Outline Business Case A5 Western Transport Corridor

Outline Business Case

A5 Western Transport Corridor

Document Ref No: 718736-2700-R-028

12 September 2017

WSP Shorefield House 30 Kinnegar Drive Holywood County Down Northern Ireland BT18 9JQ

T +44 (0) 28 9595 3020

NOTE: TransportNI is now known as Department for Infrastructure (DfI) Roads and on 1 st July 2017 Mouchel was rebranded under the parent company name of WSP.

Document Control Sheet

Project Title A5 Western Transport Corridor

Report Title Outline Business Case

Report ref no. 718736-2700-R-028

Version 3.0

Status Final

Report Date 12 September 2017

Record of Issue

Version Status Authors Date Checked by Date Approved by Date

P. Edwards S. Wood P. Barrett P. Edwards 1.0 Draft 06/09/2017 06/09/2017 P. Edwards 06/09/2017 L. Shimadry S. Wood M. Hinde T. Diver P. Edwards S. Wood P. Barrett 2.0 Final Draft 12/09/2017 S Wood 11/09/2017 P. Edwards 12/09/2017 L. Shimadry M. Hinde T. Diver P. Edwards S. Wood P. Barrett 3.0 Final 27/09/2017 S Wood 28/09/2017 P. Edwards 28/09/2017 L. Shimadry M. Hinde T. Diver

Date Organisation Contact Copies

3 Hard Copy 29/09/2017 Department for Infrastructure Raymond Glass 3 DVD

© WSP 2017 iii Limitations This report is presented to the Department for Infrastructure in respect of the A5 Western Transport Corridor scheme and may not be used or relied on by any other person . It may not be used by the Department for Infrastructure in relation to any other matters not covered specifically by the agreed scope of this Report.

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the report, WSP is obliged to exercise reasonable skill, care and diligence in the performance of the services required by the Department for Infrastructure and WSP shall not be liable except to the extent that it has failed to exercise reasonable skill, care and diligence, and this report shall be read and construed accordingly.

This report has been prepared by WSP. No individual is personally liable in connection with the preparation of this report. By receiving this report and acting on it, the client or any other person accepts that no individual is personally liable whether in contract, tort, for breach of statutory duty or otherwise.

Introduction ...... 21

Background to the Outline Business Case ...... 21

Background to Scheme ...... 21

Structure of the Outline Business Case ...... 25

Introduction to Outline Business Case ...... 26

Purpose of the Outline Business Case ...... 26

Relevant Guidance ...... 27

Overview of DfT Five Case Model Approach ...... 27

The Scheme ...... 29

Description of the Scheme ...... 29

Scheme Phasing ...... 34

Objectives of Scheme ...... 36

The Strategic Case ...... 38

Introduction ...... 38

Context for Business Case ...... 39

Chapter Structure ...... 41

Business Strategy ...... 42

Problem Identification ...... 63

Impact of No Change ...... 94

Drivers for Change ...... 98

Stakeholders ...... 114

Options ...... 116

The Economic Case ...... 120

Introduction ...... 120

Guidelines and Standards ...... 121

Scope of the Appraisal ...... 121

Methodology and Assumptions ...... 124

Costs for Complete Scheme ...... 130

Assessment of Monetised Impacts for Complete Scheme ...... 134

Non-Monetised Impacts – Complete Scheme ...... 148

Social and Distributional Impacts (SDIs) of Complete Scheme ...... 160

Initial Value for Money Assessment – Complete Scheme ...... 196

Sensitivity Testing ...... 199

Appraisal Summary Table ...... 204

Final Value for Money Category – Complete Scheme ...... 205

Economic Appraisal of Phases of Scheme ...... 208

Summary (Complete Scheme and Phases) ...... 213

The Financial Case ...... 215

Introduction to Financial Case ...... 215

Scheme / Project Costs ...... 215

Budget and Funding by Other Parties ...... 221

The Commercial Case ...... 222

Introduction ...... 222

Procurement Strategy ...... 223

Visions, Aims and Objectives relating to the Procurement Strategy ...... 224

Priorities and Constraints ...... 225

Statutory Process ...... 226

Procurement Strategy Development ...... 227

Preferred Option Selection ...... 228

Contract Packages ...... 228

Procurement Route ...... 234

Alignment with Procurement Strategy ...... 235

Payment Mechanisms ...... 238

Risk Allocation and Transfer ...... 239

Contract Length ...... 240

Contract Management ...... 240

Summary ...... 241

The Management Case ...... 242

Introduction ...... 242

Project Governance ...... 242

Assurances and Approvals Plan ...... 248

Communications Strategy and Stakeholder Management ...... 250

Stakeholder Engagement ...... 251

Project Reporting Arrangements ...... 259

Contract Management ...... 260

Risk Management Strategy ...... 262

Benefits Realisation Plan ...... 268

Monitoring and Evaluation of Impacts ...... 271

Summary ...... 283

Appendices ...... 285

Appendix A – DfT / NIGEAE Guidance Matrix

Appendix B – Local Model Validation Report

Appendix C – Forecasting Report

Appendix D – Optimism Bias Calculator / E058 Estimates

Appendix E – Environmental Impact Calculations

Appendix F – A5WTC Wider Economic Benefits (Volterra)

Appendix G – Economic Appraisal Report

Appendix H – Appraisal Summary Table

Appendix I – Risk Register

Appendix J – Procurement Strategy Summary for Outline Business Case Discussions

Figure 3-1: Location plan of the Proposed Scheme (Map Source: www.a5wtc.com) ...... 33

Figure 4-1: Key Transport Corridors in Northern Ireland (Source: Regional Development Strategy 2035) ...... 40

Figure 4-2: Location of ATCs (Map Source: www.a5wtc.com) ...... 67

Figure 4-3: Existing A5WTC route and connections with the strategic road network (Map Source: www.a5wtc.com) ...... 71

Figure 4-4: Unemployment benefits claimant count annual average (Source: NISRA) ...... 77

Figure 4-5: Injury accidents by severity in the existing A5WTC study area ...... 80

Figure 4-6: Accident hotspots – Newbuildings to Bready ...... 83

Figure 4-7: Accident hotspots – Strabane ...... 84

Figure 4-8: Accident hotspots – Sion Mills ...... 86

Figure 4-9: Accident hotspots – Omagh ...... 87

Figure 4-10: Accident hotspots – Ballygawley ...... 88

Figure 4-11: Overhead view of Magheramason, illustrating existing A5 route (Source: Bing Maps) ...... 90

Figure 4-12: Overhead view of Sion Mills, illustrating existing A5 route (Source: Bing Maps) ..... 91

Figure 4-13: AQMA in Strabane, in the context of the existing A5 route ...... 93

Figure 4-14: AQMA in Newtownstewart, in the context of the existing A5 route ...... 94

Figure 4-15: Causal chain (logic) diagram for the Proposed Scheme ...... 101

Figure 5-1: Process to derive BCR ...... 123

Figure 5-2: Observed and forecast growth ...... 127

Figure 5-3: Extent of the Traffic Model and Economic Assessment Networks ...... 128

Figure 5-4: Road User Benefits by Year (discounted to 2010) ...... 137

Figure 5-5: Links with flow changes of greater than 10% (2028 AADT) ...... 165

Figure 5-6: Location of schools affected by Proposed Scheme ...... 167

Figure 5-7: Location of pedestrian crossing facilities ...... 170

Figure 5-8: Areas defined for Distributional Impact Assessment of Accidents ...... 175

Figure 7-1: Procurement options for the Proposed Scheme ...... 233

Figure 8-1: Governance structure for the Proposed Scheme ...... 243

Figure 8-2: Project Programme ...... 247

Figure 8-3: Risk Management Strategy ...... 262

Figure 8-5: Distribution of total risk – 2...... 266

Figure 8-6: Logic Map ...... 275

Figure 8-7: Counterfactual position ...... 281

Tables

Table 2-1: The DfT’s five case model approach and summary of contents ...... 28

Table 4-1: Strategic Objectives to which the Proposed Scheme aligns ...... 46

Table 4-2: RDS 2035 Guidance to which the Proposed Scheme aligns ...... 53

Table 4-3: Alignment of policy documents to Proposed Scheme objectives ...... 62

Table 4-4: Average Monday-Thursday flows on the A5 between 5 th April and 5 th May 2016 ...... 65

Table 4-5: AADT flows in 2015, from The Department’s long-term count sites ...... 66

Table 4-6: A- and B-Class routes joining the existing A5WTC between Londonderry and Aughnacloy ...... 75

Table 4-7: Comparison of Observed and National Average accident rates for the A5 ...... 82

Table 4-8: Scheme success indicators...... 104

Table 4-9: Buildings which require demolition ...... 106

Table 4-10: Designated sites in the environmental study area ...... 108

Table 4-11: Potentially contaminated sites under or immediately adjacent to the Proposed Scheme ...... 111

Table 4-12: Bridges by function ...... 113

Table 4-13: List of stakeholders ...... 115

Table 5-1: Forecast growth rates from 2015 Base Year ...... 126

Table 5-2: Observed and forecast annual growth rates ...... 127

Table 5-3: User Classes ...... 129

Table 5-4: Annualisation Factors ...... 130

Table 5-5: Optimism Bias applied by Phase ...... 131

Table 5-6: A5WTC – Present Value of Costs (Scheme Construction Costs) ...... 133

Table 5-7: A5WTC – Present Value of Costs (Scheme Mainteance and Operational Costs) .... 133

Table 5-8: Transport User Benefits (£Ms) ...... 136

Table 5-10: Accident savings over 60 years ...... 141

Table 5-11: Casualty savings over 60 years ...... 141

Table 5-12: Present value of accident savings over 60 years (2010 prices, discounted to 2010) ...... 142

Table 5-13: Monetised Environmental Impacts ...... 143

Table 5-14: Wider Impacts ...... 145

Table 5-15: Stress Relief Categories ...... 146

Table 5-16: Assessment of Stress Relief weighted by veh-km ...... 147

Table 5-17: Assessment of Monetary Benefit for Journey Time Reliability ...... 147

Table 5-18: Short term Noise Assessment ...... 149

Table 5-19: Long term Noise Assessment ...... 149

Table 5-20: Local air quality impacts ...... 151

Table 5-21: Regional air quality impacts ...... 152

Table 5-22: Change in greenhouse gas emissions (TAG Greenhouse Gases outputs) ...... 153

Table 5-23: Forecast number of casualties (over 60 years) ...... 163

Table 5-24: Costs of accidents by severity (over 60 years) ...... 163

Table 5-25: Traffic flow changes on roads nearby school affected by the Proposed Scheme ... 169

Table 5-26: Distribution of User Benefits ...... 172

Table 5-27: Number of casualties for the period 2011-2015 with each Zone ...... 176

Table 5-28: Distributional Analysis of Accidents involving Vulnerable Groups ...... 176

Table 5-29: Number of casualties over 2011-2015 by Zone for each Vulnerable Group ...... 177

Table 5-30: Casualties 2011-2015 by Vulnerable Group, Area and Forecast Flow Change ...... 178

Table 5-31: Severance Impact ...... 181

Table 5-32: Distributional Analysis of User Costs ...... 182

Table 5-33: SOAs in the SDI study area ...... 184

Table 5-34: SDI analysis for Noise ...... 185

Table 5-35: Noise impact on care homes and day centres in the study area ...... 186

Table 5-36: Air Quality (NO 2) DI Analysis (Opening Year 2028) ...... 188

Table 5-37: Air Quality (PM 10 ) DI Analysis (Opening Year 2028) ...... 189

Table 5-38: Schools and Nurseries (NO2) – Opening Year (2028) ...... 193

Table 5-40: Initial BCR for Whole Scheme ...... 197

Table 5-41: Adjusted BCR for Whole Scheme ...... 198

Table 5-42: Value for Money Categories (Source: DfT Value for Money Framework) ...... 198

Table 5-43: High Growth, Core and Low Growth scenario TUBA benefit sensitivity tests ...... 202

Table 5-44: Present value of accident savings over 60 years (2010 prices, discounted to 2010) ...... 202

Table 5-45: BCR for Core, Low and High Growth scenarios ...... 204

Table 5-46: Methodology for Evaluation of Benefits by Phase ...... 208

Table 5-47: TUBA Benefits by Phase ...... 209

Table 5-48: QUADRO Benefits by Phase ...... 209

Table 5-49: Total TEE Benefits by Phase ...... 209

Table 5-50: Casualty savings by phase over 60 years ...... 210

Table 5-51: Present value of accident savings over 60 years (2010 prices, discounted to 2010) ...... 210

Table 5-52: Monetised Environmental Benefits by Phase (£M) ...... 211

Table 5-53: Evolving Monetised Benefits by Phase ...... 211

Table 5-54: Adjusted BCR by Phase...... 212

Table 6-1: Estimated capital costs of the Proposed Scheme ...... 215

Table 6-2: Breakdown of the scheme costs for the Proposed Scheme ...... 216

Table 6-3: A5WTC Spend to Date (‘Sunk’ Costs) ...... 217

Table 6-4: Summary of Scheme Costs ...... 218

Table 6-5: Traffic-related maintenance cost over 60 years, by Phase, at 2017 prices ...... 219

Table 6-6: Routine (annual) maintenance cost over 60 years, by Phase, at 2017 prices ...... 220

Table 7-1: Key programme dates (at 2008) ...... 225

Table 8-1: The Project Board ...... 244

Table 8-2: Project Delivery Team ...... 246

Table 8-3: Summary of landowner meetings ...... 258

Table 8-4: Impact / Probability Matrix ...... 265

Table 8-5: Scheme objectives, desired outputs and desired outcomes ...... 270

Table 8-6: Data requirements and metrics ...... 278

Table 8-7: Data sources ...... 279

Introduction

This document is the Outline Business Case for the A5 Western Transport Corridor (A5WTC). It has been prepared on behalf of The Department for Infrastructure, the scheme promoters, for consideration by the Department of Finance.

The Proposed Scheme has been developed in line with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) and Roads Service Policy and Procedures Guidance (RSPPG). The scheme has progressed through a second Public Inquiry held by the Planning Appeals Commission (PAC) which recommended that the scheme should proceed and the Vesting Order for Phase 1A, Phase 1B and Phase 2 be should be made.

Introduction to Outline Business Case (OBC)

The OBC presents the full economic and financial appraisals, sets out the preparations for the potential construction contract and defines the arrangements required to ensure successful delivery of the full scheme.

The OBC is structured so that it satisfies both the UK Treasury’s advice on evidence- based decision making set out in the Green Book and the Northern Ireland Guide to Expenditure Appraisal and Evaluation (NIGEAE). It has been prepared with reference to the key principles outlined within NIGEAE’s 10 step guidance, and adopts a best practice five case model approach, as set out by the UK Department for Transport (DfT).

As the Proposed Scheme will be delivered in separate Phases, this OBC will be supplemented by a Phase specific addendum prior to the construction of each Phase. The OBC together with the Phase specific addendum will constitute the Full Business Case (FBC) for that Phase.

The Scheme

The Proposed Scheme is approximately 88km in length, between Newbuildings and south of Aughnacloy where the existing A5 joins with the N2 at the border with the Republic of Ireland. It would provide approximately 85km of new dual carriageway parallel with the

A number of junctions will facilitate access to the towns and villages along the route corridor, currently served by the existing A5, as well as links to other strategic routes.

The Strategic Case

The Proposed Scheme will be a designated Key Transport Corridor and a component of the Regional Strategic Transport Network, with an overarching aim to improve links between the urban centres in the west of Northern Ireland and to provide a strategic link with international gateways. It is strategically aligned with several central and local government plans and policies, which all demonstrate a strong ambition to improve the A5 as a key national and local link.

There are specific problems which the Proposed Scheme is designed to address, namely congestion at pinch points and journey time unreliability; accessibility to key economic centres and international gateways; accident hotspots; community severance; and poor air quality. From these, four key objectives have been created to:

• improve road safety;

• improve the road network in the west of the Province and north / south links;

• reduce journey travel times; and

• provide increased overtaking opportunities along the A5 Western Transport Corridor.

The final proposals have been developed in light of safety, economic, environmental, integration and accessibility considerations.

It is recognised that there are physical, environmental and other constraints in developing the Proposed Scheme, however, appropriate design techniques have been used and mitigation proposed which minimise both the impacts upon the Proposed Scheme and impacts of the Proposed Scheme.

In order to identify and minimise these impacts, a three-stage assessment in accordance with DMRB was used to develop and refine the Proposed Scheme which included the

© WSP 2017 xv selection of the preferred corridor, the development of route options and an assessment and re-assessment of the Proposed Scheme, demonstrating that the Proposed Scheme has been considered as part of a wider strategy for Northern Ireland.

The Proposed Scheme would facilitate the movement of people and goods along a modern, high quality corridor and improve access to international gateways at Londonderry Port and City of Derry Airport in the north and the Republic of Ireland in the south and the north-west, and to market towns and tourist areas.

Consequently, the Proposed Scheme would assist with the delivery of economic and growth objectives for Northern Ireland, whilst potentially attracting inward investment to the districts of Derry and Strabane, Fermanagh and Omagh and Mid Ulster, making them better places in which to live, work and visit.

The Economic Case

The economic case covers the development of a traffic model for a 2015 base year, traffic forecasting and economic appraisal for a whole life 60-year appraisal period. The appraisal is presented in two parts a) for the whole scheme and b) the contribution of each Phase to the total.

The Proposed Scheme has been assessed as being constructed in the four periods below but this will be subject to the availability of funding:

• Phase 1a: Newbuildings to north of Strabane (Junctions 1-3) – 2017-2019, with an opening year of 2019;

• Phase 1b: South of Omagh to Ballygawley (Junctions 13-15) – 2019-2021, with an opening year of 2021;

• Phase 2: North of Strabane to south of Omagh (Junctions 3-13) – 2021-2023 with an opening year of 2023; and

• Phase 3: Ballygawley to Aughnacloy (Junctions 15-17) – 2026-2028, with an opening year of 2028.

Transport User Benefits were determined using the DfT program TUBA, accident benefits from the DfT program COBALT and construction and maintenance benefits using the UK Highways England program QUADRO. Monetised environmental benefits were

© WSP 2017 xvi determined for noise, local air quality and greenhouse gases. Additional benefits were determined for wider impacts and journey time reliability. Non-monetised impacts were determined for landscape, heritage, biodiversity and water environment.

The social impacts of the Proposed Scheme were assessed for accidents, severance and personal affordability. Distributional impacts of the Proposed Scheme, on groups regarded as vulnerable, were assessed for user benefits, accidents, severance, personal affordability, noise, and air quality.

The Present Value of Costs (PVC) for the proposed scheme including construction costs and whole life costs is £719.09M .

Using the Value for Money Framework issued by the Department for Transport in July 2017, the Proposed Scheme offers Medium to High value for money, with an adjusted Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) of 2.02.

The monetary benefits are predominantly derived from those ‘Established’ monetised impacts, including journey time savings to commuters and business, savings to vehicle operating costs and accident savings. ‘Evolving’ monetised impacts are also accounted for and include ‘wider economic benefits’ and journey time reliability improvements.

The assessment of accident and casualty savings, as a result of the scheme, which have been included in the economic appraisal is a reduction in the number of personal injury accidents by 2,016 over the 60 year appraisal period.

Sensitivity testing was undertaken with respect to a core scenario through low and high growth forecast scenarios. This showed an adjusted BCR range from 1.56 for low growth to 2.63 for high growth representing a VfM category of Medium and High respectively.

An appraisal of each of the respective Phases is provided for the core scenario. This shows that Phase 2 has the highest adjusted BCR of 3.37, with Phase 3 having the lowest

Final Value for Money categories for each of the Phases will be prepared and included in the respective Full Business Cases.

The Financial Case

The estimated capital costs (excluding sunk costs, client costs and non-recoverable VAT) at 2017:Q2 prices, is £968.66M.

The cost of delivering the Proposed Scheme will not be fully known until the detailed design has been completed, land purchased and tender prices received. These costs will be quantified in the production of the Full Business Case for the respective Phases of the Proposed Scheme, however to reflect the uncertainty associated with known risks at this stage, a quantified risk assessment has been undertaken, with a risk value allocated to the scheme of £59.7M.

The Proposed Scheme will give rise to additional revenue liabilities for capital renewals and maintenance, based on a 60-year appraisal period commencing on the opening of each Phase. It is estimated that approximately £188.08M (at current 2017 price base) is required for resurfacing / renewing the new highway infrastructure and approximately £9.71M (at current 2017 price base) will be required to meet routine annual highways maintenance liabilities. These whole life costs have been factored into the economic appraisal, contained within the Economic Case.

The strategic importance of the Proposed Scheme is recognised at Northern Ireland Executive level, as such it is a priority for the allocation of capital funding. At present, sufficient funds are in place for the delivery of Phase 1a. It is proposed that 100% of the scheme cost will be covered by public funding via the Northern Ireland Executive and Irish Government.

The Commercial Case

The Proposed Scheme is commercially viable with a robust contracting and procurement strategy. This included the use of the OJEU ‘restricted procedure’ procurement tendering

A number of technical discussion papers were produced with regards to the most appropriate approach to delivery. These recommended the way forward in terms of promoting collaborative working through use of Early Contractor Involvement (ECI) and sharing the risk by splitting the scheme into three contracts; rewarding risk allocation through a pain gain mechanism within the NEC Option C form of contract.

The appointment of contractors to the Proposed Scheme effectively manages risk and reduces cost uncertainty in line with the vision, aims and objectives of the procurement Strategy for ‘a first-class and affordable A5 corridor upgrade delivered safely and sustainably through effective partnerships and project excellence ’.

The Management Case

The Proposed Scheme will be delivered through appropriate project management and best practice. The Department for Infrastructure’s Roads and Rivers Management Group is the Investment Decision Maker for the Proposed Scheme and is responsible for its delivery.

The Project Delivery Team consists of individuals from the Department for Infrastructure and the Department’s consultant, WSP, whilst the Integrated Delivery Team, responsible for construction of the Proposed Scheme, will be led by Contractor JVs by Phase. The Proposed Scheme will be constructed in four Phases, subject to available funding, with the final Phase of the scheme opening in 2028.

A thorough stakeholder communications strategy has been implemented throughout the development of the Proposed Scheme and consequently, there have been several public exhibitions and consultations with statutory bodies, landowners and stakeholders in order to explain the objectives of the scheme, outline the key criteria that has informed the planning, design and assessment process and describe the statutory process that would be followed.

