees and vegetation along canal and 3.3 Minimal impact on existing landscape or visual are zoned High Amenity and identified as a zoned High Amenity and identified as a Nature Area in the Fingal Development Plan. Tree and space at Martin Savage Park, including on open space between the established area in the Dublin City Development Plan. Lands south of (including light) Key visual characteristics No impact on existing landscape or visual Significant impact due to removal of roadside tree-lined Development Area in the Fingal Development Option will have very significant visual impact for railway corridor. Visual impact for properties along characteristics - no likely significant landscape Nature Development Area in the Fingal Development Area in the Fingal Development Woodland preservation objectives in Fingal Oliver Plunket's GAA pitches. Option will have residential developments of Kempton Green the canal are zoned open space (Z9) for the protection, affected; Impacts on characteristics. hedgerows leading to railway - significant visual impact for Plan. Tree and Woodland preservation properties at the north end of Martin Savage Open lowered railway / works areas. or visual impacts. Loss of local connectivity. Development Plan. Very significant visual Plan. Very significant visual impact for setting Development Plan apply to the lands. Tunnel will very significant visual impact for properties at and Ashbrook. NOTE: Option cuts through a provision and improvement of recreational amenity, open properties, amenities, protected properties in Martin Savage Park and for Ashtown Stables. objectives in Fingal Development Plan apply Space. Note: Option cuts through a permitted impact for setting of 10th Lock on Royal of 10th Lock on Royal Canal. Significant have a significant impact on boundary the north end of Martin Savage Park and for permitted residential development on north space and green networks. views, key views. [Objective CH43 Protect and enhance the built and natural to the lands. Pedestrian/cycle bridge will have residential development on north side of canal - Canal. Significant impact due to removal of impact due to removal of roadside tree-lined trees/woodlands, entrance gates and setting of users of the Royal Canal. NOTE: Further side of canal - with very significant heritage of the Royal Canal and ensure that development a significant impact on trees/hedgerows along with very significant implications for the permitted roadside tree-lined hedgerows leading to hedgerows leading to railway - significant lodge at Ashton (Ashtown) House, a protected design detail provided for full assessment of implications for the permitted layout (DCC within its vicinity is sensitively designed and does not have a the royal canal and on open space north of layout (DCC Ref. 3666/15, ABP ref. railway - significant impact for Ashtown impact for Ashtown Stables. Further design structure (No. 690). Lands of Ashton House and the likely impact. Note: Option cuts through a Ref. 3666/15, ABP ref. PL29N.246373 - detrimental effect on the character of the Canal, its built Martin Savage Park. The bridge overswings PL29N.246373 - Active planning application Stables. Further detail required to for full detail requried for further detailed corridor of the Royal Canal west of Longford Bridge permitted residential development on north Active planning application 2596/20) elements and its natural heritage values and that it adheres the canal in a visually incongruous manner. 2596/20). assessment of likely significant impacts. assessment. are zoned High Amenity and identified as a Nature side of canal - with very significant Option will have very significant visual impact to the Waterways Irelands Heritage Plan 2016-2020.) Royal canal corridor is a conservation area in Development Area in the Fingal Development Plan. implications for the permitted layout (DCC for properties at Ashbrook, Kempton Green, the Dublin City Development Plan. Lands Side slopes (if proposed) would have significant Ref. 3666/15, ABP ref. PL29N.246373 - and for users of Martin Savage Open Space south of the canal are zoned open space (Z9) impact due to removal of roadside tree-lined Active planning application 2596/20) and the Royal Canal. for the protection, provision and improvement hedgerows leading to railway - significant impact for of recreational amenity, open space and Ashtown Stables. green networks.

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

This option is hydrologically connected to European sites This option is hydrologically connected to European downstream in the Tolka Estuary and Dublin Bay. There is sites downstream in the Tolka Estuary and Dublin Bay. This option is hydrologically connected to European sites no risk of Likely Significant Effects to this or any other There is no risk of Likely Significant Effects to this or This option is hydrologically connected to This option is hydrologically connected to This option is hydrologically connected to This option is hydrologically connected to This option is hydrologically connected to This option is hydrologically connected to Potential compliance/conflict downstream in the Tolka Estuary and Dublin Bay. There is European site. There is potential for construction and any other European site. There is potential for European sites downstream in the Tolka European sites downstream in the Tolka This option is hydrologically connected to European European sites downstream in the Tolka European sites downstream in the Tolka European sites downstream in the Tolka European sites downstream in the Tolka Estuary with biodiversity objectives; no risk of Likely Significant Effects to this or any other operational stage impacts to Royal Canal pNHA arising construction and operational stage impacts to Royal Estuary and Dublin Bay. There is no risk of Estuary and Dublin Bay. There is no risk of sites downstream in the Tolka Estuary and Dublin Estuary and Dublin Bay. There is no risk of Estuary and Dublin Bay. There is potential for Estuary and Dublin Bay. There is potential and Dublin Bay. There is potential for impacts to 3 Environment Biodiversity (flora and Indirect impacts on protected European site. There is potential for impacts to Royal Canal from noise and artificial lighting. During the construction Canal pNHA arising from noise and artificial lighting. 3.4 Likely Significant Effects to this or any other Likely Significant Effects to this or any other Bay. There is no risk of Likely Significant Effects to Likely Significant Effects to this or any other impacts to Royal Canal pNHA arising from for impacts to Royal Canal pNHA arising from Royal Canal pNHA arising from noise, artifical fauna) species, designated sites; pNHA arising from noise, artifical lighting and impacts to stages water quality in the canal could be significantly During the construction stages water quality in the European site. There is potential for European site. There is potential for impacts this or any other European site. There is potential European site. There is potential for impacts noise, artifical lighting and impacts to water noise, artifical lighting and impacts to water lighting and impacts to water quality during Overall effect on nature No direct impacts. No direct impacts. water quality during construction. As the new structure over impacted during the dewatering required for the canal could be significantly impacted during the impacts to Royal Canal pNHA arising from to Royal Canal pNHA arising from noise, for impacts to Royal Canal pNHA arising from noise, to Royal Canal pNHA arising from noise, quality during construction. Disturbance to quality during construction. Permanent loss of construction. Permanent loss of habitat and conservation resource. the railway and canal is aligned with the existing crossing channelisation and realignment and lowering of the canal in dewatering required for the channelisation and noise, artifical lighting and impacts to water artifical lighting and impacts to water quality artifical lighting and impacts to water quality during artifical lighting and impacts to water quality Light-bellied Brent Goose (Qualifying Interest habitat and disturbance to Light-bellied Brent disturbance to Light-bellied Brent Goose there will be minimal habitat loss and less impact on the addition to the demolition of the canal bridge and locks. realignment and lowering of the canal in addition to the quality during construction. Demolition of during construction. Demolition of old Mill lane construction. Loss of woodland, marsh, treeline and during construction. Loss of woodland, of SPAs) which are known to forage in Goose (Qualifying Interest of SPAs) which (Qualifying Interests of SPAs) which are known to overall integrity of the pNHA. Works within the canal could impact fish and native white- demolition of the canal bridge and locks. Works within old Mill lane buildings may impact bats buildings may impact bats. Loss of woodland hedgerow habitat is anticipated. marsh, treeline and hedgerow habitat is significant numbers at Ashtown Playing are known forage in significant numbers at forage in significant numbers at Ashtown Playing clawed crayfish which will have to be taken from the water the canal could impact fish and native white-clawed further studies would be required. habitat is anticipated. anticipated. Pitches. Habitat loss. Ashtown Playing Pitches. Pitches. in advane of the works. Demolition works could also crayfish which will have to be taken from the water in disturb and displace fauna. advane of the works. Demolition works could also disturb and displace fauna.

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

Overall effect on cultural, Direct impacts on River Tolka and former demesne archaeological and architecture Direct impacts on gate lodge, entrance and Direct impacts on gate lodge, entrance and landscapes associated with Ashbrook (RPS No. heritage resource. Likely demesne associated with Ashton House demesne associated with Ashtown House 941) & Ashtown Lodge. Direct impacts on entrance Direct impacts on River Tolka and former (RPS 0690). Indirect impacts on mill and (RPS No. 0690). Indirect impacts on mill and and demesne associated with Ashton House (RPS demesne landscapes associated with effects on RPS, National Indirect impacts on Longford Bridge (RPS No. Potential for indirect impacts to Longford Bridge (RPS No. Cultural, outbuildings (RPS 691) and Pelletstown outbuildings (RPS No. 691) and Pelletstown 690). Indirect impacts on mill and outbuildings (RPS Ashbrook (RPS No. 941) & Ashtown Lodge. Monuments, SMRs, Potential for indirect impacts on the Royal Potential for indirect impacts on the Royal 693). Potential for indirect impacts to the Royal 693), the Royal Canal (RPS No. 944a) and the Royal 3.5 Archaeological and Indirect impacts on Longford Bridge (RPS No. 693). House (structure of architectural merit). . House (structure of architectural merit). 691) and Pelletstown House (structure of Potential for indirect impacts on the Royal Conservation areas, etc. Canal (RPS No. 944a). Potential to Canal (RPS No. 944a). Potential to encounter Canal (RPS No. 944a) and setting of protected Canal 10th Lock (RPS No. 944b). Potential to encounter Potential direct impacts on Royal Canal (RPS No. Architectural Heritage No direct impacts. No direct impacts. Potential for indirect impacts to the Royal Canal (RPS No. Potential indirect impacts on Royal Canal Potential indirect impacts on Royal Canal architectural merit). Potential indirect impacts on Canal (RPS No. 944a). Potential to enocunter Number of designated encounter archaeological deposits that may archaeological deposits that may survive structures in the area. Potential to encounter archaeological deposits that may survive within 944a) and the Royal Canal 10th Lock (RPS No. 944b). 944a) and setting of protected structures in the area. (RPS No. 944a) and the Royal Canal 10th (RPS No. 944a) and the Royal Canal 10th Royal Canal (RPS No. 944a) and the Royal Canal on archaeological deposits that may survive in sites/structures (by level of survive within undeveloped areas. within undeveloped areas. archaeological deposits that may survive within undeveloped areas. Lock (RPS No. 944b). Potential to Lock (RPS No. 944b). Potential to encounter 10th Lock (RPS No. 944b). Potential to encounter undeveloped areas. designation) directly impacted undeveloped areas. by scheme (landtake) encounter archaeological deposits that may archaeological deposits that may survive in archaeological deposits that may survive in survive in undeveloped areas and path of undeveloped areas and path of former road undeveloped areas. former road way. way.

Some comparative advantage over other Significant comparative advantage over Some comparative disadvantage over Some comparative advantage over other Significant comparative disadvantage over other Some comparative disadvantage over Some comparative disadvantage over Some comparative advantage over other Some comparative advantage over other Significant comparative disadvantage over other Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options options other options other options options options other options other options options options options The in-stream works required constitute a flood hazard Crossing of Tolka is within floodplain creating Crossing of Tolka is within floodplain creating and is significantly disadvantageous compared to the Overall potential significant potential increase in flood risk to neighbouring lands. potential increase in flood risk to neighbouring Construction works for this option are adjacent to the other options. The construction works within the Royal Water Resources effects on water resource This option has the potential to impact on Creates potential pathway for pollutants to Tolka lands. This option has the potential to impact on Royal Canal and has the potential for minor impact on This Option will have neutral impacts on thw water Removes vehicular traffic born pollutants and Underpass excavations pose potential risk Underpass excavations pose potential risk to This option has the potential to impact on water Canal proposed as part of Option 9 is likely to have a 3.6 attributes likely to be affected This option has the potential to impact on water quality of water quality of the Royal Canal during the River resulting on negative impacts to Water Quality. Creates potential pathway for pollutants to water quality of the Royal Canal during the surface water quality during construction. This option resources as there will be no changes to the minimal construction phase. The Do Minimum to Groundwater quality. Groundwater quality. quality of the Royal Canal during the construction significant negative impact on Surface water quality. during construction and the Royal Canal during the construction phase of the construction phase of the overbridge. Has Underpass excavations also pose potential risk to Tolka River resulting on negative impacts to construction phase of the overbridge. Has however, removes vehicular traffic born pollutants and receiving environment. Has some comparative Option has a significant comparative advantage Has some comparative disadvantage over Has some comparative disadvantage over phase of the overbridge. Has some comparative Excavations required for lowering of the railway vertical operation. overbridge. some comparative advantage over other Groundwater quality. Water Quality. some comparative advantage over other minimal construction phase. advantage over other options. compared to other options overall. other options. other options. advantage over other options. alignment also pose potential risk to Groundwater options. Options 4a is disadvantageous across all sub- options. quality. Option is disadvantageous across all water sub- criteria and has a significant comparative Options 4b has some comparative criteria and has a significant comparative disadvantage over other options. disadvantage over other options. disadvantage. Significant comparative advantage over other Significant comparative advantage over Significant comparative disadvantage Significant comparative disadvantage over Significant comparative disadvantage over other Some comparative advantage over other Some comparative advantage over other Some comparative disadvantage over Significant comparative disadvantage over Some comparative disadvantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options options other options over other options other options options options options other options other options Overall impact on land take & Option 9 will involve direct non-agricultural impacts on property. Number of properties The non-agricultural impact will involve the The non-agricultural impact will involve the The non-agricultural impact will involve the the existing Ashtown train station which is proposed to Agriculture and Non- Direct impacts on non-agricultural property Direct impact on green area between Option 6 will have direct impacts on amenity 3.7 to be impacted/acquired. Likely Option 1 would have direct and indirect impacts on the acquisition of one residential property and a acquisition of one residential property and a acquisition of one residential property and a Option 7 will have direct impacts on amenity lands be demolished and then reconstructed. The remaining Agricultural include impacts to property curtilage (garden) Ashtown railway station and Martin Savage lands with a significant impact on the use of Option 8 will have a direct impact on a green area temporary or permanent No direct impacts. No direct impacts. equine holding. Other areas could also be impacted subject commercial property. The agricultural commercial property. The agricultural impact commercial property. The agricultural impact will with a significant effect on the use of two sports works will occur within the confines of existing railway and community / amenity lands. Minor direct Park and development lands north of the one sports pitch (St. Oliver Plunkett GAA between Ashtown railway station and Martin Savage Park. severance effects, etc. to detailed design. impact will have a profound impact on an will have a profound impact on an equine have a profound impact on an equine holding pitches (St. Oliver Plunkett GAA club). corridor therefore no significant impacts. impact on agricultural property. canal. club). equine holding (Ashtown Riding Stables). holding (Ashtown Riding Stables). (Ashtown Riding Stables).

Significant comparative advantage over other Significant comparative advantage over Some comparative disadvantage over Some comparative advantage over other Some comparative advantage over other Some comparative advantage over other Some comparative disadvantage over Some comparative disadvantage over other Significant comparative disadvantage over other Soils and Geology and likely Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options impact on geological resources options other options other options options options options other options options options based on preliminary/likely construction details. Soil or Underbridge option means that some topsoil resources to be materials may arise, which could possibly Although overbridge and approach roads construction Overbridge options require fill import to the site for Geology and Soils developed/removed. Existing be suitable for reuse elsewhere on the Chance of additional earthworks requirements on requires less fill import to the site, the arisings from the construction over existing roadway (Minor negative). Some made ground on-site (requires walkover (including Waste) information relating to potential project (Minor positive). This is balanced by approach to river to the north (Minor negative) but Chance of additional earthworks requirements Some made ground on-site (requires railway lowering are much more likely to include ground 3.8 Potential for ground contamination is considered low, subject survey / investigation). Overbridge options require Chance of additional earthworks requirements on to encounter contaminated land. an associated impact of interfering with the Overbridge options require increased fill has not been observed (walkover survey / on approach to river to the north (Minor Overbridge options require increased fill walkover survey / investigation). Overbridge contamination (considered medium to high risk, subject No direct impacts No direct impacts to further investigation. No pits or quarries are present. increased fill import to the site (Minor negative). approach to river to the north (Minor negative) walkover High-level assessment based canal and existing railway, which may import to the site (Minor negative). investigation required) and is possibly unlikely based negative) but has not been observed import to the site (Minor negative). options require increased fill import to the site to further investigation). No pits or quarries are Comparative advantage is considered as construction is This option appears to have the highest survey / investigation required. on the likely structures/ works require specific materials be imported. on available mapping. Option 4A footbridge has (walkover survey / investigation required). (Minor negative). present. Comparative disadvantage is due to likelihood proposed on existing route and unlikely to encounter new earthworks needs. required and the potential for Involves other geotechnical risks to design higher comparative earthworks needs. of ground contamination and more extensive length of areas of soft ground or contamination. ground contamination due to and construction which would require further works interfacing the canal. historic landfills, pits and studies and design information. quarries. Some comparative advantage over other Some comparative advantage over other Some comparative disadvantage over Some comparative disadvantage over Some comparative disadvantage over other Some comparative disadvantage over Some comparative disadvantage over Some comparative disadvantage over Some comparative disadvantage over other Some comparative disadvantage over other Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options options options other options other options options other options other options other options options options It is assumed that the routing of the cabling, It is assumed that the routing of the cabling, It is assumed that the routing of the cabling, It is assumed that the routing of the cabling, It is assumed that the routing of the cabling, the location of existing substations, hubs It is assumed that the routing of the cabling, the 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 Overall likely impact on existing It is assumed that the routing of the cabling, the location of the location of existing substations, hubs etc. the location of existing substations, hubs etc. the location of existing substations, hubs etc. the location of existing substations, hubs etc. Radiation and Stray etc. along the line will be changed or location of existing substations, hubs etc. along the location of existing substations, hubs etc. along the existing substations, hubs etc. along the line will be location of existing substations, hubs etc. along the line 3.9 sources of electromagnetic No changes from an EMI perspective existing substations, hubs etc. along the line will be changed along the line will be changed or impacted by along the line will be changed or impacted by along the line will be changed or impacted by along the line will be changed or impacted by Current No changes from an EMI perspective transverse to impacted by the selection of any of the line will be changed or impacted by the selection of line will be changed or impacted by the selection changed or impacted by the selection of any of the options will be changed or impacted by the selection of any of radiation. transverse to the railway therefore advantage or impacted by the selection of any of the options over the the selection of any of the options over the the selection of any of the options over the the selection of any of the options over the the selection of any of the options over the the railway therefore advantage over other options. options over the entire project. All Do- any of the options over the entire project. All Do- of any of the options over the entire project. All Do- over the entire project. All Do-Something options are the options over the entire project. All Do-Something over other options. entire project. All Do-Something options are comparable entire project. All Do-Something options are entire project. All Do-Something options are entire project. All Do-Something options are entire project. All Do-Something options are Something options are comparable from an Something options are comparable from an EMI Something options are comparable from an EMI comparable from an EMI perspective at this stage in the options are comparable from an EMI perspective at from an EMI perspective at this stage in the assessment. comparable from an EMI perspective at this comparable from an EMI perspective at this comparable from an EMI perspective at this comparable from an EMI perspective at this EMI perspective at this stage in the perspective at this stage in the assessment. perspective at this stage in the assessment. assessment. this stage in the assessment. stage in the assessment. stage in the assessment. stage in the assessment. stage in the assessment. assessment. Significant comparative disadvantage over Significant comparative disadvantage over Significant comparative advantage over Significant comparative advantage over Significant comparative advantage over other Significant comparative advantage over Significant comparative advantage over Some comparative advantage over other Some comparative advantage over other Significant comparative advantage over other Significant comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options other options other options other options other options options other options other options options options options Impacts on low income groups, Road traffic diverted distance route is 750m Road traffic diverted distance route is 2.5km (1.4 x Road traffic diverted distance route is 2.5km Original Distance roundabout to roundabout 500m Road traffic diverted distance route is 4.3km (10 x Impact on Vulnerable non-car owners, mobility This options introduces steepened gradients north of the Road traffic diverted distance route is 572m (1.4 x diversion route) steep gradients on diversion route) steep gradients on north side of (1.4 x diversion route) steep gradients on 4.1 retained. diversion route) steep gradients on north side of option will Groups impaired, visually impaired and This option severs access locally across the railway and cannot accommodate appropriate pedesstrian (1.1x diversion route). Local ped/cycle north side of option will be a disadvantage to option will be a disadvantage to vulnerable road north side of option will be a disadvantage to Diverted distance route is 450m (1.0x Diverted distance route is 650m (1.4 x Diverted distance route is 650m (1.4 x diversion Original Distance roundabout to roundabout 500m be a disadvantage to vulnerable road users. Local people with a disability. railway anc cycle access due to the constrained width of the access maintained along ramped access vulnerable road users. Local ped/cycle access users. Local ped/cycle access maintained along vulnerable road users. Local ped/cycle diversion route). diversion route). route). retained. The long closure times associated with the level ped/cycle access maintained along ramped access over available corridor. through underpass, ~340m diversion. maintained along ramped access over ramped access over proposed bridge - ~400m access maintained along ramped access over crossing will, however, restrict access proposed bridge - ~400m diversion proposed bridge - ~400m diversion diversion proposed bridge - ~400m diversion Significant comparative disadvantage over Significant comparative disadvantage over Significant comparative disadvantage over other Significant comparative advantage over Significant comparative advantage over Significant comparative advantage over other Significant comparative advantage over Significant comparative advantage over Significant comparative advantage over Significant comparative advantage over other Significant comparative advantage over other Significant comparative advantage over other options other options other options options other options other options options other options other options other options options options Station Accessibility is addressed for all level crossing options in proximity to a station Station Accessibility is addressed for all level crossing options in proximity to a station Station Accessibility is addressed for all level crossing Quantification of increased This option will require that traffic seeking to Station Accessibility is addressed for all options in proximity to a station Station Accessibility is addressed for all level Station Accessibility is addressed for all level Station Accessibility is addressed for all level Station Accessibility is addressed for all level Station Accessibility is addressed for all level Station Accessibility is addressed for all level Station Accessibility is addressed for all level crossing Station Accessibility is addressed for all level crossing service levels to the vulnerable access the station from the north will divert along level crossing options in proximity to a 4.2 Stations Accessibility This option requires that all traffic accessing the crossing options in proximity to a station crossing options in proximity to a station crossing options in proximity to a station crossing options in proximity to a station crossing options in proximity to a station crossing options in proximity to a station options in proximity to a station options in proximity to a station groups. the existing road network due to delays at the level station station from the north must divert along the This options introduces steepened gradients north of the crossing existing road network railway and cannot accommodate appropriate pedesstrian This option does not significantly affect access This option does not significantly affect access to This option does not significantly affect This option does not significantly affect This option does not significantly affect This option does not significantly affect access to This option does not significantly affect access to the This option does not significantly affect access to the Accessibility & This option does not significantly affect 4 anc cycle access due to the constrained width of the to the station the station access to the station access to the station access to the station the station station station Social inclusion Shortest diversion route 4.5km.(7 x diversion route. access to the station Shortest diversion route 4.5km (7x diversion cvailable corridor. route). Original Distance roundabout to Rockfield Drive crossroads 500m retained.

Page 2 FOR WEB VIEWING ONLY

DART+ WEST - MCA Stage 1 Ashtown Level Crossing Assessment

Sub-Criteria (Quantitative/ Parameter Criteria Do Nothing Do Minimum Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 & 4a Option 4 & 4b Option 5 Option 6 Option 7 Option 8 Option 9 Qualitative)

Significant comparative disadvantage over Significant comparative disadvantage over Significant comparative disadvantage over other Significant comparative advantage over Significant comparative advantage over Some comparative disadvantage over other Some comparative disadvantage over Significant comparative advantage over Some comparative disadvantage over Some comparative disadvantage over other Significant comparative disadvantage over other Significant comparative advantage over other other options other options options other options other options options other options other options other options options options options This option causes severence of the community This option causes severence of the community through curtailment of local access over the railway through curtailment of local access over the Diverted distance route 798m (1.6x diversion route) Diverted distance route 798m (1.6x diversion Diverted distance for vehicular traffic 4.3km (10 x diversion This option causes community severence for those on foot Service levels impacts including without replacement with effective alternative railway without replacement with effective This option does not cause community This option does not cause community but exisiting vehicular route severed. route) but exisiting vehicular route severed. This option does not cause community This option does not cause community route), proposed pedestrian / cycle bridge maintains local or bicycle. This option does not cause community severence. severance of community access. alternative access. severence. severence. severence. severence. non vehicular access. groups; Community facilities affected by reduced access Community facilities affected by reduced This option does not cause community severence. 4.3 Social Inclusion Community facilities affected by reduced access include This option does not curtail access to community Severance from community Community facilities affected by reduced access Community facilities affected by reduced This option does not curtail access to This option does not significantly affect access include Shopping facilities, Giraffe Childcare, access include Shopping facilities, Giraffe This option does not curtail access to This option does not curtail access to Community facilities affected by reduced access include Shopping facilities, Giraffe Childcare, Pelletstown Educate amenities facilities consequent on an include Shopping facilities, Giraffe Childcare, access include Shopping facilities, Giraffe community amenities to community amenities Pelletstown Educate Together National School - Childcare, Pelletstown Educate Together community amenities community amenities Shopping facilities, Giraffe Childcare, Pelletstown Educate This option does not affect access to community Together National School - North of the railway and Halfway option. Pelletstown Educate Together National School - Childcare, Pelletstown Educate Together North of the railway and Halfway House, Ashtown National School - North of the railway and Together National School - North of the railway and amenities House, Ashtown Post Oddice St Dominics College, Diverted distance route is 650m (1.4 x diversion North of the railway and Halfway House, Ashtown National School - North of the railway and Diverted distance route is 572m (1.1x Diverted distance route is 750m (1.4 x Post Oddice St Dominics College, Meaghers Halfway House, Ashtown Post Oddice St Diverted distance route is 450m (1.0 x Diverted distance route is 650m (1.4 x Halfway House, Ashtown Post Oddice St Dominics Meaghers Pharmacy, Daughters of Charity - south of the route). Post Oddice St Dominics College, Meaghers Halfway House, Ashtown Post Oddice St diversion route). diversion route). Pharmacy, Daughters of Charity - south of the Dominics College, Meaghers Pharmacy, diversion route). diversion route). College, Meaghers Pharmacy, Daughters of Charity - railway. Pharmacy, Daughters of Charity - south of the Dominics College, Meaghers Pharmacy, railway. Daughters of Charity - south of the railway. south of the railway. railway. Daughters of Charity - south of the railway.