Further to these, the Proposed Scheme has been through two Public Inquiries. A Benefits Realisation Plan has been created in order to demonstrate the desired outputs, desired outcomes and SMART target against each of the four key scheme objectives and a

Introduction

Background to the Outline Business Case

This document is the Outline Business Case (OBC) for the A5 Western Transport Corridor (hereafter referred to also as the ‘Proposed Scheme’ or ‘A5WTC’). It has been prepared on behalf of the Department for Infrastructure (hereafter referred to as ‘the Department’) for consideration by the Department of Finance.

The OBC is structured so that it satisfies both the UK Treasury’s advice on evidence-based decision making set out in the Green Book and the Northern Ireland Guide to Expenditure Appraisal and Evaluation (NIGEAE). It has been prepared with reference to the key principles outlined within NIGEAE’s 10 step guidance, and adopts a best practice five case model approach, as set out by the UK Department for Transport (DfT).

The OBC explains why the Proposed Scheme should receive support, and provides a clear audit trail for the purposes of public accountability. The OBC also sets out how and why the decision has been made to put the proposal forward in its current form. It demonstrates that this is based on a robust analysis of current conditions, forecasts of future conditions including the effects of constructing the scheme, an assessment of the social and economic benefits of the scheme and finally the proposals for managing and financing its construction and delivery.

Background to Scheme

In 2008, a study area for the A5WTC dual carriageway scheme was defined that was the subject of a public consultation. Later in 2008 the study area was refined to a Preferred Corridor and a Stage 1 Scheme Assessment Report (Preliminary Options Report) was produced.

In early 2009, a further public consultation exercise was held in relation to the Preferred Corridor and a number of route options that had been developed within it. In July 2009, the Minister for Regional Development announced the Preferred Route for the A5WTC and the publication of a Preferred Options Report. The

Preferred Options Report summarised the work carried out in the Stage 2 Scheme Assessment and detailed the Preferred Route and the rationale for its choice.

Following receipt of additional information in relation to the Preferred Route, in particular in terms of ground investigation studies, flood modelling, cost information, and feedback from landowners, a number of alternatives to the Preferred Route were considered. These were published mid 2010 in an ‘Alternatives Discussion Paper’.

The combination of the Preferred Route and adopted alternatives became the ‘Proposed Scheme’ which was then the subject of draft statutory Orders. An Environmental Statement was published in November 2010 with Public Exhibitions on the Proposed Scheme being held later in the month.

A Public Inquiry was held in the summer of 2011 for the Proposed Scheme and the Inspector’s report was published in February 2012. This recommended that the A5 WTC scheme should proceed as proposed by the Department for Regional Development. In July 2012, the Orders were confirmed by the Minister.

In 2013, a legal challenge was mounted against the Department and although the judge found for the Department on 11 of the 12 issues that were raised, he ruled against the Department under the Habitats Directive on the need for an Appropriate Assessment on Rivers Foyle and Finn Special Areas of Conservation.

Following the Court ruling, when the Minister’s decision to make the Direction Order and Vesting Order was quashed, the Department initiated an assessment process not only for the River Foyle and River Finn Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), but also other SACs, Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Ramsar Sites in the vicinity of the Proposed Scheme. These assessments are covered in the following reports:

• Report of Information to Inform an Appropriate Assessment: SAC Watercourses, covering:

o River Foyle & Tributaries Special Area of Conservation

o Owenkillew River Special Area of Conservation

o River Finn Special Area of Conservation

• Report of Information to Inform Appropriate Assessment: Tully Bog SAC, covering:

o Tully Bog Special Area of Conservation

• Report of Information to Inform Appropriate Assessment: SPAs, covering:

o Lough Foyle Special Protection Area

o Lough Swilly Special Protection Area

o Lough Neagh & Lough Beg Special Protection Area

• Report of Information to Inform Appropriate Assessment: Ramsar Sites, covering:

o Lough Foyle Ramsar Site

o Lough Neagh & Lough Beg Ramsar Site

The Department also decided, at that time, that the Statutory Procedures would be revisited and that new draft Orders should be prepared to reflect any changes arising out of the original Public Inquiry process and to take account of any interim changes in legislation and design standards. The original line of the proposed dual carriageway was, however, unaffected.

The draft Orders comprised:

i. a draft Direction Order for the length of the Proposed Scheme between Newbuildings and Ballygawley (junction with the A4);

ii. 3 No draft Vesting Orders to reflect the phased delivery programme and recognising that the section between Ballygawley and the border at Aughnacloy should not be included in line with the recommendations within the Inspectors Report from the 2011 Public Inquiry:

a. Phase 1a – from Newbuildings to north of Strabane;

b. Phase 1b – from south of Omagh to Ballygawley; and

c. Phase 2 – from north of Strabane to south of Omagh.

iii. a draft Stopping Up of Private Accesses Order relating to the length of the Proposed Scheme between Newbuildings and Ballygawley (junction with the A4).

In addition a new Environmental Statement (ES) for the whole scheme between Newbuildings and the border south of Aughnacloy was prepared.

On 16th February 2016, the Department published the draft Orders and Environmental Statement for the A5WTC and this was followed by a public consultation period extending to 4 th April 2016.

A total of 1,001 representations were received in response to the consultation and in view of the significant number of representations made, the Department announced the holding of a Public Inquiry.

The Department appointed the Planning Appeals Commission (PAC) to administer the 2016 Public Inquiry. This was held between October and December 2016.

The PAC submitted their report from the Public Inquiry to the Department on 25 th May 2017.

The PAC considered that the benefits from the Proposed Scheme would be of major public significance and were not persuaded that alternatives to an off-line dual carriageway would be capable of achieving the same scale of benefits. Therefore, the PAC concluded that there was a compelling argument for the Proposed Scheme to be delivered in the wider public interest.

The PAC recommended that the Scheme should proceed and that the Vesting Order for Phase 1a, Phase 1b and Phase 2 be should be made.

Structure of the Outline Business Case

Chapter 2 provides an overview of the Business Case and covers the purpose, process and the relevant guidance that has been adopted.

A description of the Proposed Scheme is presented in Chapter 3. This includes details and justification of the proposed phasing.

Chapters 4 to 8 present the five-case models of the OBC; the Strategic, Economic, Financial, Commercial and Management Cases.

Introduction to Outline Business Case

Purpose of the Outline Business Case

The main purpose of the Outline Business case (OBC) is to:

• present the full economic and financial appraisals;

• set out the preparations for the potential construction contracts through the development of the commercial case; and

• define the arrangements required to ensure successful delivery through the management case.

Following discussions with the Department of Finance (DoF) in February 2017 it was agreed to prepare an OBC for the entire A5WTC Scheme between Newbuildings and Aughnacloy.

As the scheme will be delivered in separate phases, this OBC will be supplemented by a phase specific addendum prior to the construction of each phase. The OBC together with the phase specific addendum will constitute the Full Business Case (FBC) for that phase.

Phase specific addenda will review the continued accuracy of assumptions made within this OBC with a view to ensuring the robustness of the appraisal. Factors which will be considered include; scheme estimates, delivery dates, traffic growth rates and lessons learned from previous Phases. If each Phase commences construction in line with the programme outlined within this OBC, then the level of detail required within the addendum for each Phase is likely to be limited; however, as time progresses it will become more comprehensive.

The programme for the opening of the scheme phases reflected in this document is consistent with that assumed in the preparation of the Environmental Statement (ES), and is as follows:

1. Phase 1a: Newbuildings to north of Strabane – 2019;

2. Phase 1b: South of Omagh to Ballygawley – 2021;

3. Phase 2: North of Strabane to south of Omagh – 2023; and

4. Phase 3: Ballygawley to Aughnacloy – 2028.

Relevant Guidance

In order to develop a suitable OBC for the Proposed Scheme, the methods contained in both the Northern Ireland Guide to Expenditure Appraisal and Evaluation (NIGEAE) 10 step approach 1 and the Department for Transport’s (DfT’s) five case model approach 2 have been combined to create a merged structure. This was defined through discussions with the Department prior to the development of the OBC.

The degree of detail in the structure of this document is such that an evidence- based decision on investment can be made by the Department of Finance. Consequently, this OBC presents a proportionate, balanced account which satisfies the requirements of both the DfT five case model approach and the NIGEAE 10 step approach. Appendix A provides a matrix demonstrating this relationship between the DfT five case model and NIGEAE 10 step approach.

Overview of DfT Five Case Model Approach

The OBC is made up of five separate cases, summarised in Table 2-1, as recommended within the DfT’s transport business case guidance.

1 https://www.finance-ni.gov.uk/articles/summary-basic-steps-economic-appraisal (2017) 2 The Transport Business Cases, Department for Transport (January 2011)

Department for Transport Five Case Model Summary

• Strategic narrative • Current transport problems Strategic Case • Scheme development • Strategic policy alignment

• Impacts Economic Case • Value for money • Costs of developing, building, operating and maintaining

• Scheme cost Financial Case • Income stream • Expenditure over time

• Commercial viability of the procurement strategy • The intended approach to risk allocation Commercial Case • Contract and implementation timescales • Capability and technical expertise of the team

• Project management • Best practice Management Case • Timescales • Governance structure

Table 2-1: The DfT’s five case model approach and summary of contents

The Scheme

Description of the Scheme

The existing A5 route runs from Newbuildings to the border with the Republic of Ireland (ROI), just south of Aughnacloy, where it links to the N2 route travelling southwards towards Dublin. It passes through or adjacent to the settlements of Newbuildings, Magheramason, Bready, Cloghcor, Ballymagorry, Strabane, Sion Mills, Victoria Bridge, Newtownstewart, Omagh, Garvaghy, Ballygawley and Aughnacloy.

The A5 is part of the Trans-European Network reflecting its importance as a strategic link, joining Dublin with Londonderry, which is the principal city of the North West. Londonderry is a key cross-border and international gateway providing access by road, rail, sea and air to and from the northwest region.

The Proposed Scheme would start at Newbuildings and run for some 88km, including 85km of new dual carriageway, south to the border with the Republic of Ireland close to the village of Aughnacloy. It would provide a new off-line dual carriageway running parallel to the existing A5 with 2+1 carriageway bypass of Newbuildings and a single carriageway section to the southeast of Aughnacloy, tying the scheme into the existing A5 at the northern and southern ends respectively.

It would connect to the A4 dual carriageway at Ballygawley, linking to the M1 motorway to Belfast, and to the A505 and A32 at Omagh, reinforcing the east / west connections in the region. It would also connect to the N2 southwest of Aughnacloy, which has been identified for an upgrade by the Irish Government, and the N14 / N15 routes west of Strabane at Lifford, thereby providing improved southern and western strategic links to the Republic of Ireland, respectively.

There would be a roundabout on the existing A5 north of Newbuildings (Junction 1) and a second roundabout with a link to the existing A5 at the end of the initial wide single carriageway section south of the settlement (Junction 2).

As the dual carriageway runs south towards Strabane there would be a grade- separated junction at Ballymagorry (Junction 3). Bridges either over or under the

new road would enable established movements, along most of the existing local roads it crosses, to be maintained.

There would be a substantial cutting on the west facing slopes of Gortmonly Hill at Bready, open-span bridges carrying the dual carriageway over the Burn Dennet and Glenmornan River and long sections of embankment on the approaches to both bridges and from Junction 3 to Strabane where the dual carriageway would be located on the eastern margins of the River Foyle floodplain. The Proposed Scheme would include a number of flood connectivity structures where flood plains are crossed.

The alignment between the Burn Dennet and Glenmornan River would pass to the east of McKean’s Moss ASSI. At Strabane the Proposed Scheme would skirt the western edge of the urban area. There would be junctions west (Junctions 4- 6), south-west (Junction 7) and south (Junction 8) of the town.

Junctions 4-6 comprise a composite grade-separated arrangement which allows for all movements using land on both sides of the Mourne River at each end of a new open-span bridge over the river which is part of the River Foyle and Tributaries SAC and ASSI.

The alignment between Junctions 6 and 7 would run alongside the River Finn SAC and require the demolition of Castletown House. Junction 7 would be a large roundabout and would include a spur to provide for a link crossing the River Finn to the N14 and N15 routes in the Republic of Ireland. The link does not form part of the Proposed Scheme but is being developed by Donegal County Council and is scheduled to be constructed and opened to traffic at the same time.

Junction 8 would be a compact grade-separated junction with a link to the existing A5, north of Sion Mills. South of Junction 8, the Proposed Scheme would pass between Sion Mills and Glebe following an alignment west of the existing road on the lower western slopes enclosing the Mourne Valley.

There would be new compact grade-separated junctions west of Victoria Bridge on the B72 Fyfin Road (Junction 9) and north-west of Newtownstewart on the B84

Baronscourt Road (Junction 10) and an open-span bridge over the River Derg, part of the River Foyle and Tributaries SAC and ASSI.

The dual carriageway would follow an alignment to the west of, and above, Newtownstewart passing close to Harry Avery’s Castle, a State Care Monument, before descending into the Strule Valley and running above, and to the west of, the existing A5 towards Omagh.

Through the valley, it would pass west of Grange Wood ASSI and Beltany Tomb, a Scheduled Monument. Emerging from the enclosed Strule Valley the Proposed Scheme would enter the wide Fairy Water valley, passing west of Mountjoy and approaching a new grade-separated junction (Junction 11). The junction would be located north-west of Omagh close to Tully Bog SAC and ASSI.

The Proposed Scheme would cross over the Fairy Water via a new open-span bridge and the extensive river floodplain on embankment with connectivity structures incorporated. It would then curve west and south around Omagh, with access to Omagh being catered for via a grade-separated junction with the A32 Clanabogan Road west of the town (Junction 12) and a grade-separated junction at the B83 Seskinore Road, with a link to the existing A5 to the south (Junction 13).

There would be an open-span bridge over the Drumragh River. South of Omagh, the Proposed Scheme would continue west of the existing A5 passing east of Seskinore and onto a compact grade-separated junction on the B46 at Moylagh (Junction 14).

An open-span bridge would carry the dual carriageway over the Routing Burn. It would run east of, and close to, Newtownsaville and then curve to the east as it skirts the lower southfacing slopes of Tycanny Hill requiring the establishment of a deep cutting in the locally prominent hill.

It would then descend the scarp slope of the Brougher Ridge and pass west of and below Errigal Keerogue Churchyard, a State Care Monument. Upon descending the ridge it would enter the Clogher Valley and follow an easterly

alignment to a new roundabout where the Proposed Scheme and existing A4 Annaghilla Road would cross some 1.5km west of Ballygawley (Junction 15).

An existing 1km single carriageway section of the A4 between Junction 15 and an existing roundabout located south-west of Ballygawley would be upgraded to a dual carriageway.

Two open-span bridges would be introduced, one where the upgraded section of the A4 crosses Ballygawley Water and one south of Junction 15 where the A5WTC dual carriageway also crosses the watercourse. South of Ballygawley Water, the Proposed Scheme would enter a section of cutting below Lisdoart Rath and continue to a new grade-separated junction on the existing A5 north of Aughnacloy (Junction 16).

Beyond the junction it would follow a broad sweep to the east and tie into a new roundabout where it crosses the A28 Caledon Road (Junction 17) southeast of the town.

The final section of the Proposed Scheme would be a single carriageway road that would tie into the existing A5 at Moy Bridge, immediately north of the border with the Republic of Ireland.

A location plan of the scheme is presented in Figure 3-1.

Figure 3-1: Location plan of the Proposed Scheme (Map Source: www.a5wtc.com)

Scheme Phasing

In July 2007, the Irish Government agreed to make available a contribution of £400m to help fund infrastructure projects within Northern Ireland, including the major roads programme and specifically providing dual carriageway standard on routes serving the North West Gateway 3.

At the time it was anticipated that construction of the A5WTC scheme would commence in 2012 and be completed in full by 2015.

In late 2011, the Irish Government announced the deferral of the majority of its £400 million contribution: reducing the contribution to £50 million. Following a review of spending priorities, the Northern Ireland Executive subsequently announced in February 2012 revised budgetary plans for the A5WTC that would allow two sections to progress: the section from Newbuildings to the north of Strabane and the section from south of Omagh to the existing A4 at Ballygawley. These sections of the scheme were subsequently referred to as Phase 1 of the scheme.

The Inspector’s Report from the Public Inquiry of 2011 recommended that the section of the scheme between Ballygawley and the border at Aughnacloy should not be taken forward until details of the link with the N2 at the border with the Republic of Ireland had been clearly identified. In its subsequent ‘Statement on the Report on the Local Inquiries into the Environmental Statement, Direction Order, Vesting Order and Stopping-Up of Private Accesses Order’, the Department agreed with this recommendation. This section of the scheme is now recognised as the final section of the scheme to be completed, and therefore referred to as Phase 3.

In order to progress design and development of the new draft statutory Orders and Environmental Statement after the Court ruling of 2013, it was necessary to make certain working assumptions relating to the phasing and timeframe for the construction of the project. The following phasing and timeframes were therefore

3 Investment Delivery Plan for Roads, page 8, paragraph 3.12 (2015)

identified for use in the updated environmental assessment carried out between 2013 and 2016:

1. Phase 1: Newbuildings to north of Strabane and south of Omagh to Ballygawley;

i. Construction period 2017 to 2019;

ii. Opening year 2019;

2. Phase 2: north of Strabane to south of Omagh;

i. Construction period 2021 to 2023;

ii. Opening year 2023;

3. Phase 3: Ballygawley to the Border at Aughnacloy;

i. Construction period 2026 to 2028; and

ii. Opening year 2028.

In November 2015, through ‘A Fresh Start: The Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan’ the Northern Ireland Executive agreed that, subject to the necessary statutory procedures, construction of the first section of the route, i.e. Newbuildings to north of Strabane, would commence in 2017 with a view to completion by 2019. This section of the scheme is now referred to as Phase 1a, with the section from south of Omagh to Ballygawley referred to as Phase 1b.

In its Budget 2016-2017, the Northern Ireland Executive identified a number of flagship projects, including the A5WTC, where it recognises the importance of providing funding certainty beyond the immediate budget period. It therefore agreed an indicative funding allocation of £229 million for the scheme up to financial year 2020/21. At the same time, the Irish Government increased its contribution to £75 million (from the previous figure of £50 million), to be provided as £25 million a year, over 3 years.

Subject to the satisfactory completion of statutory procedures, this allocation would allow Phase 1a to progress through to completion as envisaged in ‘A Fresh Start’ and would also allow work to commence on Phase 1b of the scheme.

To summarise, it is currently anticipated the Proposed Scheme would be constructed in four stages, depending upon the availability of funding:

• Phase 1a: Newbuildings to north of Strabane (Junctions 1-3) – (2017- 2019);

• Phase 1b: South of Omagh to Ballygawley (Junctions 13-15) – (2019- 2021);

• Phase 2: North of Strabane to south of Omagh (Junctions 3-13) – (2021-2023); and

• Phase 3: Ballygawley to Aughnacloy (Junctions 15-17) – (2026-2028).

Objectives of Scheme

The overall aim of the Proposed Scheme is to improve links between the urban centres in the west of the province (Strabane, Newtownstewart, Omagh, Ballygawley, Aughnacloy and Derry) and to provide a strategic link with international gateways.

The specific objectives of the scheme are:

• To improve road safety;

• To improve the road network in the west of the Province and North / South Links;

• To reduce journey travel times along the A5 Corridor and to provide increased overtaking opportunities for motorists along the A5 Corridor; and

• To develop the final proposals in light of safety, economic, environmental, integration and accessibility considerations.

Achieving these objectives would contribute to the higher level objectives of contributing to the achievement of sustainable progress in relation to social, economic and development goals in Northern Ireland.

The Strategic Case

Introduction

The Strategic Case is one of the five components of the overall business case and provides the strategic narrative for the scheme: what transport and economic problems exist which are related to the current infrastructure / urban form; what the underlying policy objectives of The Department and the Northern Ireland Executive are; and how a scheme has been developed to address these problems and how it aligns with strategic policy objectives.

The Strategic Case demonstrates that the proposed scheme has been considered as part of a wider strategy for Northern Ireland.

The overarching theme of the Proposed Scheme is accessibility and economic growth. There is a strategic need for good quality north-south connections in Northern Ireland between key centres of economic importance and population, as well as cross border connectivity with the Republic of Ireland.

The inadequacy of the existing A5 is viewed by local people and businesses as a barrier to economic growth, as journey times are made unreliable by congestion caused at bottlenecks at junctions in key towns, a lack of overtaking opportunities and slow-moving agricultural traffic along the route.

The specific problems addressed in the Strategic Case (which are described in more detail later within this Chapter) are:

• Congestion pinch points and journey time unreliability;

• Accessibility to key economic centres and international gateways;

• Accident hotspots;

• Community severance; and

• Poor air quality.

The provision of a new dual carriageway to replace the existing A5 would support the economic vitality of Northern Ireland, including in particular, the key centres

and communities along the route: Londonderry, Strabane, Omagh, Ballygawley and Aughnacloy.

The Proposed Scheme would achieve this by facilitating the movement of people and goods along a modern, high quality corridor and improving access to international gateways at Londonderry Port in the north and the Republic of Ireland in the south and the north-west and to market towns and tourist areas. Consequently, the Proposed Scheme would assist with the delivery of economic and growth objectives for Northern Ireland.

The Proposed Scheme is a key element of the Northern Ireland Executive strategy to ensure a sustainable transport future. It would enable the A5 route to operate more efficiently by increasing capacity, reducing congestion and improving journey time reliability.

The new route would potentially also attract inward investment to the districts of Derry and Strabane, Fermanagh and Omagh and Mid Ulster, making them better places in which to live, work and visit.

Context for Business Case

The A5 is designated one of Northern Ireland’s five Key Transport Corridors and is a component of the Regional Strategic Transport Network (RSTN), as shown in Figure 4-1.

The existing A5 route connects with the A2 at Londonderry and continues south for approximately 85km through Strabane, Omagh and Aughnacloy. Its strategic importance is further emphasised by its direct cross border connectivity, south of Aughnacloy, with the N2 in the Republic of Ireland and its subsequent onward route to Monaghan and Dublin, and its indirect connectivity with the north west region of the Republic of Ireland.

Key Key Transport Corridor Link Corridor Trunk Road

Figure 4-1: Key Transport Corridors in Northern Ireland (Source: Regional Development Strategy 2035)

The Department is responsible for the development of the transport network, including the A5WTC, and a range of other transport projects designed to improve network safety, sustainability and efficiency. The Department plays a significant role in facilitating the safe and convenient movement of people and goods throughout Northern Ireland.

The key objectives for the Department 4 are to:

• manage, maintain and improve the transport network to keep it safe, efficient, reliable and sustainable;

4 https://www.infrastructure-ni.gov.uk/transportni-overview-0

• promote increased customer satisfaction with the services delivered by the Department;

• work constructively with the Department’s key stakeholders to support the delivery of high quality services;

• develop the Department’s capacity and capability to meet objectives;

• ensure effective management of the Department’s budget, assets and corporate governance arrangements; and

• improve the Department’s resilience in responding to emergencies.

These objectives have been developed for the social and economic benefit of all people and communities in Northern Ireland, and are reflected in the strategic aims of the Proposed Scheme (see Section 4.7 of this Strategic Case). The structure of this Chapter is set out below.

Chapter Structure

The Strategic Case is broadly structured in line with the Department for Transport Business Case guidance 5. It describes:

• The policy background against which the scheme has been developed – the business strategy ;

• The specific problems which the scheme is designed to solve;

• What will happen if the scheme is not delivered – the impact of not changing ;

• The objectives of the scheme; and

• How success will be measured .

5 The Transport Business Cases, Department for Transport (January 2011)

The Strategic Case also considers strategic issues affecting the practical delivery of the scheme:

• The scope of the scheme – what it will, and will not, include;

• Any constraints (physical, financial, political etc.) which could have an impact on the delivery of the scheme;

• Key interdependencies – other factors that could affect the timely delivery of the scheme;

• The role of stakeholders – what they require from the scheme, how they have been involved so far, and how they can support the delivery of the scheme; and

• The range of strategic options that were considered for the scheme. It identifies the key assumptions that underpin the assessment of the options, and explains why the proposed scheme is recommended as the most appropriate solution.

Business Strategy

The Proposed Scheme is being promoted by the Department. The scheme is strategically aligned to a number of key strategies and policies that are important

building blocks for economic growth and development in the province of Northern Ireland. These include:

• A Fresh Start: The Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan • Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland 2015 • Department for Infrastructure Delivery Plan: Indicators 23 and 25 • Ensuring a Sustainable Transport Future: A New Approach • Economic Strategy for Northern Ireland Central • Investment Delivery Plan for Roads 2015 • Investment Strategy for Northern Ireland, 2011-2021 Government: • Changing Gear - A Bicycle Strategy for Northern Ireland • Regional Development Strategy for Northern Ireland 2025 • Regional Transportation Strategy • Regional Development Strategy 2035 • Regional Strategic Transport Network Transport Plan 2015 • Sub-regional Transport Plan 2015

• Derry Area Plan, 2011

• Fermanagh and Omagh District Council - Position Paper Six: Local Transportation, 2015 Government: • Mid Ulster Preparatory Study - Transportation, 2015

• Towards our LDP for Mid Ulster 2030 - Preferred Options Paper, 2016

The strategies and policies that the proposed scheme is closely aligned to are summarised below.

Central Government Plans and Policies

The Strategic Case for the Proposed Scheme is underpinned by key central Government economic and spatial policies. These are described below. At the end of the summary, each policy is linked to the relevant scheme objective(s) to which it is strategically aligned, which are presented in detail in Section 4.7.

A Fresh Start: The Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan

The ‘Fresh Start Agreement’ , published in November 2015, signals a resolve to defend core public services, to attract foreign direct investment, support indigenous businesses and to provide better jobs particularly for young people.

Within the Agreement, the Irish Government reaffirmed its existing commitment to providing funding of £50 million for the Proposed Scheme and committed an additional £25m to ensure that Phase 1 of the project can commence as soon as the necessary planning issues have been resolved by the Northern Ireland authorities. In accordance with the revised project timeline, the Irish Government funding will be provided in three tranches of £25m in the years 2017, 2018 and 2019 respectively.

On this basis, the Northern Ireland Executive and the Irish Government have agreed that construction on the first section of the Proposed Scheme will commence in 2017 with a view to completion by 2019 6. The first section of the route will be between Newbuildings and the north of Strabane.

This policy document aligns with Proposed Scheme Objective 2 ‘to improve the road network in the west of the province and North / South links’.

Strategic Planning Policy Statement

The Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS) for Northern Ireland (September 2015) is based on the principle of sustainable development and describes three pillars that are intrinsically linked to one another when considering a development:

• the needs and aspirations of the society;

• the economy; and

• the environment.

6 A Fresh Start: The Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan, page 31, paragraph 2.3 (2015)

The SPPS recognises that the integration of transport is fundamental to its overall objective of furthering sustainable development. In view of this, the SPPS describes its regional strategic objectives for transport, which the Proposed Scheme aligns to. These are to 7:

• promote sustainable patterns of development which reduce the need for motorised transport, encourage active travel, and facilitate travel by public transport in preference to the private car;

• ensure accessibility for all, with the needs of people with disabilities and others whose mobility is impaired given particular consideration;

• promote the provision of adequate facilities for cyclists in new development;

• protect routes required for new transport schemes including disused transport routes with potential for future reuse;

• restrict the number of new accesses and control the level of use of existing accesses onto Protected Routes; and

• promote road safety, in particular for pedestrians, cyclists and other vulnerable road users.

The SPPS objectives align with Proposed Scheme Objectives 1 and 2 ‘to improve road safety’ and ‘to improve the road network in the west of the Province and North / South links’, respectively.

Ensuring a Sustainable Transport Future: A New Approach to Regional Transportation

The new approach to regional transportation complements the Regional Development Strategy and aims to achieve the transportation vision:

“To have a modern, sustainable, safe transportation system which benefits society, the economy and the environment and which actively contributes to social inclusion and everyone’s quality of life.”

7 Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland, page 106, paragraph 6.297 (2015)

The vision is encompassed by three high level transport aims to:

1. Support the growth of the economy;

2. Enhance the quality of life for all; and

3. Reduce the environmental impact of transport.

The document recognises that Northern Ireland’s transport networks are important in achieving the Executive’s goal of rebuilding and rebalancing the economy.

To achieve its vision and high level aims, the document outlines a number of strategic objectives for the province. Those objectives to which the Proposed Scheme is strategically aligned are summarised in Table 4-1 below:

Strategic Objective Aims To remain competitive and achieve economic growth by Improve connectivity ensuring that connections to the Republic of Ireland and the within the region rest of the United Kingdom are reliable and efficient To maintain roads in order to provide a reliable transport Better maintain transport network that allows people and freight to move safely and infrastructure have reliable journey times To ensure that people have the opportunity to access Improve access in our education, training and employment by delivering good towns and cities transport links To ensure that roads successfully connect visitors to tourist Improve connections to attractions and that the connecting transport system is key tourism sites reliable and represents value for money To reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured Improve safety on roads, for car users, pedestrians and cyclists To bring communities together and enable access to Enhance social inclusion services by ensuring good transport infrastructure is in place

Table 4-1: Strategic Objectives to which the Proposed Scheme aligns

This document adheres to all four of the Proposed Scheme Objectives, referred to initially in Section 3.3.2.

Economic Strategy: Priorities for Sustainable Growth and Prosperity

The overarching goal of the Economic Strategy for Northern Ireland (March 2012) is to improve the economic competitiveness of the Northern Ireland economy. In terms of transport, it concentrates on a policy of “moving people and

goods rather than vehicles, with a complementary focus on better maintaining our existing infrastructure and using it in a smarter way” 8.

Transport networks are viewed as integral components of the economic infrastructure, in support of the Strategy’s 2030 vision. It acknowledges that meeting the future needs of the economy, up to this time, and facilitating higher levels of economic growth, will necessitate increased capacity and improved connectivity on the transport network across Northern Ireland.

Improvements to the A5 are recognised as a ‘Key Action’ in the Strategy’s aim to develop Northern Ireland’s economic infrastructure.

A key performance target of the Strategy is to improve average journey times on key transport corridors by 2030. The Proposed Scheme will help to achieve the Strategy’s performance targets.

These correspond to Proposed Scheme Objectives 2 and 3 ‘to improve the road network in the west of the Province and North / South links’ and ‘to reduce journey travel times and to provide increased overtaking opportunities for motorists along the A5WTC’, respectively.

Investment Delivery Plan for Roads

The Investment Delivery Plan for Roads identifies that “transport is a key driver of economic development and provides the means for all citizens to access social and educational services as well as leisure activities. A modern economy needs an efficient and low cost transport system in order to compete in the global marketplace”9.

Hence, the Plan acknowledges that in order to deliver a strong, modern economy, an upgrade to all of the Key Transport Corridors (see Section 4.2), including the A5, to at least dual carriageway standard is required. It recognises that an improved A5 will provide significant benefits to the north west of Northern Ireland

8 Economic Strategy: Priorities for sustainable growth and prosperity, page 68, para 5.78 (2012) 9 Investment Delivery Plan for Roads, page 3, paragraph 1.3 (2015)

by improving linkages to and from Dublin and greatly improving journey times within the north.

The document includes the Proposed Scheme within its ‘Preparation Pool’ under the label ‘A5 Derry to Aughnacloy Dual Carriageway’. The pool contains schemes that are expected to start within five years of the Plan being published, subject to the completion of necessary statutory procedures.

The targets of the Plan correspond to Proposed Scheme Objectives 2 and 3 ‘to improve the road network in the west of the Province and North / South links’ and ‘to reduce journey travel times and to provide increased overtaking opportunities for motorists along the A5WTC’, respectively.

Investment Strategy for Northern Ireland 2011-2021

The Investment Strategy for Northern Ireland outlines how capital will be invested in modern infrastructure which is critical to the future success of the region. It states that “high quality transport networks are the vital arteries of today’s most successful economies – powering competitive advantage in business, reducing social isolation, and linking people to an expanding world of information, services and opportunity”10 . Enabling efficient, reliable and sustainable networks is critical to delivering the top priority of growing a dynamic and innovative economy.

The Investment Strategy highlights that a balanced programme of improvements is being delivered on the strategic road network to provide a dual carriageway on the A5. The planned improvement to the A5 will deliver a major upgrade to the strategic road network and the investment will improve safety and journey times in the North West.

The Investment Strategy aligns to the Proposed Scheme Objectives 1, 2 and 3 ‘to improve safety’, ‘to improve the road network in the west of the Province and North / South links’ and ‘to reduce journey travel times along the A5WTC’, respectively.

10 Investment Strategy for Northern Ireland 2011-2021, page 18 (2011)

Changing Gear – A Bicycle Strategy for Northern Ireland

Changing Gear – A Bicycle Strategy for Northern Ireland sets out the vision for Northern Ireland in the next 25 years to become:

“A community where people have the freedom and confidence to travel by bicycle for every day journeys”.

This vision for cycling aligns to the Executive’s Programme for Government priorities of growing a sustainable economy, improving health and well-being while building communities and protecting the environment. The objectives the Minister for Regional Development has set to guide the delivery of this strategy are part of building a more dynamic, prosperous and inclusive society and are as follows:

• Making urban areas in Northern Ireland more accessible for people using the bicycle;

• Improve opportunities for social interaction;

• Improvements in public health; and

• Increase safety for people using the bicycle.

In developing cycling infrastructure, the strategy adopts a three pillar approach:

• Building a comprehensive network for the bicycle;

• Supporting people who choose to travel by bicycle; and

• Promoting the bicycle as a mode of transport for every day journeys.

The Proposed Scheme will assist towards increasing bicycle use by shifting strategic traffic onto the new dual carriageway and reducing traffic flows on the existing route of the A5. This will help to lower accident risk, increase safety and make the existing route of the A5 a more attractive environment for cyclists.

The A5 Active and Sustainable Travel Assessment 11 assesses the opportunities for active and sustainable transport infrastructure on and in the vicinity of the existing A5, following the reduction in traffic flows associated with the construction of the Proposed Scheme.

Changing Gear – A Bicycle Strategy for Northern Ireland aligns to Proposed Scheme Objectives 1 and 2 ‘to improve road safety’ and ‘to improve the road network in the west of the Province and North / South links’, respectively.

Regional Development Strategy 2025, published 2001

The Regional Development Strategy (RDS) was a strategic planning framework which aimed to shape the future of Northern Ireland up to 2025 by informing and providing guidance for new development which aspired to balance the needs of a resilient and dynamic economy whilst preserving and sustaining essential quality of life.

The RDS 2025 has been superseded by the RDS 2035 (see Section 4.4.46), however, many of its objectives remain valid 12 . Those which are relevant to the Proposed Scheme are therefore reported within this policy review.

Transport needs are a key driver of the Strategy, given that the road network is the artery for Northern Ireland’s economy with 98% of goods being transported by road 13 . The RSTN, of which the A5 is a component, has a fundamental role to play in contributing to the achievement of sustainable progress on social, economic and development goals in Northern Ireland.

The Strategy declares several major themes relating to transport, which the Proposed Scheme aligns to. These are:

11 A5 Active and Sustainable Transport Assessment: A5 – Newbuildings to Aughnacloy, Document Ref: 1058654/RP/002 (2017) 12 A5 Western Transport Corridor: Stage 3 Scheme Assessment Report Part 2 (SAR3) – Volume 1, page 1-1, paragraph 1.1.3 (August 2016) 13 Regional Development Strategy for Northern Ireland 2025, page 15 (September 2001)

• SPG-TRAN 1: Developing a regional strategic transport network;

• SPG-TRAN 2: Extending travel choice; and

• SPG-TRAN 3: Integrating land use and transportation.

An improved RSTN will enhance accessibility for all users, including freight, which in turn will deliver a number of benefits. It will strengthen social cohesion, facilitate decentralised growth and help build an integrated regional economy.

Improved access to regional gateways, such as Ports and airports, and cross border links will also support locations identified by the RDS 2025 for major economic development and additional employment generation. The Proposed Scheme will deliver this improved access to Londonderry Port in the North, as well as cross border links to the Republic of Ireland in the South.

The RDS themes correspond to Proposed Scheme Objective 2 ‘to improve the road network in the west of the Province and North / South links’.

Regional Transportation Strategy, 2002-2012

The Regional Transportation Strategy (RTS) is a daughter document of the RDS 2025 described in Section 4.4.34 above. Whilst this document identified strategic transportation investment priorities up to 2012, it still bears a great emphasis on the overarching themes of this OBC: accessibility and economic growth.

Its vision, like several other policies described in this Chapter, is borne from the RDS 2025, which captures the Executive’s transport aspirations for the future 14 :

14 Regional Transportation Strategy for Northern Ireland 2002-2012, page 44, paragraph 3.2.3 (July 2002)

The Strategy recognises that improvements to the road network will benefit a range of users, including freight, but this would only improve from the current situation with enhancements to the RSTN by implementing dual carriageways, bypasses and other main road improvements.

These enhancements would provide improved journey times and reliability for all users, but particularly for freight.

The RTS priorities align with Proposed Scheme Objectives 1, 2 and 3 ‘ to improve road safety ’, ‘to improve the road network in the west of the Province and North / South links’ and ‘ to reduce journey travel times and to provide increased overtaking opportunities for motorists along the A5WTC’ , respectively.

Regional Development Strategy 2035

The Regional Development Strategy 2035 (RDS 2035) is the overarching spatial strategy of the Executive, which replaces the RDS 2025. Its principal transport aim is “ to deliver transport arrangements which promote equitable access and meet wider economic and social needs, while limiting environmental impact and realising reductions in harmful emissions ”15 .

The Strategy recognises that the transportation networks help to deliver balanced economic growth. The Key Transport Corridors, which include the A5, link people and freight to Northern Ireland’s main cities, towns and air and sea ports. They provide a framework around which economic corridors can develop. Whilst the Key Transport Corridors comprise of 3% of all Northern Ireland’s roads, they carry 26% of all traffic 16 .

15 Regional Development Strategy 2035, page 18, paragraph 2.9 (March 2012) 16 Regional Development Strategy 2035, page 83, paragraph 4.9 (March 2012)

The Strategy has developed both Regional Guidance (RG) and Spatial Framework Guidance (SFG) in order to underpin sustainable economic growth. The Proposed Scheme is aligned to the guidance, as summarised below:

Guidance Summary of Aims For Northern Ireland to remain competitive in the global market it is important to promote transport which balances RG2: Deliver a balanced the needs of the environment, society and the economy. approach to transport This Guidance aims to improve connectivity, maximise the infrastructure potential of the RSTN, improve social inclusion, manage the movement of freight and improve access to cities and towns Transport has a key role to play in developing competitive SFG8: Manage the cities and regions. This Guidance aims to support efficient movement of people and transport infrastructure which is important for a successful goods within the North economy. It will enhance transport linkages across regions, West particularly between Londonderry, Strabane and Donegal, to and from air and sea ports and between transport corridors To compete globally, Northern Ireland must be well connected both internally and with the rest of the world. Gateways are strategically important transport interchanges SFG15: Strengthen the which are important for economic development, freight Gateways for Regional distribution activities and additional employment generation. competitiveness Londonderry Port is the North West City Gateway and handled 1.63 million tonnes of goods in 2014, worth approximately £474 billion 17 . This Guidance aims to provide high quality connections to and from air and sea ports

Table 4-2: RDS 2035 Guidance to which the Proposed Scheme aligns

The Strategy also makes reference to improvements to the A5 linking Dublin and Omagh to Strabane and Londonderry, which will lead to stronger geographic links and shared services.

The Proposed Scheme would contribute to the Guidance summarised in Table 4-2 and would improve connectivity between cities, regions and international gateways and journey time reliability for commuters, customers and freight, as well as enhancing access to significant employment areas.

The RDS 2035 transport aims correspond to Proposed Scheme Objectives 2, 3 and 4 ‘to improve the road network in the west of the Province and North / South

17 The Value of Goods Passing through UK Ports, pages 9-11, Tables 2 and 3 (July 2016)

links’, ‘ to reduce journey travel times and to provide increased overtaking opportunities for motorists along the A5WTC ’ and ‘ to develop the final proposals in light of the safety, economic, environmental, integration and accessibility considerations ’, respectively.

Regional Strategic Transport Network Transport Plan 2015

The RSTN Transport Plan is firmly founded in the Regional Transportation Strategy described in Section 4.4.41 and is one of three Transport Plans which will implement that Strategy (see Section 4.4.59 for a summary of another of these Transport Plans).

The main objectives of the adopted Transport Plan, specifically for Strategic Road Improvements 18 , under which the Proposed Scheme can be categorised, are:

• To remove bottlenecks on the strategic road network where lack of capacity causes congestion; and

• To improve the environment by providing bypasses to towns situated on the RSTN, relieving the effects of heavy through traffic.

The Transport Plan acknowledges that some sections of strategic road network, particularly on Key Transport Corridors, are of a lower standard than others, having alignments that fall short of current design standards. In turn, this makes overtaking hazardous to vehicles on single carriageway roads.

Poor alignment in conjunction with high traffic volumes results in the reduction of safe overtaking opportunities for vehicles. This is particularly prevalent on the existing A5, which is also used by heavy freight transporters and agricultural traffic which reduce average speeds on sections of the route. Consequently, users experience increased journey times but also increases the risk of frustrated drivers attempting to overtake in unsafe circumstances.

The Plan also complements other policies described in this Chapter (e.g. RDS 2025 and RDS 2035) by emphasising the importance of improving connections

18 Strategic Road Improvements are major projects where the scheme cost is estimated to exceed £1.0m

between regional gateways and cross border links and the RSTN, particularly the Key Transport Corridors.

The Proposed Scheme supports the objectives of the RSTN Transport Plan. A new dual carriageway will increase the capacity of the route, provide a safe, modern north-south corridor, remove congestion at key junctions and assist with environmental objectives by relieving the impacts of that congestion. Access to international and regional gateways will also be enhanced for users, including freight.

The RTSN Transport Plan aligns with Proposed Scheme Objectives 2 and 3 ‘to improve the road network in the west of the Province and North / South links’ and ‘to reduce journey travel times and to provide increased overtaking opportunities for motorists along the A5WTC’, respectively.

Sub-Regional Transport Plan 2015

The Sub-Regional Transport Plan (SRTP) is based upon the RDS 2025 (see Section 4.4.34) and RTS (see Section 4.4.41). In turn, the SRTP has set targets which complement those adopted by the RTS, including proposals for improvements to highways which will contribute to an improvement in mobility for all, whilst seeking to minimise adverse environmental impacts.

The Proposed Scheme will contribute to the targets set by the SRTP. A new dual carriageway connecting cities, communities and gateways will improve mobility for users and improve journey time reliability, ensuring smoother and reliable flows of vehicles, minimising environmental impacts.

The STRP targets align with Proposed Scheme Objectives 2, 3 and 4 ‘to improve the road network in the west of the Province and North / South links’, ‘to reduce journey travel times and to provide increased overtaking opportunities for motorists along the A5WTC’ and ‘to develop the final proposals in light of the

safety, economic, environmental, integration and accessibility considerations’, respectively.

Local Government Plans and Policies

With the reform of the Local Government in Northern Ireland that took place in 2015, the newly formed Local Councils took responsibility for producing their own Local Development Plans (LDP).

The Department continues to make decisions and take responsibility for the provision of transportation services across Northern Ireland. Local Councils set out their own transport aims and objectives, in line with central Government policy within their policy documents.

The Proposed Scheme will route through the territory of three Local Councils. These are listed, from north to south:

• Derry City and Strabane;

• Fermanagh and Omagh; and

• Mid Ulster.

The nature of these areas is predominantly rural with high dependence on private car usage. Their planning documents include a number of policies that promote the improvement of the road network and are relevant to the aims of the Proposed Scheme. There are set out below.

Derry Area Plan, 2011

Derry City and Strabane District Council are in the process of producing a new LDP to 2032. Until then, the relevant Area Plans currently applicable to the District are the Derry Area Plan 2011, adopted in May 2000 and the Strabane Area Plan 2001.

It is noted that the Strabane Area Plan is not available in electronic form, however, the relevant Derry Area Plan transport objective, to which the Proposed Scheme is aligned, is described below 19 :

• Implement a road works programme which will focus on the improvements and upgrading of key strategic routes.

The Proposed Scheme will upgrade the current road network. The construction of a new dual carriageway will reduce journey travel times and distances for users, increase road safety and relieve congestion. The scheme also aims to improve connectivity between the urban settlement of Londonderry and its southwestern rural hinterland.

The Derry Area Plan transport aim aligns to Proposed Scheme Objective 2 ‘ to improve the road network in the west of the Province and North / South links ’.