Significant comparative disadvantage over Significant comparative advantage over Significant comparative advantage over Significant comparative advantage over Significant comparative advantage over other Significant comparative advantage over Significant comparative disadvantage over Significant comparative advantage over Significant comparative advantage over other Significant comparative disadvantage over other Significant comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options other options other options other options other options options other options other options other options options options This option removes the railway level This Option leaves the railway level crossing in Safety for Rail users – removal This option removes the railway level crossing, This option removes the railway level crossing, a crossing, a characteristic which is considered This option removes the railway level crossing, a This option removes the railway level crossing, a This option removes the railway level crossing, a place, a characteristic which is considered negative of Level crossings is considered a characteristic which is considered positive characteristic which is considered positive from the Option removes the rail - road interface. positive from the perspective of railway characteristic which is considered positive from the characteristic which is considered positive from the characteristic which is considered positive from the 5.1 Rail Safety from the perspective of railway safety. a significant safety from the perspective of railway safety. perspective of railway safety. Limited clearance underbridge poses potential safety. perspective of railway safety. perspective of railway safety. perspective of railway safety. Option removes the rail - road interface Option removes the rail - road interface Option removes the rail - road interface Option removes the rail - road interface enhancement hazard to structure and in turn rail users if a This option will require construction activity There is no significant construction activity along There is no significant construction activity along the railway bridge strike occurs. There is no significant construction activity There is no significant construction activity along There is no significant construction activity along the This option has significant and prolongues impact on associated with signalling along the live railway the railway associated with the level crossing associated with the level crossing along the railway associated with the level the railway associated with the level crossing railway associated with the level crossing the live railway during construction. associated with the level crossing crossing Significant comparative disadvantage over Significant comparative disadvantage over Significant comparative advantage over Significant comparative advantage over Significant comparative advantage over other Significant comparative advantage over Significant comparative disadvantage over Significant comparative advantage over Significant comparative advantage over other Significant comparative disadvantage over other Significant comparative advantage over other Some comparative advantage over other options other options other options other options other options options other options other options other options options options options Quality of Access for these This option retains the level crossing - a signficant This option closes the level crossing - removes This option closes the level crossing - removes a road users, lengths of This option closes the level crossing - removes a signficant Providing a segregated crossing would have a This option closes the level crossing - removes a Vehicular Traffic hazard to transport users; a signficant hazard to transport users; signficant hazard to transport users; 5.2 diversions, removal of interface hazard to transport users; Providing a segregated crossing would Providing a segregated crossing would have a Providing a segregated crossing would have a Providing a segregated crossing would have a significant advantage as vehicular traffic is not Providing a segregated crossing would have Providing a segregated crossing would have a signficant hazard to transport users; Safety This option will result in traffic diversions of up to This option will result in traffic diversions of up This option will result in traffic diversions of up to 4.3km with rail and other modes of have a significant advantage as vehicular significant advantage as vehicular traffic is not significant advantage as vehicular traffic is not significant advantage as vehicular traffic is not crossing the live rail. Limited clearance a significant advantage as vehicular traffic is significant advantage as vehicular traffic is not This option will not significantly divert traffic. 4.3km and increased congestion on the local road to 4.3km and increased congestion on the local and increased congestion on the local road network. transport This option will not significantly divert traffic. traffic is not crossing the live rail crossing the live rail crossing the live rail crossing the live rail underbridge poses potential hazard to high not crossing the live rail crossing the live rail This option incorporates good segregation for network. road network. This option incorporates good segregation for pedestrians, vehicles and and their occupants. pedestrians, cyclists and cars from railway traffic. cyclists and cars from railway traffic. 5 Safety Significant comparative disadvantage over Significant comparative disadvantage over Significant comparative disadvantage over other Significant comparative advantage over Some comparative disadvantage over Some comparative advantage over other Some comparative disadvantage over Some comparative disadvantage over Some comparative disadvantage over other Significant comparative advantage over other Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options other options other options options other options other options options other options other options options options

The removal access over the level crossing The curtailed availability of access over the level This option removes the level crossing. It replaces associated with this option will divert vulnerable The removal access over the level crossing associated with crossing associated with this option will divert pedestrian and cycle access with a pedestrian cycle road users onto the existing road network. this option will divert vulnerable road users onto the existing vulnerable road users onto the existing road bridge. Other vulnerable road users are diverted onto the This option closes the level crossing. It provides a new road network. Diverted distance route is 798m (1.6x Pedestrian, Cyclist Quality of Access for these network. Diverted distance route 798m (1.6x diversion route). existing road network. link along approximately the same line as the original; Diverted road users will be required to diversion route). 5.3 and Vulnerable Road road users. removal of Diverted distance route is 565m (1.1x negotiate up to 6No additional junctions Diverted road users will be required to negotiate up to 6No Diverted distance route is 821m (1.6x user Safety interfaces Diverted road users will be required to negotiate up Diverted distance route is 572m (1.1x diversion route) steep gradients on north side With the incorporation of a pedestrian / cycle bridge Diverted distance route is 1.1km (2x diversion Diverted distance route is 974m (1.9x diversion Diverted road users will be required to negotiate up to 6No The junction strategy for vulnerable road users is including traffic light junctions and roundabouts, additional junctions including traffic light junctions and With the incorporation of a pedestrian / cycle diversion route). to 6No additional junctions including traffic light diversion route). of option will be a disadvantage to vulnerable in this option, any impact on prdestrians, cyclists and route). route). additional junctions including traffic light junctions and unaffected by this option; typically turning left travelling southbound, right roundabouts, typically turning left travelling southbound, right bridge in this option, any impact on junctions and roundabouts, typically turning left road users. vulnerable road users is significantly reduced. Detour roundabouts, typically turning left travelling southbound, if travelling northbound. if travelling northbound. prdestrians, cyclists and vulnerable road travelling southbound, right if travelling northbound. ~400m right if travelling northbound. This option incorporates good segregation for users is significantly reduced. Detour ~400m pedestrians, cyclists and cars from railway traffic. This options does not provide for segregation This options does not provide for segregation on the This options does not provide for segregation on This options does not provide for segregation on the on the diversion routes for vulnerable road diversion routes for vulnerable road users. the diversion routes for vulnerable road users. diversion routes for vulnerable road users. users.

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

No formal cycle tracks currently present on the No cycle tracks currently present on the immediately surrounding road network, but immediately surrounding road network, but Analysis of the extent that the increased closures of the level crossing would This option supports good linkage between This option supports good linkage between This option supports good linkage between existing This option supports good linkage between This option supports good linkage between This option supports good linkage between This option supports good linkage between This option supports good linkage between existing and Connectivity to removal of level crossing will sever access to This option does not provide good linkage between existing This option supports good linkage between existing and reduce access to the proposed Royal Canal existing and proposed cycle facilities existing and proposed cycle facilities and proposed cycle facilities existing and proposed cycle facilities existing and proposed cycle facilities existing and proposed cycle facilities existing and proposed cycle facilities proposed cycle facilities 6.1 adjoining cycling scheme connects with cycle the Royal Canal Greenway from the opposite and proposed cycle routes proposed cycle facilities Greenway. facilities tracks. side of the railway. The quality of access to the train station for The quality of access to the train station for The quality of access to the train station for The quality of access to the train station for The quality of access to the train station for The quality of access to the train station for The quality of access to the train station for The quality of access to the train station for The quality of access to the train station for pedestrians and The quality of access to the train station for pedestrians Access to the train station for pedestrians and pedestrians and cyclists is good in respect pedestrians and cyclists is good in respect of pedestrians and cyclists is good in respect of this pedestrians and cyclists is good in respect of pedestrians and cyclists is good in respect of pedestrians and cyclists is good in respect of pedestrians and cyclists is good in respect of this pedestrians and cyclists is good in respect of this Access to the train station for pedestrians and cyclists is poor in respect of this option. and cyclists is good in respect of this option. cyclists will be significantly inhibited by the level of this option. this option. option. this option. this option. this option. option. option. cyclists will be significantly inhibited by removal crossing, particularly with the planned level of of the level crossing. service on the railway.

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

Cross Railway journey = nil as crossing remains in Cross Railway journey = 4.3km as level place; Inaccessible when crossing is closed. crossing is removed. Cross Railway journey = nil as the Cross Railway journey = nil as the proposed Cross Railway journey = nil as the proposed option Cross Railway journey = nil as the proposed Cross Railway journey = nil as the proposed Cross Railway journey = nil as the proposed Cross Railway journey = nil as the proposed Journey Time and lengths of Cross Railway journey = nil as the proposed option is along proposed option is along the plan alignment option is along the plan alignment of the is along the plan alignment of the existing Coolmine option is along the plan alignment of the option is along the plan alignment of the option is along the plan alignment of the option is along the plan alignment of the existing Cross Railway journey = nil as the proposed option is Cross Railway journey = nil as the proposed option is diversions for active modes and Diversion for cyclists when level crossing closed Diversion for cyclists when level crossing the plan alignment of the existing Ashtown Road. of the existing Coolmine Road. existing Coolmine Road. Road. existing Coolmine Road. existing Coolmine Road. existing Coolmine Road. Coolmine Road. numbers affected. Analysis of along the plan alignment of the existing Ashtown Road. along the plan alignment of the existing Ashtown Road. Permeability and local 4.3km closed4.3km 6.2 the connectivity between level This option does not effectively facilitate cycle access due to Diversion for cyclists when level crossing Diversion for cyclists when level crossing Diversion for cyclists when level crossing closed Diversion for cyclists when level crossing Diversion for cyclists when level crossing Diversion for cyclists when level crossing Diversion for cyclists when level crossing closed is access opportunity Diversion for cyclists when level crossing closed is 0.3km. Diversion for cyclists when level crossing closed is nil. crossing and green areas/key The principal high amenity greenspaces in the The principal high amenity greenspaces in the the constrained width of the corridor. closed 0.3km closed 0.4km 0.3km closed 0.3km closed 0.45km closed 0.65km 0.65km. attractions related to active vicinity of the existing train station include the Royal vicinity of the existing train station include the The principal high amenity greenspace in the vicinity of the The principal high amenity greenspace in the vicinity of mode canal, the gaelic football grounds south of the Royal canal, the gaelic football grounds south of The principal high amenity greenspace in the vicinity of the The principal high amenity greenspace in The principal high amenity greenspace in the The principal high amenity greenspace in the vicinity The principal high amenity greenspace in the The principal high amenity greenspace in the The principal high amenity greenspace in the The principal high amenity greenspace in the existing train station is the Royal canal. This access is the existing train station is the Royal canal. This access railway, Pheonix Park, south of the railway and the the railway, Pheonix Park, south of the railway existing train station is the Royal canal. This access is the vicinity of the existing train station is the vicinity of the existing train station is the Royal of the existing train station is the Royal canal. This vicinity of the existing train station is the Royal vicinity of the existing train station is the Royal vicinity of the existing train station is the Royal vicinity of the existing train station is the Royal maintained by the proposed bridge scheme. is maintained by the proposed bridge scheme. amenity zoned lands north west of the level and the amenity zoned lands north west of the maintained by the proposed bridge scheme. Royal canal. This access is maintained by canal. This access is maintained by the access is maintained by the proposed bridge canal. This access is maintained by the canal. This access is maintained by the canal. This access is maintained by the canal. This access is maintained by the proposed crossing. Increased closures of the level crossing level crossing. Removal of the level crossing the proposed bridge scheme. proposed bridge scheme. scheme. proposed bridge scheme. proposed bridge scheme. proposed bridge scheme. bridge scheme. would reduce access to each of them. would curtial access to each of them.

Criteria Do Nothing Do Minimum Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 & 4a Option 4 & 4b Option 5 Option 6 Option 7 Option 8 Option 9

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

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

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

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

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

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

Progress To Stage 2 No No No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No No No

Page 3 FOR WEB VIEWING ONLY

DART+ WEST - MCA Stage 1 Coolmine Level Crossing Assessment Sub-Criteria (Quantitative/ Parameter Criteria Do Nothing Do Minimum Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 Option 7 Option 8 Option 9 Option 10 Qualitative) This online option is proposed along the existing Coolmine Road north of the rail line and canal and along Carpenterstown Road to the south. The option extends for 245m to the north and 210m to the south, accommodating a cross section of a 6.5m carriageway with 2m wide footpaths on both sides. There is insufficient room for Option 2 + droplock. This online option is proposed along the existing with this option to accommodate dedicated cycle tracks without This online option is proposed along the existing Coolmine Road Coolmine Road north of the rail line and canal and along Carpenterstown Road increasing the overall road footprint and impact on the adjacent north of the rail line and canal and along Carpenterstown Road to to the south. The option extends for 245m to the north and 210m to the south, properties further. the south. The option extends for 245m to the north and 210m to accommodating a cross section of a 6.5m carriageway with 2m wide footpaths the south, accommodating a cross section of a 6.5m carriageway Lowering of the Railway Vertical Alignment. and 2.5m wide cycleways on both sides of the road. This option would entail The high side of railway is currently at a level of 65.3m above MSL with 2m wide footpaths on both sides. 1.8m footpaths and 2.5m passing under the railway through a tunnel /underpass structure and over the at the existing level crossing with the proposed overbridge structure cycle ways are proposed on both sides of the road. Given the This option provides for lowering the existing railway sufficient to allow the railway canal. To accommodate canal traffic a droplock is proposed. The proposed being at a minimum road level of 72.6m above MSL to provide the limited height clearance available, any bridge over the canal would pass under a bridge constructed at the level of the existing level crossing. This droplock would be approximately 5.1m deep below water level and Option 9 provides for the closure of Coolmine Level Crossing and construction minimum clearance required for the electrification of the rail line. require an opening span. Such a scheme would involve the option would require limited road infrastructure works but would require the existing approximately 60m long. It would require a pumping system to facilitate of a pedestrian and cyclist bridge in the vicinity of the level crossing (OPTION Embankment heights adjacent to properties north of the railway construction of walled approaches to the bridge as there is railway to be lowered over a length of approximately 2km centred on the existing emptying the lock. Such a scheme would involve the construction of walled 7). Options 9 proposes local road upgrades to accommondate diverted traffic Closure of the existing crossings with no alternative provided. All traffic would be up to 6.6 metres while houses immediately south west of insufficient space available for the construction of cut slopes. The New Underbridge with Opening Canal Bridge Connecting St. New Underbridge Connecting St. Mochta’s Grove to Luttrellpark Close the level crossing and provide a Pedestrian / Cycle Bridge only at the level level crossing. The railway would require lowering below the existing water level of approaches to the bridge as there is insufficient space available for the Leave the current level crossings in place. New Overbridge Connecting St. Mochta’s Grove to Luttrellpark Road. Overbridge to East of Coolmine Road. along eixisting road network. The proposed upgrades include: • Diswellstown would be diverted to alternative routes around the crossing location. the railway would have embankments in the order of 6.4 metres high cuttings would extend approximately 160 metres along Coolmine Mochta’s Grove to Luttrellpark Road. Road with Diversion of Canal Over Proposed Road. crossing the canal upstream and downstream of the level crossing. It would require construction of cut slopes. The cuttings would extend approximately 160 metres Road Junction; Diswellstown Road /Coolmine Road Junction; Park Lodge adjacent to them. Road on each approach to the bridge. demolition and reconstruction of the train station at a lower level - below canal water along Coolmine Road on each approach to the bridge. /Castleknock Road Junction; and Porterstown Road /Diswellstown Road The low side of the railway is at a level of 65.0m above MSL at the level. The canal would need to be channelised or relined. This work would be in rock The low side of the railway is at a level of 65.0m above MSL at the existing level Junction. A structure approximately 30m in length and at an elevation of existing level crossing, with the proposed tunnel /underpass in a sensitive aquifer. The existing protected canal bridge would likely need to be crossing, with the proposed tunnel /underpass structure at a level of 57.7m approximately 7.3m would be required to span the railway and structure at a level of 57.7m above MSL to provide the minimum demolished. The canal would most likely need to be lowered on each side of the above MSL to provide the minimum clearance required for the electrification of canal. The option would involve the construction of walled clearance required for the electrification of the rail line. A lifting existing level crossing over a length of approximately 1km with the associated the rail line. approaches to the bridge as there is insufficient space available for structure at a similar level would be required for the canal. construction of locks to facilitate changes in level. This option would require the deconstruction of the listed Kirkpatrick Bridge as the construction of embankments. Initial examination suggests that This option would require the demolition of the listed Kirkpatrick this existing structure would be in the way of the new tunnel / underpass the works would extend approximately 160m along Coolmine Road Bridge as its existing structure would be in in the way of the new structure. The proposal is to reconstruct Kirkpatrick bridge at a location on each approach to the bridge. construction is likely to require the tunnel / underpass structure. between porterstown and clonsilla to facilitate an additional crossing of the provision of noise abatement measures approximately 2.0 metres canal. high above to the embankment.

This option would also potentially require the demolition of the listed Kirkpatrick Bridge if not fully spanned. Significant comparative advantage over other Significant comparative disadvantage over other Significant comparative disadvantage over other Significant comparative disadvantage over other Significant comparative advantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative disadvantage over other options options options options options

The capital cost of this option is negatively affected by : - the need to construct the works while maintaining traffic on the The capital cost of this option is affected by the following: The capital cost of this option is negatively affected by: The capital cost of this option is negatively affected by: The capital cost of this option is negatively affected by: The capital cost of this option is negatively affected by: Coolmine Road; - the below ground nature of construction along an extended length of the - the need to construct the works while maintaining traffic on the Construction and Land Assessment of cost of construction of The capital cost of this option is negatively affected by the - the need to construct the works while maintaining traffic on - the below ground nature of construction; - the below ground nature of construction; 1.1 The capital cost of this option is negatively affected by the - the incorporation of significant curvature in the plan alignment which railway; Additional cost is incurred for this option due to the need to upgrade Coolmine Road; The proposed signaling system will need augmentation to Cost of removing crossing is nominal in comparison to need to construct the works while maintaining traffic on the the Coolmine Road; - the construction of a bridge under the railway; - the construction of a bridge under the railway; The provsions here include low key works to close the level crossing Cost option, land costs and temporary works need to construct a pedestrian cycle bridge on Coolmine results in wider road construction; - the construction of a bridge over the railway and canal; the local road network to accommodate diverted traffic consequent - the below ground nature of construction; accommodate the level crossing left in place provision of road crossing. Coolmine Road and by the need to provide nested ramps for - the below ground nature of construction; - the incorporation of an opening bridge over the canal; - the incorporation of a boat lift over the canal; and the construction of a new pedestrian / cycle bridge Road in addition to the offline road bridge - the construction of a wide bridge over the station and the canal; - ground retention over the full length of the railway cut; on closure of the level crossing. - the construction of a bridge under the railway; cyclists and vulnerable road users - the construction of a bridge under the railway; - the need for a pedestrian cycle bridge on Coolmine Road - the need for a pedestrian cycle bridge on Coolmine Road in - the construction of an elevated structure over the train station - carrying out construction works for an extended duration on the live - the incorporation of a droplock under the canal; - the incorporation of an opening bridge over the canal. in addition to the offline road bridge. addition to the offline road bridge. carpark; railway and in the canal sink. - the need to deconstruct and relocate a listed canal bridge structure. - the likely acquisition of 6No. house private dwellings.

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

Long Term Maintenance Ongoing annual maintenance costs The existing crossing is manned resulting in an ongoing An opening overbridge will significantly increase the ongoing Higher amounts of maintenance and inspections are 1.2 An overbridge would reduce maintenance requirements over An overbridge would reduce maintenance requirements over Ongoing costs if inspection and maintenance of structures along earth costs associated with varied options annual cost. The closure of the level crossing would remove the and maintenance requirements. In addition this option will An opening overbridge would significantly increase the anticipated with the introduction of an underbridge and An overbridge likely to be Steel bridge to reduce deck thickness to In addition to ongoing structure inspection and maintenance - Droplock a level crossing. Bridge option would determine overall a level crossing. Bridge option would determine overall Maintenance costs low - 15k ex VAT per year retaining structures along 2km of railway, bridges, and a pumped drainage Maintenance costs low - 15k ex VAT per year The level crossing equipment incurs an annual maintenance requirement for the level crossing. incorporate a pumped drainage system which requires maintenance requirements. reconfiguration of canal with ongoing operational costs for allow for approach gradients . M&E requires operational and maintenance - Est Costs 200k per year 1 Economy maintenance costs. maintenance costs . system. maintenance cost and replacement cost on a 15yr cycle ongoing maintenance. canal.

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

64% reduction in traffic volumes @ Junction North of Level Crossing; 1% incease in traffic at Junction south of level crossing; 64% reduction in traffic volumes @ Junction North of Level Crossing; Benefits to vehicular traffic through reduction Replacement of level crossing with roadway open 24hrs will result in an 38% increase in traffic volumnes at Diswellstown North 1% incease in traffic at Junction south of level crossing; 64% reduction in traffic volumes @ Junction North of Level Crossing; increase in traffic using the level crossing. The removal of the constraint Traffic Functionality in journey time lengths and delays through Roundabout; 38% increase in traffic volumnes at Diswellstown North Roundabout; 1% incease in traffic at Junction south of level crossing; 1.3 Improvement in journey times relative to the Do Minimum; Improvement in journey times relative to the Do Minimum; Improvement in journey times relative to the Do Minimum; Improvement in journey times relative to the Do Minimum; Improvement in journey times relative to the Do Minimum; Improvement in journey times relative to the Do Minimum; potential caused by the level crossing will provide relief to adjacent crossing points Improvement in journey times relative to the Do Minimum; potential for /economic benefit removal of level crossings. Consideration of Reduced capacity as train frequencies increase; increase 32% increase in traffic at Junction South of Diswellstown 32% increase in traffic at Junction South of Diswellstown Viaduct; potential for induced trips; potential to increase congestion potential for induced trips; potential to increase congestion potential for induced trips; potential to increase congestion on potential for induced trips; potential to increase congestion potential for induced trips; potential to increase congestion for induced trips; potential to increase congestion on surrounding of th railway. induced trips; potential to increase congestion on surrounding road in journey times for local residents. Viaduct; 61% increase in traffic at Junction East of Above; Junctions upgraded to address delays potentially longer routes for traffic. on surrounding road network as a result of induced traffic. on surrounding road network as a result of induced traffic. surrounding road network as a result of induced traffic. on surrounding road network as a result of induced traffic. on surrounding road network as a result of induced traffic. road network as a result of induced traffic. network as a result of induced traffic. 61% increase in traffic at Junction East of Above; 3%increase in traffic at junction south of Castleknock Station; This option will cause significant disruption to the live railway during 3%increase in traffic at junction south of Castleknock Station; Diversion 2km for road traffic from Junction North to Junction South construction which is likely to extend for a period of 2 years Significant delay anticipated due to junctions being undercapacity Significant delay anticipated due to junctions being undercapacity

Impact on scope for and ease of Some comparative disadvantage over other options Significant comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options interchange between modes. Impact on the Improved interchange between modes, subject to operation of other transport services both Improved interchange between modes, subject to Improved interchange between modes, subject to satisfactory satisfactory access to train station platforms. General Rerouted access to train station car park. General Rerouted access to train station car park. General Transport Integration during construction and in operation. New satisfactory access to train station platforms. General Rerouted access to train station car park. General access to train station platforms. General reduction in journey times. Improved interchange between modes, subject to satisfactory access reduction in journey times. There may be severance to improvement in connectivity and journey times. No improvement in connectivity and journey times. No General improvement in connectivity and journey times for pedestrians Inconsistent with GDA Cycle Network Plan which shows a reduction in journey times. There may be severance to improvement in connectivity and journey times. No There may be severance to existing connectivity on the approaches to train station platforms. General reduction in journey times. There 2.1 interchange nodes and facilities; Reduced GDA Cycle Network Plan cannot be realised with such existing connectivity on the approaches to the bridge over severance to existing connectivity as a result of the severance to existing connectivity as a result of the & cyclists; Disimprovements to interchange caused by reduced access General reduction in journey times. Disimproved interchange between General improvement in connectivity and journey times for primary route on Coolmine Road; Disruption to bus routes; existing connectivity on the approaches to the bridge over severance to existing connectivity as a result of the to the bridge over the canal and railway as a result of the construction may be severance to existing connectivity on the approaches to the poor connectivity. Increased delays on bus routes. the canal and railway as a result of the construction of the construction of the required approach ramps. Coolmine construction of the required approach ramps. Coolmine to the train station car park from the north. modes - Ramp/steps and/or elevator required for access to platforms. No pedestrians & cyclists; Disimprovements to interchange caused by walking and wait times associated with Slight reduction in accessibility of train station; Significant the canal and railway as a result of the construction of the construction of the required approach ramps. Coolmine of the required approach ramps. Access to the train station car park bridge over the canal and railway as a result of the construction of the Reduced access to train station and car park. required approach ramps. Access to the train station car Road is primary cycle route in GDA Cycle Network Plan - re- Road is primary cycle route in GDA Cycle Network Plan - re- details on whether cycle facilities would be provided on new bridge reduced access to the train station car park from the north. interchanges. Modal shift figures during reduction in accessibility of train station car park. required approach ramps. Access to the train station car Road is primary cycle route in GDA Cycle Network Plan - re- will be difficult and it is likely that the capacity of the existing car park required approach ramps. Access to the train station car park will be park will be difficult. Primary cycle route, according to GDA routing of traffic to new crossing point a benefit to cycling. routing of traffic to new crossing point a benefit to cycling. park will be difficult. Primary cycle route, according to GDA routing of traffic to new crossing point a benefit to cycling. will be significantly reduced. Coolmine Road is primary cycle route in difficult. Cycle track provided on new underbridge construction and operations. Changes to Cycle Network Plan, but no room for cycle facilities on new Cycle track provided on underbridge Cycle track provided on underbridge Cycle Network Plan. GDA Cycle Network Plan - Cycle track provided on overbridge journey times to transport nodes. bridge.