Fermanagh and Omagh District Council – Position Paper Six: Transportation, 2015

This paper is part of preparatory studies aimed at gathering the evidence base for the new LDP. While the Council is currently in the process of producing the new LDP, the Position Paper has established broad aims and objectives for transport, to which the Proposed Scheme is aligned. These are to:

• promote / improve connectivity, particularly in rural areas; and

• protect road users and improve road safety for car users, public transport, cyclists and walkers.

The Proposed Scheme is highlighted as one of the ‘most significant highway transportation schemes [proposed] in the plan area ’20 . The Proposed Scheme will help achieve the measures described above within Fermanagh and Omagh.

The scheme will upgrade the existing highway network which will help reduce journey times and distances for users, increase road safety and relieve

19 Derry Area Plan 2011, page 11, paragraph 1.30 (May 2000) 20 Fermanagh and Omagh District Council, Position Paper Six, Transportation, page 15, paragraph 4.1 (May 2015)

congestion. The scheme will also improve connectivity between the urban settlement of Omagh and its rural hinterland.

The Position Paper’s aims align with Proposed Scheme Objectives 1 and 2 ‘to improve road safety’ and ‘to improve the road network in the west of the Province and North / South links’.

Mid Ulster Preparatory Study – Transportation, 2015

The aim of the Mid Ulster Preparatory Study – Transportation is to provide an overview of the current transportation situation within Mid Ulster and to assist the Council in the preparation of the new Local Development Plan (LDP).

This document reveals a high reliance on the private car, which is explained in part by the high proportion of rural dwellers within the district. Therefore, this paper outlines a number of objectives for the new Mid Ulster LDP to which the Proposed Scheme can contribute. These are to:

• reduce travel times within Mid Ulster and introduce measures to improve connectivity between the three main growth hubs (Cookstown, Dungannon and Magherafelt); and

• protect road users and improve road safety for car users, public transport, cyclists and walkers.

The Proposed Scheme aligns to the above objectives by constructing a dual carriageway that aims to reduce journey times and distance and increase road safety. The scheme improves connectivity between the settlements of Ballygawley and Aughnacloy that are located in the southwestern part of the Mid Ulster District.

The Preparatory Study aims correspond to Proposed Scheme Objectives 1, 2 and 3 ‘to improve road safety’, ‘to improve the road network in the west of the Province

and North / South links’, and ‘to reduce journey travel times and to provide increased overtaking opportunities for motorists along the A5WTC’, respectively.

Towards our Local Development Plan for Mid Ulster 2030 – Preferred Options Paper, 2016

The Preferred Options Paper is the first formal stage in the preparation towards the new LDP. It proposes strategic guidelines for accommodating growth across Mid Ulster and explores how infrastructure can be improved. It sets out a transport objective for inclusion in the forthcoming LDP, which is:

• The need to improve connectivity between and within settlements and their rural hinterland through accommodating investment in transportation to improve travel times, alleviate congestion and improve safety for both commercial and private vehicles as well as more sustainable modes of transport including buses, walking and cycling.

A number of Strategic Planning Guidelines (SPG) for the Plan have been formulated to support the achievement of the Plan Objectives. The SPG that refers to transportation matters is below:

• SPG 8 – Encourage improvements to public and private transportation provision including railway lines and upgrading of the road network.

Mid Ulster has tailored the following objectives for the District, which are to:

• reduce travel times within Mid Ulster and introduce measures to improve connectivity between the three main growth hubs (Cookstown, Dungannon and Magherafelt); and

• protect road users and improve road safety for car users, public transport, cyclists and walkers.

The Proposed Scheme aligns to the objectives described above by upgrading the current road network. It will reduce journey times and distances for users, increase road safety and relieve congestion.

The Preferred Options Paper aligns to Proposed Scheme Objectives 1, 2 and 3 ‘to improve road safety’, ‘to improve the road network in the west of the Province

and North / South links’ and ‘to reduce journey travel times and to provide increased overtaking opportunities for motorists along the A5WTC’, respectively.

Summary of Business Strategy

The Proposed Scheme is well aligned with both central and local Government plans and policies. There is a running theme throughout all of the relevant strategies discussed above: a strong ambition to improve the A5 as a key national and local link.

The Fresh Start Agreement confirmed that the Irish Government will provide £75 million between 2017 and 2019 for Phase 1 of the scheme to proceed.

The scheme replicates the Government’s general aims within the Strategic Planning Policy Statement and in Ensuring a Sustainable Transport Future: A New Approach to Regional Transportation documents.

The Economic Strategy and Investment Strategy stress the need to increase the economic competitiveness of Northern Ireland, partially through improving the connectivity of its transport networks, terming them the “vital arteries” of the system. These strategies state that the improvements will without doubt, decrease journey times, improve journey time reliability and enhance accessibility.

The Investment Delivery Plan for Roads recognises that upgrades to all Key Transport Corridors, including the A5, to dual carriageway as a minimum, are necessary for a strong and modern economy to succeed and flourish.

The Regional Development Strategy 2025 aimesd to help build and maintain both a resilient, dynamic economy, whilst also ensuring a sustainable quality of life.

The Bicycle Strategy for Northern Ireland describes the intention of the Executive to achieve a modal shift from cars to bicycles and to increase safety for cyclists.

The Regional Development Strategy 2035 goes further to say that the Key Transport Corridors allow for the continued growth of the adjacent economic

corridors, as well as improving connectivity between various cities, regions and international gateways.

The Regional Transportation Strategy , which was developed from the RDS 2025 , identified investment opportunities up to 2012 that would benefit the widest range of users.

The RSTN Transport Plan and the Sub-Regional Transport Plan 2015 both drew from the Regional Transportation Strategy and make up two of the three plans which implement this Strategy. They reveal that the standards of the current A5 are below the required level, leading to increased safety risks. In addition they also share the view that improving connectivity between various cities, regions and international gateways is highly important.

The Derry Area Plan looks to maximise its road network efficiency, reviewing various measures such as traffic management and upgrading its key strategic routes.

The Fermanagh and Omagh District Council – Position Paper Six promotes increased connectivity, particularly in rural areas.

The Mid Ulster Preparatory Study seeks to reduce travel times in the area. The Preferred Options Paper provides recommendations on how to best encourage growth in Mid Ulster, which includes improving connectivity within the region.

The table below summarises the intrinsic links between the policy documents and the objectives of the Proposed Scheme.

Proposed Scheme Objectives

Policy Document South Links considerations. considerations. Improve Improve Road Safety economic, environmental, integration accessibility and Developproposals safety, forfinal Improve Improve RoadNorth and Network / Reduce Journey Times andReduce Provide Increased Increased Overtaking Opportunities

A Fresh Start: The Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland 2015 Ensuring a Sustainable Transport Future

Economic Strategy for Northern Ireland

Investment Delivery Plan for Roads Investment Strategy for Northern Ireland, 2011- 2021 Changing Gear - A Bicycle Strategy for Northern Ireland Regional Development Strategy for Northern Ireland 2025 Regional Development Strategy 2035 Regional Strategic Transport Network Transport Plan 2015 Regional Transportation Strategy

Sub-regional Transport Plan 2015

Table 4-3: Alignment of policy documents to Proposed Scheme objectives

Problem Identification

There are a number of specific problems that have been identified on the A5 corridor and the regions through which it runs; therefore, they are key drivers for the Proposed Scheme. These are summarised below and described in greater detail in the text that follows:

• Congestion pinch points and journey time unreliability;

• Accessibility to key economic centres and international gateways;

• Accident hotspots;

• Community severance; and

• Poor air quality.

Congestion pinch points and journey time unreliability

The existing A5 is a mixture of differing width single carriageway roads with intermittent stretches of climbing lanes and overtaking opportunities 21 . It passes through or is adjacent to two main urban areas (Strabane and Omagh) and various population settlements (Newbuildings, Magheramason, Bready, Cloghcor, Ballymagorry, Sion Mills, Victoria Bridge, Newtownstewart, Garvaghy, Ballygawley and Aughnacloy).

The topography through which the A5 runs from north to south is generally undulating, ranging in character from the flat lands along the floodplains of river courses such as the Foyle, Mourne, Finn and Burn Dennet, to the moderately sloping foothills of the Sperrin Mountains and Bessy Bell.

The highest point of the existing A5 is 167m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD) at Garvaghy, approximately 8km northwest of Ballygawley. The lowest point of the road is 3.5m AOD between the A5 Barnhill Road and Park Road in Strabane. The topography of the North West means that users of the existing A5 experience

21 A5WTC On-line Assessment Report, page 3, paragraph 1.1.2 (July 2016)

steep climbs and sharp falls during their journeys. This has led to an inconsistency in road design through certain areas of the route.

The design inconsistencies, combined with relatively high volumes of traffic and routeing through settlements, means that the A5 experiences a number of congestion pinch points and some journey time unreliability. This issue is exacerbated by the types of vehicles using the corridor.

As shown in Table 4-4, there is a high proportion of Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) using the existing A5 due to the movements of freight and the agricultural industry, which is one of the main providers of employment in the west. For example, in the District of Fermanagh and Omagh, 46.2% of businesses are based in the agriculture, forestry and fishing industry 22 .

Additionally there are some active quarry sites in the vicinity of Strabane and Newtownstewart. The existing A5 is the main route for the movement of material extracted from the sand and gravel pits between Londonderry and Strabane, and Strabane and Newtownstewart, resulting in increased heavy vehicles movements on the route.

A traffic survey was conducted between Tuesday 5th April and Thursday 5th May 2016 by Mouchel using Automatic Traffic Counters (ATC)'s. Table 4-4 below shows the average Monday to Thursday traffic flows by vehicle type and percentage. Light Vehicles include Cars and Light Good Vehicles (LGV), while Heavy Vehicles consist of HGVs and Buses. The 8 ATC sites on the existing A5 are shown in Figure 4-2 by their corresponding reference in Table 4-4.

22 Fermanagh and Omagh District Council Economic Development Plan (2016-2019), page 25, paragraph 4.22 (August 2016)

Total Light Heavy Light Heavy Vehicles Vehicles Vehicles Ref Site Location Vehicles Vehicles 24hr 24hr 24hr % % Flows Flows Flows 1 A5, North of Newbuildings 15,428 13,549 1,879 87.8 12.2 2 A5, South of Newbuildings 14,993 13,331 1,662 88.9 11.1 3 A5, at Burn Dennet 13,332 11,763 1,568 88.2 11.8 A5, South of Victoria 4 12,849 10,833 2,016 84.3 15.7 Bridge A5, South of 5 12,434 10,328 2,107 83.1 16.9 Newtownstewart 6 A5, South of Omagh 14,074 11,735 2,339 83.4 16.6 7 A5, North of Aughnacloy 9,469 7,741 1,728 81.8 18.2 8 A5, South of Aughnacloy 8,041 6,282 1,760 78.1 21.9

Table 4-4: Average Monday-Thursday flows on the A5 between 5 th April and 5 th May 2016

Table 4-4 shows that there are high proportions of heavy vehicles on the existing A5 towards Londonderry and the border with Republic of Ireland at Aughnacloy. These are recognised as international gateways and demonstrates the corridor’s importance as a strategic link between the north and south of Northern Ireland.

Overall, the proportion of heavy vehicles using the existing A5, combined with generally high volumes of traffic, can result in slow moving traffic, queuing and unreliable journey times.

In addition to the traffic survey carried out by Mouchel, the Department has permanent ATC's on the existing A5 which provide an overview of the total volumes of traffic using the A5 at specific locations. There are notable congestion pinch points on the throughpasses around the main urban settlements along the corridor at Strabane and Omagh, as well as through Sion Mills.

Table 4-5 shows selected 2015 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) flows for the Department count locations that are situated on or near the throughpasses of the main urban settlements of the west. The locations of these ATCs are shown in Figure 4-2 by their corresponding reference in Table 4-5.

Ref. ATC Location Annual Average Daily Traffic Flow A A5 Strabane By-Pass 1 14,441 B A5 Strabane By-Pass 2 16,352 C A5 Sion Mills 14,890 D A5 Omagh By-Pass 1 18,397 E A5 Omagh By-Pass 2 22,661 F A5 Omagh By-Pass 3 16,088

Table 4-5: AADT flows in 2015, from The Department’s long-term count sites

The AADT flows at all of the ATC locations above, except ‘A5 Omagh By-Pass 2’, exceed the recommended opening year flow range of up to 13,000 vehicles for a single carriageway road, as identified by the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges 23 .

23 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), Volume 5 Section 1, Part 3, TA 46/97

4 B A

D E

6 F

Key April-May 2016 ATC Location 7 The Department 2015 ATC 8

Figure 4-2: Location of ATCs (Map Source: www.a5wtc.com)

Further to this, the Stage 3 Scheme Assessment Report (SAR3), produced by Mouchel in August 2016, highlighted that sections of the existing A5 do not meet current design standards with regards to Stopping Sight Distances (SSD). The SSD is the minimum sight distance available on a highway at any spot having sufficient length to enable the driver to stop a vehicle travelling at design speed, safely without collision with any other obstruction.

In addition, there are sections of the existing A5 to the south of Omagh which also do not comply with SSD standards. These locations are between:

• Doogary Road and Tullyrush Road, where 20% and 26% of the SSDs northbound and southbound, respectively, do not achieve current design standards;

• Tullyheeran and Gortaclare, where 24% and 37% of the SSDs northbound and southbound, respectively, do not achieve current design standards;

• Gortaclare and Garvaghy, where 7% and 17% of the SSDs northbound and southbound respectively do not achieve current design standards;

• Garvaghy and Seskilgreen, where 27% and 20% of the SSDs northbound and southbound respectively do not achieve current design standards;

• Seskilgreen and Ballygawley Roundabout, where 27% and 13% of the SSDs northbound and southbound respectively do not achieve current design standards; and

• Ballygawley Roundabout and Aughnacloy, where 29% and 41% of the SSDs northbound and southbound respectively do not achieve current design standards.

On these particular sections of the existing A5, it is likely that vehicles will have extended stopping distances, or will start slowing sooner, on entry to a junction or a queue. This can potentially have a knock-on effect on following traffic, which leads to increased incidences of queuing and therefore, congestion.

The SAR3 also documented the varying widths of the carriageway cross-section throughout the route of the existing A5. Between Newbuildings and the north of Strabane, the cross-section of the carriageway ranges between 6.3m and 14.7m,

and on occasion, does not meet the current standards’ requirement either in terms of road or verge widths, or by the absence of a hard strip along the edge of the carriageway.

Between the south of Strabane and the south of Omagh, the carriageway is approximately 7.3m wide throughout and mostly meets current standards’ with regards to hard strips. Sections of the existing A5 between the south of Omagh and Aughnacloy are “considered to be high density access constraints, which has an impact on both traffic speed and safety” 24 .

The narrowing of the existing carriageway, combined with the direct routeing through all population settlements along the route, including Newbuildings, Strabane, Sion Mills, Victoria Bridge and Omagh, leads to slower speeds on these sections of the existing A5.

The rural character of the area means that conflicts can ensue between the types of vehicles using the route i.e. agriculture, heavy vehicles, as well as conflicts between local and strategic traffic.

The combined effect of these conflicts, together with limited opportunities for overtaking and reduced speed limits through population settlements, is slower moving traffic, incidences of congestion and consequently, unreliable journey times and a higher risk of injury accidents.

Accessibility to key economic centres and international gateways

The existing A5 is one of five Key Transport Corridors identified in the Regional Transportation Strategy for Northern Ireland which are components of the Regional Strategic Transport Network (RSTN).

These corridors play a significant role in the movement of people and goods between cities, towns and communities internally within Northern Ireland and

24 Stage 3 Scheme Assessment Report Part 2, Ref: 718736-0000-R-010, page 2-78, paragraph 2.4.11 (August 2016)

externally to international locations by connecting with onward routes via road and water.

Specifically, the A5 is the strategic route which links the north west of Northern Ireland to Aughnacloy at the border with the Republic of Ireland via Londonderry, Strabane, Omagh and Ballygawley. It connects with the A2 at Londonderry, part of the Northern Transport Corridor, and with the N2 at the border, with onward connections to Monaghan and Dublin. It also connects with the N14 / N15 routes west of Strabane at Lifford in the Republic of Ireland, and with the A505 / A32 east-west corridor at Omagh. Figure 4-3 illustrates the route of the existing A5 and its connections with RSTN.

Key Existing A5 Route A2 A4 A6 City of Derry Airport Londonderry Port

Figure 4-3: Existing A5WTC route and connections with the strategic road network (Map Source: www.a5wtc.com)

The recognition of the existing A5 as a Key Transport Corridor demonstrates its importance as major infrastructure which supports both the national and regional economy of Northern Ireland.

The sustainability and growth of the economy is reliant on having high quality infrastructure in place which is able to meet the demands of both the private and public sectors.

As previously noted, accessibility is one overarching theme of this OBC. The existing A5 currently provides inadequate access into key economic centres of the Province, including Londonderry, Strabane and Omagh. For these regions to experience increased inward investment, regeneration and growth, it is essential that development sites identified within them are provided with high quality infrastructure, including transport facilities, which will create an attractive and inspiring environment.

Summaries of the existing situations through the urban settlements and economic hubs along the existing A5 are provided below.

Londonderry

Londonderry is the second largest city in Northern Ireland with a population of approximately 109,400 25 . The existing A5 runs people and goods to a distance approximately 1km from Craigavon Bridge, which is one of three entry points into the city centre, crossing the River Foyle (two of these routes are for motorised vehicles).

One of the key centres of economic activity in Londonderry is located at Londonderry Port. Londonderry Port is a key marine gateway to the north west of Ireland, operated by the Londonderry Port and Harbour Commissioners (LPHC). Its importance to the local and regional economy of Londonderry and the North West is reflected in its position as a regional hub for international commercial and tourist activity.

At present, mainly conventional bulk cargo vessels utilise the Port for operational purposes, originating primarily from the USA, Colombia, South Africa and Europe.

25 2015 mid-year population estimate (Source: NISRA, 2016)

The port is also capable of accommodating visiting cruise ships throughout the year. There is also a marina – the Foyle Port Marina – which was installed in 2003.

The port is a major employment hub in Londonderry. LPHC supports approximately 1,000 jobs, both directly and indirectly. In 2014, the Port handled 1.63 million tonnes of cargo. Its focus on major commodity imports for the North West, including animal feed and fertiliser, supports approximately 20,000 farms in the region, in addition to various other local business sectors including fuel and construction industries 26 .

The primary access route from the south to Londonderry Port is via the existing A5, before its connection with the A2 at Craigavon Bridge. The strategic function of the existing A5 on entry into Londonderry is emphasised by traffic surveys carried out by Mouchel in April 2016. These indicate that, on average between Monday and Thursday over a 24-hour period, the existing A5, north of Newbuildings, carried a total of 15,500 vehicles including 1,900 heavy vehicles. The number of heavy vehicle movements, 12.2% of all vehicles, highlights the critical importance of this route towards Londonderry and the Port.

For the port to maintain its position as an international gateway, managing significant operations, it requires high quality infrastructure, including the provision of excellent transport links, in order to maintain movements of freight, passengers and commuters.

The quality of the existing A5, described above, is inadequate in supporting the reliable movements of freight, passengers and commuters. This will hinder the port’s ability to function and develop, as well as the Executive’s aim to rebalance and rebuild the economy, and as such economic growth could potentially not materialise.

In addition to the port, Londonderry hosts a regional airport. The City of Derry Airport is located approximately 11km northeast of Londonderry and operates four routes to Liverpool, Glasgow International, London Stanstead and Palma de Mallorca. The major airlines which fly these routes include Thomson, Ryanair and

26 http://www.londonderryport.com/about-us (2017)

BMI Regional. The airport handled a total of 290,671 domestic and international passengers in 2016, however, this figure is 27% down from 2012.

Notwithstanding this recent decline, it is well acknowledged that airports play an eminent role in the economic development of a region. They facilitate the rapid movement of people and goods, which fosters trade and commerce. They provide direct employment opportunities, including personnel required for airport operations and management, aircraft maintenance and leasing activities. But most importantly, airports offer accessibility, which has the potential to fuel business opportunities and tourism.

It is vital that the City of Derry Airport continues to operate for the benefit of the North West. Therefore, it must be ensured that the appropriate transport infrastructure is in place to provide access to and from the airport. The Proposed Scheme will contribute to a high quality route connecting the airport with main communities to the west of Northern Ireland. This will have the potential to unlock development opportunities on the corridor between the airport and connecting towns to the west.

Connecting Towns

The existing A5 runs from Londonderry, through Newbuildings, Strabane, Omagh and Aughnacloy, before terminating at the border with the Republic of Ireland (see Figure 4-3 above).

A number of A and B-Class routes join the existing A5WTC during this journey. The routes, from north to south, are identified in Table 4-6, along with the town / village with which they connect.

Route Connecting Town

Between Newbuildings and North of Strabane

B48 Newbuildings

B49 Ballymagorry / Strabane

B72 Strabane

Between North of Strabane and South of Omagh

A38 Strabane / Lifford

B85 Strabane

B165 Clady

B72 / B165 Castlederg, Douglas Bridge

B164 Ardstraw

B84 Drumquin

B46 Plumbridge, Gortin

B50 Drumquin, Omagh

A32 Dromore, Irvinestown, Enniskillen

Between South of Omagh and Ballygawley

A505 Cookstown

B83 Tattyreagh, Fintona

B34 Cabragh

Between Ballygawley and Aughnacloy

A4 Dungannon, Enniskillen

A28 Augher, Armagh, Enniskillen

Table 4-6: A- and B-Class routes joining the existing A5WTC between Londonderry and Aughnacloy

In total, the existing A5 connects with over 200 side road junctions and lies adjacent to over 420 domestic / commercial and field accesses, excluding those in the various urban settlements 27 .

This number of accesses and adjoining junctions hinders the efficiency of the existing single carriageway A5 in moving people and goods. Invariably, congestion can occur as vehicles decrease in speed in order to safely turn into

27 A5WTC On-line Assessment Report, Ref: 718736-0000-R-062, page 3, paragraph 1.1.2 (July 2016)

these accesses and side roads. Vehicles turning onto the existing A5 must wait until a suitable gap becomes available within the on-line traffic flows. Moreover, this can lead to driver frustration during periods of heavy traffic on the existing A5 and endanger both the oncoming vehicles and on-line vehicles due to unsafe turning movements.

An upgrade to the existing A5 is required in order to improve not only the efficiency of the route and accessibility between connecting towns, but also the local economies which have been built up along the corridor.