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

Direct impacts the FCDP Objective 142: “Preserve the existing pedestrian and vehicular right of way at the Coolmine Level Direct impacts the FCDP Objective 142: “Preserve the Crossing". A major negative in terms of the local policy context. This option would provide a replacement Righ of Way via a new road Impact on land use strategies and local existing pedestrian and vehicular right of way at the Coolmine Alternative pedestrian and cycle infrastructure providedd therefore it Direct impacts the FCDP Objective 142: “Preserve the existing DART Expansion Programme is supported by FCDP bridge over the new lowered vertical railway alignment underneath. It would Direct impacts the FCDP Objective 142: “Preserve the existing plans. Assessment of support for land use Level Crossing". A major negative in terms of the local policy Direct impacts the FCDP Objective 142: “Preserve the Direct impacts the FCDP Objective 142: “Preserve the meets the 'indicative/cycle/ walking' network at this location (FDP). pedestrian and vehicular right of way at the Coolmine Level Crossing". through Objective MT30 in the FCDP. Retaining the level impact Objective 142 but would provide an alternatvie vehicular pedestrian pedestrian and vehicular right of way at the Coolmine Level Direct impacts the FCDP Objective 142: “Preserve the existing context. There is no alternative right of way is provided in existing pedestrian and vehicular right of way at the existing pedestrian and vehicular right of way at the Direct impacts the FCDP Objective 142: “Preserve the existing Direct impacts the FCDP Objective 142: “Preserve the existing Direct impacts the FCDP Objective 142: “Preserve the existing Option 6 travels through the existing Coolmine Train Station carpark A major negative in terms of the local policy context. Alternative 2 Integration 2.2 Land Use Integration factors local land use and planning. Inclusion crossing supports FCDP Specific Objective 142: pedestrian and vehicular right of way at the Coolmine Level pedestrian and vehicular right of way at the Coolmine Level pedestrian and vehicular right of way at the Coolmine Level and cycle infrastructure & Right of Way at the same location. It would Crossing". A major negative in terms of the local policy context. pedestrian and vehicular right of way at the Coolmine Level Crossing". this option. Coolmine Level Crossing". A major negative in terms of the Coolmine Level Crossing". A major negative in terms of the that has a "Specific Objective 143 Car parking provision associated pedestrian and cycle infrastructure providedd therefore it meets the of project in relevant local planning “Preserve the existing pedestrian and vehicular right of Crossing". A major negative in terms of the local policy context. Crossing". A major negative in terms of the local policy context. Crossing". A major negative in terms of the local policy context. support the 'indicative/cycle/ walking' network at this location. Temporary Alternative pedestrian and cycle infrastructure providedd therefore it A major negative in terms of the local policy context. Alternative Land use factors: The area is a low-density suburban, well local policy context. Alternative pedestrian and cycle local policy context. Alternative pedestrian and cycle with the train station shall be two storeys or less”. This option may 'indicative/cycle/ walking' network at this location (FDP). way at the Coolmine Level Crossing”. Alternative pedestrian and cycle infrastructure providedd therefore it Alternative pedestrian and cycle infrastructure providedd therefore it Alternative pedestrian and cycle infrastructure providedd therefore it impacts to Station are likely during construction stage. This option has meets the 'indicative/cycle/ walking' network at this location (FDP). pedestrian and cycle infrastructure provided therefore it meets the documents. established residential area. infrastructure providedd therefore it meets the infrastructure provided therefore it meets the impact the future capacity to achieve this objective while also This option is a discrete when compared to other options and impacts The area is a low-density suburban, well established meets the 'indicative/cycle/ walking' network at this location (FDP). meets the 'indicative/cycle/ walking' network at this location (FDP). meets the 'indicative/cycle/ walking' network at this location (FDP). limited direct imapcts on zoned lands in the vicnity, including the Royal The wider road network improvements are likely to change transport 'indicative/cycle/ walking' network at this location (FDP). Closure of the level crossing will change transportation 'indicative/cycle/ walking' network at this location (FDP). 'indicative/cycle/ walking' network at this location (FDP). reducing the current capacity of the carpark that would be required for less zoned lands than other options apart from the Royal Canal pNHA residential area. Canal protected structure (subject to details of the new road and canal and integration patterns in the area. the likely increase of train passengers therefore affecting planning and residential amenities in the vicinity of the opton. patterns and restrict access to sustainable modes of travel to road bridge). and from the station for some users. and transport integration. Land use factors: The area is a low-density suburban, well established residential area. there are no LAPs, Masterplans for the area.

Alternative level crossing options are mostly Comparable to other options Comparable to other options Comparable to other options Comparable to other options Comparable to other options Comparable to other options Comparable to other options Comparable to other options Comparable to other options Comparable to other options Comparable to other options Comparable to other options neutral in respect of Geographical 2.3 Geographical Integration Integration due to localised nature of the No impact on Geographical Integration No significant effect on geographical integration. No significant effect on geographical integration. No significant effect on geographical integration. No significant effect on geographical integration. No significant effect on geographical integration. No significant effect on geographical integration. No significant effect on geographical integration. No significant effect on geographical integration. No significant effect on geographical integration. No significant effect on geographical integration. No significant effect on geographical integration. level crossings. As a consequence all Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options

In principle, this option would support the delivery of the higher level Other Government Policy Integration with the other Government policy This option supports the delivery of the higher level national and This option would support the delivery of the higher level national and 2.4 This option would not support the delivery of the higher This option supports the delivery of the higher level national This option supports the delivery of the higher level national This option supports the delivery of the higher level national This option supports the delivery of the higher level national This option supports the delivery of the higher level national national and regional planning policies regarding the DART Expansion This option would support the delivery of the higher level national and This option would support the delivery of the higher level national and This option would support the delivery of the higher level national and level national and regional planning policies regarding the regional planning policies regarding the DART Expansion regional planning policies regarding the DART Expansion programme (NPF, Integration such as the NPF and RSES. and regional planning policies regarding the DART Expansion and regional planning policies regarding the DART Expansion and regional planning policies regarding the DART Expansion and regional planning policies regarding the DART Expansion and regional planning policies regarding the DART Expansion programme (NPF, RSES, GDA Transport Strategy). Further design detail regional planning policies regarding the DART Expansion programme (NPF, regional planning policies regarding the DART Expansion programme regional planning policies regarding the DART Expansion programme (NPF, DART Expansion programme (NPF- (NS04), RSES & programme (NPF, RSES, GDA Transport Strategy). However RSES, GDA Transport Strategy).It would impact on vehicular connectivity programme (NPF, RSES, GDA Transport Strategy). programme (NPF, RSES, GDA Transport Strategy). programme (NPF, RSES, GDA Transport Strategy). programme (NPF, RSES, GDA Transport Strategy). programme (NPF, RSES, GDA Transport Strategy). required relating to the potential negative impacts to the train station RSES). Likely negative vehicular effects in surrounding area. (NPF, RSES, GDA Transport Strategy) RSES, GDA Transport Strategy) GDA Transport Strategy). impacts to Smarter travel policy. which is considered under transport integration. carpark and associated planning and landuse integration factors.

Significant comparative disadvantage over other Significant comparative disadvantage over other Significant comparative disadvantage over other Estimated number of sensitive properties Some comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative disadvantage over other options within 100m of the works. Options closer to options options options more sensitive locations will have an Online underbridge will involve significant construction stage The construction stage impacts of this option are potentially significant on a Significnat construction stage impacts over 2km. Significant amount 3.1 Noise and Vibration increased risk of generating a noise impact. Removes vehicular traffic which will reduce the overall noise works. Operational phase would potentially see some Moves traffic to new location and will impact different Moves traffic to new location and will impact different Moves traffic to new location and will impact different Retains vehicular traffic at the current crossing point. Online option will have no additional impacts to the current Moves traffic to new location and will impact different properties to the Removes vehicular traffic from the crossing and will therefore reduce greater number of properties due to the 1km extent either side. Operational Removes vehicular traffic from the crossing and will therefore reduce haulage of materials through access points. Operational phase would However, qualative criteria are also used levels in the vicinity. Furthermore, the construction phase is reduction in noise levels from traffic due to the proposed properties to the current crossing. 434 dwellings within properties to the current crossing. 458 dwellings within properties to the current crossing. 454 dwellings within Neutral impact on the noise environment. situation. 316 dwellings within 100m. current crossing. 159 dwellings within 100m. noise impacts on the local environment. 113 dwellings within 100m. noise impacts are not expected to change compared to the Do Nothing noise impacts on the local environment. 171 dwellings within 100m. potentially see a reduction in noise levels from traffic due to the road minimal. reduction in road level, likely to be balanced by changes in 100m. 100m. 100m. where necessary to differentiate between scenario. level being reduced. 316 dwellings within 100m. traffic levels. 316 dwellings within 100m. the options.

Estimated number of number of receptors Significant comparative disadvantage over other Some comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options within 50m reviewed as part of appriasal. options Options closer to more sensitive locations The construction stage impacts of this option are potentially more Removes vehicular traffic and the construction phase is Moves traffic to new location and will impact different Removes vehicular traffic and the construction phase is minimal. No will have an increased risk of changes in air Moves traffic to new location and will impact different properties to the Removes vehicular traffic and the construction phase is minimal. No disruptive on traffic and more extensive than other options. This potenially 3.2 Air Quality and Climate minimal. No traffic distribution data available to assess impact On line option.. 166 dwellings within 50m potentially On line option. 144 dwellings within 50m potentially Moves traffic to new location and will impact different properties to the current crossing. 205 dwellings within 50m. Moves traffic to new location and will impact different traffic distribution data available to assess impact on new receptors quality during construction or operational current crossing. 49 dwellings within 50m. traffic distribution data available to assess impact on new receptors involves more substantial embodied enegy within materials. Operational On line option. 159 dwellings within 50m potentially impacted during Retains vehicular traffic at the current crossing point. on new receptors therefore assessment only considers impacted during operational phase. Potential for construction impacted during operational phase. Potential for construction properties to the current crossing. 216 dwellings within 50m. Potentially less embodied carbon than option 3 due to properties to the current crossing. 206 dwellings within therefore assessment only considers current receptors close to the therefore assessment only considers current receptors close to the air quality impacts are not expected to change compared to the Do Nothing operational phase. Potential for construction phase dust impact is not phases. However, qualative criteria are also Neutral impact on the air quality environment.. current receptors close to the level crossing. Potential for phase dust impact is not significant when mitigation phase dust impact is not significant when mitigation Potential for construction phase dust impact is not significant underbridge rather than over bridge in construction phase. 50m. Potential for construction phase dust impact is not level crossing. 42 dwellings within 50m. Potential for construction Potential for construction phase dust impact is not significant when level crossing. 20 dwellings within 50m. Potential for construction phase scenario. Potential for construction phase dust impact is not significant significant when mitigation measures are put in place. construction phase dust impact is not significant when measures are put in place. measures are put in place. when mitigation measures are put in place. Potential for construction phase dust impact is not significant when mitigation measures are put in place. phase dust impact is not significant when mitigation measures are used where necessary to differentiate mitigation measures are put in place. dust impact is not significant when mitigation measures are put in place. when mitigation measures are put in place however higher risk due to rock mitigation measures are put in place. significant when mitigation measures are put in place. put in place. between the options. breaking and groundworks.

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

Underbridge option with embankments. The initial assessment indicates that the approach cuttings would extend for at least 160m on each approach to both bridges. Overbridge option will have very significant landscape and This option will have very significant landscape and visual impact on open space zoned lands between St. significan t visual impact on open space zoned lands Key landscape characteristics affected; Mochta's/Rockfield, Stationcourt Way/Kirkpatrick and through Online overbridge option is likely to have significant impact This option is likely to have significant impact on visual between St. Mochta's/Rockfield, Stationcourt Riverwood. Very significant visual impact for residential This option is likely to have significant impact on visual setting of Impact on landscape character; Impacts on on visual setting of adjoining residential properties at setting of adjoining residential properties at Kirkpatrick Drive, Way/Kirkpatrick and through Riverwood. Significant visual Underbridge option will have very significant visual impact on properties at St. Mochta's, Rockfield, Stationcourt Way/Hall, adjoining residential properties at Kirkpatrick Drive, Sheepmoor Lane, landscape features, protected landscapes. Kirkpatrick Drive, Sheepmoor Lane, Delwood Grove and Sheepmoor Lane, Delwood Grove and Riverwood Hall. impact for residential properties at St. Mochta's, Rockfield, residential properties at Delwood, Cherry Drive and Kirkpatrick and Riverwood. Demolition of residential property Overbridge option will have very significant visual impact on Some loss of trees and vegetation. Visual impact for nearest Delwood Grove and Riverwood Hall. Significant impact in removal of Landscape and Visual Riverwood Hall. Significant visual impact for setting of Significant impact in removal of Kirkpatrick Bridge - a Stationcourt Way/Hall, Kirkpatrick and Riverwood. Rosehaven. The option would be in a cutting on the 3.3 Key visual characteristics affected; Impacts at Sheepmoor Lane. Tree and vegetation loss and significant residential properties at Delwood, Cherry Drive and Rosehaven. properties at Delwood Grove, Sheepmoor Lane and Cherry Drive and Kirkpatrick Bridge - a protected structure and hence for Objective CH43 (including light) Minimal impact on existing landscape or visual characteristics - Kirkpatrick Bridge - a protected structure and hence for protected structure and hence for Objective CH43 of Fingal Demolition of residential property at Sheepmoor Lane. Tree approach to the proposed bridge under the railway over Some loss of trees and vegetation. Visual impact for nearest properties Signficant loss of trees and vegetation along canal and railway corridor. visual impact in crossing the Royal Canal and hence for Very significant landscape and visual impact on corridor of Royal along Royal Canal. Some impact on trees and open spaces in vicinity of Fingal Development Plan. The droplock solution will impact on the on properties, amenities, protected views, No likely impacts. no likely significant landscape or visual impacts. Loss of local Objective CH43 of Fingal Development Plan. Likely Development Plan. and vegetation loss and significant visual impact in crossing 160m on either side. at Delwood Grove, Sheepmoor Lane and Cherry Drive and along Royal Visual impact for properties along lowered railway / works areas. Objective CH43 of Fingal Development Plan. Canal, setting of Kirkpatrick Bridge and hence for Objective CH43 of of road works at Diswellstown Road / Clonsilla Road Junction; setting of the Royal Canal. key views. landscape connectivity. significant impact due to removal of roadside tree-lined Likely significant impact due to removal of roadside tree- the Royal Canal and hence for Objective CH43 of Fingal Very significant landscape and visual impact on corridor of Canal. Fingal Development Plan. Diswellstown Road Junction; Diswellstown Road / Porterstown Road Likely significant impact due to removal of roadside tree-lined hedgerows leading to railway / canal. lined hedgerows leading to railway / canal. Further Development Plan. Two structures approximately 50m in Royal Canal, setting of Kirkpatrick Bridge and hence for Online pedestrian cycle overbridge option will have very Demolition of residential properties at Delwood Grove. Junction; and Park Lodge / Castleknock Road Junction. hedgerows leading to railway / canal. Further information required Further information required regarding junction information required regarding junction total length would be required to go under the railway and Objective CH43 of Fingal Development Plan. significant landscape and visual impact on adjacent housing regarding junction proposal/arrangement for Sheepmoor Lane and proposal/arrangement for Sheepmoor Lane and Kirkpatrick proposal/arrangement for Sheepmoor Lane and Kirkpatrick span the canal. Demolition of residential properties at Delwood Grove. estates and apartment blocks. Tree and vegetation loss and Kirkpatrick Drive. Drive. Drive. Online pedestrian cycle overbridge option will have very significant visual impact in crossing the Royal Canal and significant landscape and visual impact on adjacent housing hence for Objective CH43 of Fingal Development Plan. estates and apartment blocks. Tree and vegetation loss and significant visual impact in crossing the Royal Canal and hence for Objective CH43 of Fingal Development Plan.

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

This option is hydrologically connected to European sites This option is hydrologically connected to European sites downstream in the Tolka Estuary and Dublin Bay. There is downstream in the Tolka Estuary and Dublin Bay. There is This option is hydrologically connected to European sites This option is hydrologically connected to European sites This option is hydrologically connected to European sites downstream no risk of Likely Significant Effects to this or any other no risk of Likely Significant Effects to this or any other downstream in the Tolka Estuary and Dublin Bay. There is no This option is hydrologically connected to European sites This option is hydrologically connected to European sites downstream in This option is hydrologically connected to European sites downstream in the Tolka Estuary and Dublin Bay. There is in the Tolka Estuary and Dublin Bay. There is no risk of Likely European site. There is potential for impacts to Royal Canal European site. There is potential for impacts to Royal Canal risk of Likely Significant Effects to this or any other European downstream in the Tolka Estuary and Dublin Bay. There is the Tolka Estuary and Dublin Bay. There is no risk of Likely Significant downstream in the Tolka Estuary and Dublin Bay. There is no risk of Potential compliance/conflict with no risk of Likely Significant Effects to this or any other This option is hydrologically connected to European sites This option is hydrologically connected to European sites downstream in Significant Effects to any European site. There is potential for impacts pNHA arising from noise, artifical lighting and impacts to pNHA arising from noise, artifical lighting and impacts to site. There is potential for impacts to Royal Canal pNHA no risk of Likely Significant Effects to this or any other Effects to this or any other European site. There is potential for impacts Likely Significant Effects to this or any other European site. There is European site. There is potential for impacts to Royal Canal downstream in the Tolka Estuary and Dublin Bay. There is no risk of the Tolka Estuary and Dublin Bay. There is no risk of Likely Significant to the Royal Canal pNHA arising from noise and artifical lighting. Water Biodiversity (flora and biodiversity objectives; Indirect impacts on water quality during construction. Widening of Coolmine water quality during construction. Widening of Coolmine arising from noise, artifical lighting and impacts to water European site. There is potential for impacts to Royal Canal to Royal Canal pNHA arising from noise, artifical lighting and impacts to potential for impacts to Royal Canal pNHA arising from noise, artifical 3.4 pNHA arising from noise, artifical lighting and impacts to Likely Significant Effects to this or any other European site. There is Effects to this or any other European site.There is potential for impacts to quality in the canal could be significantly impacted during Road on north side could result in loss of mature ash trees Road on north side could result in loss of mature ash trees quality during construction. New structure over the canal will pNHA arising from noise and artifical lighting during water quality during construction. The construction of the pedestrian and lighting and impacts to water quality during construction. The fauna) protected species, designated sites; Overall No likely impacts. No likely impacts. water quality during construction. New structure over the potential for impacts to Royal Canal pNHA arising from noise, artifical Royal Canal pNHA arising from noise, artifical lighting. Channelistaion or deconstruction of Kirkpatrick Bridge (RPS 697) and Royal Canal RPS on the west side of road next to canal. This could be avoided on the west side of road next to canal. This could be avoided fragment the ecological corridor. The construction of the construction. Diversion of the canal could have significant cyclist bridge will result in tree loss north of the canal and potentially construction of the pedestrian and cyclist bridge will result in tree loss effect on nature conservation resource. canal will fragment the ecological corridor. The construction lighting and impacts to water quality during construction. Large new realignment and lowering of the canal could have significant impacts to 994a). Dewatering of the canal to enable construction of droplock could if road is widened at eastern side. Demolition of Kirkpatrick if road is widened at eastern side. Underbridge optiion and pedestrian and cyclist bridge could result in tree loss north impacts to water quality and aquatic fauna which may have south of the railway at Coolmine Station. New structure over the canal north of the canal and potentially south of the railway at Coolmine of the pedestrian and cyclist bridge could result in tree loss structure over the canal which will fragment the ecological corridor. water quality and aqauatic fauna which may have to be rescued prior to impact fish and crayfish which will have to be rescued from the canal Bridge could cause disturbance to and displacement of canal bridge could poser water quality issues. Demolition of and south of the canal. Loss of woodland, scrub, amenity to be rescued prior to works. Loss of woodland, scrub, will fragment the ecological corridor. Station. New structure over the canal will fragment the ecological north and south of the canal. Loss of woodland, scrub, Loss of woodland and scrub habitat is anticipated. works. Demolition of Kirkpatrick Bridge could disturb and displace fauna. prior to works. Widening of Coolmine Road on north side could result in fauna as well as impact water quality in the canal. As the Kirkpatrick Bridge could disturb and displace fauna. As the grassland, scattered trees and parkland is anticipated. amenity grassland, scattered trees and parkland is corridor. Road improvements will result in minor loss of trees, amenity grassland, scattered trees and parkland is loss of mature ash trees on the west side of road next to canal. new structure over the railway and canal is aligned with the new structure over the railway and canal is aligned with the Demolition of property on the north side of the canal on anticipated. shrubs and grassy verges along existing roads. anticipated. Reconstruction the bridge will result in loss of habitat. existing crossing there will be minimal habitat loss and less existing crossing there will be minimal habitat loss and less Sheepmore Lane could disturb and displace fuana impact on the overall integrity of the pNHA. impact on the overall integrity of the pNHA.

Significant comparative advantage over other Significant comparative disadvantage over other Significant comparative disadvantage over other 3 Environment Significant comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative disadvantage over other options Overall effect on cultural, archaeological and options options options architecture heritage resource. Likely effects on RPS, National Monuments, SMRs, Cultural, Archaeological 3.5 Conservation areas, etc. and Architectural Heritage Potential direct impact on Kirkpatrick Bridge (RPS 0697) that Number of designated sites/structures (by Direct impact on RPS 697 Kirkpatrick bridge. Direct impact Direct and indirect impact to the Royal Canal (RPS No. Potential direct impacts to the Kirkpatrick Bridge (RPS 0697) and the Direct impacts to the Kirkpatrick Bridge (RPS 697) and the Royal No likely impacts. No likely impacts. spans over the Royal Canal. Potential indirect impact to the Indirect impact to the Royal Canal (RPS No. 994a). Direct impact to the Royal Canal (RPS No. 994a). Potential indirect impact to the Royal Canal (RPS No. 994a). Potential indirect impact to the Royal Canal (RPS No. 994a). Potential indirect impact to the Royal Canal (RPS No. 994a). level of designation) directly impacted by to the Royal Canal (RPS No. 994a). 994a). Indirect impact on RPS 697 Kirkpatrick bridge. Royal Canal (RPS No. 0994a). Canal (RPS No. 994a). Royal Canal (RPS No. 0994a). scheme (landtake)

Page 4 FOR WEB VIEWING ONLY

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

The in-stream works required constitute a flood hazard and is significantly disadvantageous compared to the other options. The construction works within the Royal Canal is The in-stream works required constitute a flood hazard and Overall potential significant effects on water likely to have a significant negative impact on Surface water is significantly disadvantageous compared to the other The in-stream works required constitute a flood hazard and is significantly The in-stream works required constitute a flood hazard and is Removes vehicular traffic borne pollutants and minimal quality during construction. The railway underpass and Option likely have minimal impact on flood regime. Potential options. The construction works within the Royal Canal Option likely have minimal impact on flood regime. Potential for minor disadvantageous compared to the other options. The construction works Option likely have minimal impact on flood regime. Potential for minor Option will have negligble impact on existing flood regime. Option likely have minimal impact on flood regime. Potential Option likely to have minimal impact on flood regime. Option likely have minimal impact on flood regime. Potential for minor significantly disadvantageous compared to the other options. The 3.6 Water Resources resource attributes likely to be affected construction activities. opening canal bridge excavations also pose a significant risk for minor impact on surface water quality during proposed as part of Option 5 is likely to have a significant impact on surface water quality during construction though removal of within the Royal Canal proposed as part of Option 8 is likely to have a impact on surface water quality during construction though removal Continued potential negative impact on surface water for minor impact on surface water quality during Potential for minor impact on surface water quality during impact on surface water quality during construction. Likely minimal construction works within the Royal Canal proposed as part of Option during construction and operation. The Do Minimum Option is advantageous across all sub- to Groundwater quality. Potential for localised lowering of the construction. Underpass excavations pose potential risk to negative impact on Surface water quality. vehicular traffic likely to have a positive impact on water quality of Royal significant negative impact on Surface water quality. Excavations required of vehicular traffic likely to have a positive impact on water quality of quality during operational phase. Has some comparative construction. Likely minimal impact on groundwater quality. construction. Likely minimal impact on groundwater quality. impact on groundwater quality. Has some comparative advantage 10 is likely to have a significant negative impact on Surface water criteria and has a significant comparative advantage compared groundwater table and potential groundwater contamination Groundwater quality. Underpass excavations also pose potential risk to Canal overall. Likely minimal impact on groundwater quality. Has some for lowering of the railway vertical alignment also pose potential risk to Royal Canal overall. Likely minimal impact on groundwater quality. advantages over other options. Has some comparative advantage over other options. Has some comparative advantage over other options. over other options. quality during construction. The railway underpass and canal droplock to other options overall. during construction. There is no indication of any wells or Has some comparative disadvantage over other options. Groundwater quality. comparative advantage over other options. Groundwater quality. Option is disadvantageous across all sub-criteria and Has some comparative advantage over other options. excavations also pose a significant risk to Groundwater quality. springs within the vicinity of the site. The impact would likely Option is disadvantageous across all water sub-criteria and has a significant comparative disadvantage Considerable excavations within the bed rock that would be required for be negligible during the operational phase. This Option is has a significant comparative disadvantage. the droplock and would likely be lead to localised lowering of the disadvantageous across all water sub-criteria and has a groundwater table and potential groundwater contamination during significant comparative disadvantage. construction. There is no indication of any wells or springs within the vicinity of the site. The impact would likely be negligible during the operational phase. Option 10 is disadvantageous across all sub-criteria and has a significant comparative disadvantage Significant comparative advantage over other Significant comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Significant comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options options This option will reconfigure local access onto Coolmine / Overall impact on land take & property. This option will impact on Coolmine Station car park resulting in a Carpernterstown Road. Direct impacts will include impacts to existing reduction in car spaces. The proposed local road upgrades will Agriculture and Non- Number of properties to be This option will reconfigure local access for Riverwood Court This option will reconfigure local access for Riverwood This option will reconfigure local access for Riverwood Court boundary and to private areas. The proposed local road upgrades will 3.7 This option will reconfigure local access onto Coolmine / This option will reconfigure local access onto Coolmine / This option will involve the acquisition of four residential properties on involve minor landtake of private lands resulting in loss of car parking Agricultural impacted/acquired. Likely temporary or and St. Mochta's Green/ Stationcourt Way. The non- Court and St. Mochta's Green/ Stationcourt Way. The non- and St. Mochta's Green/ Stationcourt Way. The non- This option will impact on Coolmine Station car park resulting in a This option will have direct impacts on Coolmine Station and the canal involve minor landtake of private lands resulting in loss of car parking No likely impacts. No likely impacts. Carpernterstown Road. Direct impacts will include impacts Carpernterstown Road. Direct impacts will include impacts the north side of the rail line. There will be a significant impact on the and boundary impacts at Woodbrook Court and properties on the agricultural impact will involve the acquisition of one agricultural impact will involve the acquisition of one agricultural impact will involve the acquisition of one reduction in car spaces. bridge. and boundary impacts at Woodbrook Court and properties on the permanent severance effects, etc. to existing boundary and green areas. to existing boundary and green areas. Coolmine Station car park. Castleknock Road. Boundary impacts and loss of mature trees, residential property under Option 3 residential property on Sheepmore Lane under Option 4 residential property on Sheepmore Lane under Option 4 Castleknock Road. Boundary impacts and loss of mature trees, hedgerow and grassed area are porposed at Laurel Lodge Park, hedgerow and grassed area are porposed at Laurel Lodge Park, Porterstocn Road and DIswellstown Road. Porterstocn Road and DIswellstown Road. Significant comparative advantage over other Soils and Geology and likely impact on Significant comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative disadvantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options geological resources based on options preliminary/likely construction details. Soil or topsoil resources to be developed/removed Underbridge option requires material export so some Comparatively lower fill import requirements due to the lower Overbridge options require fill import to the site for Underbridge option means that some materials may arise, Cycle/pedestrian overbridge option requires less fill import to the site. Underbridge option requires material export so some materials may based on cut or fill requirements and materials may arise along existing route. There is also an alignment with cut materials arising from area of open Some existing made ground cover on-site (requires walkover survey / Cycle/pedestrian overbridge option requires less fill import to the site. Although overbridge and approach roads construction requires less fill construction over existing roadway (Minor negative). which could possibly be suitable for reuse elsewhere on the Also provides for construction over existing roadway (Minor negative). arise along existing route. There is also an associated impact of Geology and Soils potential for soft ground which may also associated impact of interfering in the canal and existing Overbridge options require fill import to the site for ground (Minor negative). There is also an associated impact investigation). This overbridge option requires increased fill import to Also provides for construction over existing roadway (Minor negative). import to the site, the arisings from the railway lowering are much more Potential for ground contamination is considered low, project. This is balanced by an associated impact of Potential for ground contamination is considered low, subject to interfering in the canal and existing railway, which would require 3.8 railway, which would require specific materials be imported construction in open ground (Minor negative). Potential for of interfering in the canal and existing railway, which would the site, more than other options and yet fill would be onto ground that Potential for ground contamination is considered low, subject to further likely to include ground contamination (considered medium to high risk, (including Waste) need replaced. Existing information relating No likely impacts. No likely impacts. subject to further investigation. No pits or quarries are interfering in the canal and existing railway, which would further investigation. No pits or quarries are present. Comparative specific materials be imported plus removal of rail ballast or materials plus removal of rail ballast or materials containing potential ground contamination is considered low, subject to further require specific materials be imported plus removal of rail has been built on already (Minor negative). Potential for ground investigation. No pits or quarries are present. Comparative advantage is subject to further investigation). No pits or quarries are present. present. Comparative advantage is considered as require specific materials be exported and imported. Involves advantage is considered as construction is proposed on existing containing potential contamination. Involves other geotechnical risks to to potential to encounter contaminated land. contamination. Involves other geotechnical risks to design investigation. No pits or quarries are present. ballast or materials containing potential contamination. contamination is considered low, subject to further investigation. No considered as construction is proposed on existing route and unlikely to Comparative disadvantage is due to likelihood of ground contamination and construction is proposed on existing route and unlikely to other geotechnical risks to design and construction. (Minor route and unlikely to encounter new areas of soft ground or design and construction for retaining structures. No pits or quarries are High-level assessment based on the likely and construction for retaining structures. No pits or quarries Involves other geotechnical risks to design and construction pits or quarries are present. encounter new areas of soft ground or contamination. more extensive length of works interfacing the canal. encounter new areas of soft ground or contamination. negative) contamination. present. (Minor negative) structures/ works required and the potential are present. (Minor negative) for retaining structures. No pits or quarries are present. for ground contamination due to historic landfills, pits and quarries.

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

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

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

This option will require construction activity over the station and Impacts on low income groups, non-car This option is of benefit to low income groups, enhancing access to Original Distance roundabout to Rockfield Drive This option is of benefit to low income groups, enhancing This option is of benefit to low income groups, enhancing This option is of benefit to low income groups, enhancing incorporates steepened gradients on the approaches to the railway. Impact on Vulnerable public transport. No significant diversion for traffic. Options enhances access, 4.1 owners, mobility impaired, visually impaired crossroads 450m retained. access to public transport. access to public transport. access to public transport. This option is of benefit to low income groups, enhancing access to public Groups particularly for vulnerable groups through the incorporation of shallow This option severs access locally across the railway Original Distance roundabout to roundabout 450m retained. Original Distance roundabout to roundabout 500m retained. By the addition of a new pedestrian / cycle bridge By the addition of a new pedestrian / cycle bridge By the addition of a new pedestrian / cycle bridge Diverted distance route 821m (1.2x diversion route) transport. Original Distance roundabout to roundabout 500m retained. and people with a disability. rises and gradients, enhancement of pedestrian, cycle and mobility The long closure times associated with the level crossing Conjestion consequent on traffic diversions wil restrict access for impaired access. will, however, restrict access. Diverted distance route 1.5km (3.3x diversion route) Diverted distance route 1.5km (3.3x diversion route) Diverted distance route 1.5km (3.3x diversion route) The addition of nested ramps addresses the issue of approach disabled users gradient for this option

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

Station Accessibility is addressed for all level crossing options in proximity to a station Quantification of increased service levels to Station Accessibility is addressed for all level crossing options This option will require that traffic seeking to access the in proximity to a station Station Accessibility is addressed for all level crossing Station Accessibility is addressed for all level crossing Station Accessibility is addressed for all level crossing Station Accessibility is addressed for all level crossing Station Accessibility is addressed for all level crossing Station Accessibility is addressed for all level crossing options in Station Accessibility is addressed for all level crossing options in Station Accessibility is addressed for all level crossing options in proximity Station Accessibility is addressed for all level crossing options in Station Accessibility is addressed for all level crossing options in 4.2 Stations Accessibility the vulnerable groups. station from the north will divert along the existing road options in proximity to a station options in proximity to a station options in proximity to a station options in proximity to a station options in proximity to a station proximity to a station proximity to a station to a station proximity to a station proximity to a station Accessibility & Social network due to delays at the level crossing This option requires that all traffic accessing the station from 4 the north must divert along the existing road network This option does not significantly affect access to the station This option does not significantly affect access to the station This option does not significantly affect access to the station This option does not significantly affect access to the station This option does not significantly affect access to the station This option does not significantly affect access to the station This option does not significantly affect access to the station This option does not significantly affect access to the station This option does not significantly affect access to the station This option does not significantly affect access to the station inclusion Shortest diversion route 3.1km (6.8x diversion route). Shortest diversion route 3.1km (6.8x diversion route). Original Distance roundabout to Rockfield Drive crossroads 450m retained.

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

Service levels impacts including severance This option causes severence of the community through This option causes severence of the community through curtailment of local access over the railway without curtailment of local access over the railway without This option does not cause community severence, pedestrian and cycle of community groups; 4.3 Social Inclusion replacement with effective alternative access. replacement with effective alternative access. This option does not cause community severence. This option does not cause community severence. This option does not cause community severence. This option does not cause community severence. access maintained, adjacent road network upgraded. Severance from community facilities This option does not cause community severence. This option does not cause community severence. This option does not cause community severence. The enhancement of the local road network to address traffic delays This option does not cause community severence. consequent on an option. Community facilities affected by reduced access include Community facilities affected by reduced access include This option does not curtail access to community amenities This option does not curtail access to community amenities This option does not curtail access to community amenities This option does not curtail access to community amenities This option diverts vehicular road traffic onto the existing road network due to divrted traffic diversions curtails diversions to 2km for cars. Carpenterstown Community College, health facilities in Carpenterstown Community College, health facilities in This option does not affect access to community amenities This option does not affect access to community amenities negatively affecting access to local amenities. This option does not curtail access to community amenities Pedestrians and cyclists have good access This option does not curtail access to community amenities Castleknock, commercial facilities at the Coolmine Castleknock and commercial facilities at the Coolmine Diverted distance route 1.5km (3.3x diversion route) Diverted distance route 1.5km (3.3x diversion route) Diverted distance route 1.5km (3.3x diversion route) Diverted distance route 821m (1.2x diversion route). Industrial Estate and the train station. Industrial Estate Diverted distance route 2.0km.

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

This Option leaves the railway level crossing in place, a Safety for Rail users – removal of Level This option removes the railway level crossing, a characteristic This option removes the railway level crossing, a characteristic This option removes the railway level crossing, a characteristic This option removes the railway level crossing, a characteristic This option removes the railway level crossing, a characteristic characteristic which is considered negative from the This option removes the railway level crossing, a characteristic which is This option removes the railway level crossing, a characteristic which is This option removes the railway level crossing, a characteristic which is This option removes the railway level crossing, a characteristic which is This option removes the railway level crossing, a characteristic which is 5.1 Rail Safety crossings is considered a significant safety which is considered positive from the perspective of railway which is considered positive from the perspective of railway which is considered positive from the perspective of railway which is considered positive from the perspective of railway which is considered positive from the perspective of railway perspective of railway safety. considered positive from the perspective of railway safety. considered positive from the perspective of railway safety. considered positive from the perspective of railway safety. considered positive from the perspective of railway safety. considered positive from the perspective of railway safety. enhancement safety. safety. safety. Closing the crossing will remove the interface between rail and safety. safety. other traffic. This option will require construction activity associated with There is no significant construction activity along the railway associated There is no significant construction activity along the railway associated This option has significant and prolongues impact on the live railway during There is no significant construction activity along the railway associated The bridge under the railway will require limited discrete elements of There is no significant construction activity along the railway There is no significant construction activity along the railway The bridge under the railway will require limited discrete The bridge under the railway will require limited discrete The bridge under the railway will require limited discrete signalling along the live railway associated with the level with the level crossing with the level crossing construction. with the level crossing construction activity on the live railway associated with the level crossing associated with the level crossing elements of construction activity on the live railway elements of construction activity on the live railway elements of construction activity on the live railway crossing

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

This option closes the level crossing - removes a signficant hazard to This option closes the level crossing - removes a signficant hazard to Quality of Access for these road users, This option retains the level crossing - a signficant hazard to This option closes the level crossing - removes a signficant hazard This option closes the level crossing - removes a signficant This option closes the level crossing - removes a signficant This option closes the level crossing - removes a signficant This option closes the level crossing - removes a signficant This option closes the level crossing - removes a signficant hazard to This option closes the level crossing - removes a signficant hazard to transport This option closes the level crossing - removes a signficant hazard to This option closes the level crossing - removes a signficant transport users; transport users; transport users; to transport users; hazard to transport users; hazard to transport users; hazard to transport users; hazard to transport users; transport users; users; transport users; 5.2 Vehicular Traffic Safety lengths of diversions, removal of interface hazard to transport users; This option will result in traffic diversions of up to 2.0km and increased This option will result in traffic diversions of up to 2.0km but does not This option will result in traffic diversions of up to 2.0km and This option will result in traffic diversions of up to 2.0km and This option will not significantly divert traffic. This option will not significantly divert traffic. This option will not significantly divert traffic. This option will not significantly divert traffic. This option will not significantly divert traffic. This option will not significantly divert traffic. This option will not significantly divert traffic. with rail and other modes of transport This option will not significantly divert traffic. congestion on the local road network. cause increased congestion on the local road network. increased congestion on the local road network. increased congestion on the local road network. This option incorporates good segregation for pedestrians, This option incorporates good segregation for pedestrians, This option incorporates good segregation for pedestrians, This option incorporates good segregation for pedestrians, This option incorporates good segregation for pedestrians, cyclists and This option incorporates good segregation for pedestrians, cyclists and cars This option incorporates good segregation for pedestrians, cyclists and cars 5 Safety This option incorporates good segregation for pedestrians, cyclists and cars This option incorporates good segregation for pedestrians, cyclists and cyclists and cars from railway traffic. cyclists and cars from railway traffic. cyclists and cars from railway traffic. cyclists and cars from railway traffic. cars from railway traffic. from railway traffic. from railway traffic. from railway traffic. cars from railway traffic.

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

This option closes the level crossing. It provides a new link The curtailed availability of access over the level crossing The removal access over the level crossing associated with This option closes the level crossing. It provides a new link This option closes the level crossing. It provides a new link This option closes the level crossing. It provides a new link This option closes the level crossing. It provides a new link This option closes the level crossing. It provides a new link along This option removes the level crossing. It replaces pedestrian and This option closes the level crossing. It provides a new link along along approximately the same line as the original; This option removes the level crossing. It replaces pedestrian and cycle associated with this option will divert vulnerable road this option will divert vulnerable road users onto the existing along approximately the same line as the original; along approximately the same line as the original; along approximately the same line as the original; along approximately the same line as the original; approximately the same line as the original; cycle access with a pedestrian cycle bridge. Other vulnerable road approximately the same line as the original; access with a pedestrian cycle bridge. Other vulnerable road users are This option closes the level crossing. It provides a new link along users onto the existing road network. road network. A pedestrian cycle bridge is envisaged with gradients users are diverted onto the improved road network. Pedestrian, Cyclist and Nested ramps are envisaged to constrain gradients to a Nested ramps are envisaged to constrain gradients to a A pedestrian cycle bridge is envisaged with gradients A pedestrian cycle bridge is envisaged with gradients Nested ramps are envisaged to constrain gradients to a maximum of 5% diverted onto the existing road network. approximately the same line as the original; Nested ramps are envisaged to constrain gradients to a maximum of 5% for Quality of Access for these road users. constrained to a maximum of 5% for vulnerable road users. Diverted road users will be required to negotiate up to 6No Diverted road users will be required to negotiate up to 6No maximum of 5% for vulnerable road users. maximum of 5% for vulnerable road users. constrained to a maximum of 5% for vulnerable road users. constrained to a maximum of 5% for vulnerable road users. for vulnerable road users. Diverted road users will be required to negotiate up to 6No additional vulnerable road users. 5.3 Vulnerable Road user Diverted road users will be required to negotiate up to 6No additional removal of interfaces additional junctions including traffic light junctions and additional junctions including traffic light junctions and The junction strategy for vulnerable road users is unaffected by this option; junctions including traffic light junctions and roundabouts, typically Safety The incorporation of an opening bridge presents an obstacle junctions including traffic light junctions and roundabouts, typically roundabouts, typically turning left travelling southbound, roundabouts, typically turning left travelling southbound, right if The junction strategy for vulnerable road users is unaffected The incorporation of an opening bridge presents an obstacle for The junction strategy for vulnerable road users is unaffected by The incorporation of an boat lift presents an obstacle for The junction strategy for vulnerable road users is unaffected by this turning left travelling southbound, right if travelling northbound. The incorporation of an opening bridge presents an obstacle for vulnerable for vulnerable road users, not associated with some other turning left travelling southbound, right if travelling northbound. right if travelling northbound. travelling northbound. by this option; vulnerable road users, not associated with some other options; this option; vulnerable road users, not associated with some other options; option; This option incorporates good segregation for pedestrians, cyclists and cars Enhanced facilities to current best practice are envisaged. road users, not associated with some other options; options; This options does not provide for segregation on the diversion routes for from railway traffic. This options does not provide for segregation on the This options does not provide for segregation on the diversion This option incorporates good segregation for pedestrians, This option incorporates good segregation for pedestrians, This option incorporates good segregation for pedestrians, This option incorporates good segregation for pedestrians, This option incorporates good segregation for pedestrians, cyclists and This options partially provides for segregation on the diversion routes This option incorporates good segregation for pedestrians, cyclists and cars This option incorporates good segregation for pedestrians, vulnerable road users. diversion routes for vulnerable road users. routes for vulnerable road users. cyclists and cars from railway traffic. cyclists and cars from railway traffic. cyclists and cars from railway traffic. cyclists and cars from railway traffic. cars from railway traffic. for vulnerable road users. from railway traffic. cyclists and cars from railway traffic.

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

No formal cycle tracks currently present on the No cycle tracks currently present on the immediately No cycle tracks currently present on the immediately surrounding immediately surrounding road network, but increased Connectivity to adjoining Analysis of the extent that the scheme surrounding road network, but removal of level crossing will This option supports good linkage between existing and This option supports good linkage between existing and This option supports good linkage between existing and This option supports good linkage between existing and This option supports good linkage between existing and This option supports good linkage between existing and proposed This option supports good linkage between existing and proposed cycle road network, but with removal of level crossing access will be This option supports good linkage between existing and proposed cycle closures of the level crossing would reduce access to the 6.1 sever access to the Royal Canal Greenway from the opposite proposed cycle facilities proposed cycle facilities proposed cycle facilities proposed cycle facilities proposed cycle facilities cycle facilities facilities replaced by a pedestrian / cycle bridge which will mainrain access to facilities cycling facilities connects with cycle tracks. proposed Royal Canal Greenway. This option supports good linkage to proposed cycle facilities side of the railway. the Royal Canal Greenway from the opposite side of the railway. The quality of access to the train station for pedestrians and The quality of access to the train station for pedestrians and The quality of access to the train station for pedestrians and The quality of access to the train station for pedestrians and The quality of access to the train station for pedestrians and The quality of access to the train station for pedestrians and cyclists The quality of access to the train station for pedestrians and cyclists is The quality of access to the train station for pedestrians and cyclists is Access to the train station for pedestrians and cyclists will Access to the train station for pedestrians and cyclists will be cyclists is good in respect of this option. cyclists is good in respect of this option. cyclists is good in respect of this option. cyclists is good in respect of this option. cyclists is good in respect of this option. is good in respect of this option. good in respect of this option. Access to the train station for pedestrians and cyclists will be good in respect of this option. be significantly inhibited by the level crossing, particularly significantly inhibited by removal of the level crossing. maintained by a pedestrian / cycle bridge. with the planned level of service on the railway.

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

Cross railway journey = nil as crossing remains in place; Cross Railway journey = nil as the proposed option is along the plan Journey Time and lengths of diversions for Cross Railway journey = 3.3km as level crossing is removed. Cross Railway journey = nil as the proposed option is along Cross Railway journey = nil as the proposed option is along Cross Railway journey = nil as the proposed option is along the plan Cross Railway journey = nil as the proposed option is along the plan Cross Railway journey = nil as the proposed option is along the plan Inaccessible when crossing is closed. alignment of the existing Coolmine Road. Cross Railway journey = 0.3km over the proposed bridge. active modes and numbers affected. the plan alignment of the existing Coolmine Road. the plan alignment of the existing Coolmine Road. alignment of the existing Coolmine Road. alignment of the existing Coolmine Road. alignment of the existing Coolmine Road. Cross Railway journey = 1.2km. Cross Railway journey = 1.2km. Cross Railway journey = 1.2km. Permeability and local Diversion for cyclists when level crossing closed 3.3km 6.2 Analysis of the connectivity between level Diversion for cyclists when level crossing closed 3.3km Diversion for cyclists when level crossing closed 0.30km Diversion for cyclists when level crossing closed 0.3km access opportunity Diversion for cyclists when level crossing closed 0.13km Diversion for cyclists when level crossing closed 0.13km Diversion for cyclists when level crossing closed 0.13km Diversion for cyclists when level crossing closed is nil. Diversion for cyclists when level crossing closed 0.13km The principal high amenity greenspace in the vicinity of the The principal high amenity greenspace in the vicinity of the The principal high amenity greenspace in the vicinity of the crossing and green areas/key attractions The principal high amenity greenspace in the vicinity of the The principal high amenity greenspace in the vicinity of the existing train station is the Royal canal. This access is existing train station is the Royal canal. This access is existing train station is the Royal canal. This access is The principal high amenity greenspaces in the vicinity of the existing The principal high amenity greenspace in the vicinity of the existing related to active mode existing train station is the Royal canal. Increased closures of The principal high amenity greenspace in the vicinity of the The principal high amenity greenspace in the vicinity of the The principal high amenity greenspace in the vicinity of the existing The principal high amenity greenspace in the vicinity of the existing train The principal high amenity greenspace in the vicinity of the existing train existing train station is the Royal canal. Increased maintained by the proposed bridge scheme. maintained by the proposed bridge scheme. maintained by the proposed bridge scheme. train station include the Royal canal, the amenity zoned lands, golf train station is the Royal canal. This access is maintained by the the level crossing would sever access to the Royal Canal existing train station is the Royal canal. This access is existing train station is the Royal canal. This access is train station is the Royal canal. This access is maintained by the station is the Royal canal. This access is maintained by the proposed station is the Royal canal. This access is maintained by the proposed closures of the level crossing would reduce access to the courses and allotments south of the level crossing. This access is proposed bridge scheme. from the opposite side of the railway. maintained by the proposed bridge scheme. maintained by the proposed bridge scheme. proposed bridge scheme. bridge scheme. bridge scheme. Royal Canal. maintained by the proposed bridge scheme.