Northern Ireland has been recovering from an economic downturn since 2008. Figure 4-4 demonstrates the proportion of persons claiming unemployment- related benefits 28 between 2005 and 2016 within the Districts through which the existing A5 currently runs, compared to the Northern Ireland average.

Claimant counts were generally low before 2008, with Derry City and Strabane District Council (4.8%) demonstrating a higher overall claimant rate than for Northern Ireland (2.6%) in 2005.

The numbers claiming unemployment-related benefits for all areas increased post-economic downturn from 2008 up to 2013, when numbers plateaued and started to decline up to 2016.

Current claimant count rates are 5.9%, 2.8% and 1.9% for the Districts of Derry City and Strabane, Fermanagh and Omagh, and Mid Ulster, respectively. Only Derry City and Strabane has a higher claimant count rate than Northern Ireland as a whole. Furthermore, the current unemployment rate 29 for Northern Ireland is

28 Claimants' include the severely disabled claimants, but exclude students seeking vacation work and the temporarily stopped (Source: NISRA) 29 Between December 2016 and February 2017

5.2%, which is higher than that for the United Kingdom (4.7%), as calculated by the Labour Force Survey.

9.0

8.0

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0 Unemployment Benefits Claimant Count (%) Count Claimant Benefits Unemployment

0.0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Year

Derry City and Strabane Fermanagh and Omagh Mid Ulster Northern Ireland

Figure 4-4: Unemployment benefits claimant count annual average (Source: NISRA)

The Northern Ireland Executive has recently entered an era of rebuilding and rebalancing the economy, to ensure there is long-term economic prosperity and employment opportunities are maximised.

Two key developments within the A5 study area have been proposed which will aim to act as a catalyst for urban regeneration and economic growth. To the west of Strabane, the Three Rivers Project is proposed. This comprises of a large mixed use development which provides an opportunity for the establishment of a cross border town link with Lifford.

In Omagh, outline approval was granted in July 2016 for a large mixed use development between the B48 Derry Road and the A5 Great Northern Road, with contractors aiming to move in on site by autumn 2017.

The various policies and strategies examined in Section 4.4 have highlighted the positive correlation between good quality infrastructure, including an upgraded A5WTC, and a potential resurgence in economic growth.

Large scale projects such as those identified in Strabane and Omagh, above, will need good quality transport infrastructure in order to maximise their potential and benefits. They would be expected to lead to an increase is overall travel and trip making. The sites will need to be serviced, more people will be travelling to work and goods will have to be transported in and out.

Whilst developers are encouraged to reduce the need to travel, this is not entirely practical in a province such as Northern Ireland. The rurality of the region means that it is a necessity for people to travel by private car or public transport in order to reach a destination further afield in a time efficient manner. Therefore, this scale of new development will inevitably produce a net increase in traffic movements.

The Proposed Scheme will help to address this issue and greatly improve access to these and future developments along the north-south corridor. It will strengthen links between the connecting towns of the North West, opening up new opportunities for economic growth throughout a region which has suffered from a recent economic downturn.

A resilient and efficient highway corridor between the north and south of Northern Ireland will undoubtedly improve the attractiveness of the area for inward investment and new businesses from which the connecting towns will reap the benefits.

Cross Border Link

The existing A5 runs through Aughnacloy towards the border with the Republic of Ireland. At the border, it connects with the N2 which links with Monaghan and Dublin in the south. The opportunities for cross-border innovation and trade activity are strongly supported by the Executive. Indeed, the Irish Government has reaffirmed its commitment to the Proposed Scheme by contributing to the construction costs (see Section 4.4.4).

The strategic function of the existing A5 at the border is emphasised by traffic surveys carried out by Mouchel in April 2016. These indicated that, on average

between Monday and Thursday over a 24-hour period, approximately 1,750 heavy vehicles use the existing A5, south of Aughnacloy on the immediate route towards the border crossing (refer to Table 4-4 above). These heavy vehicle movements account for 22% of the total vehicle flows on this section of the existing A5, highlighting the importance of the cross-border connectivity that the route provides.

The Proposed Scheme is intended to strengthen the international gateway as one of the primary access routes between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. It will build upon this connectivity, and help to unlock economic potential by attracting inward investment, boosting the local economies either side of the border, in addition to the economy of the North West.

In June 2016, there was a majority UK vote to leave the European Union (EU). This is some uncertainty as to how the Brexit process will affect movements between cross border towns. The nature of the cross border arrangements and negotiating the extent of free movement to and from the Republic of Ireland, including customs controls and immigration checks, will be addressed as part of the terms of exit negotiations that will not be fully completed until 2019.

To summarise, the Proposed Scheme will help to improve links between the urban centres in the west of the Province and provide a strategic link with international gateways.

The traffic modelling which underpins the Economic Case (Chapter 5) takes into account the improved accessibility between Londonderry, the connecting towns and the border with the Republic of Ireland which will result from the Proposed Scheme. This is demonstrated in the transport economic efficiency (TEE) and Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) calculations that are presented in Chapter 5 as part of the Economic Case .

Accident Hotspots

An accident analysis of the existing A5 study area between Newbuildings and Aughnacloy showed that there were 825 injury accidents, involving 1,371 casualties between 2011 and 2015. These are identified in Figure 4-5.

Figure 4-5: Injury accidents by severity in the existing A5WTC study area

Accidents have a number of impacts, in addition to the direct impact on those directly involved in the collision. These impacts include financial costs associated with the police, medical assistance, insurance and court proceedings in addition to impacts on local businesses and commuters as a result of associated delays.

An analysis of the injury accidents within the existing A5 corridor that includes roads accessing the A5 for the five year period between 2011 and 2015 has been undertaken. The primary observations to note from this analysis are that:

• 825 injury accidents were recorded, involving 1,371 casualties;

• 8% of accidents involved elderly people, and 5% involved children;

• 2% of accidents were fatal, 9% were serious and 89% of accidents were slight;

• 7% of casualties involve pedestrians, 1% involve motorcycles and 2% involve pedal cycles;

• 5% of all pedestrian-related accidents were fatal and 20% were serious;

• 9% of all accidents occurred during the morning peak period (07:00-10:00); and

• 7% of all accidents occurred during the evening peak period (16:00-19:00).

Table 4-7 presents the number of injury accidents between 2011 and 2015 for each section of the A5, together with an observed accident rate. Consequently, the total number of injury accidents differs from that presented in Section 4.5.64 that include accidents on the A5 and also roads connecting the A5.

Table 4-7 shows that the accident rate for the A5 was lower than the national average rates for the type of road. (Note that the national rates are documented in the COBALT manual, the DfT programme used to calculate accident savings and benefits).

Observed National Location Length Total PIA Rate AV Rate Derry to Newbuildings 4.60 27 0.23 0.20 Newbuildings to Strabane 17.10 43 0.11 0.20 Strabane Urban 2.90 13 0.15 0.73 Strabane to Sion Mills 3.00 35 0.39 0.73 Sion Mills to Newtownstewart 12.20 30 0.13 0.20 Newtonstewart to Omagh 12.80 29 0.11 0.20 Omagh Urban 1.80 32 0.47 0.46 Omagh to Ballygawley 26.10 54 0.10 0.20 Balleygawley to Aughnacloy 6.10 16 0.20 0.20 Aughnacloy Urban 2 3 0.13 0.46

Total 282

Table 4-7: Comparison of Observed and National Average accident rates for the A5

It should be noted that although, based on the 2011 to 2015 data, accident rates on the A5 were less than the national average. The observed rates were used in the COBALT programme for predicting accident savings on the A5. Consequently the predicted accident savings and benefits as a result of the scheme have not been overestimated. The accident benefits are described in Section 5.6.44 onwards.

The accident analysis highlighted noticeable clusters of accidents, or accident hotspots, at the following locations.

• Newbuildings to Bready;

• Ballymagorry to Strabane;

• Sion Mills;

• Omagh; and

• Ballygawley.

The number of accidents in these locations is also illustrated in Figure 4-6 to 4-10 respectively.

Figure 4-6: Accident hotspots – Newbuildings to Bready

At the junction of A5 / Woodside Road in Newbuildings there were a total of 16 slight accidents over the five year period. In Magheramason there were 10 accidents on the existing A5 including 3 serious and 7 slight personal injury accidents.

The Proposed Scheme would provide a roundabout on the existing A5 north of Newbuildings (Junction 1) and a second roundabout with a link to the existing A5 at the end of the initial wide single carriageway section south of the settlement. The proposed junctions and new carriageway would improve safety and alleviate existing accident hotspots currently occurring in Newbuildings and Magheramason.

Figure 4-7: Accident hotspots – Strabane

There are a number of accident hotspots within Strabane. At the A5 / Railway Street junction the data shows there were 25 personal injury accidents which included 2 serious and 23 slight injury accidents. The data also shows a cluster of accidents within Strabane on Main Street and Railway Street.

At Strabane the Proposed Scheme would skirt the western edge of the urban area. There would be junctions west (Junctions 4-6), south-west (Junction 7) and south (Junction 8) of the town. Junctions 4-6 comprise a composite grade-separated arrangement. These upgraded junctions and carriageway would improve road safety.

Figure 4-8: Accident hotspots – Sion Mills

Along the existing A5 in Sion Mills there has been a cluster of 23 accidents comprising 4 serious and 19 slight personal injury accidents.

The Proposed Scheme would pass between Sion Mills and Glebe with a new compact grade separated junction to the north of Sion Mills. The proposals would improve road safety along the existing A5.

Figure 4-9: Accident hotspots – Omagh

There are a significant number of accident hotspots within Omagh. On the existing A5 travelling through Omagh (from the junction of A5 / Gillgooley to A5 / A505) there were 65 personal injury accidents. These accident included 6 serious and 59 slight personal injury accidents.

Access to Omagh would be catered for by the proposals via a grade-separated junction with the A32 west of the town (Junction 12) and a grade-separated junction at the B83 Seskinore Road, with a link to the existing A5 to the south

(Junction 13). These improvements would improve safety and positively impact the accident hotspots currently occurring within Omagh.

Figure 4-10: Accident hotspots – Ballygawley

Figure 4-10 shows a hotspot of accidents at the junctions of A5/ B34 and A5 / Annaghilla Road within Ballygawley. At the A5 / B34 there were 11 slight accidents reported and 1 serious accident and at the A5 / Annaghilla Road junction 8 slight accidents occurred.

The Proposed Scheme would improve the existing safety issues in Ballygawley as a new roundabout would be provided where the proposed carriageway and existing A4 Annaghilla Road would cross some 1.5km west of Ballygawley (Junction 15).

Resilience can be described as the ability to absorb adverse or unforeseen events. Accidents at demanding junctions, such as the junctions at A5 / Woodside Road in Newbuildings, A5 / Railway Street in Strabane and the A5 / B34 and A5 / Annaghilla in Ballygawley, cause congestion and severe delays to road users and industries. Therefore the Proposed Scheme would help to improve the resilience

of the strategic road network such that the number and effect of accidents is reduced.

Accident savings are accounted for in the traffic modelling and economic appraisal within the Economic Case (Chapter 5) – forming part of the Present Value of Benefits (PVB) and benefit-cost ratio (BCR) calculations.

Community Severance

Community severance can be defined as the separation of residents from the places they visit within their community, caused by a busy road or other transport link 30 .

There are several towns and villages which experience severance as a consequence of traffic flows on the existing route of the A5. From north to south along the corridor, the main locations include Newbuildings, Magheramason, Ballymagorry, Sion Mills, Strabane, Omagh and Aughnacloy, in addition to a number of small villages and hamlets. Severance is also exacerbated by the high proportions of heavy vehicles (up to one-fifth of total flows) which use the existing A5 to transport goods and freight.

30 TAG Unit A4.1, page 18, paragraph 5.1.1 (November 2014)

Key Community severance Designated crossing points

Magheramason

Figure 4-11: Overhead view of Magheramason, illustrating existing A5 route (Source: Bing Maps)

The impacts of community severance can be profound in those towns and villages noted above. Given the prominence of the existing A5 as a route for strategic traffic between the northwest and southwest of the province, between Londonderry and Aughnacloy, there are limited opportunities for pedestrians and cyclists to cross the road at designated locations.

For example, in Magheramason, shown in Figure 4-11, there is only one Pelican crossing on the 500m route between entry to and egress from the village. Two additional refuge islands exist to the southwest of the village. Safe crossing points in the village are therefore restricted, including to Maghermason Presbyterian Church and other services, and are not comfortably accessible on foot by local residents.

Sion Mills

Key Community severance Designated crossing points

Figure 4-12: Overhead view of Sion Mills, illustrating existing A5 route (Source: Bing Maps)

Similarly, in Sion Mills shown in Figure 4-12 above, there are only three designated pedestrian crossing points, including one Pelican crossing, on the 1.5km route between entry to and egress from the village.

Community severance due to the existing A5WTC has several undesirable impacts:

• It makes non-car modes of travel such as walking and cycling less attractive;

• It can reduce people’s access to local services; and

• It creates a physical separation between and within communities, and between communities and the surrounding countryside.

A social and distributional impact analysis of severance along the entire route of the existing A5WTC was carried out an is presented in Section 5.8. It demonstrates that the Proposed Scheme will reduce community severance primarily by lessening the volume of traffic flows on the existing A5 at both pedestrian crossings and within a 1km buffer zone of each of the 36 schools near the route. Traffic flows decrease at 43 of 48 crossings, with 31 of these crossings experiencing a flow reduction of 50% or greater. Similarly, aggregated AM peak traffic flows in 2028 are forecast to decrease by an average of 34% in the vicinity of schools.

Poor Air Quality

There are 26 Air Quality Management Areas (AQMA) in Northern Ireland as of 2016, 11 of these being located within the districts through which the Proposed Scheme would pass. A Local Authority will declare an AQMA where air quality objectives are not likely to be achieved and are responsible for monitoring and managing air quality stations within the AQMAs in their locality.

The main source of air pollution within these areas is nitrogen dioxide (NO 2), which has an acceptability threshold of 40µg/m 3 annually. The AQMAs aim to manage these concentration levels, amongst other greenhouse gas emissions, to which road traffic contributes. Legislation requires that an Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP) should be produced for each AQMA, which contains a framework to minimise the effects of air pollution on human health.

There are only two AQMAs which are in very close proximity to the Proposed Scheme, or which either the existing A5 pass or Proposed Scheme would pass through. There is an AQMA encompassing the majority of Strabane south of Railway Street / Newtown Street, shown in Figure 4-13. A further AQMA covers Newtownstewart, shown in Figure 4-14.

Key Strabane AQMA Existing A5 route

Figure 4-13: AQMA in Strabane, in the context of the existing A5 route

Key Newtownstewart AQMA Existing A5 route

Figure 4-14: AQMA in Newtownstewart, in the context of the existing A5 route

The increase in traffic flows that would occur on the existing A5 if the Proposed Scheme was not developed, as referred to in Section 4.6, would cause additional problems for local residents and users of the area, including increased levels of emissions. These would impact adversely on health and the overall quality of life. The Proposed Scheme would improve localised air quality for residents of properties fronting the existing A5 and surrounding areas.

The monetised benefits of improving air quality and reducing greenhouse gas emissions are accounted for in the the Economic Case (Chapter 5). These benefits form part of the Present Value of Benefits (PVB) and are therefore included within the benefit-cost ratio (BCR).

Impact of No Change

If the Proposed Scheme is not provided, the problems described throughout Section 4.5 are expected to remain or get worse. Specifically:

• Congestion at pinch points could get worse and journey times are expected to become more unreliable

Without the provision of a new dual carriageway that meets current design and safety standards, congestion at key sections and junctions is expected to worsen.

The existing A5 accommodates high proportions of HGVs which range from 11% to 22% across its overall length. If the existing A5 is not upgraded and the HGV proportions remain relatively similar, journey times would be expected to become even more unreliable due to fact that traffic is expected to increase and the opportunities for cars to overtake HGVs would remain limited.

Traffic forecasts predict an overall increase in traffic demand (trips) up to the scheme design year of 2043. For the AM peak period, traffic demand is predicted to increase by 19% between 2015 and 2028 and 33% by 2043. As a result, traffic in the A5WTC study area is likely to experience deterioration in travel conditions during peak travel times.

For example, average end-to-end journey times along the existing A5 during the AM peak period is estimated to increase by some 6% from 71 minutes to 75 minutes over the next thirteen years and 11% over next twenty-eight years from 2015. The start point of journey time is at the junction with A5 Victoria Road / Prehen Road and end point is the junction just beyond the border south of Aughnacloy.

The current road passes through two main urban areas (Strabane and Omagh) and various towns and settlements. As described in Section 4.5, there is a high number of side road junctions and accesses. This leads to conflicts between local and strategic traffic, a situation which is expected to worsen with traffic growth.

A further point of conflict is that between agricultural vehicles and HGVs, and other road users. This is likely to worsen with traffic growth in the absence of the

provision of a new dual carriageway to separate different vehicle types and to provide an additional lane for overtaking.

• Economic growth could be inhibited

Without the Proposed Scheme the economic prospects of the western part of Northern Ireland may fail to reach their maximum potential as access to the key urban centres (Londonderry, Strabane, Omagh) and international gateways (Londonderry Port, City of Derry Airport and the Republic of Ireland) becomes increasingly confined.

The region may experience stagnation in inward investment, a lack of regeneration and minimal economic growth. Potential development sites could become less attractive without high quality infrastructure. Local businesses could face increased transport costs and may choose to relocate to places with better transport connections.

The provision of resilient transport infrastructure, which minimises traffic problems, will be a key driver in achieving business growth and supporting economic growth across the region.

The proposed A5WTC is expected to have a significant influence on the region’s future economic productivity and growth. A failure to improve this critical link is likely to worsen congestion and lead to reduced network resilience. This would increasingly become a hindrance to business and enterprise, inhibiting growth and regeneration, and making it harder for the region to realise its full economic potential.

The importance of the Londonderry Port and the City of Derry Airport as regional hubs for international trade and passenger activity could potentially come under jeopardy.

• Accidents could increase on key sections of the existing A5

The design check for the existing carriageway indicated that approximately 32.3km out of the total length of 85km (38%) is below current standards to such an extent that it would require departures from the standards for the applicable design speeds in place. This is a safety hazard that could potentially lead to more

accidents. If current speed limits had to be lowered, journey times would be affected.

Without the presence of a central reservation and a second lane for overtaking, cars attempt to overtake HGVs in less than ideal points entering the opposite lane leading to increased accident risk.

The existing A5 has over 200 side road junctions. Without upgrading to a restricted access dual carriageway these points of conflict with other road users will remain and are likely to increase the potential for accidents to occur, as traffic volumes increase.

Any increase in accidents would also result in direct and indirect economic disbenefits associated with accident and injury damage, lost production potential, and increased congestion and delays (at the time of the accidents), significantly impacting the performance of the existing A5.

• Community severance will increase along the existing A5, particularly for Non-Motorised Users

If the Proposed Scheme is not constructed, the vast majority of the 200 plus non- motorised user (NMU) opportunities identified above may not be realised, irrespective of any future budget available for implementing such NMU improvements. The A5 Active and Sustainable Transport Assessment considers potential opportunities for NMUs, as referred to in Section 4.4.32.

The existing A5 acts as a physical barrier through the settlements it passes, dividing the communities and disrupting local residents’ movements and accessibility to services and social networks. It also causes separation between the settlements and the surrounding countryside.

Without the Proposed Scheme in place, increasing traffic and congestion would make conditions worse. Residents would continue to feel less connected to the services and community facilities that their town or village provides, and this would impact on their quality of life. The sense of separation between the two sides of the settlement would become more apparent, with adverse implications for economic growth and community coherence.

As traffic flows increase, the element of severance felt by active mode users along the existing A5 is expected to increase accordingly. Users would be increasingly forced to cross at the few existing designated locations as gaps between traffic become harder to find.

• Air quality will deteriorate along the existing A5

The increase in traffic flows that would occur on the existing A5 without the Proposed Scheme could exacerbate air quality issues for local residents and users in the vicinity of the corridor, including increased levels of dust and vehicle emissions. Poorer air quality could heighten the risk posed to the health and wellbeing of the residential and working population of the area as well as affect negatively on the local environment. Those most seriously affected could be residents of properties fronting the existing A5.

Drivers for Change

The need and support for the scheme is well documented and regularly features in the Department documents, transport strategies as well as Government programmes and budgets. There is a longstanding aim to provide dual carriageway standard on all the five Key Transport Corridors, which are a component of the Regional Strategic Transport Network (RSTN) in Northern Ireland.

Objectives

The aims and objectives of the scheme have been developed by identifying the current problems within the study area and on the existing north-south route of the A5. These problems have been considered within the context of strategic transport and economic policy, aims and objectives.

The overall aim of the Proposed Scheme is therefore:

To improve links between the urban centres in the west of the province and to provide a strategic link with international gateways

The specific objectives which apply to the Proposed Scheme are:

1. To improve road safety • Improved safety for all highway users

2. To improve the road network in the west of the province and north / south links • Improved commercial opportunities • Potential for increased investment • Segregate traffic making strategic journeys from traffic making local journeys • Consistent journey times

3. To reduce journey travel times and to provide increased overtaking opportunities for motorists along the A5 Western Transport Corridor • Improved forward visibility • Improved comfort for travellers

4. To develop the final proposals in light of the safety, economic, environmental, integration and accessibility considerations • Minimise any potential detrimental environmental impact • Ensure good design in light of all relevant factors • Provide good value for money

The specific objectives are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time- dependent (SMART). The Proposed Scheme aims to significantly improve safety and journey times, to improve the links between the urban centres in the west of the province and to provide a strategic link with international gateways.

At the border with the Republic of Ireland, it will connect with the N2 route which the Irish Government has longer-term plans to upgrade.

The next section describes how the specific objectives will be measured in determining their successful delivery.

Measures for Success

It is important to consider what constitutes successful delivery of the above four objectives after each Phase and full scheme opening, as this informs the

development and appraisal of the scheme and the monitoring and evaluation of the scheme’s performance post-construction.

Causality

The causal chain (logic) diagram in Figure 4-15 shows how the proposed scheme is expected to deliver the scheme objectives, and indicates how success can be measured, either directly or indirectly.

Figure 4-15: Causal chain (logic) diagram for the Proposed Scheme

Achievement of Objectives

The specific objectives would have been achieved if the Proposed Scheme leads to:

• A reduced number of road accident casualties;

• Reduced congestion and delay at pinch points on the A5WTC;

• Reduced traffic flows on the existing A5WTC route;

• Improved journey time reliability on the A5WTC;

• Reduction in congestion in accessing the key economic centres such as Omagh and other local towns; and

• Improved accessibility for private vehicles and buses to the international gateways (port and airport).

Effective progress against all four of the scheme specific objectives noted in Section 4.7.4 is expected after each Phase and full scheme opening. Scheme success will be measured using the measures described in Table 4-8 below.

Table 4-8 shows the proposed success measures and respective SMART target that will be used to evaluate the success of the objectives.

Ref. Objective Success Measure Scheme Target Accountable Owner 1 To improve road safety Measured accident rate comparisons 5% reduction in accidents three DfI Roads Western Division Project before and after scheme opening years post-full scheme opening Sponsor: Seamus Keenan 2 To improve the road network in the Measured traffic flow volumes before i. 90% reduction in traffic flows on DfI Roads Western Division Project west of the province and north / and after scheme opening existing A5 between J1-J2 Sponsor: south Links (Newbuildings) of A5WTC Seamus Keenan equivalent; ii. 65% reduction in traffic flows on existing A5 between J6-J8 (south of Strabane) of A5WTC equivalent; iii. 80% reduction in traffic flows on existing A5 between J9-J10 (west of Newtownstewart) of A5WTC equivalent iv. 70% reduction in traffic flows on existing A5 between J13-J14 (southeast of Omagh) of A5WTC equivalent v. 40% reduction in traffic flow son existing A5 between J15-J16 (south of Ballygawley) of A5WTC equivalent 3a To reduce journey travel times along Measured journey time comparisons 30% reduction in peak hour journey DfI Roads Western Division Project the A5 Western Transport Corridor before and after scheme opening times compared to the situation Sponsor: without the scheme Seamus Keenan

3b To provide increased overtaking Physical provision of the dual N/A DfI Roads Western Division Project opportunities for motorists along the carriageway standard road and Sponsor: A5 Western Transport Corridor numbers of overtaking opportunities Seamus Keenan compared to current provision 4 To develop the final proposals in light Monitor the various environmental i. Monitoring of the Contractor JVs DfI Roads Western Division Project of the safety, economic, measures during and post CEMPs to ensure measures are Sponsor: environmental, integration and construction implemented. Seamus Keenan accessibility considerations ii. Carry out post construction surveys to assess effectiveness of the environmental measures – including occupancy of new badger setts, otter holts, bat boxes and records of any road kill. The final constructed scheme meets All design approvals signed off and current design and construction the Health and Safety File completed standards in full by the end of the Defects Period.

Achieve positive return on financial Control of construction budget and investment aligning to project compensation events to ensure programme unnecessary additional costs.

Table 4-8: Scheme success indicators

Monitoring and Evaluation

The measure of delivery of the scheme and achieving its objectives will be monitored as part of the post-scheme evaluation. A Monitoring and Evaluation Plan sets out how a programme of monitoring will be established from pre-construction, through scheme construction, and post-opening, to analyse and determine whether the scheme has been successfully delivered, as well as its achieving its objectives. This is described in Section 8.11.

Constraints

It is important to recognise the constraints which could affect the delivery of the scheme. This section pulls together the elements, which in some circumstances could constrain the capacity to carry out the scheme, or which could alter either the timescale or the range of route options available. The following types of constraint were considered:

• Physical constraints;

• Environmental constraints; and

• Other constraints.

Physical Constraints

There are physical constraints that could impact the Proposed Scheme. These are identified below.

Existing Watercourses and Flood Risk

There are a number of watercourses crossed by or flowing adjacent to the Proposed Scheme, and sections of the existing A5 have been disposed to historical flooding. Areas of Significant Flood Risk (SFRAs) have been mapped within the Environmental Statement 2016, together with the existing hydrology and hydrogeology on and adjacent to the route of the Proposed Scheme.

Ground Investigation

An extensive Ground Investigation was carried out along the Preferred Route to aid the geotechnical design of the Proposed Scheme.

As the information was fed into the design process the extents of certain geotechnical constraints were established. This led to the need to consider avoidance, where possible, of areas of poorer ground to alleviate the need for complex and expensive engineering solutions.

Geotechnical constraints requiring consideration include high mountains and steep sided river valleys, rock ridges, drumlins, potential contaminated land sites, raised peat bogs and floodplains with alluvial and peat deposits.

Land

Some 1,200 hectares of land will be required for the construction of the Proposed Scheme. Approximately 250 hectares of this will be required temporarily during the construction phase with the balance remaining within the permanent highway boundary.

No work will be allowed outside of the Vesting Order (VO) boundary other than where the contractor has sought and received approval from the Department, the landowner and other relevant statutory bodies.

Construction of the Proposed Scheme will result in a number of buildings being demolished as the land on which they are situated will be required for construction of the scheme. These are shown in Table 4-9 below.

Number

Residential Farmhouse 1 Dwellings and a double garage / office 5 Flats (Castletown House) 1 (6 flats) Other Farm buildings 8 Barns 2 Commercial Property (Garage) 1 Chicken Shed 1 Grand Total 19

Table 4-9: Buildings which require demolition

Environmental Constraints

There are several environmental constraints which could impact the Proposed Scheme. These are identified below.

Environment

Environmental constraints within the Study Area include: landforms; communities (towns, villages and hamlets); public lands; heritage sites (including Scheduled Monuments); air quality; ecology (including Special Areas of Conservation) and water quality.

The environmental study area needed to be sufficiently large to capture all constraints that may be affected by any road alignment.

An initial assessment identified that the limits to the east should be into the Sperrins range and also follow any watercourses upstream for a reasonable distance, and to the west should cross the border in the vicinity of Strabane and the Rover Foyle to ensure all transboundary impacts were identified.

Further south the limits were defined by the high ground of Bessy Bell. South of Omagh the environmental study area was closer to the engineering study area and crossed the border at Aughnacloy to capture any transboundary constraints.

A number of designated sites, including Areas of Special Scientific Interest (ASSIs), Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Ramsar sites, have been identified within the environmental study area incorporating the Proposed Scheme. These are noted in Table 4-10 below.

Type of Protected Area Designated Sites • The River Foyle & Tributaries ASSI • McKean’s Moss ASSI • McKean’s Moss Part II ASSI • Grange Wood ASSI • Owenkillew River ASSI Area of Special Scientific Interest • Tully Bog ASSI • Strabane Glen ASSI • Baronscourt ASSI • Lough Neagh ASSI* • Lough Beg ASSI* • The River Foyle & Tributaries SAC • The River Finn SAC Special Area of Conservation • Owenkillew SAC • Tully Bog SAC • Lough Foyle SPA Special Protection Area • Lough Swilly SPA • Lough Neagh & Lough Beg SPA • Lough Foyle Ramsar site Ramsar Site • Lough Neagh & Lough Beg Ramsar site

*Included as this ASSI is a component ASSI of Lough Neagh & Lough Beg SPA

Table 4-10: Designated sites in the environmental study area

In 2013, the Department initiated an appropriate assessment process in order to identify and mitigate the potential impacts that the Proposed Scheme could have on the designated sites within the scheme boundaries and to ensure that the requirements of the EC Habitats Directive and Conservation Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995 are met. These assessments are covered in the following reports:

• Report of Information to Inform an Appropriate Assessment: SAC Watercourses, covering:

o River Foyle & Tributaries Special Area of Conservation

o Owenkillew River Special Area of Conservation

o River Finn Special Area of Conservation

• Report of Information to Inform Appropriate Assessment: Tully Bog SAC, covering:

o Tully Bog Special Area of Conservation

• Report of Information to Inform Appropriate Assessment: SPAs, covering:

o Lough Foyle Special Protection Area

o Lough Swilly Special Protection Area

o Lough Neagh & Lough Beg Special Protection Area

• Report of Information to Inform Appropriate Assessment: Ramsar Sites, covering:

o Lough Foyle Ramsar Site

o Lough Neagh & Lough Beg Ramsar Site

Potential Site Contamination

Potentially contaminated sites located within or immediately adjacent to the areas required for construction of the Proposed Scheme are detailed in Table 4-11 with the relative potential hazard rating.

Ammonia levels of soil samples along the corridor were consistent with agriculture supported by management regimes with moderate to high fertilizer inputs.

One area of potentially high contamination risk, is a former refuse tip adjacent to the existing A5 and Park Road in Strabane; materials such as glass, fabric, metal, wood, rubber, burnt waste were found and had a hydrocarbon odour.

Elevated concentrations related to human health such as Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon, pH, carbazole, zinc and sulphate, were recorded, as well as elevated concentrations of PAHs, ammonium and ammonia, which presents risks to aquatic life.

An elevated concentration of arsenic was recorded within an infilled quarry, 560m to the west of Orchard Industrial Estate. A single total cyanide leachate exceedance was identified adjacent to an infilled quarry to the west of Sion Mills. The origin of this material is unexplained.

Elevated concentrations of copper, zinc, sulphate and lead were recorded in the area of fly tipping at Newtownsaville bog which may be a potential risk to the aquatic environment.

In consultation with NIEA Waste Management (Land and Groundwater Team), preliminary risk assessments in accordance with the Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (CLR11) have been carried out for all the sites.

Potential risks of Ground Contamination are summarised in Table 4-11 below:

Type Location Potential Risk Newbuildings to Strabane Petrol Filling Station Newbuildings High Disused Quarry Sollus Hill High Corn and Flax Mills/Kilns Newbuildings Low Infilled Mill Pond Grange Road Low Infilled Brickfield Newbuildings High Two Petrol Stations North Strabane High Infilled Brick Field Route to Leckpatrick High Railway Line and Sidings North Strabane Medium Two Infilled Refuse Tips East of Park Road, Strabane High Infilled Canal and Tow Path North Strabane Low Railway Station South of Park Road, Strabane Medium Landfill site Adjacent Urney Road High Infilled Slate Quarry South Strabane High Flooded Limestone Quarry East of Carricklee Hill Medium Petrol Station Lifford Road High Several Areas of Fly Tipping Strabane High Strabane to Omagh Backfilled Quarry West of Sion Mills Medium Active Quarries Urbalreagh Medium Active Quarries Deer Park Medium Former Route of Great Northern South of Rash Road 1.5km to Medium Railway Todds Road Disused Nestle Factory Poe Bridge Medium Omagh to Aughnacloy Disused Nestle Factory Poe Bridge Medium Back Filled Gravel Pit Moylagh Road Junction Medium Back Filled Gravel Pit and Brick Greenmount Road Medium Kiln Made Ground South of Newtownsaville High Back filled Quarries and Gravel Clogher Valley and Augnacloy Medium Pits Tullyvar Landfill Clogher Valley and Augnacloy High Reclaimed Landfill Aughnacloy High Back filled Quarries West of Old Chapel Road Medium

Table 4-11: Potentially contaminated sites under or immediately adjacent to the Proposed Scheme

Other Constraints

Interactions and Cumulative Effects

Five projects were identified that would have the potential to result in cumulative effects with the Proposed Scheme. The third party developments noted were:

• Three Rivers Development;

• Hazardous Substances Consent A/2011/0686/HSC;

• Bunderg Road Powerline Spur;

• Bunderg Road Wind Turbine; and

• Strabane Footbridge J/2008/0612/F (opened in 2015).

The assessment concluded that only the Three Rivers Development and N14/15 to A5 link road would have the potential to result in cumulative impacts. Both schemes would likely result in some cumulative impact on landscape character and nature conservation.

Existing Structures Conditions

There are 33 significant structures which could be affected by the proposed scheme, as shown in Table 4-12.

The vast majority of these structures are in fair to very good condition. The majority of the bridges carry the existing A5 over watercourses.

Function Number Newbuildings to Strabane Footbridge Over Road - Road Over Accommodation 1 Road Over Pedestrian Subway - Road Over Road 1 Road Over Watercourse 6 Total 8 Strabane to Omagh Footbridge Over Road - Road Over Accommodation - Road Over Pedestrian Subway 1 Road Over Road 1 Road Over Watercourse 12 Total 14 Omagh to Aughnacloy Over Road - Road Over Accommodation - Road Over Pedestrian Subway - Road Over Road - Road Over Watercourse 11 Total 11

Grand Total 33

Table 4-12: Bridges by function

Stakeholders

There has been an extensive process of consultation with all those affected by the Proposed Scheme since its inception in 2008.

Consultation has taken a number of forms, including:

• Public Inquiries in 2011 and 2016;

• Public exhibitions at key design stages;

• Stakeholder meetings with statutory authorities and organisations; and

• Regular updates to directly affected landowners through meetings and by letter at key stages in the development of the scheme.

Formal consultation has been carried out with over 30 statutory authorities and organisations as part of the studies and assessments, which have been undertaken during the preparation of the orders and environmental statement for the scheme.

In addition, the scheme has a dedicated project website – www.a5wtc.com – and an 0845 telephone contact line. The website has supported the overall consultation strategy for the project, providing an additional means by which statutory, public and private stakeholders have been given access to scheme updates and announcements.

The key stakeholders involved in the development and delivery of the scheme are summarised in Table 4-13 below.

Organisation Agrifood and Bioscience Institute Botanical Society of the British Isles (BSBI) Equine Council Northern Ireland Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside (CNCC) Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA) Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure (DCAL) Department of Education Northern Ireland Department for Environment, Planning and Environmental Policy Group Department for Environment, Planning Service, Strategic Projects Derry City and Strabane District Council Fermanagh and Omagh District Council Fisheries Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland Loughs Agency Mid-Ulster District Council National Health Service National Parks and Wildlife Service (Republic of Ireland) National Trust Northern Ireland Bat Group Northern Ireland Environment Agency – Environmental Protection Northern Ireland Environment Agency – Natural Heritage Northern Ireland Environment Agency – The Built Heritage Northern Ireland Environment Agency – Water Quality Management Unit Northern Ireland Environmental Link Northern Ireland Neighbourhood Information Service Northern Ireland Tourism Board (NITB) Outdoor Recreation NI Police Service Northern Ireland Quercus – School of Biological Sciences, Queen’s University Belfast Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Sion Mills Building Preservation Trust Sustrans Translink Ulster Wildlife Trust Upper Foyle Catchment Stakeholder Group Woodland Trust

Table 4-13: List of stakeholders

Further details of stakeholder engagement, as well as stakeholder management, are described in Chapter 8, the Management Case.

Options

A three-stage assessment has been used to identify the Proposed Scheme 2016, in accordance with the Department guidelines 31 . The purpose of the three stage approach is to review the options at increasing levels of detail. At all three stages the scheme has been assessed against a set of predefined key criteria, with the three stages set out below:

STAGE 1 – Selection of Preferred Corridor (Spring 2008 to November 2008) 32

The aim at Stage 1 was to identify a broadly defined improvement corridor and the major factors that may influence the later route selection process. Such factors included the existing geography across the study area, the presence of Planning Policy Areas, areas of special ecological or historical significance.

The key criteria assessed at Stage 1 included Environment, Engineering, Economics and Traffic. In November 2008, at the end of Stage 1 a broad corridor was announced by the Minister and the Preferred Corridor for further examination at Stage 2.

STAGE 2 – Development of Route Options (November 2008 to summer 2009) 33

Stage 2 took a more detailed look at the existing conditions within the Preferred Corridor. Routes were examined in some detail to allow the anticipated effects of Route Options to be assessed against each other under the set of key criteria.

Identification of the preferred route involved examination of the preferred corridor in more detail and comparison of route options within three sections of the corridor between Newbuildings, Strabane, Omagh and Aughnacloy.

Evaluation of the options was based on engineering and environmental constraints. This led to the identification of four route options for each of the three

31 RSPPG E030: Major Works Schemes: Inception to Construction (2013) 32 Stage 1 Scheme Assessment Report – Preliminary Options Report, Document Reference: 796036/0000/R/006 (2008) 33 Stage 2 Scheme Assessment Report – Preferred Options Report, Document Reference: 7960/0000/R/011 (2009)

sections. The preferred route was then selected having regard for the key criteria of safety, economics, environment, integration and accessibility.

Between Newbuildings and Strabane the principal considerations leading to the preferred route in this section were the avoidance of potential impacts on settlements and areas of high ground to the east, sensitive areas to the west of Bready and McKean’s Moss ASSI and providing better connectivity to Strabane and the Republic of Ireland.

Between Strabane and Omagh the principal considerations leading to the preferred route were the location of the Sperrins Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), the presence of sites of cultural heritage value including a Franciscan Friary and Graveyard and Harry Avery’s Castle, Grange Wood ASSI, the River Foyle and Tributaries Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and ASSI and Owenkillew River SAC and ASSI, Tully Bog SAC and ASSI and potential community severance at Mountjoy.

Between Omagh and Aughnacloy the principal considerations leading to the preferred route were connectivity to Omagh, the A4 and the A28, strategic connectivity to Fintona and Beragh, avoidance of large areas of peat and avoidance of The Thistle (a Registered Park, Garden and Demesne).

Refinement of the preferred route and identification of the alignment adopted for the Proposed Scheme involved consideration of a number of alternatives taking on board more detailed information. This included environmental survey data, ground investigation data, drainage surveys and flood modelling as well as feedback from landowners and the general public.

In July 2009, at the end of Stage 2, the Minister announced the Preferred Route.

2010 STAGE 3 – Assessment of the Proposed Scheme (Summer 2009 to autumn 2010)

During the Stage 3 process, the Preferred Route was developed in more detail to allow the detailed assessment of the Proposed Scheme and its effects on the environment.

This included mitigation works to reduce the various impacts and determine the overall land take required for the project. This work led to the development of the

Proposed Scheme 2010 and preparation of the draft Orders 2010 and Environmental Statement 2010.

2016 STAGE 3 – Re-assessment of the Proposed Scheme (Summer 2013 to winter 2015) 34

Further to the High Court judgement in 2013, the Stage 3 process for the Proposed Scheme was updated using new traffic and environmental survey data and accounted for current engineering and environmental standards and agreed commitments from the 2011 Public Inquiries.

The scheme development also took account of the Inspector’s recommendation from the 2011 Public Inquiry not to proceed with the statutory procedures for the section of the scheme south of the A4 at Ballygawley, though it has been necessary to prepare the Environmental Statement for the whole scheme as far as the border with the Republic at Moy Bridge.

This work has, therefore, led to the development of the Proposed Scheme 2016 and preparation of the following draft Orders 2016 and Environmental Statement 2016:

• The Draft Trunk Road T3 (Western Transport Corridor) Order (Northern Ireland) 2016 – Junction 1 (Newbuildings) to Junction 15 (Ballygawley);

• The Draft Private Accesses on the A5 Western Transport Corridor (Stopping-Up) Order (Northern Ireland) 2016;

• Notices of Intention to Make a Vesting Order Phase 1a – Junction 1 (Newbuildings) to Junction 3 (north of Strabane);

• Notices of Intention to Make a Vesting Order Phase 1b – Junction 13 (south of Omagh) to Junction 15 (Ballygawley);

• Notices of Intention to Make a Vesting Order Phase 2 – Junction 3 (north of Strabane) to Junction 13 (south of Omagh); and

34 Stage 3 Scheme Assessment Report – Part 2, Document Reference: 718736-0000-R-010 REV 2

• Environmental Statement 2016 – Junction 1 (Newbuildings) to tie in to existing A5 south of Aughnacloy.

These were published in February 2016. A Public Inquiry administered by the PAC was held between October and December 2016.

The Economic Case

Introduction

The Economic Case assesses the impacts of the Proposed Scheme to determine its overall value for money. It takes account of the costs of developing, building and maintaining the scheme, and the benefits arising from the scheme. These include benefits that can be monetised, as well as quantitative and qualitative impacts that cannot be monetised.

The economic case compares the assessed benefits against costs over the whole life of the scheme, 60 years after opening, to determine value for money which is expressed as a Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR).

This Chapter details the economic assessment carried out for the Proposed Scheme and includes:

• the methodology and assumptions adopted to derive economic benefits to transport users;

• details of the costs and economic benefits of the Scheme and its value for money including the BCR;

• the economic impacts of the Proposed Scheme which affect the wider economy and additional to the economic benefits to transport users;

• details of the Social and Distributional Impacts of the Scheme;

• the environmental impacts, both monetised and non-monetised;

• sensitivity testing to assess the range of benefits around the ‘core scenario’; and

• an Appraisal Summary Table (AST).

As noted in Section 2.1, it was agreed with the DoF that the OBC should present the economic case for constructing the complete scheme between Newbuildings and Aughnacloy together with an assessment of the economic benefits and a BCR for each of the four constituent phases of the scheme. The phased BCRs are required now to allow a future comparison with the Full Business Cases for each

Phase as statutory procedures are confirmed and funding allocated for each Phase, commencing with Phase 1a in 2017/18.

The assessment for the full scheme is detailed in Sections 5.5 to 5.12. The assessment of the individual phases of the scheme is detailed in Section 5.13.

Guidelines and Standards

The economic appraisal was prepared in accordance with the Green Book – Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government (“the Green Book”) (HM Treasury, 2003 – updated July 2011).

The detailed methodology for assessing the economic and environmental benefits and their social and distributional impacts followed good practice as set out in current Department for Transport WebTAG guidance as follows:

• TAG Unit A1 cost-benefit analysis;

• TAG Unit A2 economic impacts;

• TAG Unit A3 environmental impact appraisal; and

• TAG Unit A4 social and distributional impacts.

The process for assessing the Value for Money was based on the DfT ‘Value for Money Framework’ and ‘Value for Money Supplementary Guidance on Categories’ published on 20 th July 2017.

Scope of the Appraisal

The appraisal of the proposed scheme included monetised benefits as well as impacts that cannot be quantified in monetary values.

The DfT Value for Money Framework identifies three categories of monetised impacts:

• Established: where the method for estimating the impact and the monetary value is tried-and-tested;

• Evolving: where some evidence exists to support the estimation of a monetary value but is less widely accepted and researched; and

• Indicative: where monetary valuation methods are not considered widely accepted or researched to be definitive, with a high degree of uncertainty in terms of the magnitude of the impact.

The economic appraisal encompassed the following ‘established’ monetised impacts:

• Economic benefits to road users, including time savings and vehicle operating costs;

• Economic benefits to road users resulting from a reduction in delays during periods of maintenance and dis-benefits due to delays during the scheme construction period;

• Accident savings and associated economic benefits; and

• Monetised benefits/dis-benefits from changes to noise, local air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.

In line with the DfT Value for Money Framework, these benefits were combined to derive the ‘established’ monetised impacts. These benefits were compared with costs to produce an initial BCR.