Criteria Do Nothing Do Minimum Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 Option 7 Option 8 Option 9 Option 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

Progress To Stage 2 No No Yes No Yes No No Yes No No Yes No

Page 5 FOR WEB VIEWING ONLY

DART+ WEST - MCA Stage 1 Porterstown Level Crossing Assessment

Parameter Criteria Sub-Criteria (Quantitative/ Qualitative) Do Nothing Do Minimum Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4

Closure of the existing crossings with no alternative Pedestrian / Cycle Links parallel to canal and rail to ramped Pedestrian / Cycle Bridge with Ramps extending along Pedestrian / Cycle Bridge with Nested Ramps (Same as Option 2 except Pedestrian / Cycle Bridge with Nested Ramps in Sports Leave the current level crossings in place. provided. All traffic would be diverted to alternative routes access to Diswellstown Viaduct Porterstown Road; realignment of Porterstown Road South to the northern ramps and abutment are to the east of the Porterstown Grounds and Grounds of Disused School around the crossing location. Accommodate this. Road)

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

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 proposed 1.1 Construction and Land Cost The level crossing is currently manned. The ongoing cost This scheme is similar to other bridge options but it includes The costs presented here are the capital costs for the proposed bridge temporary works Cost of removing crossing is low in comparison to provision proposed bridge structure and those of turnign facilities to be bridge structure and those of turnign facilities to be provided on associated with this control mechanism on the railway is an additional 600m of 5.0m wide cycleway and the land structure and those of turnign facilities to be provided on closure of the of road crossing. provided on closure of the proposed road. An estimated of land closure of the proposed road. An estimated of land acquisition significant. acquisition costs associated with it. proposed road. An estimated of land acquisition costs is also included. acquisition costs is also included. costs is also included.

Significant comparative disadvantage over other Significant comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options options 1 Economy Ongoing annual maintenance costs associated with varied The maintenance costs are associated with regular inspection and 1.2 Long Term Maintenance costs maintenance of the bridge structure. options The do-nothing scenario would maintain the existing The closure of the level crossing would remove the The maintenance costs are associated with regular inspection The maintenance costs are associated with regular inspection The maintenance costs are associated with regular inspection and No additional maintenance cost is allocated to the realigned maintenance costs of the level crossing. maintenance requirement of the level crossing. and maintenance of the cycleway and the ramp structures and maintenance of the bridge structure. maintenance of the bridge 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 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 increased Displacement of traffic onto alternative routes; increase in Displacement of traffic onto alternative routes; increase in Displacement of traffic onto alternative routes; increase in Displacement of traffic onto alternative routes; increase in journey Displacement of traffic onto alternative routes; increase in journey times benefit disruption from increased train frequencies. Economic journey times for local residents, New Link road already journey times for local residents, New Link road already serves journey times for local residents, New Link road already serves times for local residents, New Link road already serves for Consideration of potentially longer routes for traffic. for local residents, New Link road already serves for commuter traffic. disbenefit to rail. serves for commuter traffic. for commuter traffic. for commuter traffic. commuter traffic.

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

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

At local level, The Do - Minimum Option goes against Fingal This Option does not support Fingal DP map-based Specific DP map-based Specific Objectives; This Option does not support Fingal DP map-based Specific This Option does not support Fingal DP map-based Specific Objective 137; “Preserve the existing pedestrian and vehicular Specific Objective 137 "Preserve the existing pedestrian and Objective 137; “Preserve the existing pedestrian and vehicular Objective 137; “Preserve the existing pedestrian and vehicular right of way at the level crossing at Porterstown”. At local level, Option 4 goes against Fingal DP map-based Specific This option supports local planning policy map based vehicular right of way at the level crossing at Porterstown” right of way at the level crossing at Porterstown”. right of way at the level crossing at Porterstown”. However, an alternative right of way for pedestrians and also the Objective 137; “Preserve the existing pedestrian and vehicular right of "Objective 137: Preserve the existing pedestrian and and the Specific Objective of "Indicative Cycle/Pedestrian However, an alternative right of way for pedestrians is being development of cycling infrastructure is provided therefore would way at the level crossing at Porterstown” by closing the existing level Impact on land use strategies and local plans. Assessment of vehicular right of way at the level crossing at Porterstown”. Route". Option 1 supports pedestrian access to Dr Tory Bridge provided as part of this option at the existing level crossing support the 'indicative-Cycle/Pedestrian access' at the existing crossing. However, an alternative right of way for pedestrians is being 2.2 Land Use Integration support for land use factors local land use and planning. There is also a Specific Objective on Porterstown Road (Porterstown Viaduct) which would provide a pedestrian link to location. level crossing location (gradients & length not taken into provided as part of this option at the existing level crossing location. Integration running north south for an "Indicative Cycle/Pedestrian The closure of the level crossing with no alternative would proposed 'light rail corridor' and a light rail stop at Porterstown consideration). 2 Inclusion of project in relevant local planning documents. Route" that would be impacted. However, it is considered sever vehicular and pedestrian/cycle access to lands to the (travelling north south along the R121). The surrounding area This option supports the future development of lands zoned for This option supports the future development of lands zoned for that there would be modifications required to the current south zoned for "Residential Area", for which the Draft is zoned for 'Residential Area" for which the Draft Kellystown "Residential Area" as part of the future Kellystown LAP by This option supports the future development of lands zoned for "Residential Area" as part of the future Kellystown LAP by maintaining road widths and narrow bridge over the canal should this Kellystown LAP will apply (map based objective LAP13.C ) - LAP will apply (map based objective LAP13.C ) - currently at maintaining pedestrian and cycle access at this location. The "Residential Area" as part of the future Kellystown LAP by pedestrian and cycle access at this location. The Draft LAP supports the objective be realised as it could not be safely implemented currently at consultation stage. The Draft LAP supports the consultation stage. he Draft LAP supports the DART Draft LAP supports the DART Expansion programme. The LAP maintaining pedestrian and cycle access at this location. he Draft DART Expansion programme. The LAP includes the potential in it's current form. DART Expansion programme. The LAP includes the Expansion programme. The LAP includes the potential includes the potential development of a 'Future train station LAP supports the DART Expansion programme. The LAP includes development of a 'Future train station and/ or Metro West node' on the potential development of a 'Future train station and/ or development of a 'Future train station and/ or Metro West and/ or Metro West node' on the southern side of the tracks on the potential development of a 'Future train station and/ or Metro southern side of the tracks on Porterstown Road. Metro West node' on the southern side of the tracks on node' on the southern side of the tracks on Porterstown Road. Porterstown Road. West node' on the southern side of the tracks on Porterstown Porterstown Road. Road.

Alternative level crossing options are mostly neutral in respect Comparable to other options Comparable to other options Comparable to other options 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 No impact on Geographical Integration No impact on Geographical Integration No impact on Geographical Integration

Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Other Government Policy Integration with the other Government policy such as the 2.4 This option would not support the delivery of the higher level This option would support the delivery of the DART Expansion This option would support the delivery of the DART Expansion This option would support the delivery of the DART Expansion This option would support the delivery of the DART Expansion Integration NPF and RSES. national and regional planning policies regarding the DART This option would support the delivery of the DART Expansion programme in programme in the higher level national and regional planning programme in the higher level national and regional planning policy programme in the higher level national and regional planning policy programme in the higher level national and regional planning policy Expansion programme (NPF- (NS04), RSES & GDA Transport the higher level national and regional planning policy documents. policies however it would impact on Smarter Travel policy. documents. documents. documents. Strategy).

Estimated number of sensitive properties within 100m of the Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options works. Options closer to more sensitive locations will have an 3.1 Noise and Vibration increased risk of generating a noise impact. However, Retains vehicular traffic which will impact the low number of sensitive receptors in proximity. 9 dwelling within 100m. Note that only construction stage 27 dwelling within 100m. Note that only construction stage 13 dwelling within 100m. Note that only construction stage impacts 8 dwelling within 100m. Note that only construction stage impacts Removes vehicular traffic and minimal construction phase. qualative criteria are also used where necessary to impacts expected as this is a pedestrian crossing. impacts expected as this is a pedestrian crossing. expected as this is a pedestrian crossing. expected as this is a pedestrian crossing. differentiate between the options.

Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Estimated number of number of receptors within 50m 5 dwelling within 50m. Note that only construction stage impacts 4 dwelling within 50m. Note that only construction stage reviewed as part of appriasal. Options closer to more expected as this is a pedestrian crossing. Potentially more 5 dwelling within 50m. Note that only construction stage impacts 3 dwelling within 50m. Note that only construction stage impacts expected as this is a pedestrian crossing.Potential for sensitive locations will have an increased risk of changes in Removes low level of vehicular traffic onto Diswellstown embodied carbon due to additional construction material required. expected as this is a pedestrian crossing.Potential for construction phase 3.2 Air Quality and Climate impacts expected as this is a pedestrian crossing. No bridge construction phase dust impact is not significant when Retains vehicular traffic which will impact the low number of Viaduct 300m away and the construction phase is minimal. Potential for construction phase dust impact is not significant dust impact is not significant when mitigation measures are put in place. air quality during construction or operational phases. so lower construction impacts. Potential for construction phase mitigation measures are put in place. No traffic distribution sensitive receptors in proximity. Potential for construction phase dust impact is not when mitigation measures are put in place. No traffic distribution No traffic distribution data available to assess impact on new receptors However, qualative criteria are also used where necessary to dust impact is not significant when mitigation measures are data available to assess impact on new receptors therefore significant when mitigation measures are put in place. data available to assess impact on new receptors therefore therefore assessment only considers current receptors close to the level put in place. assessment only considers current receptors close to the level differentiate between the options. assessment only considers current receptors close to the level crossing. crossing. crossing.

Significant comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative disadvantage over other options Significant comparative disadvantage over other options Significant comparative disadvantage over other options Key landscape characteristics affected; Impact on landscape character; Impacts on landscape features, protected

Landscape and Visual (including landscapes. Significant impact on trees to north of canal - which provide Significant impact on roadside trees and hedgerows. Significant impact on trees to north of canal - which provide screening for 3.3 Loss of local connectivity. Minimal impact on existing light) Key visual characteristics affected; Impacts on properties, screening for residential property. Significant visual impact for old cottages at level crossing and for residential property. No impact on existing landscape or visual characteristics landscape or visual characteristics - no likely significant Significant impact on trees to north of canal - which provide Significant visual impact for old cottages at level crossing. properties on Porterstown Road, north of the canal. Significant visual impact for old cottages at level crossing. amenities, protected views, key views. landscape or visual impacts. screening for residential property. Visual impact on setting of Keenan bridge, with proposed Visual impact on setting of Keenan bridge, with proposed bridge Visual impact on setting of Keenan bridge, with proposed bridge elevated bridge elevated directly over. elevated directly over. directly over.

Page 6 FOR WEB VIEWING ONLY

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other 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 3 will impact on lands used by St. Mochta’s GAA club, St. No direct impacts to property however severence to local Option 1 will have a direct impact on non-agricultural lands in Option 2 will have a direct impact on non-agricultural lands in Option 4 will have a direct impact on non-agricultural lands in use as a No direct impacts. Mochta’s FC and St. Mochta’s National School severance effects, etc. land uses in the area. use as a car park for St. Mochta’s GAA club. use as a car park for St. Mochta’s GAA club. car park for St. Mochta’s GAA club.

Soils and Geology and likely impact on geological resources Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other 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 Comparative disadvantage is considered as construction is Comparative disadvantage is considered as construction is Comparative disadvantage is considered as construction is proposed, no No significant direct impacts. No significant direct impacts. encounter contaminated land. High-level assessment based proposed, no likely significant impacts. proposed, no likely significant impacts. proposed, no likely significant impacts. likely significant impacts. on the likely structures/ works required and the potential for ground contamination due to historic landfills, pits and quarries.

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

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

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

Impacts on low income groups, non-car owners, mobility With the level crossing becoming effectively closed on 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. implementation of the proposed working timetable and with no High Quality access for vulnerable groups proposed with the High Quality access for vulnerable groups proposed with thhe High Quality access for vulnerable groups proposed with thhe inclusion supplementary infrastructure for vulnerable groups, the majority vulnerable groups includes a diversion of approximately provision for supplementaty infrastructure for vulnerable groups, inclusion of bridge infrastructure in this option. inclusion of bridge infrastructure in this option. of bridge infrastructure in this option. of users will be diverted onto the adjacent viaduct. 1.0km. This if not evident for other bridge options the majority of users will be diverted onto the adjacent viaduct.

Comparable to other options Comparable to other options Comparable to other options 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 not It is considered that alterations at Porterstown will not It is considered that alterations at Porterstown will not It is considered that alterations at Porterstown will not It is considered that alterations at Porterstown will not significantly It is considered that alterations at Porterstown will not significantly affect significantly affect access to stations in the locality significantly affect access to stations in the locality significantly affect access to stations in the locality significantly affect access to stations in the locality affect access to stations in the locality access to stations in the locality Accessibility & Social 4 Significant comparative disadvantage over other Significant comparative disadvantage over other inclusion Significant comparative disadvantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options options options

Cross Railway journey = nil as crossing remains in place; Cross Railway journey = nil as crossing remains in place; Cross Railway journey = nil as crossing remains in place; Full Cross Railway journey = nil as crossing remains in place; Full Cross Railway journey = nil as crossing remains in place; Full Inaccessible when crossing is closed. Inaccessible when crossing is closed. access remains for pedestrians and cyclists on closure of the access remains for pedestrians and cyclists on closure of the access remains for pedestrians and cyclists on closure of the level Cross Railway journey = nil as crossing remains in place; Full access level crossing. level crossing. crossing. remains for pedestrians and cyclists on closure of the level crossing. Service levels impacts including severance of community Diversion for cars, pedestrians and cyclists when level Premanent diversion for cars, pedestrians and cyclists groups; crossing closed 1.1km 1.1km Diversion for cars when level crossing closed 1.1km. Diversion Diversion for cars when level crossing closed 1.1km. Diversion Diversion for cars when level crossing closed 1.1km. Diversion for Diversion for cars when level crossing closed 1.1km. Diversion for 4.3 Social Inclusion for pedestrians, cyclists and mobility impaired - ~1km for pedestrians, cyclists and mobility impaired - ~0.35km pedestrians, cyclists and mobility impaired - ~0.35km pedestrians, cyclists and mobility impaired - ~0.35km Severance from community facilities consequent on an The principal affected amenities in the vicinity of the level The principal affected amenities in the vicinity of the level option. crossing include St Mochta's football grounds south of the crossing include St Mochta's football grounds south of the The principal affected amenities in the vicinity of the level The principal affected amenities in the vicinity of the level The principal affected amenities in the vicinity of the level crossing The principal affected amenities in the vicinity of the level crossing railway, Scoil Choilm and Luttrelstown Community College railway, Scoil Choilm and Luttrelstown Community College crossing include St Mochta's football grounds south of the crossing include St Mochta's football grounds south of the include St Mochta's football grounds south of the railway, Scoil include St Mochta's football grounds south of the railway, Scoil Choilm and Centre south of the railway, St Mochta's National and Centre south of the railway, St Mochta's National railway, Scoil Choilm and Luttrelstown Community College railway, Scoil Choilm and Luttrelstown Community College and Choilm and Luttrelstown Community College and Centre south of and Luttrelstown Community College and Centre south of the railway, St School and the Healthwell Clinic, north of the railway. School and the Healthwell Clinic, north of the railway. and Centre south of the railway, St Mochta's National School Centre south of the railway, St Mochta's National School and the railway, St Mochta's National School and the Healthwell Clinic, Mochta's National School and the Healthwell Clinic, north of the railway. Removal of the level crossing require detour for access to Removal of the level crossing require detour for access to and the Healthwell Clinic, north of the railway. Removal of the the Healthwell Clinic, north of the railway. Removal of the level north of the railway. Removal of the level crossing require detour Removal of the level crossing require detour for access to each of them. each of them. each of them. level crossing require detour for access to each of them. crossing require detour for access to each of them. for access to each of them.

Significant comparative disadvantage over other Significant comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options 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 Maintaining the crossing would have a significant disadvantage Closing the crossing will remove the interface between rail and All overbridges have a significant advantage as they are a great All overbridges have a significant advantage as they are a great All overbridges have a significant advantage as they are a great crossing All overbridges have a significant advantage as they are a great crossing to rail safety for people still crossing the rail. other traffic. crossing alternative crossing alternative alternative alternative

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

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

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

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

Page 7 FOR WEB VIEWING ONLY

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

Cross Railway journey = nil as crossing remains in place; Full Cross Railway journey = nil as crossing remains in place; Full Cross Railway journey = nil as crossing remains in place; Full Cross Railway journey = nil as crossing remains in place; Cross Railway journey = nil as crossing remains in place; Full access 6 Physical Activity Cross Railway journey = nil as crossing remains in place; access remains for pedestrians and cyclists on closure of the access remains for pedestrians and cyclists on closure of the access remains for pedestrians and cyclists on closure of the level Inaccessible when crossing is closed. remains for pedestrians and cyclists on closure of the level crossing. Inaccessible when crossing is closed. level crossing. level crossing. crossing. Journey Time and lengths of diversions for active modes and Premanent diversion for cars, pedestrians and cyclists Diversion for cars when level crossing closed 1.1km. Diversion for Permeability and local access numbers affected. Analysis of the connectivity between level Diversion for cars, pedestrians and cyclists when level Diversion for cars when level crossing closed 1.1km. Diversion Diversion for cars when level crossing closed 1.1km. Diversion Diversion for cars when level crossing closed 1.1km. Diversion for 6.2 1.1km pedestrians, cyclists and mobility impaired - ~0.35km opportunity crossing and green areas/key attractions related to active crossing closed 1.1km for pedestrians, cyclists and mobility impaired - ~1km for pedestrians, cyclists and mobility impaired - ~0.35km pedestrians, cyclists and mobility impaired - ~0.35km mode The principal affected amenities in the vicinity of the level The principal affected amenities in the vicinity of the level The principal affected amenities in the vicinity of the level crossing crossing include the Royal canal,and the amenity zoned The principal affected amenities in the vicinity of the level The principal affected amenities in the vicinity of the level The principal affected amenities in the vicinity of the level crossing crossing include the Royal canal,and the amenity zoned include the Royal canal,and the amenity zoned lands south west of the lands south west of the level crossing. Removal of the level crossing include the Royal canal,and the amenity zoned lands crossing include the Royal canal,and the amenity zoned lands include the Royal canal,and the amenity zoned lands south west lands south west of the level crossing. Removal of the level level crossing. Removal of the level crossing require detour for access to crossing require detour for access to each of them. south west of the level crossing. Removal of the level crossing south west of the level crossing. Removal of the level crossing of the level crossing. Removal of the level crossing require detour crossing require detour for access to each of them. each of them. require detour for access to each of them. require detour for access to each of them. for access to each of them.

Criteria Do Nothing Do Minimum Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

Progress To Stage 2 No No No Yes Yes Yes

Page 8 FOR WEB VIEWING ONLY

DART+ WEST - MCA Stage 1 Clonsilla Level Crossing Assessment

Parameter Criteria Sub-Criteria (Quantitative/ Qualitative) Do Nothing Do Minimum Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 Option 7

Closure of the existing crossings with no alternative provided. All Pedestrian Cycle Bridge only at Level Crossing / Station Overbridge with approach roadworks 200m to the east of Overbridge 200m to the east of crossing – Offline at Overbridge 200m to the east of crossing – Online of Larchgrove Leave the current level crossings in place. traffic would be diverted to alternative routes around the crossing Overbridge 370m to the west of crossing Overbridge 210m to the west of crossing Overbridge 200m to the east of crossing – Online at Larchgrove (delivered contingent on road bridge crossing at Barberstown) crossing Larchgrove with Retained Walls location.

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

This option includes costs above Option 2 for additional at grade This option includes the costs of urban roadworks across green Assessment of cost of construction of option, land costs and This option includes the costs of urban roadworks across green This option includes costs above Option 2 for additional at grade This option includes the costs of urban roadworks across green This option includes the costs of urban roadworks across green 1.1 Construction and Land Cost roadworks and a longer bridge structure and land acquisition fieldsto cross the railway and canal via raised embankment and temporary works The proposed signaling system will need augmentation to Cost of removing crossing is nominal in comparison to provision The provsions here include low key works to close the level fieldsto cross the railway and canal via raised embankment and roadworks and a longer bridge structure and land acquisition fieldsto cross the railway and canal via raised embankment and fieldsto cross the railway and canal via raised embankment and associated with same. It also includes a premium for the cost of single span bridge. Includes 2No, Junctions and the acquisition of accommodate the level crossing left in place of road crossing. crossing and the construction of a new pedestrian / cycle bridge single span bridge. Includes 2No, Junctions and the acquisition associated with same. This option does not require the acquisition single span bridge. Includes 2No, Junctions and the acquisition single span bridge. Includes 2No, Junctions and the acquisition of online construction which applies to the works North of the canal. 6No houses. Retaining Walls on Northern Approach to Railway to of 6No houses. of any houses. of 6No houses. 8No houses. This option does not require the acquisition of any houses. reduce land take

Significant comparative disadvantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Ongoing annual maintenance costs associated with varied 1.2 Long Term Maintenance costs An overbridge would increase the maintenance requirements An overbridge would increase the maintenance requirements An overbridge would increase the maintenance requirements over An overbridge would increase the maintenance requirements over options The do-nothing scenario would maintain the existing The closure of the level crossing would remove the maintenance The inspection and maintenance costs are associated with the The inspection and maintenance costs are associated with the Maintenance costs low - 15k ex VAT per year for bridge structure over a level crossing, though it would not be significantly more over a level crossing, though it would not be significantly more a level crossing, though it would not be significantly more so than a level crossing, though it would not be significantly more so than maintenance costs of the level crossing requirement of the level crossing roadworks and the bridge roadworks and the bridge so than other options. so than other options. other options. other options. 1 Economy

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

Displacement of mobility impaired and cycle traffic onto ramped alternative routes; increase in journey times for local residents. Traffic Functionality /economic Benefits to vehicular traffic through reduction in journey time Removal of vehicular access over the level crossing results in 1.3 benefit lengths and delays through removal of level crossings. displaced flows - 680 vehicles AM peak hour and 704 vehicles Some improvement in journey time compared to the Do Minimum Some improvement in journey time compared to the Do Minimum Some improvement in journey time compared to the Do Some improvement in journey time compared to the Do Some improvement in journey time compared to the Do Minimum Some improvement in journey time compared to the Do Minimum Reduced capacity as train frequencies increase; increase in Displacement of traffic onto alternative routes; increase in journey Consideration of potentially longer routes for traffic. PM peak hour. and Option1; Some potential for induced trips; diversion required and Option1; Some potential for induced trips; diversion required Minimum and Option1; Some potential for induced trips; Minimum and Option1; Some potential for induced trips; and Option1; Some potential for induced trips; diversion required and Option1; Some potential for induced trips; diversion required journey times for local residents. times for local residents. for local residents. for local residents. diversion required for local residents. diversion required for local residents. for local residents. for local residents. Additional traffic delay will result along adjacent access routes - 1% AM peak hour and 1% PM peak hour.

Benchmark journey times will increase by up to 3%,

Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Impact on scope for and ease of interchange between modes. Impact on the operation of other transport services Improved facilities for pedestrians and cyclists on new road link. Improved facilities for pedestrians and cyclists on new road link, Improved facilities for pedestrians and cyclists on new road link. Improved facilities for pedestrians and cyclists on new road link. Improved facilities for pedestrians and cyclists on new road link. Improved facilities for pedestrians and cyclists on new road link. both during construction and in operation. New interchange Removal of direct local access to Royal Canal greenway, although although less extensive than other options. Slightly more Removal of direct local access to Royal Canal greenway, Slightly more circuitous route for cyclists to access station from Slightly more circuitous route for cyclists to access station from Slightly more circuitous route for cyclists to access station from Transport Integration Not shown on GDA Cycle Network Plan but there would be a Not shown on GDA Cycle Network Plan but there would be a Severance of access to train station car parking from south of alternative access provided via slightly circuitous route. Slightly circuitous route for cyclists to access station from the south. 2.1 nodes and facilities; Reduced walking and wait times although alternative access provided via slightly circuitous route. the south. Removal of direct local access to Royal Canal the south. Removal of direct local access to Royal Canal the south. Removal of direct local access to Royal Canal reduction in local accessibility to the Royal Canal Cycle Route removal of local accessibility to the Royal Canal Cycle Route. the railway. Would require significant re-routing of proposed L52 more circuitous route for cyclists to access station from the south. Removal of direct local access to Royal Canal greenway, associated with interchanges. Modal shift figures during Slightly more circuitous route for cyclists to access station from greenway, although alternative access provided via slightly greenway, although alternative access provided via slightly greenway, although alternative access provided via slightly with increased closures of the railway. Reduced access to train Severance of access to train station car parking from south of the bus route (BusConnects). Removal of local accessibility to the Would require slight re-routing of proposed L52 bus route although alternative access provided via slightly circuitous route. the south. Would require slight re-routing of proposed L52 bus circuitous route. Would require slight re-routing of proposed L52 circuitous route. Would require slight re-routing of proposed L52 circuitous route. Would require slight re-routing of proposed L52 construction and operations. Changes to journey times to station car parking from south of the railway. railway. Royal Canal Cycle Route (BusConnects), although it would still directly serve Coolmine Would require slight re-routing of proposed L52 bus route route (BusConnects), and a looped route back to continue to bus route (BusConnects), and a looped route back to continue to bus route (BusConnects), and a looped route back to continue to bus route (BusConnects), and a looped route back to continue to transport nodes. Station, as per existing plan, and may increase potential catchment (BusConnects), although it would still directly serve Coolmine directly serve Coolmine Station, as per existing plan. directly serve Coolmine Station, as per existing plan. directly serve Coolmine Station, as per existing plan. directly serve Coolmine Station, as per existing plan. by running closer to existing developments. Station, as per existing plan

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

This option is supported in principle by the national and regional planning policy context. This option is supported in principle by the national and regional Overbridge 200m to the east of existing crossing – Online at planning policy context. The option is located in lands zoned “High Amenity” and “Open This Option would impact lands zoned LAP13.C Kellystown LAP Option 3 traverses through large area of land zoned for “Open Space” Larchgrove Similar to Option 2, this option would impact lands At local level, Option 6 may impact the Fingal DP map-based Zoning At local level, Option 7 may impact the Fingal DP map-based Zoning Space”. The construction of a pedestrian and cycle bridge would which is also zoned as a Strategic Development Zone (SDZ) Other by Fingal DP which aims to “Preserve and provide for open space zoned LAP13.C Kellystown LAP which is also zoned as a Strategic Objectives for “Residential” lands by impacting the existing residential Objectives for “Residential” lands by impacting the existing residential impact negatively on this land use objective which crosses over the relevant zonings that apply include Open Space, established Impact on land use strategies and local plans. Assessment The Do – Minimum Option does not impact any Fingal DP map- and recreational amenities” as well as lands zoned for “High Development Zone (SDZ) Other relevant zonings that apply include properties. Additionally, Option 6 is likely to impact a map-based properties. Additionally, Option 7 is likely to impact a map-based Royal Canal. It would prevent continued vehicular acesss at this residential, town centre and district. It is also within a wider 'urban Options 4 impacts zonned 'High Amenity' and 'Open Space' and based Zoning Objectives and Specific Objectives. Closure of the Amenity” where the aim is to “Protect and enhance high amenity Open Space, established residential, town centre and district. It is Specific Objective for the development of a “School” at Clonsilla Specific Objective for the development of a “School” at Clonsilla 2.2 Land Use Integration of support for land use factors local land use and planning. The do-nothing option would not support for DART Expanision location. However, when compared with other options it is more Framework Plan' area as per the Fingal DP map-based Zoning would include vehicular, pedestrian and cycle access. It is a more level crossing with no alternative access would prevent land use areas” . This option goes against the aims of lands zoned for “Open also within a wider 'urban Framework Plan' area as per the Fingal Road by traversing through the lands earmarked for this Road by traversing through lands earmarked for this development. 2 Integration Inclusion of project in relevant local planning documents. however it does not impact on local planning policy/objectives discrete and impacts less HA and OS zoned lands when compared Objectives. The Draft Kellystown LAP 2020 (south of the railway) discrete solution than Opton 3 and some of the other Do-Something and planning integration at this location and access to Clonsilla Space” and “High Amenity”. Additionally, Option 3 traverses lands DP map-based Zoning Objectives. development. hence rated as an advantage over other options. wiith other Do-Something options and for this reason would have indicates that this Option would be located in an area identified for options and therefore would have minor advantages over other Do- with a Fingal map-based Specific Objective to “Protect & Preserve The Draft Kellystown LAP 2020 (south of the railway) indicates that The areas south of the railway are within undeveloped lands zoned Station from either side of the tracks/ Canal and restricting access some advanttges over other options. The Draft Kellystown LAP 2020 openwith residential either side of the proposed online road option. Something options. Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows”. this Option would be located in an area identified for openwith The areas south of the railway are within undeveloped lands zoned for “Residential Area” and “Open Space” by the Fingal DP, which are to the Royal Canal greenway. is currently being developed and would need to be take account of Further consultion would be required with FCC if this is chosen as In terms of land use factors, it would connect to the Hansfield SDZ. residential either side of the proposed online road option. Further for “Residential Area” and “Open Space” by the Fingal DP, which are subject to the Draft Kellystown LAP currently at public consultation this as part of the movement strategy. Further consultation would be the preferred option. consultion would be required with FCC if this is chosen as the subject to the Draft Kellystown LAP currently at public consultation stage. This option will result in reduced zoned lands being made required with FCC if this is chosen as the preferred option. This option would not correspond with the movement strategy or land use zoning objectives of this SDZ. preferred option. stage. This option will result in reduced zoned lands being made available for indiciative residential development and open spaces available for indiciative residential development and open spaces identified in the draft LAP. identified in the draft LAP.

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

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

Other Government Policy Integration with the other Government policy such as the This option would support the delivery of the higher level national and 2.4 This option would not support the delivery of the higher level national This option would support the delivery of the higher level national and This option would support the delivery of the higher level national and This option would support the delivery of the higher level national and This option would support the delivery of the higher level national and This option would support the delivery of the higher level national and This option would support the delivery of the higher level national and This option would support the delivery of the higher level national and Integration NPF and RSES. regional planning policies regarding the DART Expansion programme and regional planning policies regarding the DART Expansion regional planning policies regarding the DART Expansion programme regional planning policies regarding the DART Expansion programme regional planning policies regarding the DART Expansion programme regional planning policies regarding the DART Expansion programme regional planning policies regarding the DART Expansion programme regional planning policies regarding the DART Expansion programme regional planning policies regarding the DART Expansion programme (NPF- (NS04), RSES & GDA Transport Strategy). However there would programme (NPF- (NS04), RSES & GDA Transport Strategy). (NPF- (NS04), RSES & GDA Transport Strategy). (NPF- (NS04), RSES & GDA Transport Strategy). (NPF- (NS04), RSES & GDA Transport Strategy). (NPF- (NS04), RSES & GDA Transport Strategy). (NPF- (NS04), RSES & GDA Transport Strategy). (NPF- (NS04), RSES & GDA Transport Strategy). (NPF- (NS04), RSES & GDA Transport Strategy). be impact to Smarter travel policy.

Estimated number of sensitive properties within 100m of the Some comparative disadvantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative disadvantage over other options Significant comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative disadvantage over other options Significant comparative disadvantage over other options Significant comparative disadvantage over other options works. Options closer to more sensitive locations will have

3.1 Noise and Vibration an increased risk of generating a noise impact. However, This option constructs a new crossing point and therefore moves This option constructs a new crossing point and therefore moves This option constructs a new crossing point and therefore moves This option constructs a new crossing point and therefore moves This option constructs a new crossing point and therefore moves Retains vehicular traffic which will impact the low number of Pedestrian crossing only will have no operational noise impact. 38 dwellings within 100m. Slightly less impacts options 2, 3, 5 qualative criteria are also used where necessary to Removes vehicular traffic and minimal construction phase. vehicular traffic closer to dwellings not currently exposed to vehicular traffic closer to dwellings not currently exposed to vehicular traffic closer to dwellings not currently exposed to vehicular traffic closer to dwellings not currently exposed to vehicular traffic closer to dwellings not currently exposed to sensitive receptors in proximity. 27 properties within 100m. and 6 due to lower number of properties within 100m differentiate between the options. vehicular traffic. 86 dwellings within 100m. vehicular traffic. 51 dwellings within 100m. vehicular traffic. 121 dwellings within 100m. vehicular traffic. 120 dwellings within 100m. vehicular traffic. 120 dwellings within 100m.

Some comparative disadvantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Estimated number of number of receptors within 50m reviewed as part of appriasal. Options closer to more 25 dwellings within 50m. Due to longer length and overbridge, sensitive locations will have an increased risk of changes in 5 dwellings within 50m. Slightly less impacts over options 2, 3 27 dwellings within 50m. This option constructs a new crossing 28 dwellings within 50m. This option constructs a new crossing 28 dwellings within 50m. This option constructs a new crossing Pedestrian crossing only will have no operational impact locally. there would be a higher volume of embodied carbon in this 13 dwellings within 50m. Due to longer length and overbridge, 3.2 Air Quality and Climate and 6 due to lower number of properties within 50m and lower point and therefore moves vehicular traffic closer to dwellings point and therefore moves vehicular traffic closer to dwellings not point and therefore moves vehicular traffic closer to dwellings not air quality during construction or operational phases. Retains vehicular traffic which will impact the low number of Traffic redistribution not considered. 8 properties within 50m. option. Potential for construction phase dust impact is not there would be a higher volume of embodied carbon in this option. Removes vehicular traffic and minimal construction phase construction materials (embodied carbon). Potential for not currently exposed to vehicular traffic. Potential for currently exposed to vehicular traffic. Potential for construction currently exposed to vehicular traffic. Potential for construction However, qualative criteria are also used where necessary sensitive receptors in proximity. Potential for construction phase dust impact is not significant significant when mitigation measures are put in place. Potential Potential for construction phase dust impact is not significant when construction phase dust impact is not significant when mitigation construction phase dust impact is not significant when mitigation phase dust impact is not significant when mitigation measures are phase dust impact is not significant when mitigation measures are when mitigation measures are put in place. for construction phase dust impact is not significant when mitigation measures are put in place. to differentiate between the options. measures are put in place. measures are put in place. put in place. put in place. mitigation measures are put in place.

Significant comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Significant comparative disadvantage over other options Significant comparative disadvantage over other options Significant comparative disadvantage over other options Significant comparative disadvantage over other options Significant comparative disadvantage over other options Significant comparative disadvantage over other options Proposed structure will impact some trees at entrance to Beech Overbridge option will remove a number of residential properties Very significant impact on trees north of the canal and through Impact on trees north of the canal - which are subject to Tree Overbridge option will remove a number of residential properties Unlikely that property demolition could be avoided. Very Unlikely that property demolition could be avoided. Very significant Park. Significant impact on residential properties on Clonsilla at Larch Grove. Very significant impact on residential properties Beech Park - all of which are subject to Tree Preservation Preservation Objectives. Passes through Beech Park. Lands at Larch Grove / Weaver's Walk. Very significant impact on significant impact on residential properties on Clonsilla Road/ impact on residential properties on Clonsilla Road/ Larch Grove Key landscape characteristics affected; Impact on Road/ Larch Grove and Weaver's Walk north of the canal, and on Clonsilla Road/ Larch Grove and Weaver's Walk north of the Objectives. Very Significant impact on GAA Pitch at Beech Park / south of the railway are zoned High Amenity. Very significant residential properties on Clonsilla Road/ Larch Grove and Larch Grove and Weaver's Walk north of the canal, and along the and Weaver's Walk north of the canal, and along the east side of landscape character; Impacts on landscape features, along the east side of Clonsilla Road south of canal (including canal, and along the east side of Clonsilla Road south of canal Westmanstowns Gaels and on parkland generally, including impact on tree-lined corridor of canal and entrance to Porter's Weaver's Walk north of the canal; along the east side of east side of Clonsilla Road south of canal (including Greenmount Clonsilla Road south of canal (including Greenmount House). Greenmount House). Impact on tree-lined corridor on northern (including Greenmount House). Significant impact on tree-lined allotments. Clonsilla Road south of canal (including Greenmount House) and House). Significant impact on tree-lined corridor of canal/railway. Significant impact on tree-lined corridor of canal/railway. Landscape and Visual (including protected landscapes. Gate. Visual impact on canal side properties at end of western 3.3 Loss of local connectivity. Minimal impact on existing landscape side canal where structure will oversail the canal. corridor of canal/railway. Junction with Porterstown Road may Lands south of the railway are zoned High Amenity. Junction with ramp. Dolland House. Junction with Porterstown Road may impact boundary of Junction with Porterstown Road may impact boundary of light) Key visual characteristics affected; Impacts on properties, No impact on existing landscape or visual characteristics or visual characteristics - no likely significant landscape or visual impact boundary of Luttrellstown Castle estate (an architectural Porterstown Road may impact boundary of Luttrellstown Castle Significant impact on tree-lined corridor of canal/railway. Luttrellstown Castle estate (an architectural conservation area, and Luttrellstown Castle estate (an architectural conservation area, and amenities, protected views, key views. impacts. conservation area, and a protected structure). Tree Preservation estate (an architectural conservation area, and a protected a protected structure). Tree Preservation Objectives within a protected structure). Tree Preservation Objectives within Objectives within Luttrellstown estate. structure). Tree Preservation Objectives within Luttrellstown Luttrellstown estate. Luttrellstown estate. Note also impacts for Option 1. estate. Significant impact on tree-lined corridor of canal/railway. Very significant visual impact on residential properties at Porter's Gate, and 2 canal side properties at bridge location.

Significant comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Significant comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Potential compliance/conflict with biodiversity objectives; Hydrologically connected to South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Hydrologically connected to South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Hydrologically connected to South Dublin Bay and River Tolka 3.4 Biodiversity (flora and fauna) Indirect impacts on protected species, designated sites; Hydrologically connected to South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Hydrologically connected to South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Hydrologically connected to South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Hydrologically connected to South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA. No risk of LSE. Potential impacts to Royal Canal Estuary SPA. No risk of LSE. Potential impacts to Royal Canal Estuary SPA. No risk of LSE. Potential impacts to Royal Canal 3 Environment Overall effect on nature conservation resource. Estuary SPA. No risk of LSE. Potential impacts to Royal Canal Estuary SPA. No risk of LSE. Potential impacts to Royal Canal Estuary SPA. No risk of LSE. Potential impacts to Royal Canal No likely impacts. No likely impacts. Estuary SPA. No risk of LSE. Potential impacts to Royal Canal pNHA. Greater loss of woodland, treeline, hedgerow amenity pNHA. Loss of treeline and wet grassland habitat. Direct pNHA. Loss of woodland, treeline, hedgerow amenity grassland pNHA. Significant loss of woodland, treeline, hedgerow amenity pNHA. Demolition. Loss of woodland, treeline, hedgerow amenity pNHA. Loss of woodland, treeline, hedgerow amenity grassland pNHA. Minor habitat loss in comparison to other options. grassland and wet grassland habitats than all other options. impacts to veteran beech tree in the field where option runs and wet grassland habitats similar to Option 2 but reduced grassland and wet grassland habitats compared to other options. grassland and wet grassland habitats. and wet grassland habitats. Dissects public park. through. carriageway and therefore reduced impacts.

Significant comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Significant comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Overall effect on cultural, archaeological and architecture Direct impacts on demesne associated with the Courtyard, Beech heritage resource. Likely effects on RPS, National Direct impact on demesne landscape associated with Courtyard, Cultural, Archaeological and Direct impacts on demesne landscapes associated with Park House (RPS No. 709) and Clonsilla Lodge. Potential indirect Direct impacts on demesne landscapes associated with Direct impacts on demesne landscapes associated with 3.5 Monuments, SMRs, Conservation areas, etc. Beech Park House (RPS No. 709). Potential indirect impact on Direct impacts on demesne landscapes associated with Potential Indirect impacts on Callaghan Bridge (RPS No. 706), Greenmount and Kellystown. Potential indirect impact on the impacts on Beech Park House (RPS No. 710), the Royal Canal Greenmount and Kellystown. Potential indirect impact on the Greenmount and Kellystown. Potential indirect impact on the Architectural Heritage the Royal Canal (RPS No. 944a). Potential to encounter Greenmount and Kellystown. Potential indirect impact on the Number of designated sites/structures (by level of No likely impacts. No likely impacts. the Royal Canal (RPS No. 944a) and Clonsilla Overbridge and Royal Canal (RPS No. 944a). Potential to encounter (RPS No. 944a) and Luttrellstown ACA. Potential to encounter Royal Canal (RPS No. 944a). Potential to encounter Royal Canal (RPS No. 944a). Potential to encounter archaeological deposits that may survive within greenfield areas. Royal Canal (RPS No. 944a). Potential to encounter designation) directly impacted by scheme (landtake) Signal Box (RPS No. 707). archaeological deposits that may survive within undeveloped archaeological deposits that may survive within greenfield areas. archaeological deposits that may survive within greenfield areas. archaeological deposits that may survive within greenfield areas. archaeological deposits that may survive within greenfield areas. areas. Source: Fingal Development Plan 2017-2023 Source: Fingal Development Plan 2017-2023

Page 9 FOR WEB VIEWING ONLY

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

Maintains the status quo with potential negative impact on Removes vehicular traffic borne pollutants and minimal Potential Positive impact on surface water quality during Potential negative impact on surface water quality during Proposed route indicated to have increased flood risk compared Proposed route indicated to have increased flood risk compared Potential negative impact on surface water quality during Potential negative impact on surface water quality during Potential negative impact on surface water quality during Overall potential significant effects on water resource surface water quality /Canal due to vehicular traffic borne construction phase. The Do Minimum Option has significant operation by removing vehicular traffic borne pollutants. Potential operational phase. Potential negative impact on surface and to other options. Potential surface water impacts during to other options. Potential negative impacts to surface water operational phase. Potential negative impact on surface and operational phase. Potential negative impact on surface and operational phase. Potential negative impact on surface and pollutants associated with traffic. No construction impacts. Has comparative advantages over other options. negative impact on surface water quality during construction groundwater quality during construction phase. Has some operational phase. Potential negative impact on surface and quality during operational phase. Potential negative impact on groundwater quality during construction phase. Has some groundwater quality during construction phase. Has some groundwater quality during construction phase. Has some 3.6 Water Resources attributes likely to be affected during construction and some comparative advantages over other options. phase. Option has some comparative advantages over other comparative disadvantage over other options. groundwater quality during construction phase. Has some surface and groundwater quality during construction phase. Has comparative disadvantage over other options. comparative disadvantage over other options. comparative disadvantage over other options. operation. options. comparative disadvantage over other options. some comparative disadvantage over other options.

Significant comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Overall impact on land take & property. Number of 3.7 Agriculture and Non-Agricultural properties to be impacted/acquired. Likely temporary or Under Options 2, the non-agricultural impact will involve the Under Options 5, the non-agricultural impact will involve the Under Option 6, the non-agricultural impact will include landtake of Under Option 7, the non-agricultural impact will include landtake of Option 3 will result in significant land severance of Beech Park permanent severance effects, etc. Options 1 will have a direct impact involving a small area of acquisition of five residential properties. The agricultural impact acquisition of five residential properties. The agricultural impact property curtilage on residential properties. The agricultural impact property curtilage on residential properties. The agricultural impact No likely impacts. No likely impacts. amenity lands and landtake of St. Josephs Centre lands. There is Option 4 will have direct impact on amenity lands in Beech Park. amenity lands in Beech Park. will result in landtake and land severance on a livestock farm will result in landtake and land severance on a livestock farm will result in landtake and land severance on a livestock farm will result in landtake and land severance on a livestock farm a direct impact on lands used for community allotments. holding. holding. holding. holding. Soils and Geology and likely impact on geological resources based on preliminary/likely construction details. Soil or Significant comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options topsoil resources to be developed/removed based on cut or fill requirements and potential for soft ground which may Geology and Soils (including 3.8 also need replaced. Existing information relating to potential Longest route with overbridge require fill import to the site (Minor Waste) Lower fill import requirements compared to other options. negative). This option appears to have the highest earthworks Long route with overbridge require fill import to the site (Minor Long route with overbridge require fill import to the site (Minor Long route with overbridge require fill import to the site (Minor to encounter contaminated land. High-level assessment No likely impacts. No likely impacts. Lower fill import requirements compared to other options. Lower fill import requirements compared to other options. based on the likely structures/ works required and the needs. negative). negative). negative). potential for ground contamination due to historic landfills, pits and quarries.

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

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

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

Impacts on low income groups, non-car owners, mobility Road traffic diverted distance route is 5.5km (12 x diversion Local ped/cycle access maintained along ramped access over Original Distance roundabout to roundabout 500m retained. Local ped/cycle access maintained along ramped access over Local ped/cycle access maintained along ramped access over Local ped/cycle access maintained along ramped access over Local ped/cycle access maintained along ramped access over Local ped/cycle access maintained along ramped access over 4.1 Impact on Vulnerable Groups route) steep gradients on north side of option will be a proposed bridge. impaired, visually impaired and people with a disability. proposed bridge proposed bridge. proposed bridge. proposed bridge. proposed bridge. This option severs access locally across the railway disadvantage to vulnerable road users. Local ped/cycle access The long closure times associated with the level crossing will, maintained along ramped access over proposed bridge - ~340m Road traffic diverted distance route is 572m (1.1x diversion however, restrict access Shortest diversion route 1.7km (3.6x diversion route) Road traffic diverted distance route 894m (2.0x diversion route) Road traffic diverted distance route 758m (1.6x diversion route) Road traffic diverted distance route 795m (1.8x diversion route) Road traffic diverted distance route 795m (1.8x diversion route) diversion route).

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

Station Accessibility is addressed for all level crossing options in proximity to a station Quantification of increased service levels to the vulnerable Station Accessibility is addressed for all level crossing options in This option will require that traffic seeking to access the station proximity to a station Station Accessibility is addressed for all level crossing options in Station Accessibility is addressed for all level crossing options in Station Accessibility is addressed for all level crossing options in Station Accessibility is addressed for all level crossing options in Station Accessibility is addressed for all level crossing options in Station Accessibility is addressed for all level crossing options in Station Accessibility is addressed for all level crossing options in 4.2 Stations Accessibility groups. from the north will divert along the existing road network due to proximity to a station proximity to a station proximity to a station proximity to a station proximity to a station proximity to a station proximity to a station delays at the level crossing This option requires that all traffic accessing the station from the north must divert along the existing road network Accessibility & Social This option does not significantly affect access to the station This option does not significantly affect access to the station Shortest diversion route 1.7km (3.6x diversion route) Shortest diversion route 894m (2.0x diversion route) Shortest diversion route758m (1.6x diversion route) Diverted distance route 795m (1.8x diversion route) Diverted distance route 795m (1.8x diversion route) 4 Shortest diversion route 5.5km. inclusion Shortest diversion route 5.5km. Original Distance roundabout to Rockfield Drive crossroads 500m retained.

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

This option causes severence of the community through This option causes severence of the community through Diverted distance for vehicular traffic 5.5km (12 x diversion Service levels impacts including severance of community curtailment of local access over the railway without replacement curtailment of local access over the railway without replacement route), proposed pedestrian / cycle bridge maintains local non groups; with effective alternative access. with effective alternative access. vehicular access. 4.3 Social Inclusion This option does not cause community severence. This option does not cause community severence. This option does not cause community severence. This option does not cause community severence. This option does not cause community severence. This option does not cause community severence. Severance from community facilities consequent on an Community facilities affected by reduced access include Community facilities affected by reduced access include Community facilities affected by reduced access include This option does not curtail access to community amenities This option does not curtail access to community amenities This option does not curtail access to community amenities This option does not curtail access to community amenities This option does not curtail access to community amenities This option does not curtail access to community amenities option. Shopping facilities, St Josephs Medical Centre, St Mary's Shopping facilities, St Josephs Medical Centre, St Mary's Church, Shopping facilities, St Josephs Medical Centre, St Mary's Church, 2No.Montessori School - north of the railway andThe 2No.Montessori School - north of the railway andThe Coartyard Church, 2No.Montessori School - north of the railway andThe Diverted distance route is 572m (1.1x diversion route). Shortest diversion route 1.7km (3.6x diversion route) Diverted distance route 894m (2.0x diversion route) Diverted distance route 758m (1.6x diversion route) Diverted distance route 795m (1.8x diversion route) Diverted distance route 795m (1.8x diversion route) Coartyard Beechpark, Westmanstown Sports and Conference Beechpark, Westmanstown Sports and Conference Centre, Coartyard Beechpark, Westmanstown Sports and Conference Centre, Dublin Falconry and Luttrellstown Castle Resort - south Dublin Falconry and Luttrellstown Castle Resort - south of the Centre, Dublin Falconry and Luttrellstown Castle Resort - south of the railway. railway. of the railway.

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

Safety for Rail users – removal of Level crossings is This Option leaves the railway level crossing in place, a characteristic This option removes the railway level crossing, a characteristic which is This option removes the railway level crossing, a characteristic which is This option removes the railway level crossing, a characteristic which is This option removes the railway level crossing, a characteristic which is This option removes the railway level crossing, a characteristic which This option removes the railway level crossing, a characteristic which This option removes the railway level crossing, a characteristic which is This option removes the railway level crossing, a characteristic which is 5.1 Rail Safety considered a significant safety enhancement which is considered negative from the perspective of railway safety. considered positive from the perspective of railway safety. considered positive from the perspective of railway safety. considered positive from the perspective of railway safety. considered positive from the perspective of railway safety. is considered positive from the perspective of railway safety. is considered positive from the perspective of railway safety. considered positive from the perspective of railway safety. considered positive from the perspective of railway safety.