The following assessments were carried out to assess the ‘evolving’ monetised impacts:

• Wider economic benefits resulting from the scheme (termed wider benefits); and

• Journey time reliability benefits.

The inclusion of the ‘evolving’ impacts formed the basis for deriving the adjusted BCR. In accordance with the DfT Value for Money Framework this was used as a starting point to determine the Value of Money Category.

It should be noted that no ‘indicative’ monetised impacts were assessed as part of the appraisal.

In addition the appraisal included an assessment of the following environmental impacts:

• Noise;

• Local Air quality;

• Greenhouse gases;

• Landscape;

• Heritage;

• Biodiversity; and

• Water environment.

Of the above, the impacts of noise, local air quality and greenhouse gases were monetised as identified in Section 5.3.3 above.

The environmental impacts for the whole scheme are presented in Section 5.7. It should be noted that the environmental impacts for each Phase of the scheme are not separately reported. These will be included in the respective Full Business Cases for each Phase as they are taken forward for approval for funding.

An overview of the appraisal process is presented in Figure 5-1 below.

Figure 5-1: Process to derive BCR

Methodology and Assumptions

This section describes the processes and sets out the assumptions that underpin both the economic appraisal of the Whole Scheme between Newbuildings and Aughnacloy and the appraisal of each of the 4 constituent phases.

Monetised Benefits

The calculation of economic benefits to road users (excluding accident benefits) was undertaken using the DfT’s TUBA V.1.9.8 (Transport Users Benefit Appraisal) program.

TUBA 1.9.8 was originally released in August 2016 and represented a step change from its predecessor TUBA 1.9.7. This included new values of time (VOT) in relation to trip distance, based on new research by the DfT.

At the time of the release of TUBA 1.9.8, and relevant to the economics presented to the A5 WTC Public Inquiry, the DfT advice was that TUBA 1.9.7 should inform the core scenario with TUBA 1.9.8 providing a sensitivity test.

Since March 2017 the new approach to varying VOT’s by distance has become definitive and the DfT advises that TUBA 1.9.8 should now be adopted for all economic appraisals.

TUBA compares the costs for the ‘without scheme scenario’ (Do-Minimum) against the cost for the ‘with scheme scenario’ (Do-Something) to establish the value of the savings in road user travel time and vehicle operating costs.

Benefits arising from changes in accidents with the Scheme were assessed using the DfT COBALT (Cost and Benefit to Accidents – Light Touch) software.

The assessment of the road user benefits resulting from a reduction in delays during periods of maintenance was carried out using the Highways England program QUADRO. This included the dis-benefits associated with the delays during construction of the scheme.

Monetised benefits / disbenefits were also calculated for greenhouse gases, noise and local air quality. The benefits were calculated in accordance with TAG Unit A3 (Environmental Impact Appraisal) using the forecast flows from the traffic model, to derive the monetised environmental benefits of the scheme over a 60 year

appraisal period (2028 – 2087). The Environmental Impacts are described in Section 5.7.

Traffic Forecasts

The traffic forecasts that underpin the economic assessment were derived from the A5WTC Highway Assignment Model. The development of the SATURN model is described in the Local Model Validation Report ref. 718736-2700-R-026 (included in Appendix B) and the development of future year forecasts is reported in the Forecasting Report 718736-2700-R-027 (included in Appendix C).

The A5WTC traffic model consists of three separate sub-models covering three time periods, each of which were validated against a base year of 2015. The sub- models represent an average hour for an average weekday (Monday to Thursday) within the AM peak period (07:30-09:30), PM peak period (16:00-18:00) and Inter peak period (09:30-16:00).

The outputs from the traffic model were expanded to cover the entire year in accordance with conventional modelling practice. This is described in paragraph 5.4.31 onwards.

The forecasts of future car traffic growth were based upon TEMPRO-NI, a software system developed to predict future travel (demand) growth in Northern Ireland for the A5 Western Transport Corridor Scheme (A5WTC).

TEMPRO-NI is consistent with the National Trip End model (NTEM)/TEMPRO system developed by the Department for Transport (DfT) in London for Transport Planning in Great Britain. TEMPRO-NI uses the same software as the Great Britain version with the data tailored specifically to Northern Ireland.

TEMPRO-NI comprises a number of sub-models which build up the predictions of trip totals from a range of demographic data including forecasts of employment, household and population and car ownership.

TEMPRO-NI predicts the total number of trips that are made by each area (Ward / SOA / Zone) in its Base Year (2011) and future years at 5 yearly intervals (2016, 2021, 2031, 2036, 2041, 2046 & 2051). Hence growth factors can be calculated to represent the growth in traffic between certain years, which can be applied to the matrices of the traffic model.

Forecasts of future growth in LGVs and HGVs were based upon the Road Traffic Forecasts, published in 2015.

The traffic forecasts were developed for the opening year of each phase of the scheme (2019, 2021, 2023 and 2028) and also for a design year of 2043 i.e. 15 years after the opening of Phase 3. The road user benefits were derived from TUBA based on these traffic forecasts by comparing the Do-Minimum and the Do- Something scenarios.

The predicted growth for Cars, LGV’s and HGV’s from the 2015 base year to the scheme opening and design years is presented in Table 5-1 below.

Time Cars Goods Vehicles Years Total Period Commute Business Other LGV HGV AM 14% 17% 19% 37% 14% 19% 2015 to IP 17% 17% 23% 38% 14% 23% 2028 PM 15% 15% 20% 38% 13% 20% AM 25% 28% 34% 67% 25% 33% 2015 to IP 27% 28% 40% 68% 25% 40% 2043 PM 26% 27% 35% 67% 24% 35%

Table 5-1: Forecast growth rates from 2015 Base Year

The growth projections developed for the A5WTC model were compared with the recent observed growth within the A5 corridor. The historical growth was analysed over two periods, from 2008-2013 and 2013 to 2015.

The observed growth between 2008 and 2015 is presented in Figure 5-2 that also shows the projected growth from 2015 to 2043. The observed and projected annualised growth rates are presented in Table 5-2.

Figure 5-2: Observed and forecast growth

Years AM Inter-peak PM Observed 2008-2013 -0.18% 0.52% -0.32% 2013-2015 6.30% 3.44% 3.92% 2008-2015 1.63% 1.34% 0.87% Forecast 2015-2043 1.07% 1.21% 1.12%

Table 5-2: Observed and forecast annual growth rates

Figure 5-2 demonstrates that over the period 2008-2013 observed growth was largely flat, whereas from 2013 to 2015, growth was significant.

Table 5-2 shows that when expressed in terms of annual growth rates, the forecast rate of growth rate from the base year 2015 to the design year 2043 is very similar to the observed between 2008 and 2015 for the Inter-peak period, but slightly lower for the AM peak and higher for the PM peak.

Area of Assessment

The traffic model and TUBA network illustrated in Figure 5-3 includes the whole of Northern Ireland, the north and northwest of the Republic of Ireland and extends as far south as Dublin.

Figure 5-3 also shows the location of the existing A5 and the extent of the Proposed Scheme (shaded red) extending from Londonderry to Aughnacloy.

Londonderry

Belfast

Aughnacloy

Dublin

Extent of TUBA Network Extent of COBALT Network

Figure 5-3: Extent of the Traffic Model and Economic Assessment Networks

The TUBA road user benefits, including the user time and operating costs, were assessed over the whole of the model area.

The COBALT accident cost savings were also assessed over the whole model area.

Observed accident data was available for the existing A5. Over the remainder of the study area national average accident rates by road type were adopted for the assessment.

User Classes

There were 5 user classes in the SATURN traffic model (Commute, Employers Business, Other, LGV and HGV). They were converted to 7 user classes as required in TUBA.

The LGV in the traffic model were split into work and non-work according to the proportions set out in TAG Unit A1.3 (User and Provider Impacts) . The HGV were split into OGV1 and OGV2 based on the traffic counts. The disaggregation factors are shown in Table 5-3.

LGVs HGVs Time Period Non-work Work (Freight) OGV1 OGV2

AM 12% 88% 43.64% 56.36%

IP 12% 88% 41.46% 58.54%

PM 12% 88% 43.19% 56.81%

Table 5-3: User Classes

Annualisation Factors

Annualisation factors were used to expand the benefits identified for each model time period over a whole year.

Annualisation factors for the three modelled time periods were based on values obtained from local traffic survey data.

These factors were derived through analysis of long term Automatic Traffic Counters (ATC) and Manual Classified Counts (MCC) data. The process for determining the annualisation factors is set out in Table 5-4 below.

The calculation requires two steps:

1. Expand and combine the AM, Inter, and PM peak periods to represent an average 12-hour weekday (5-days); and

2. Expand the Inter peak period to represent the remaining periods, comprising weekday night time, weekends, and Bank holidays.

Calculation Weekday Night time / Weekends / Bank 12 Hour Weekday Stages holidays AM IP PM IP (0730 (1100 (1600 IP 1 Model Period (1100 - - - - (1100 - 1500) 1500) 0930) 1500) 1800) Combined AM IP PM Weekday Expanded (0700 (1000 (1600 Weekday Bank Night time / 2 Weekends Period - - - night Holidays Weekends 1000) 1600) 1900) / Bank Holidays Number of 3 253 253 253 253 104 8 - Days Number of 4 3 6 3 12 24 24 - Hours per day Total Number 5 759 1518 759 3036 2496 192 5724 of Hours Average Hour 5 0.89 1.008 0.94 - - - 0.406 Factor Annualisation 6 Factor by 676 1531 713 - - - 2325 period AM 676 Combined 7 Annualisation IP 3856 (1531 + 2325) Factors PM 713

Table 5-4: Annualisation Factors

Costs for Complete Scheme

Requirements for the Economic Appraisal

For the economic appraisal the scheme costs that include construction, land and preparation and supervision costs need to be adjusted to a ‘Present Value of Cost’ (PVC) for a standard base year of 2010.

Base Costs

The base costs for the Proposed Scheme include construction, land and preparation, design and supervision costs. The latest cost estimates are estimated

at 2017:Q2 prices. These are set out in detail in Section 6.2. It includes all costs associated with scheme preparation and construction which will be incurred subsequent to the economic appraisal of the Proposed Scheme. Sunk costs, which represent expenditure incurred prior to the economic appraisal, are excluded. It should also be noted that the costs include an approximate construction value for the Finn Crossing.

The base costs are summarised in Table 5-6 below.

Optimism Bias and Risk

In line with TAG Unit A1.2 (Scheme Costs) , it is standard practice to include a risk allowance and optimism bias on top of the scheme estimated costs to allow for unexpected costs.

The purpose of optimism bias is to ensure that the cost-benefit analysis is robust. Optimism bias is only applied to costs in the economic assessment and is not included in the forecast out-turn costs in the Financial Case (Chapter 6) or Commercial Case (Chapter 7).

Optimism bias has been applied to the capital cost of each Phase. Therefore, the optimism bias for the entirety of the Scheme which is required for the purpose of economic analysis, is the sum of the optimism bias of each Phase.

The optimism bias for each Phase was calculated using a pre-determined set of criteria established in RSPPG E058 (Major Works Estimates) 35 . This criteria, and the calculated percentages, is included in Appendix D.

For each Phase, the optimism bias is as follows:

Phase Optimism Bias (General) Optimism Bias (Land)

Phase 1a 5% 6%

Phase 1b 5% 6%

Phase 2 9.4% 9.4%

Phase 3 9.4% 9.4%

Table 5-5: Optimism Bias applied by Phase

35 Road Service Policy & Procedure Guide, Major Works Estimates (June 2011) © WSP 2017 131

The scheme costs include an allowance for risk, in the form of a quantified risk assessment (QRA). This is detailed in Section 8.9 in the Management Case.

The monetised allowance for risk and optimism bias is included in the costs presented in Table 5-6 below.

Present Value of Cost

The Present Value of Cost (PVC) was derived from base costs, adjusted to take account of risk and optimism bias as described above, and whole life costs.

The PVC included the following adjustment factors:

• An adjustment for inflation using the Retail Price Index from 2017 to 2010;

• An adjustment to market prices (gross of indirect tax) in line with TAG Unit A1.1 (Cost and Benefit Analysis) , using an indirect tax correction factor to uplift costs to those which are perceived by consumers, rather than the ‘factor cost’ unit of account (net of indirect tax) which is perceived by government or businesses; and

• A discount factor based on the HM Treasury “Green Book” to adjust costs occurring in different periods to a standard base year of 2010. An annual discount rate of 3.5% was applied for the first 30 years after opening and 3% for years 31 to 60. This reflects the lower weighting placed on costs (and benefits) incurred at a future date compared to those incurred in the present.

The scheme costs expressed in 2017:Q2 prices and as discounted prices and values are summarised in Table 5-6 below. It should be noted that the cost of the scheme in 2017 Q2 prices (£942.48M) differs from the capital cost presented in the Executive Summary (£968.66M). Thie difference is due to the latter figure including an adjustment for expected inflation between the date of the estimate and when the expenditure is expected to occur. The cost of the Finn Crossing is also excluded.

Scheme Costs Cost discounted Cost at 2010 Prices, Cost Element Cost at 2017:Q2 to 2010 Prices further discounted to Prices (£M) (£M) Present Value 2010 (£M) Construction £644.05 £580.75 £458.32 Contracts Statutory Undertaker £12.61 £11.37 £8.90 Works Land and £96.94 £87.41 £67.06 Compensation Design, Investigations, Surveys, £23.23 £20.95 £17.41 Procurement, IDT Costs Supervision £18.90 £17.04 £13.55

Finn Crossing £16.64 £15.00 £11.74

Quantified Risk £59.75 £53.88 £43.04 Optimism Bias £62.53 £56.38 £44.04 (General) Optimism Bias £7.84 £7.07 £5.35 (Land) Total Cost £942.48 £849.84 £669.41

Table 5-6: A5WTC – Present Value of Costs (Scheme Construction Costs)

The whole life costs of the Proposed Scheme, including the costs for its maintenance and operation over 60 years, have also been calculated at 2017:Q2 prices and discounted to 2010 prices and 2010 values, as shown below.

Scheme Maintenance and Operational Costs Cost discounted Cost at 2010 Prices, Cost Element Cost at 2017:Q2 to 2010 Prices further discounted to Prices (£M) (£M) Present Value 2010 (£M) Total Maintenance and Operational £197.79 £173.69 £49.68 Cost

Table 5-7: A5WTC – Present Value of Costs (Scheme Maintenance and Operational Costs)

Therefore, the present value of costs (PVC) for the Proposed Scheme at 2010 Values, including Scheme costs (Table 5-6) and Maintenance and Operation costs (Table 5-7), is £719.09M . As previously noted, the costs for the Finn Crossing have been included in the scheme costs.

Assessment of Monetised Impacts for Complete Scheme

This section describes the benefits of the full scheme between Londonderry and Aughnacloy. It describes and quantifies the Established monetised impacts and Evolving monetised impacts as defined in the DfT Value for Money Framework. The non-monetised impacts for the full scheme are described in Section 5.7.

Assessment Period

The programs TUBA, QUADRO and COBALT that were used to assess transport user benefits and accident savings, calculate benefits on a year by year basis for an appraisal period of 60 years from scheme opening as required by TAG Unit A1.1 (Cost-Benefit Analysis) .

The phased construction required that benefits for the full scheme be calculated for each year of the appraisal taking account of the completion of each phase. As each phase of the scheme is opened at a particular time within that opening year, the part of the year before opening would have a different road network available to users from the part of the year after opening.

To reflect this would require Do-Minimum and Do-Something traffic forecasts for both scenarios. Since TUBA does not support more than one Do-Something scenario per year, it was assumed that Phase 1a of the Scheme would be open in 2019 with Phases 1a and 1b operational between 2021 to 2022, Phases 1a, 1b and 2 operational from 2023 to 2027 and all Phases operational from 2028 onwards on opening of Phase 3.

The appraisal period for the full scheme was based on a 60 year period from the opening of the first phase of the scheme i.e. 2019. The traffic forecasts beyond the design year (i.e. 2043 to 2078) were assumed to remain constant with no further growth applied.

For the purpose of assessing the benefits for each of the four constituent phases, benefits were calculated over a 60 year period from the opening of each phase requiring four separate TUBAs. The method for assessing the benefits by phase is detailed in Section 5.13.

Established Monetised Impacts

As noted in Section 5.3 above, the Established monetised impacts are used to determine an initial BCR and include;

i. Benefits to road users from the scheme including time savings and savings in vehicle operating costs (VOC);

ii. Benefits to road users from a reduction in delays during periods of maintenance (and dis-benefits due to delays during the scheme construction period);

iii. Accident savings; and

iv. Benefits / dis-benefits from changes to noise and air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.

Items i) and ii) above are referred to as the Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) benefits and are calculated by the programs TUBA and QUADRO respectively.

The Established monetised benefits together with the initial BCR is summarised in Table 5-40 in Section 5.9. This section described how the Established monetised impacts are derived.

The TEE benefits arising from changes in journey times and vehicle operating costs are calculated separately for Business Users and Consumer Users.

Business Benefits are the benefits accrued by business travellers, including car (and van) occupants travelling on employers business. This group also includes HGV drivers. Consumer Users are non-business travellers, in cars and vans.

Commuters are classed as consumers as they are travelling in their own time, not that of their employers.

The TUBA and QUADRO programs includes standard values of time, based on average earnings, with the values for time in the course of work (employers business) being much higher than personal time (including commuting).

The vehicle operating costs are both distance and speed related, and include fuel costs and non-fuel costs, e.g. tyres, maintenance and depreciation.

TUBA Benefits

TUBA takes, as its principal input, zone to zone matrices of trip numbers, times taken and distances travelled. Values of time and operating cost are applied and a 60 year stream of benefits calculated that is discounted to the present value year (defined by the DfT as 2010) and expresses the benefits in 2010 market prices.

By subtracting the road user costs for the Do-Something case (i.e. with the scheme in place) from those for the Do-Minimum case (i.e. without the scheme in place) the net road user benefits are derived.

The benefits are calculated for all users of the network and include those who travel on the new road (A5 WTC) and those travelling on all existing roads. For example, while users of the A5 WTC would experience time savings, users of the old A5 may also experience benefits as average speeds for journeys increase on the old road as a result of traffic relief.

The TEE benefits of the Proposed Scheme calculated by TUBA are presented in Table 5-8 below.

Indirect Total (Including Non- Road User User Time Fuel Tax Indirect Tax fuel Revenue Revenue) Consumer User Benefits (£M)

Commuting 215.12 -5.49 -6.89 2.91 205.65

Other 321.07 -16.91 -17.96 8.96 295.16 Net Consumer 536.19 -22.40 -24.85 11.87 500.81 Benefits Business User Benefits (£M)

Business – Personal 273.17 -6.15 4.24 3.25 274.51

Business – Freight 374.87 -92.02 8.61 48.79 340.25 Net Business 648.04 -98.17 12.86 52.04 614.76 Impact Transport Economic 1,184.23 -120.57 -11.99 63.90 1,115.57 Efficiency Benefits

Table 5-8: Transport User Benefits (£Ms)

Figure 5-4 shows the road user benefits for each year of the economic appraisal period, also at 2010 prices discounted to 2010.

This demonstrates the impact of the introduction of each of the phases and shows a steady increase in annual benefit up to 2043. Beyond 2043 no further growth has

been assumed and annual benefits begin to reduce after discounting, the later they occur in the future.

Total Benefits by Year (£M) 30 25 20 Phase 3 15 Phase 2 Phase 1a 10 Phase 1b 5 0 -5 -10 2019 2024 2029 2034 2039 2044 2049 2054 2059 2064 2069 2074

Total User Benefit User Time Benefit VOC Benefit

Figure 5-4: Road User Benefits by Year (discounted to 2010)

QUADRO Benefits

The costs and benefits as a result of construction and maintenance activities were assessed using the Highways England program QUADRO (QUeues and Delays at Roadworks). This represents a whole life cost over an evaluation period of 60 years.

This evaluation took account of the following:

• Delays to vehicles on the existing A5 during the construction of the scheme; and

• Delays to vehicles associated with maintenance activities on both the existing A5 and the A5WTC.

The A5WTC is largely an offline scheme. Therefore, delays to traffic on the existing A5 carriageway are largely confined to the junction tie-ins.

Maintenance strategies were assessed for both the A5WTC (the do-something) and the existing A5 (the do-minimum). These strategies followed the principles set out in Table 4/1 of the latest version of the Highways England QUADRO Manual.

The maintenance impacts in the do-minimum are significant as the existing A5 is a single carriageway road and so maintenance works require extensive use of shuttle working and diversions using the existing local road network.

The maintenance impacts in the do-something are less severe as the A5WTC is predominantly dual-carriageway and so maintenance works only require lower impact contraflow working. In addition, any vehicles that are subject to diversion are able to utilise the existing A5, reducing the additional delays that would be experienced if the local road network were again required to be utilised.

Construction Work Assumptions

As noted above, the main construction impacts occur at locations where new junctions connect to the existing road network. During each construction phase, the works were assumed to take place during the year prior to opening.

QUADRO assessments were undertaken for each phase at all new junction locations, except those connecting to sections of the existing road network where the modelled two-way Average Annual Hourly Traffic (AAHT) flows were less than 200 vehicles.

The works at each junction were assumed to involve 2 weeks of 24/7 shuttle working and 52 weeks of 24/7 works with one narrow 3.0m wide lane in each direction. The only exceptions were as follows:

• Junction 1 where 34 weeks of 24/7 narrow lanes were assumed;

• Junction 2 where 51 weeks of 24/7 narrow lanes were assumed;

• Junctions 3 and 16 where 4 weeks of 24/7 shuttle working were assumed as the length of the shuttle working section required exceeded the maximum permissible work site length of 500m and so the section was split into two parts with 2 weeks of 24/7 shuttle working assumed on each section; and

• Junction 5 where no shuttle working was assumed.

Temporary speed limits were only assumed on sections of road with a posted speed limit in excess of 40mph and these sections were assumed to experience a

reduction in the posted speed limit to 40mph. Diversion routes were derived for each section using other suitable routes.

Maintenance Work Assumptions

The maintenance strategy adopted followed the principle set out in Table 4/1 of the latest version of the Highways England QUADRO manual, an extract of which is produced in the A5 Western Transport Corridor Economic Assessment Report, included in Appendix G. This provides for maintenance interventions every 10/11 years after the opening of each phase. The first intervention after 11 years being a thin surfacing and the second after a further 11 years being an overlay. Thereafter, maintenance is scheduled every ten years comprising either thin surfacing or inlay depending on carriageway standard, with every other 10 year intervention being an overlay.