This option will require construction activity associated with signalling There is no significant construction activity along the railway associated There is no significant construction activity along the railway associated There is no significant construction activity along the railway associated There is no significant construction activity along the railway associated There is no significant construction activity along the railway There is no significant construction activity along the railway There is no significant construction activity along the railway associated There is no significant construction activity along the railway associated along the live railway associated with the level crossing with the level crossing with the level crossing with the level crossing with the level crossing associated with the level crossing associated with the level crossing with the level crossing with the level crossing

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

Quality of Access for these road users, lengths of This option retains the level crossing - a signficant hazard to transport users; 5.2 Vehicular Traffic Safety diversions, removal of interface with rail and other modes of Closing the crossing with no alternative would result in diversion of Closing the crossing with no alternative would result in diversion of Providing a segregated crossing would have a significant advantage as Providing a segregated crossing would have a significant advantage as Providing a segregated crossing would have a significant advantage Providing a segregated crossing would have a significant advantage Providing a segregated crossing would have a significant advantage as Providing a segregated crossing would have a significant advantage as transport road traffic onto longer routes but would avoid congestion at the level road traffic onto longer routes but would avoid congestion at the 5 Safety This option will result in traffic diversions of up to 5.5km and vehicular traffic is not crossing the live rail. vehicular traffic is not crossing the live rail. as vehicular traffic is not crossing the live rail. as vehicular traffic is not crossing the live rail. vehicular traffic is not crossing the live rail. vehicular traffic is not crossing the live rail. crossing. level crossing. increased congestion on the local road network.

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

The curtailed availability of access over the level crossing associated with this option will divert vulnerable road users onto the existing road network. This option closes the level crossing - removes a signficant hazard to This option closes the level crossing - removes a signficant hazard to Pedestrian, Cyclist and Vulnerable This option replaces access for pedestrians, cyclists and This option replaces access for pedestrians, cyclists and This option replaces access for pedestrians, cyclists and This option replaces access for pedestrians, cyclists and This option replaces access for pedestrians, cyclists and This option replaces access for pedestrians, cyclists and 5.3 Quality of Access for these road users. removal of interfaces transport users; transport users; Road user Safety Diverted road users will be required to negotiate up to 7No vulnerable road users via the proposed bridge but at more vulnerable road users via the proposed bridge but at more remote vulnerable road users via the proposed bridge but at more vulnerable road users via the proposed bridge but at more vulnerable road users via the proposed bridge but at more remote vulnerable road users via the proposed bridge but at more remote additional junctions including traffic light junctions and remote location than Option 1. location than Option 1. remote location than Option 1. remote location than Option 1. location than Option 1. location than Option 1. This option will result in traffic diversions of up to 5.5km and increased Pedestrians, Cyclists and vulnerable road users are, however, roundabouts, typically turning left travelling southbound, right if congestion on the local road network. accommodated at the level crossing by the proposed bridge. travelling northbound. Diverted distance route 758m (1.6x diversion route). Shortest diversion route 1.7km (3.6x diversion route). Diverted distance route 894m (2.0x diversion route). Diverted distance route 758m (1.6x diversion route) Diverted distance route 795m (1.8x diversion route) Diverted distance route 795m (1.8x diversion route)

This options does not provide for segregation over the full length of the diversion routes for vulnerable road users.

Significant comparative disadvantage over other options Significant comparative disadvantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options The removal access over the level crossing associated with this There are existing pedestrian and cycle facilties north of the option will divert vulnerable road users onto the existing road railway. There are none south of the railway. network. Connectivity to adjoining cycling Analysis of the extent that the scheme connects with cycle This option supports good linkage between existing and 6.1 facilities tracks. Increased closures of the level crossing would reduce access Diverted road users will be required to negotiate up to 7No proposed cycle facilities This option provides replacement pedestrian and cycle access This option provides replacement pedestrian and cycle access This option provides replacement pedestrian and cycle access This option provides replacement pedestrian and cycle access This option provides replacement pedestrian and cycle access This option provides replacement pedestrian and cycle access to cycle facilities and to the proposed Royal Canal Greenway. additional junctions including traffic light junctions and with associated linkage to existing and proposed facilities along a with associated linkage to existing and proposed facilities along a with associated linkage to existing and proposed facilities along with associated linkage to existing and proposed facilities along with associated linkage to existing and proposed facilities along a with associated linkage to existing and proposed facilities along a roundabouts, typically turning left travelling southbound, right if The quality of access to the train station for pedestrians and diverted route - diversion - 500m diverted route - diversion - 1.2km a diverted route - diversion - 600m a diverted route - diversion - 500m diverted route - diversion - 500m diverted route - diversion - 500m Access to the train station for pedestrians and cyclists will be travelling northbound. cyclists is good in respect of this option. significantly inhibited by the level crossing, particularly with the planned level of service on the railway. This options does not provide for segregation on the diversion routes for vulnerable road users. Physical Activity 6 Significant comparative disadvantage over other options Significant comparative disadvantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options

Cross Railway journey = nil as crossing remains in place; Cross Railway journey = 5.5km as level crossing is removed. Cross Railway journey = nil as the proposed option is along the Inaccessible when crossing is closed. This option provides replacement pedestrian and cycle access This option provides replacement pedestrian and cycle access This option provides replacement pedestrian and cycle access This option provides replacement pedestrian and cycle access This option provides replacement pedestrian and cycle access This option provides replacement pedestrian and cycle access Journey Time and lengths of diversions for active modes plan alignment of the existing Clonsilla Road. with associated linkage to existing and proposed facilities along a with associated linkage to existing and proposed facilities along a with associated linkage to existing and proposed facilities along with associated linkage to existing and proposed facilities along with associated linkage to existing and proposed facilities along a with associated linkage to existing and proposed facilities along a Permeability and local access and numbers affected. Analysis of the connectivity Diversion for cyclists when level crossing closed 5.5km 6.2 Diversion for cyclists when level crossing closed 5.5km diverted route - diversion - 500m diverted route - diversion - 1.2km a diverted route - diversion - 600m a diverted route - diversion - 500m diverted route - diversion - 500m diverted route - diversion - 500m opportunity between level crossing and green areas/key attractions Diversion for cyclists when level crossing closed is 0.35km. The principal high amenity greenspaces in the vicinity of the related to active mode The principal high amenity greenspaces in the vicinity of the The principal high amenity greenspaces in the vicinity of the The principal high amenity greenspaces in the vicinity of the The principal high amenity greenspaces in the vicinity of the The principal high amenity greenspaces in the vicinity of the The principal high amenity greenspaces in the vicinity of the The principal high amenity greenspaces in the vicinity of the existing train station include the Royal canal, the amenity zoned The principal high amenity greenspaces in the vicinity of the existing train station include the Royal canal, the amenity zoned existing train station include the Royal canal, the amenity zoned existing train station include the Royal canal, the amenity zoned existing train station include the Royal canal, the amenity zoned existing train station include the Royal canal, the amenity zoned existing train station include the Royal canal, the amenity zoned existing train station include the Royal canal, the amenity zoned lands and golf courses south of the level crossing. Increased existing train station include the Royal canal, the amenity zoned lands and golf courses south of the level crossing. Increased lands and golf courses south of the level crossing. This option lands and golf courses south of the level crossing. This option lands and golf courses south of the level crossing. This option lands and golf courses south of the level crossing. This option lands and golf courses south of the level crossing. This option lands and golf courses south of the level crossing. This option closures of the level crossing would reduce access to each of lands and golf courses south of the level crossing. This option closures of the level crossing would reduce access to each of retains access to the amenities retains access to the amenities retains access to the amenities retains access to the amenities retains access to the amenities retains access to the amenities them. retains access to the amenities effectively them.

Page 10 FOR WEB VIEWING ONLY

Criteria Do Nothing Do Minimum Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 Option 7

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

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

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

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

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

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

Progress To Stage 2 No No Yes Yes No Yes No No No

Page 11 FOR WEB VIEWING ONLY

DART+ WEST - MCA Stage 1 Barberstown Level Crossing Assessment

Sub-Criteria (Quantitative/ Parameter Criteria Do Nothing Do Minimum Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 Qualitative)

Road realignment with skewed roadbridge over Road realignment with square roadbridges over Road realignment with square roadbridge over Closure of the existing crossings with no Road realignment with square roadbridge over canal and railway circa 130m southwest of level canal and railway circa 180m northeast of level canal and railway circa 180m southwest of level Pedestrian / cycle Bridge at Crossing, Turnback alternative provided. All traffic would be diverted canal and railway at the level crossing. Lower the Railway to Accommodate the road Leave the current level crossings in place. crossing. Pedestrian / Cycle facilities provided crossing. Pedestrian / Cycle facilities provided for crossing. Pedestrian / Cycle facilities provided facilities at railway, Level Crossing Closed, No to alternative routes around the crossing Pedestrian / Cycle facilities provided for over the network at grade for along diverted road. Level Crossing closed. along diverted road. Level Crossing closed. for along diverted road. Level Crossing closed. replacement road access location. bridges. Level Crossing closed. Turnback facilities provided at railway Turnback facilities provided at railway Turnback facilities provided at railway

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

Assessment of cost of construction of Construction costs of this option will be comparative to other 1.1 Construction and Land Cost This option includes the costs of urban roadworks across green The level crossing is currently manned. The ongoing cost This option includes the costs of urban roadworks across green This option includes the costs of urban roadworks across green This option includes the costs of urban roadworks across green options as the provision of a pedestrian cycle bridge within the The cost and disruption of a scheme of this nature would be option, land costs and temporary works Cost of removing crossing is low in comparison to provision of fields to cross the railway and canal via raised embankment associated with this control mechanism on the railway is fields to cross the railway and canal via raised embankment fields to cross the railway and canal via raised embankment and two fields to cross the railway and canal via raised embankment canal environs will require significant temporary and permanent unsustainable and unjustifiable in comparison to other options road crossing. and two single span bridges. Includes 2No, roundabouts and significant. and a single span bridge. Includes 2No, roundabouts. single span bridges. Includes 2No, roundabouts. and a single span bridge. Includes 2No, roundabouts. works. The cost to acquire land will be lower than other available. It is proposed to discard this option without further the acquisition of two houses. options providing full access consideration.

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

Ongoing annual maintenance costs The existing crossing is manned resulting in an ongoing annual A pedestrian/cyclist overbridge would require minimal In dropping the railway adjacent to the canal a new drainage 1.2 Long Term Maintenance costs An overbridge would reduce maintenance requirements over a An overbridge would reduce maintenance requirements over a An overbridge would reduce maintenance requirements over a associated with varied options cost. The closure of the level crossing would remove the An overbridge would reduce maintenance requirements over a level maintenance in short term with regular inspections and remedial system will be needed which is likely to be sealed and pumped. level crossing. Bridge option would determine overall level crossing. Bridge option would determine overall level crossing. Bridge option would determine overall The level crossing equipment incurs an annual maintenance maintenance requirement for the level crossing. crossing. Bridge option would determine overall maintenance costs . works in the long term. The long term maintenance low In addition the earth retaining structured required over the full maintenance costs . maintenance costs. maintenance costs. 1 Economy cost and replacement cost on a 15yr cycle compared to other options. length of the proposed cut will require maintenance

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

Benefits to vehicular traffic through Displacement of mobility impaired and cycle traffic onto ramped alternative routes; increase in journey times for local residents. Traffic Functionality /economic reduction in journey time lengths and delays 1.3 benefit through removal of level crossings. Removal of vehicular access over the level crossing results in displaced flows - 1218 vehicles AM peak hour and 1110 Improvement in journey time; potential for induced trips; no Consideration of potentially longer routes Reduced capacity as train frequencies increase; increase in Displacement of traffic onto alternative routes; increase in Improvement in journey times; potential for induced trips; Some improvement in journey time; potential for induced trips; Some improvement in journey time; potential for induced trips; Some improvement in journey time; potential for induced trips; vehicles PM peak hour. diversion required for local residents. Construction phase journey times for local residents. journey times for local residents. potential to increase congestion on local road network. diversion required for local residents. diversion required for local residents. diversion required for local residents. for traffic. impacts to rail network would be significant. Additional traffic delay will result along adjacent access routes - 7% AM peak hour and 5% PM peak hour.

Benchmark journey times will increase by up to 8%,

Some comparative disadvantage over other options Significant comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other 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 Transport Integration 2.1 interchange nodes and facilities; Reduced Not shown on GDA Cycle Network Plan but there would be a General reduction in journey times. Maintaining access to the Some improvement in journey time; Shared pedestrian & cycle Some improvement in journey time; No cycle facilities on new bridge; Some improvement in journey time; Shared pedestrian & cycle General reduction in journey times. Maintaining access to the Not shown on GDA Cycle Network Plan but there would be a reduction in local accessibility to the Royal Canal Cycle Route Royal Canal Cycleway will present challenges. No cycle facility; Access to Royal Canal Cycle Route retained, albeit via Access to Royal Canal Cycle Route retained, albeit via slightly more facility; Access to Royal Canal Cycle Route retained, albeit via Reduction in local permeability. Royal Canal Cycleway will present challenges. No cycle walking and wait times associated with removal of local accessibility to the Royal Canal Cycle Route. interchanges. Modal shift figures during with increased closures of the railway. facilities slightly more circuitous route. circuitous route. slightly more circuitous route. facilities construction and operations. Changes to journey times to transport nodes.

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

Option 2 is located within a section of land zoned for "High This option crosses through the middle of a new housing estate so would Amenity" by the Fingal DP, the option also travels across Open be significantly worse than the other options from a land use planning and Impact on land use strategies and local Option 5 is located within a small section of land zoned for Space zoned land and the GDA Cycle Network (along the integration perspective. At local level, Option 3 travels through sensitive "Open Space" by the Fingal DP. The introduction of a new plans. Assessment of support for land use This option is mainly online and would tie in with the approved Royal Canal). It then travels north west into an areas land use zonings including 'High Amenity', 'Open Space' associated with Option 4 is located within a section of land zoned for "High This Option would not support the Barnhill LAP 2019, infrastructure into a Open Space area is inconsistent with the 2 Integration 2.2 Land Use Integration factors local land use and planning. Barnhill Ongar Distributor road, supporting the future designated (map based zoning objective LAP 13.A) for the the Royal Canal, over the GDA cycle Network. It continues northwards into Amenity" by the Fingal DP. This option travel into the LAP 13.A The do-nothing option would not support for DART Expansion movement and access strategy nor does it provide access Hansfield SDZ 2006 (as amended) There is map-based Specific Objective 'Open Space' landuse zoning objective, however as this option development of lands zoned "Residential Area" to the north as Barnhill LAP 2019. The introduction of a new road infrastructure Barnhill LAP through zoned open space lands as part of the Vertical railway lowering would not significantly impact land use Inclusion of project in relevant local but does not impact on any local planning policies objectives across the rail line to lands zoned for future development, of “Protect & Preserve Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows”. Continuing only supports sustainable modes of travel, it is considered that part of the Barnhill LAP 2019. This Option provides vehicular, into a High Amenity area is considered to be a major negative Barnhill LAP. This option links to the Barnhill - Ongar road planning policy. hence rated as an significant advantage over other options. zoned "Residential Area" in FDP as part of the Barnhill LAP northwards it travels through zoned "Residential Area" part of the Hansfield the impact will be smaller when compared with Option 2 and 4 planning documents. pedestrian and cycle access to lands north and south of the impact and would be inconsistent with this landuse zoning. network and could support overall land use and transport (2019). SDZ (2006). The construction of mixed-used development has commenced which support vehicular traffic. Subject to further transport railway & Canal. However, it travels on the edge of this zoning and in proximity planning integration over the long-term. at Hansfield. Construction of a road network through the SDZ lands at this studies, this option could have the potential to support to the existing road network and could provide a direct location would be inconsistent with the policies and objectives of the SDZ sustainable transport planning integration. connection into the LAP lands. Subject to further studies this as well as impact on existing properties/residential amenity. There is a option could have the potential to facilitate land use and significant disadvantage with a major negative impacts associated with this Alternative level crossing options are mostly neutral in respect of Geographical Comparable to other options Comparable to other options Comparable to other options Comparable to other options Comparable to other options Comparable to other options Comparable to other options Comparable to other options Integration due to localised nature of the 2.3 Geographical Integration level crossings. As a consequence all options are rated comparable to one No impact on Geographical Integration No impact on Geographical Integration No impact on Geographical Integration No impact on Geographical Integration No impact on Geographical Integration No impact on Geographical Integration No impact on Geographical Integration No impact on Geographical Integration another. Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Other Government Policy Integration with the other Government This option would not support the delivery of the higher level This option would support the delivery of the higher level This option would support the delivery of the higher level This option would support the delivery of the higher level This option would support the delivery of the higher level This option would support the delivery of the higher level This option would support the delivery of the higher level 2.4 This option has significant direct and indirect impacts to a number of Integration policy such as the NPF and RSES. national and regional planning policies regarding the DART national and regional planning policies regarding the DART national and regional planning policies regarding the DART national and regional planning policies regarding the DART national and regional planning policies regarding the DART national and regional planning policies regarding the DART national and regional planning policies regarding the DART local level policy documents which would also impact regional land use Expansion programme (NPF- (NS04), RSES & GDA Transport Expansion programme (NPF- (NS04), RSES & GDA Transport Expansion programme (NPF- (NS04), RSES & GDA Transport Expansion programme (NPF- (NS04), RSES & GDA Transport Expansion programme (NPF- (NS04), RSES & GDA Transport Expansion programme (NPF- (NS04), RSES & GDA Transport Expansion programme (NPF- (NS04), RSES & GDA Transport and transport planning integration across a number of areas. Strategy). Strategy). However would not meet Smarter Travel policy. Strategy). Strategy). Strategy). Strategy). Strategy). Estimated number of sensitive properties Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options within 100m of the works. Options closer to more sensitive locations will have an 3.1 Noise and Vibration There is the potential for greater construction phase impacts increased risk of generating a noise impact. Retains vehicular traffic which will impact a low number of The online overbridge will have a neutral noise impact New overbridge will have some construction phase impacts. 1 New overbridge will have some construction phase impacts, 1 New overbridge will have some construction phase impacts. 8 Removes vehicular traffic which will reduce the noise levels in due to the extent of the track lowering works. However, Removes vehicular traffic and construction phase is minimal. However, qualative criteria are also used sensitive receptors in proximity. compared to the Do Nothing scenario. 2 dwellings within 100m. dwelling within 100m. dwelling within 100m. dwellings within 100m. the locality. 2 dwellings within 100m operationally there will be a neutral impact compared to the Do Nothing scenario where necessary to differentiate between Estimated number of number of receptors within 50m reviewed as part of appraisal. Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Options closer to more sensitive locations will have an increased risk of changes in air The online overbridge will have 2 dwellings within 50m as per No dwellings within 50m but longer route means potentially more 4 dwellings within 50m. Longer route means potentially more 1 dwelling within 50m. Removes vehicle traffic locally therefore There is the potential for greater construction phase impacts 3.2 Air Quality and Climate One dwelling within 50m. Potential for construction phase dust quality during construction or operational Retains vehicular traffic which will impact the low number of the Do Nothing Scenario. Potential for construction phase dust embodied energy with respect to construction materials. Potential embodied energy with respect to construction materials. reducing local impact. Potential for construction phase dust due to the extent of the track lowering works. However, Removes vehicular traffic and construction phase is minimal. impact is not significant when mitigation measures are put in sensitive receptors in proximity. impact is not significant when mitigation measures are put in for construction phase dust impact is not significant when mitigation Potential for construction phase dust impact is not significant impact is not significant when mitigation measures are put in operationally there will be a neutral impact compared to the Do phases. However, qualitative criteria are place. also used where necessary to differentiate place. measures are put in place. when mitigation measures are put in place. place. Nothing scenario between the options. Significant comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative disadvantage over other options Significant comparative disadvantage over other options Significant comparative disadvantage over other options Significant comparative disadvantage over other options Significant comparative disadvantage over other options Significant comparative disadvantage over other options Key landscape characteristics affected; Option to avoid potential impact on boundary to Luttrellstown Impact on landscape character; Impacts on Castle estate (the latter is an architectural conservation area, and a protected structure). Significant landscape and visual impact for boundary to Very significant landscape and visual impact on Royal Canal corridor landscape features, protected landscapes. Tree Preservation Objectives for lands north of Luttrellstown Luttrellstown Castle estate (the latter is an architectural Landscape and Visual (including Very significant landscape and visual impact on Royal Canal and across lands south of railway to Luttrellstown Castle estate. estate. conservation area, and a protected structure). Tree 3.3 Key visual characteristics affected; Impacts Loss of local connectivity. Minimal impact on existing landscape corridor and Pakenham Bridge. Tree Preservation Objectives north of Luttrellstown Road and within Significant visual impact for three dwellings (including canalside Vertical railway lowering would impact on setting of Packenham light) Significant landscape and visual impact on Royal Canal Preservation Objectives within Luttrellstown estate. Significant on properties, amenities, protected views, No impact on existing landscape or visual characteristics. or visual characteristics - no likely significant landscape or Very significant landscape and visual impact for 3 residential Luttrellstown Estate. Very significant visual impact for residential cottage) in close proximity. Potential significant impact on Royal bridge (RPS 0711) and Direct impact on the Royal Canal (RPS corridor. landscape and visual impact on Royal Canal corridor. visual impacts. properties to either side of existing road leading to crossing property on site of former Barberstown House. Potential visual Canal and on associated trees and vegetation. No. 944a). key views. Significant visual impact for two residential properties to Significant visual impact for residential properties, one to and for canal side cottage at bridge. impact for Beech Park House / Shackleton Gardens east of the road north/northwest of eastern roundabout. northwest of eastern roundabout, and one southwest of option. western roundabout.

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

Potential compliance/conflict with This option is hydrologically connected to European sites Environment biodiversity objectives; Indirect impacts on downstream in the Tolka Estuary and Dublin Bay. There is no 3 Hydrologically connected to South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Hydrologically connected to South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Hydrologically connected to South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Hydrologically connected to South Dublin Bay and River Tolka risk of Likely Significant Effects to this or any other European 3.4 Biodiversity (flora and fauna) Hydrologically connected to South Dublin Bay and River Tolka protected species, designated sites; Overall Estuary SPA. No risk of LSE. Demolition of existing bridge Estuary SPA. No risk of LSE. Potential impacts to Royal Canal Estuary SPA. No risk of LSE. Potential impacts to Royal Canal Estuary SPA. No risk of LSE. Potential impacts to Royal Canal site. There is potential for impacts to Royal Canal pNHA arising No direct impacts No direct impacts Estuary SPA. No risk of LSE. Potential impacts to Royal Canal could lead to significant impacts on the Royal Canal pNHA. pNHA. Loss of treeline, hedgerow and agricultural grassland pNHA. Loss of treeline, hedgerow and agricultural grassland pNHA. Significantly greater loss of treeline, hedgerow and from noise, artificial lighting. Channelistaion or realignment and effect on nature conservation resource. pNHA. Loss of hedgerow and agricultural grassland habitats. Habitat loss will be minor given that the option is online. habitats. habitats. agricultural grassland habitats. lowering of the canal could have significant impacts to water quality and aquatic fauna which may have to be rescued prior to works. Overall effect on cultural, archaeological Significant comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative disadvantage over other options and architecture heritage resource. Likely Indirect impacts on the Royal Canal (RPS No. 944a) and Cultural, Archaeological and effects on RPS, National Monuments, Potential indirect impacts on the Royal Canal (RPS No. 944a) 3.5 Indirect impacts on the Royal Canal (RPS No. 944a) and Luttrellstown ACA. Potential to encounter archaeological Potential indirect impacts on Royal Canal (RPS 944a).Potential Architectural Heritage SMRs, Conservation areas, etc. Direct impact on Packenham bridge (RPS 0711). Potential and Peckenham bridge (RPS 711) and Luttrellstown ACA. Indirect impact on Packenham bridge (RPS 0711) and Direct No likely impacts. Minimal changes likely - no likely significant impacts. Luttrellstown ACA. Potential to encounter archaeological deposits deposits that may survive in undeveloped areas. to encounter archaeological deposits that may survive in indirect impacts to the Royal Canal (RPS No. 944a). Potential to encounter archaeological deposits that may survive impact on the Royal Canal (RPS No. 944a). Number of designated sites/structures (by that may survive in undeveloped areas. undeveloped areas. level of designation) directly impacted by in undeveloped areas.

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

The in-stream works required constitute a flood hazard and is Overall potential significant effects on water significantly disadvantageous compared to the other options. Removes vehicular traffic born pollutants and minimal Proposed route indicated to have increased flood risk Proposed route indicated to have increased flood risk Potential negative impact on surface water quality during Potential negative minor impact on surface and groundwater The construction works within the Royal Canal proposed as 3.6 Water Resources resource attributes likely to be affected construction phase. The Do Minimum Option has significant Potential negative impact on surface water quality during compared to other options. Potential negative impact on compared to other options. Potential negative impact on Potential negative impact on surface water quality during operational phase. Potential negative impact on surface and quality during construction phase. Potential positive impact on part of Option 6 is likely to have a significant negative impact during construction and operation. comparative advantages over other options. operational phase. Potential negative impact on surface and surface and groundwater quality during operational phase. surface and groundwater quality during operational phase. operational phase. groundwater quality during construction phase. surface water quality during operational phase due to removal on Surface water quality. Excavations required for lowering of groundwater quality during construction phase. Potential negative impact on groundwater quality during Potential negative impact on groundwater quality during of traffic-related pollutants. the railway vertical alignment also pose potential risk to construction phase. construction phase. Groundwater quality. Option is disadvantageous across all sub- criteria and has a significant comparative disadvantage.

Page 12 FOR WEB VIEWING ONLY

Significant comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Significant comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Overall impact on land take & property. Number of properties to be Properties on either side of the road to the south-east of the Impact mainly within Irish Rail property boundary and 3.7 Agriculture and Non-Agricultural Under Options 2, there will be a direct impact on agricultural Option 3 will have a direct impact on three agricultural properties Under Option 4, there will be a direct impact on agricultural Option 5 will involve minor landtake of agricultural lands on one impacted/acquired. Likely temporary or railway would severely restrict the construction of an online maintenance depot during construction stage. Agricultural No likely impacts. Minimal changes likely - no likely significant impacts. lands used for equine stock resulting in landtake and including a significant impact on an equine farm holding due to lands used for equine stock resulting in landtake and property and is therefore rated as Significant Advantage over route at this location without partial or complete property farmland impacts due to need to acquier a strip of farmland permanent severance effects, etc. severance. landtake and land severance. severance. other options. acquisitions. further details required for full assessment.

Soils and Geology and likely impact on Significant comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative disadvantage over other options geological resources 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 Although overbridge and approach roads construction requires less fill import to the site, the arisings from the railway lowering which may also need replaced. Existing are much more likely to include ground contamination Geology and Soils (including Long route with overbridge require fill import to the site (Minor 3.8 information relating to potential to encounter No direct impacts. No direct impacts. Lower fill import requirements compared to other options. Lower fill import requirements compared to other options. Lower fill import requirements compared to other options. Lower fill import requirements compared to other options. (considered medium to high risk, subject to further Waste) negative). contaminated land. High-level assessment investigation). Comparative disadvantage is due to likelihood of ground contamination and more extensive length of works based on the likely structures/ works interfacing with the canal. required and the potential for ground contamination due to historic landfills, pits and quarries.

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

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

Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options Impacts on low income groups, non-car With the level crossing becoming effectively closed on 4.1 Impact on Vulnerable Groups owners, mobility impaired, visually impaired implementation of the proposed working timetable and with no With removal of the level crossing and with no provision for This option is of benefit to low income groups, enhancing Original Distance from R121 junction to Barberstown North and people with a disability. provision for supplementaty infrastructure for vulnerable groups, supplementaty infrastructure for vulnerablegroups, the majority Diverted distance route 587m (2.0x diversion route). Diverted distance route 789m (2.6x diversion route). Diverted distance route 948m (3.1x diversion route). Shortest diversion route 4.8km (16x diversion route). access to public transport. Road junction 300m retained. the majority of users will be diverted onto the adjacent road of users will be diverted onto the adjacent road network. network.

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

Quantification of increased service levels to 4.2 Stations Accessibility the vulnerable groups. It is considered that alterations at Barberstown will not It is considered that alterations at Barberstown will not It is considered that alterations at Barberstown will not It is considered that alterations at Barberstown will not It is considered that alterations at Barberstown will not significantly It is considered that alterations at Barberstown will not It is considered that alterations at Barberstown will not It is considered that alterations at Barberstown will not significantly affect access to stations in the locality significantly affect access to stations in the locality significantly affect access to stations in the locality significantly affect access to stations in the locality affect access to stations in the locality significantly affect access to stations in the locality significantly affect access to stations in the locality significantly affect access to stations in the locality Accessibility & Social 4 inclusion

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

Cross Railway journey = nil as crossing remains in place; Cross Railway journey = nil as crossing remains in place; Inaccessible when crossing is closed. Inaccessible when crossing is closed. Service levels impacts including severance Diversion for cars, pedestrians and cyclists when level crossing This option does not cause community severence. of community groups; Premanent diversion for cars, pedestrians and cyclists 1.1km closed 5.0km. 4.3 Social Inclusion This option does not cause community severence. Severance from community facilities This option does not affect access to community amenities Pedestrian, and cyclist and non motorised road users catered Community facilities affected by reduced access include Diverted distance route 587m (2.0x diversion route). Diverted distance route 789m (2.6x diversion route) Diverted distance route 948m (3.1x diversion route) Community facilities affected by reduced access include for. consequent on an option. Shopping facilities, Ongar Community Centre, Stone Ideas, This option does not curtail access to community amenities Shopping facilities, Ongar Community Centre, Stone Ideas, Original Distance from R121 junction to Barberstown North 2No. Educate Together Schools - northwest of the railway and 2No. Educate Together Schools - northwest of the railway and Road junction 300m retained. Shackleton Gardens, Westmanstown Sports and Conference Shackleton Gardens, Westmanstown Sports and Conference Centre, Dublin Falconry and Luttrellstown Castle Resort - south Centre, Dublin Falconry and Luttrellstown Castle Resort - south of the railway. of the railway.

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

Safety for Rail users – removal of Level This Option leaves the railway level crossing in place, a This option removes the railway level crossing, a characteristic characteristic which is considered negative from the perspective which is considered positive from the perspective of railway 5.1 Rail Safety crossings is considered a significant safety Closing the crossing with no alternative would result in of railway safety. safety. All overbridges have a significant advantage as they are a great All overbridges have a significant advantage as they are a great All overbridges have a significant advantage as they are a great crossing All overbridges have a significant advantage as they are a great All overbridges have a significant advantage as they are a great diversion of road traffic onto longer routes but would avoid enhancement crossing alternative. crossing alternative. alternative. crossing alternative. crossing alternative. congestion at the level crossing. This option will require construction activity associated with There is no significant construction activity along the railway signalling along the live railway associated with the level crossing associated with the level crossing

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

This option retains the level crossing - a signficant hazard to Quality of Access for these road users, This option closes the level crossing - removes a signficant hazard transport users; 5.2 Vehicular Traffic Safety lengths of diversions, removal of interface Closing the crossing with no alternative would result in to transport users; Providing a segregated crossing would have a significant Providing a segregated crossing would have a significant Providing a segregated crossing would have a significant advantage as Providing a segregated crossing would have a significant Closing the crossing would have a disadvantage on vehicular diversion of road traffic onto longer routes but would avoid This option will not significantly divert traffic. with rail and other modes of transport This option will result in traffic diversions of up to 5.5km and advantage as vehicular traffic is not crossing the live rail. advantage as vehicular traffic is not crossing the live rail. vehicular traffic is not crossing the live rail. advantage as vehicular traffic is not crossing the live rail. traffic as traffic will have to be diverted 5 Safety congestion at the level crossing. This option incorporates good segregation for pedestrians, cyclists increased congestion on the local road network. and cars from railway traffic.

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

The curtailed availability of access over the level crossing associated with this option will divert vulnerable road users onto This option closes the level crossing. It provides a new link along the existing road network. This option closes the level crossing - removes a signficant hazard approximately the same line as the original; Pedestrian, Cyclist and Vulnerable Quality of Access for these road users. to transport users; 5.3 Diverted road users will be required to negotiate up to 4No Road user Safety Original Distance from R121 junction to Barberstown North The junction strategy for vulnerable road users is unaffected by removal of interfaces additional junctions including traffic light junctions and Diverted distance route 587m (2.0x diversion route). Diverted distance route 789m (2.6x diversion route) Diverted distance route 948m (3.1x diversion route) No diversionl for pedestrian and cyclists This option will result in traffic diversions of up to 5.5km and Road junction 300m retained. this option; roundabouts, typically turning left travelling southbound, right if increased congestion on the local road network. travelling northbound. This option incorporates good segregation for pedestrians, cyclists and cars from railway traffic. This options does not provide for segregation over the full length of the diversion routes for vulnerable road users.

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

This option supports good linkage between existing and Connectivity to adjoining cycling Analysis of the extent that the scheme No cycle tracks currently present on the immediately 6.1 No cycle tracks on the immediately surrounding road network, proposed cycle facilities facilities connects with cycle tracks. surrounding road network, but increased closures of the level This option supports good linkage to proposed cycle facilities This option supports good linkage to proposed cycle facilities This option supports good linkage to proposed cycle facilities This option supports good linkage to proposed cycle facilities This option supports good linkage to proposed cycle facilities but the closure of the level crossing would reduce access to the crossing would reduce access to the Royal Canal Greenway. Royal Canal Greenway. See also Transport Integration above. The quality of access to the train station for pedestrians and See also Transport Integration above. cyclists is good in respect of this option.

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

6 Physical Activity Cross Railway journey = nil as crossing remains in place; Cross Railway journey = nil as crossing remains in place; Cross Railway journey = nil as the proposed option is along the Cross Railway journey = nil as the proposed option is along the Cross Railway journey = nil as the proposed option is along the plan Cross Railway journey = nil as the proposed option is along the Cross Railway journey = nil as the proposed option is along the Journey Time and lengths of diversions for Inaccessible when crossing is closed. Cross Railway journey = nil as the proposed option is along the Inaccessible when crossing is closed. plan alignment of the existing Barberstown Link Road. plan alignment of the existing Barberstown Link Road. alignment of the existing Barberstown Link Road. plan alignment of the existing Barberstown Link Road. plan alignment of the existing Coolmine Road. active modes and numbers affected. plan alignment of the existing Coolmine Road. Permeability and local access Diversion for cars, pedestrians and cyclists when level crossing 6.2 Analysis of the connectivity between level Premanent diversion for cars, pedestrians and cyclists 5.0km Diversion for cyclists when level crossing closed 0.30km Diversion for cyclists when level crossing closed 0.30km Diversion for cyclists when level crossing closed 0.30km Diversion for cyclists when level crossing closed 0.30km Diversion for cyclists when level crossing closed 0.30km opportunity closed 5.0km Diversion for cyclists when level crossing closed is nil. crossing and green areas/key attractions The principal affected amenities in the vicinity of the level The principal high amenity greenspaces in the vicinity of the The principal high amenity greenspaces in the vicinity of the The principal high amenity greenspaces in the vicinity of the existing The principal high amenity greenspaces in the vicinity of the The principal high amenity greenspaces in the vicinity of the related to active mode The principal affected amenities in the vicinity of the level The principal affected amenities in the vicinity of the level crossing include the Royal canal,and the amenity zoned lands existing train station include the Royal canal, the amenity zoned existing train station include the Royal canal, the amenity zoned train station include the Royal canal, the amenity zoned lands, golf existing train station include the Royal canal, the amenity zoned existing train station include the Royal canal, the amenity zoned crossing include the Royal canal,and the amenity zoned lands crossing include the Royal canal,and the amenity zoned lands south east of the level crossing. Removal of the level crossing lands, golf courses and allotments south of the level crossing. lands, golf courses and allotments south of the level crossing. courses and allotments south of the level crossing. This access is lands, golf courses and allotments south of the level crossing. lands, golf courses and allotments south of the level crossing. south east of the level crossing. Removal of the level crossing south east of the level crossing. will require detour for access to each of them. This access is maintained by the proposed bridge scheme. This access is maintained by the proposed bridge scheme. maintained by the proposed bridge scheme. This access is maintained by the proposed bridge scheme. This access is maintained by the proposed bridge scheme. will require detour for access to each of them.

Criteria Do Nothing Do Minimum Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6

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

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

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

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

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

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

Progress To Stage 2 No No No Yes No Yes Yes No

Page 13 FOR WEB VIEWING ONLY

DART+ WEST - MCA Stage 1 Blakestown Level Crossing Assessment

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

Closure of the existing crossings with no alternative provided. All Leave the current level crossings in place. traffic would be diverted to alternative routes around the crossing Proposed Pedestrian and Cycle Bridge with nested ramps. location.

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

Assessment of cost of construction of option, land costs, Construction costs of this option will be comparative to other 1.1 Construction and Land Cost The level crossing is currently under CCTV control. To maintain the options as the provision of a pedestrian cycle bridge within the acquisition costs and temporary works Cost of removing crossing is low in comparison to provision of road level crossing, the furniture and signalling associate with it will need canal environs will require significant temporary and permanent crossing. replacement works. The cost to acquire land will be lower than other options providing full access

Significant comparative disadvantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options Ongoing annual maintenance costs associated with varied 1.2 Long Term Maintenance costs options moving them The do-nothing scenario would maintain the existing maintenance The closure of the level crossing would remove the maintenance An overbridge would increase decrease maintenance requirements 1 Economy costs of the level crossing. requirement of the level crossing. and operating costs over a level crossing.

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

Traffic Functionality /economic Benefits to vehicular traffic through reduction in journey time 1.3 benefit lengths and delays through removal of level crossings. Existing connectivity maintained but with reduced capacity as train Displacement of traffic onto alternative routes; increase in journey Displacement of traffic onto alternative routes; increase in journey Consideration of potentially longer routes for traffic. frequencies increase; resulting in increase in journey times for local times for local residents. times for local residents. residents.

Impact on scope for and ease of interchange between Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options modes. Impact on the operation of other transport services both during construction and in operation. New interchange Transport Integration 2.1 nodes and facilities; Reduced walking and wait times Existing connectivity maintained, albeit with increased disruption Reduction in local permeability. Reduced access to Royal Canal Reduction in local permeability. Access to Royal Canal Cycle Route associated with interchanges. Modal shift figures during from increased train frequencies. There is no cycle route proposed Cycle Route. maintained construction and operations. Changes to journey times to on Blakestown Road in the GDA Cycle Network Plan. transport nodes.

Page 14 FOR WEB VIEWING ONLY

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

Supports the KCDP 2017-2023 particularly Movement and Supports the KCDP 2017-2023 particularly Movement and transport objective PT07 KCDP Transport Objective PT07 which transport objective PT07 KCDP Transport Objective PT07 which seeks to promote and support the upgrading of the Maynooth Rail seeks to promote and support the upgrading of the Maynooth Rail line. line. Impact on land use strategies and local plans. Assessment . Leixlip LAP 2020-2023 recognises the level crossings will be . Leixlip LAP 2020-2023 recognises the level crossings will be Would not support KCDP Transport Objective PT07 which seeks to 2.2 Land Use Integration of support for land use factors local land use and planning. required to be removed. required to be removed. promote and support the upgrading of the Maynooth Rail line. Collinstown Masterplan is to be developed. The future Masterplan Collinstown Masterplan is to be developed. The future Masterplan 2 Integration Inclusion of project in relevant local planning documents. Leixlip LAP 2020-2023 recognises the level crossings will be is required to include the associated transportation studies. is required to include the associated transportation studies. required to be removed therefore this option would not support Therefore, based on existing land use patterns and the existing Therefore, based on existing land use patterns and the existing these objectives or the DART Expansion project. policy context (in support of DART Exp), neither the closure of the policy context (in support of DART Exp), neither the closure of the level crossing or the provision of pedestrian access at the level level crossing or the provision of pedestrian access at the level crossing is likely to significantly influence this comparative crossing is likely to significantly influence this comparative assessment in terms of planning/ integration factors at this stage assessment in terms of planning/ integration factors at this stage in the assessment. in the assessment.

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 2.3 Geographical Integration of the level crossings. As a consequence all options are No impact on Geographical Integration No impact on Geographical Integration No impact on Geographical Integration rated comparable to one another.

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

Other Government Policy Integration with the other Government policy such as the This option would support the delivery of the higher level national and This option would support the delivery of the higher level national and 2.4 This option would not support the delivery of the higher level national Integration NPF and RSES. regional planning policies regarding the DART Expansion programme regional planning policies regarding the DART Expansion programme and regional planning policies regarding the DART Expansion programme (NPF- (NS04), RSES & GDA Transport Strategy). However would not meet (NPF- (NS04), RSES & GDA Transport Strategy). However would not meet (NPF- (NS04), RSES & GDA Transport Strategy). Smarter Travel policy. Smarter Travel policy.

Estimated number of sensitive properties within 100m of the Comparable to other options Comparable to other options Comparable to other options works. Options closer to more sensitive locations will have 3.1 Noise and Vibration an increased risk of generating a noise impact. However, Removes vehicle traffic emissions. Likely to have some short-term Removes vehicle traffic emissions Likely to have some short term No significant impacts predicted at this stage. qualative criteria are also used where necessary to construction impacts. construction impacts. differentiate between the options.

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

Local air quality effects. No of number of receptors within 3.2 Air Quality and Climate 50m. Removes vehicle traffic therefore requiring longer trips on alternative Removes vehicle traffic therefore requiring longer trips on alternative No significant impacts predicted at this stage. routes for some traffic, however removes localised traffic impacts. Some routes for some traffic, however removes localised traffic impacts. Some short-term construction impacts. short-term construction impacts.

Key landscape characteristics affected; Impact on Significant comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative advantage over other options Significant comparative disadvantage over other options landscape character; Impacts on landscape features, Landscape and Visual (including protected landscapes. Loss of local connectivity. Minimal impact on existing landscape or visual 3.3 Significant visual impact on setting of 13th Lock / Deey Bridge (a characteristics - no likely significant landscape or visual impacts. light) Key visual characteristics affected; Impacts on properties, No impact on existing landscape or visual characteristics. protected structure and protected view in Kildare Development Plan) amenities, protected views, key views. and on residential property north of lock.

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

Potential compliance/conflict with biodiversity objectives; Hydrologically connected to South Dublin Bay and River Tolka 3.4 Biodiversity (flora and fauna) Indirect impacts on protected species, designated sites; Estuary SPA. No risk of LSE. Potential impacts to Royal Canal Overall effect on nature conservation resource. No direct impacts. No direct impacts. pNHA arising from the construction of new pedestrian bridge.

Overall effect on cultural, archaeological and architecture Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options heritage resource. Likely effects on RPS, National Cultural, Archaeological and Potential indirect impacts on Deey Bridge (and Lock) (RPS No. B06- 3.5 Monuments, SMRs, Conservation areas, etc. No direct impacts. 3 Environment Architectural Heritage No direct impacts likely positive effects to Deey bridge and 13th Lock due 14). Potential to encounter unknown archaeological deposits that Number of designated sites/structures (by level of to removal of traffic. may survive in undeveloped areas. designation) directly impacted by scheme (landtake)

Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Overall potential significant effects on water resource 3.6 Water Resources attributes likely to be affected during construction and Potential negative impact on surface water quality during operational Removes vehicular traffic borne pollutants. Minimal construction phase Potential negative impact on surface and groundwater quality during operation. phase. Has some comparative disadvantage over other options. impacts are likely. Some comparative advantages over other options. construction phase.

Page 15 FOR WEB VIEWING ONLY

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

Overall impact on land take & property. Number of 3.7 Agriculture and Non-Agricultural properties to be impacted/acquired. Likely temporary or There will be a limited direct impact on both agricultural and non- permanent severance effects, etc. There is no impact on agricultural or non-agricultural property. There is no impact on agricultural or non-agricultural property. agricultural property. There is no impact on access to lands though there will be increased travel for vehicular journeys to / from R148.

Soils and Geology and likely impact on geological resources Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options based on preliminary/likely construction details. Soil Geology and Soils (including resources to be developed/removed. Existing information Waste) 3.8 relating to potential to encounter contaminated land. High- level assessment based on the likely structures/ works No significant direct impacts. No significant direct impacts. No significant direct impacts as minimal earthworks are required. required and the potential for ground contamination due to historic landfills, pits and quarries.

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

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

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

With the level crossing becoming effectively closed on implementation of With the level crossing closed on implementation of the proposed Impacts on low income groups, non-car owners, mobility 4.1 Impact on Vulnerable Groups the proposed working timetable and with no provision for supplementary working timetable and with no provision for supplementary Provision of a pedestrian / cycle bridge addresses any local impaired, visually impaired and people with a disability. infrastructure for vulnerable groups, the majority of users will be diverted infrastructure for vulnerable groups, the majority of users will be disruption caused by closing the level crossing. onto the adjacent road network. diverted onto the adjacent road network. Usage is, however low. This relates to a small number of uses of the level crossing This relates to a small number of uses of the level crossing

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 Blakestown will not significantly It is considered that alterations at Blakestown will not significantly It is considered that alterations at Blakestown will not significantly Accessibility & Social affect access to stations in the locality affect access to stations in the locality affect access to stations in the locality 4 inclusion

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

Cross Railway journey = nil as crossing remains in place; Cross Railway journey = nil as crossing remains in place; Cross Railway journey = nil as crossing remains in place; Quantification of service levels impacts including severance Inaccessible when crossing is closed. Inaccessible when crossing is closed. Inaccessible when crossing is closed. to all groups (Severance of local communities through 4.3 Social Inclusion removal of level crossings without connection would fair Diversion for cars, pedestrians and cyclists when level crossing Diversion for cars, pedestrians and cyclists when level crossing Diversion for cars, pedestrians and cyclists when level crossing worst under this heading). closed 0.7km to ease, 1.6km to west. closed 0.7km to ease, 1.6km to west. closed 0.7km to ease, 1.6km to west. The principal affected amenities in the vicinity of the level crossing The principal affected amenities in the vicinity of the level crossing The principal affected amenities in the vicinity of the level crossing include JM Motors south of the railway, the Business Barn, Intel and include JM Motors south of the railway, the Business Barn, Intel include JM Motors south of the railway, the Business Barn, Intel Jones Engineering Group, north of the railway and Jones Engineering Group, north of the railway and Jones Engineering Group, north of the railway

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

This Option leaves the railway level crossing in place, a characteristic This option removes the railway level crossing, a characteristic which is This option removes the railway level crossing, a characteristic which is 5.1 Rail Safety Safety for Rail users – removal of LC positive in this respect which is considered negative from the perspective of railway safety. considered positive from the perspective of railway safety. considered positive from the perspective of railway safety.

This option will require construction activity associated with signalling There is no significant construction activity along the railway associated There is no significant construction activity along the railway associated along the live railway associated with the level crossing with the level crossing with the level crossing

Comparable to other options Comparable to other options Comparable to other options 5 Safety Quality of Access for these road users, lengths of diversions, Effective Closure of the level crossing with no replacement infrastructure 5.2 Vehicular Traffic Safety Closing the level crossing with no replacement infrastructure will divert Closing the level crossing with no replacement infrastructure will divert will divert traffic onto the local road network resulting in diversions of removal of interface with rail and other modes of transport traffic onto the local road network resulting in diversions of between traffic onto the local road network resulting in diversions of between between 0.7km and 1.6km. These are considered incidental for road 0.7km and 1.6km. These are considered incidental for road traffic 0.7km and 1.6km. These are considered incidental for road traffic traffic

Page 16 FOR WEB VIEWING ONLY

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

Pedestrian, Cyclist and This option effectively results in pedestrians, cyclists and vulnerable 5.3 Quality of Access for these road users. removal of interfaces road users onto the local road network. If the railway remains open, No cycle tracks on the immediately surrounding road network, but Vulnerable Road user Safety Original Distance from access to farm to R148 junction 270m interface issues remain. the closure of the level crossing would reduce access to the Royal retained. Canal Greenway. See also Transport Integration above. The low level of usage and rural setting is noted

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

Connectivity to adjoining cycling Analysis of the extent that the scheme connects with cycle No cycle tracks currently present on the immediately surrounding 6.1 No cycle tracks on the immediately surrounding road network, but road network, but increased closures of the level crossing would facilities tracks. the closure of the level crossing would reduce access to the Royal Severance overcome by provision of direct replacement. reduce access to the Royal Canal Greenway. See also Transport Canal Greenway. See also Transport Integration above. Integration above.

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

6 Physical Activity Cross Railway journey = nil as crossing remains in place; Cross Railway journey = nil as crossing remains in place; Journey Time and lengths of diversions for active modes Inaccessible when crossing is closed. Inaccessible when crossing is closed. Permeability and local access and numbers affected. Analysis of the connectivity between 6.2 opportunity level crossing and green areas/key attractions related to Diversion for cars, pedestrians and cyclists when level crossing Diversion for cars, pedestrians and cyclists when level crossing active mode closed 0.6km East and 1.6km West closed 0.6km East and 1.6km West Severance overcome by provision of direct replacement. The principal affected amenities in the vicinity of the level crossing The principal affected amenities in the vicinity of the level crossing include the Royal canal north of the level crossing. Removal of the include the Royal canal north of the level crossing. Removal of the level crossing will require detour for access. level crossing will require detour for access.

Option 1 Criteria Do Nothing Do Minimum

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

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

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

4 Accessibility and social inclusion Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative disadvantage over other options Some comparative advantage over other options

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

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

Progress To Stage 2 No Yes Yes

Page 17