For the Do-Minimum, the maintenance works on the existing A5 were assumed to involve shuttle working. Temporary speed limits were only assumed on sections of road with a posted speed limit in excess of 40mph and these sections were assumed to experience a reduction in the posted speed limit to 40mph. Diversion routes were derived for each section using other suitable routes.

For the Do-Something, the maintenance works comprised of single lane contraflow working with a reduction in the posted speed limit of 20mph assumed. Diversion routes were derived based on vehicles making use of the existing A5.

Works durations for both the do-minimum and do-something were based on the durations set out in Table 4/1 of the latest version of the Highways England QUADRO Manual for respective carriageway standards.

The results of the QUADRO assessment are presented in Table 5-9. All monetised values are at 2010 prices and discounted to 2010.

Impact on Road User Benefit (£M)

Construction -£1.94

Maintenance £57.54

Total £55.60

Table 5-9: Road User Benefits from QUADRO (Maintenance and Delays during Construction)

The disbenefit to road user traffic due to construction is assessed as -£1.94M; the benefit as a consequence of reducing the impact of future maintenance activities is £57.54M. The resultant net benefit is assessed as £55.60M.

The total TEE benefits calculated by the TUBA and QUADRO assessments, as presented respectively in Table 5-8 and Table 5-9, is £1,171.17M.

Accident Reduction Benefits

The assessment of the benefits associated with the reduction in accidents associated with the provision of the total scheme was undertaken using COBALT, the DfT’s program for calculating the cost benefit analysis from savings in accidents. The appraisal used the latest COBALT parameter file 2016.2 (released 16 th December 2016).

COBALT assesses the safety aspects of road schemes by calculating the number of accidents on each link in each year of the evaluation period with and without the Scheme.

COBALT can either calculate accidents for road links and road junctions separately or combined. For the appraisal for the Proposed Scheme the combined link and junction accidents were assessed using assignment results from the traffic model as inputs.

The numbers of observed accidents on the existing A5 through the study area were collated from recorded accident data over a 5 year period from 2011 to 2015. For other roads, a set of standard rates was used.

COBALT also calculates a severity split using standard factors which estimate the number of accidents classified by injury severity of fatal, serious or slight. COBALT applies the costs per accident severity to establish the economic cost of accidents over the appraisal period.

Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) flows were taken from the SATURN model assignment for the forecast years used in each model stages to reflect the phased construction of the scheme.

The COBALT program was run for the four stages separately. The accident benefits for the first stage, Phase 1a, were calculated for the two years from 2019 to 2020, whilst the accident benefits with the first and second stages, Phase 1a and Phase 1b, were calculated for the two years from 2021 to 2022. For the third

stage, Phases 1a, 1b and Phase 2 the benefits were calculated for 2023 to 2028 and the accident benefits for the complete scheme calculated for the remaining 51 years, making a total of 60 subsequent years from 2019.

A fixed trip matrix approach was adopted in accordance with the WebTAG guidance.

The projected changes in the numbers of accidents, over the appraisal period for the proposed scheme are presented in Table 5-10 below.

The COBALT analysis estimates that 2,016 accidents would be saved by 2078 as a result of the scheme.

Accident Summary ‘Without’ Scheme ‘With’ Scheme Accidents Reduction in accidents Accidents 38,734 36,718 2,016

Table 5-10: Accident savings over 60 years

COBALT also provides a summary of the predicted number of casualties saved as a result of the scheme. This is presented in Table 5-11 below.

Casualty Summary Total ‘Without’ Total ‘With’ Scheme Total Casualties Saved

Scheme Casualties Casualties by Scheme Fatal 458 439 19

Serious 5,006 4,691 315

Slight 47,470 45,056 2,414

TOTAL 52,934 50,186 2,748

Table 5-11: Casualty savings over 60 years

The economic benefit of the accident savings was calculated by comparing the cost of accidents over the 60 year appraisal period, with and without the scheme, at 2010 prices, discounted to 2010.

The benefits arising from the accident savings are summarised in Table 5-12 below.

Economic Summary ‘Without’ Scheme ‘With’ Scheme Accident Total Accident Benefits Accident Costs (£M) Costs (£M) Saved by Scheme (£M) £1,985.73 £1,880.05 £105.68

Table 5-12: Present value of accident savings over 60 years (2010 prices, discounted to 2010)

The total predicted accident benefits are £105.68 million .

Environmental Impacts

Monetised impacts were calculated for noise, greenhouse gases and air quality.

The change in greenhouse gas emissions, local air quality and noise levels as a result of the scheme was assessed using the traffic forecasts from the A5WTC model.

Monetary values were calculated in accordance with the methodology set out in TAG Unit A3 (Environmental Impact Appraisal) .

In the context of the greenhouse gases assessment, the pollutant of concern is

carbon dioxide (CO 2) which is empirically related to fuel consumption. Any increase in road traffic (and subsequent increase in fuel consumption) as a result of the scheme would result in a net increase in greenhouse gases emitted.

Local air quality takes account of the emissions of PM 10 (particulate matter less

than 10µm aerodynamic diameter) and NO 2 (nitrogen dioxide) in the near locality to the scheme.

The approach to appraising local air quality is based on a quantification of the change in concentrations at properties within the vicinity of the transport network.

The monetised impacts of noise, greenhouse gasses and local air quality, discounted to 2010 are summarised in Table 5-13. A detailed breakdown of these impacts are shown in Appendix E.

Environmental Impacts Quantified Benefits (£M)

Greenhouse Gases -£103.94

Local Air Quality £9.61

Noise £4.33

Total Monetised Environmental Impacts -£90.00

Table 5-13: Monetised Environmental Impacts

The UK Government produced the UK plan for tackling roadside nitrogen oxide concentrations in July 2017 in which it stated its intention that conventional carbon- fuelled car and van sales would end by 2040, and for almost every car and van on the road to be a zero emission vehicle by 2050.

Accordingly, it is acknowledged that the proposed modal shift to electric and hybrid vehicles would bring an improvement to traffic related emissions. It is noted that the WebTAG calculations used in the Air Quality Valuation and Greenhouse Gases do not implicitly take into account these potential benefits, however projected fleet composition data and fleet composition based on European emission standards up to Euro 6, as contained within the most recently published emissions factor toolkit (v7.0) were utilised in the derivation of Greenhouse Gases and Air Quality Valuation assessments.

The Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE), Public Accounts (PA) and Analysis of Monestised Costs and Benefits (AMCB) tables are included in the A5 Western Transport Corridor Economic Appraisal Report, included in Appendix G.

Evolving Monetised Impacts

In accordance with the latest DfT Value of Money Framework, evolving monetised impacts capture those benefits where some evidence exists to support the estimation of a monetary value but is less widely accepted and researched. They are included, together with the Established monetised impacts, to derive an

adjusted BCR. For the A5WTC appraisal, the evolving monetised impacts include wider impacts and journey time reliability benefits.

The contribution of bth the Established and Evolving monetised benefits to the adjusted BCR is summarised in Table 5-41 in Section 5.9. This section described how the Evolving monetised impacts are derived.

Wider Impacts

Wider Impacts is the current term for the quantities previously known as Wider Economic Benefits.

Wider Impacts are defined in TAG Unit A2.1 (Wider Impacts) . They involve the following components:

i. Agglomeration Benefits – These arise from the positive link between density and productivity. When employment clusters together, the jobs in the cluster are likely to be more productive than they otherwise would be, due to better access to labour, increased competition between suppliers and greater interaction between businesses spreading knowledge;

ii. Increase in Output in Markets with Imperfect Competition – In markets which are dominated by a few suppliers, prices may be above the quantity which would occur in competitive markets. Transport investment may induce a price reduction and an increase in the quantity supplied, through its impact upon firms’ cost base. This benefit is calculated as 10% of the benefits to business users, which are extracted from the TUBA appraisal; and

iii. Move to More or Less Productive Jobs – If a transport scheme causes a relocation of jobs, this may lead to a change in productivity, for example, if jobs were to move from an area of low to high productivity. DfT WebTAG advises that this impact can only be valued if a Land Use-Transport

Interaction (LUTI) model is used, and even then it can only be included as a sensitivity test.

The assessment of the Wider Impacts that has been carried out for the A5WTC takes account of items (i) and (ii) only. Item (iii) was not assessed as this would require a LUTI model (which has not been developed).

An assessment of the Agglomeration benefits of the Proposed Scheme (item i) was undertaken by Volterra. This focused on the increase in productivity resulting from the improvements in connectivity achieved by the Proposed Scheme.

The assessment was carried out in line with the WebTAG guidance set out in TAG Unit A2.1.

A stream of agglomeration benefits was calculated for a 60 year period from the opening of the final Phase of the scheme in 2028 and converted into a Present Value by discounting to a base year of 2010.

It should be noted that the 60 year period for the agglomeration benefits differs from the 60 year period adopted for TUBA that uses the opening year for Phase 1a (2019) in order to reflect the traffic changes due to the Phased opening of the scheme. This is not considered an important issue for the purpose of calculating the agglomeration benefits.

The benefit associated with the ‘Increase in output in markets with imperfect competition’ (item ii) was calculated by adding a value worth 10% of the time savings to business users from the TUBA appraisal, as advised by TAG Unit A2.1 .

The Wider Impacts for the Proposed Scheme are presented in Table 5-14 below.

Wider Impact Value discounted to 2010 (£M)

Agglomeration £148.60

Increase in output in markets with imperfect competition £56.30

TOTAL £204.90

Table 5-14: Wider Impacts

The detailed methodology that includes an analysis of the benefits including the spatial distribution is described in “A5 Western Transport Corridor, Wider

Economic Benefits: A Technical Note by Volterra Partners”, dated June 2017 (included in Appendix F).

Journey Time Reliability Benefits

Benefits accruing through improved journey time reliability were assessed using TAG Unit A1.3 (User and Provider Impacts) .

For journeys on predominantly single carriageways outside urban areas WebTAG recommends a ‘stress’ based approach which reflects the situation where journey time reliability is believed to reduce as flows approach capacity. The predicted flows for a key link on the existing and new road are compared with the Congestion Reference Flow (CRF) and this ratio is quantified as the level of stress. The CRF represents an estimate of the total Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) flow at which the carriageway is likely to be ‘congested’ in the peak periods. The CRF is defined in TA 46/97 (DMRB Volume 5, Section 1, Part 3).

A worksheet is provided in TAG Unit A1.3 (Worksheet B1, in Appendix C5) which sets out the method for determining the overall stress relief as a numerical value. This is calculated as the product of AADT and stress relief summed for both the existing and new carriageway. For the calculation, the stress levels are limited to the range 75-125% i.e. stress in excess of 125% is set to an upper bound of 125% and stress below 75% is set to a lower bound of 75%.

The numerical value for stress relief is then categorised as follows:

Numerical Assessment of Stress Relief Category WebTAG Numerical Bands Stress < 200,000 Neutral

200,000 < Stress < 1m Slight

1m < Stress < 3m Moderate

3m < Stress Large

Table 5-15: Stress Relief Categories

TAG Unit A1.3 indicates that the calculation should be carried out for the ‘key’ link on the Old Road and the Proposed Scheme. It does not specifically explain how this should be undertaken for a large scheme, such as the A5WTC, where there are many ‘key’ links. The calculations have been undertaken for each section between junctions and then aggregated by weighting the assessed stress levels

by vehicle-kilometres. The assessed numerical stress value is presented in Table 5-16 below.

Stress Relief Section Category (WebTAG Numerical Calculation) Newbuildings to 446,657 Slight Aughnacloy

Table 5-16: Assessment of Stress Relief weighted by veh-km

For the whole scheme between Newbuildings to Aughnacloy a value of 446,657 is assessed which falls within the slight category.

Reliability benefits have previously been estimated by the DfT by applying uplifts of 5%, 10% and 20% of the total road user time savings (determined for example using TUBA). These provide an indicative measure of reliability benefits to reflect Slight, Moderate or Large impacts respectively.

This would translate to an uplift on journey time benefits of 5% as set out in Table 5-17 below.

Benefit (£M) Whole Phase Sum of Scheme Phases 1a 1b 2 3 Assessment Road User Time £90.83 £116.96 £909.70 £47.56 £1,165.05 £1,184.23 Savings Journey Time Reliability Benefits @ 5% of £4.54 £5.85 £45.49 £2.38 £58.26 £59.21 Road User Time Savings

Table 5-17: Assessment of Monetary Benefit for Journey Time Reliability

It is noted that the sum of the benefits by Phase are slightly different to the whole scheme assessment. This is due to the difference in the evaluation periods, with the benefits from the full scheme being evaluated over a 60 year period from opening of Phase 1a in 2019, whereas the benefits for each Phase were based on four evaluation periods from the respective year of opening. The differences are less than 2% and therefore not significant to the overall assessment.

Non-Monetised Impacts – Complete Scheme

This assessment of non-monetised impacts encompassed a quantitative and qualitative assessment of the following:

• Noise;

• Air quality;

• Greenhouse gases;

• Landscape;

• Heritage;

• Biodiversity; and

• Water environment.

It is noted that monetised values for Noise, Air Quality and Greenhouse gasses were calculated and reported in Section 5.6 above.

Noise

The noise assessment considered the impacts of the Proposed Scheme on the noise and vibration level on nearby receptors during the construction phase and during operation of the Proposed Scheme. The main objective was to determine whether the Proposed Scheme would result in noise or vibration nuisance at the receptors.

The assessment demonstrated that overall, there would be a beneficial impact with more sensitive receptors experiencing a reduction in road noise compared to those that would experience an increase.

Road noise would be reduced by the introduction of noise barriers at targeted locations and the use of low noise surfacing.

The assessments of the change in short term and long term noise levels are presented in Table 5-18 and Table 5-19 respectively.

Change in Short Term noise level Dwellings 0.1 - 0.9 1,937

Increase in noise level, L A10, 18h , 1.0 - 2.9 2,112 dB 3.0 - 4.9 871 5 + 1,008

No change 0 285

0.1 - 0.9 2,932

Decrease in noise level, L A10, 1.0 - 2.9 5,715 18h , dB 3.0 - 4.9 1,187 5 + 249

Table 5-18: Short term Noise Assessment

Change in Long Term noise level Dwellings 0.1 - 2.9 2,894

Increase in noise level, L A10, 18h , 3.0 - 4.9 901 dB 5.0 - 9.9 679 10 + 480

No change 0 171

0.1 - 2.9 7,644

Decrease in noise level, L A10, 3.0 - 4.9 2,534 18h , dB 5.0 - 9.9 949 10 + 44

Table 5-19: Long term Noise Assessment

The assessment of traffic-related noise once the Proposed Scheme is open demonstrated that, taking mitigation into account, there would be more reductions in noise level than increases, with traffic being re-routed away from where larger numbers of sensitive receptors within towns on the existing A5, onto the A5WTC, impacting on fewer sensitive receptors overall.

In light of the number and order of predicted increases allowing for mitigation and the distribution throughout the Proposed Scheme corridor, this would constitute a Slight Beneficial impact on the environment.

The assessments of construction related noise and construction traffic noise have both established that impacts would be of relatively short duration in any one

location during the intended three-year phases of construction and that the predicted impacts would not constitute a significant effect on the environment.

Air Quality

The air quality impacts depend upon changes in traffic flows, composition, speeds and distance travelled as a result of the scheme.

Emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NO x), including nitrogen dioxide (NO 2) and

particulates with an aerodynamic diameter of 10µm or less (PM 10 ) are of particular concern in urban areas with respect to human health and ecosystems.

Sensitive receptors for air quality include:

• Residential dwellings;

• Designated ecological sites;

• Nurseries and care homes;

• Hospitals; and

• Schools.

A high level review of potential air quality impacts of the scheme has been undertaken, based on atmospheric dispersion modelling (ADMS-Roads) of vehicle emissions associated with traffic links affected by the proposed scheme for the opening year (2028). The traffic data review and air quality modelling was based on the provision of updated traffic datasets for Phase 3 of the Proposed Scheme.

Modelled road links, with a forecast change in annual average daily traffic (AADT) flow of more than 1,000 and less than -1,000 were identified. The number of identified sensitive properties included as part of the OBC were then attributed to the nearest modelled road link and its corresponding change in AADT flow to provide a comparison, which is presented in Table 5-20.

Local Air Quality Impacts AADT flow change No. modelled road links No. receptors

Increase >1,000 854 3,022 (29.4%) Decrease <-1,000 668 4,944 (48.1%) Between -1,000 and +1,000 474 2,305 (22.5%) Total 1,996 10,271 (100%)

Table 5-20: Local air quality impacts

Table 5-20 shows that 48.1% of the sensitive receptors are predicted to experience a reduction in AADT flow of over 1,000 as a result of the introduction of the Proposed Scheme.

Air quality modelling was utilised to predict the potential impact of changes to

vehicle emissions on air pollutant concentrations (NO 2, PM 10 ) at the identified sensitive receptors. These impacts are provided in Table Table 5-21 below. Number of Receptors Total Pollutant Reduction in Increase in No Change in Concentration Concentration Concentration

NO 2 7,086 2,910 275 10,271

PM 10 6,137 1,317 2,817 10,271

Table 5-21: Potential impact on air pollutant concentrations at the identified sensitive receptors

The local air quality modelling predicted that concentrations of nitrogen dioxide

(NO 2) would decrease at 7,086 (69%) of the 10,271 identified receptors, increase

at 2,910 (28%), with no change at 275 (3%). Similarly, concentrations of PM 10 are predicted to decrease at 6,137 receptors (60%), increase at 1,317 (13%) with no change at 2,817 (27%) with the Proposed Scheme in operation.

Local air quality is characterised by pollutants with short term, immediate impacts. The local air quality assessments have demonstrated that more people would benefit from reduced concentrations of key pollutants (nitrogen dioxide and particulates) rather than have increases in concentrations, as a result of changes in traffic flows and characteristics should the Proposed Scheme be implemented.

As a result of the long range nature of the impact of some pollutants, a consideration of the change in emissions resulting from a scheme is therefore useful in the context of regional air pollution.

Regional emissions as a result of the scheme were predicted by the generation of annual link emissions via Defra’s latest Emissions Factor Toolkit (v7.0) and are based on the provision of updated traffic datasets for Phase 3 of the Proposed Scheme.

The regional emissions assessment has demonstrated that emissions of nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons and particulate matter associated with changes in regional traffic flows and characteristics (i.e. vehicle speed) as a result of implementation of the Proposed Scheme would increase but not be significant.

The pollutants of concern included are oxides of nitrogen (NO x), particulate matter

(PM 10 ) and carbon dioxide (CO 2). The results are contained in Table 5-22.

Regional Emissions (Tonnes / Year) Distance Pollutant Travelled NO x PM 10 CO 2 (Vehicle km) Do-Minimum (DM) (2028) 241 52 288,479 4,650,885 Do-Something (DS) (2028) 269 56 318,366 4,980,279 Change (2028) 28 3 29,887 329,393 % Change (DS-DM 2028) 11.5% 6.3% 10.4% 7.1% Do-Minimum (DM) (2043) 266 59 326,514 5,297,394 Do-Something (DS) (2043) 301 64 366,697 5,718,570 Change (2043) 34 4 40,183 421,176 % Change (DS-DM 2043) 12.9% 7.4% 12.3% 8.0%

Table 5-22: Regional air quality impacts

Although there would be improvements in local air quality due to a decrease in the

concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO 2) at a number of receptors, the total mass

emissions of all pollutants (NO X, PM 10 ) and CO 2 are predicted to increase as a result of the implementation of the Proposed Scheme. This is predominantly a function of the increased number of vehicle kilometres travelled on the affected road network with the Proposed Scheme in operation.

The value of change in air quality is based on the total of present value of change

in NO x emissions (regional air quality) and the present value of change in PM 10

concentrations (local air quality) over a 60-year appraisal period (2028 – 2087). A positive value reflects a net benefit (i.e. air quality improvement).

The total value of change in local air quality for the proposed A5WTC is calculated to be £9,609,460 36 as reported in Table 5-13 in Section 5.6, thus representing an air quality improvement. Therefore, an overall assessment of Slight Beneficial has been applied as a result of the Proposed Scheme at this stage.

Greenhouse Gases

Greenhouse gas impacts depend upon changes in traffic flows, composition, speeds and distance travelled as a result of the scheme. As such, the proposed scheme is expected to have an impact on levels of greenhouse gas emissions.

As defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, GHG emissions

are expressed as tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO 2e) for the purposes of this appraisal.

The UK is legally bound by the Climate Change Act 2008 to achieve a target to reduce GHG emissions to at least 80% below base year (1990) levels by 2050.

For the purposes of the OBC, the Department for Transport Greenhouse Gases workbook, as per TAG Unit A3 (Environmental Impact Appraisal) was used to assess the impacts of the scheme over a 60 year appraisal period (2028 – 2087). The spreadsheet calculates and evaluates the discounted present value of

changes in CO 2e for non-traded (i.e. petrol, diesel, fuel oil) and traded (e.g. electricity) fuel consumption. The results are reported in Table 5-23.

Appraisal 60 Year Period GHG Emissions

Emissions Class (tCO 2e) Change (tCO 2e) Do Minimum Do Something

Non-traded 19,286,541 21,615,166 2,328,625

Traded 0 0 0

Table 5-23: Change in greenhouse gas emissions (TAG Greenhouse Gases outputs) 37

36 Based on output calculation provided by TAG Unit A3 Air Quality Valuation Workbook (‘ A5 WTC_tag-workbook-AIR QUALITY-valuation-Jun17.xlsx ’ 37 Based on output calculation provided by TAG Unit A3 Greenhouse Gases Workbook (‘ A5 WTC_tag-workbook-GREENHOUSE GASES-valuation-Jun17.xlsx ’)

Table 5-23 shows that the Proposed Scheme is expected to increase non-traded

greenhouse gas emissions by 2,328,625 tCO 2e and constitutes a Large Adverse impact. As reported in Table 5-13 in Section 5.6 this equates to a dis-benefit of £103,940,661 across the 60-year appraisal period.

With regard to the opening year (2028), the change in tCO 2e in non-traded

emissions (29,887 tCO 2e) would equate to a NPV loss of £1,125,872.

Landscape

The impacts of the Proposed Scheme on the landscape is summarised for three sections of the A5 corridor: Newbuildings to Strabane, Strabane to Omagh and Omagh to Aughnacloy. The impacts are described in detail in the Environmental Statement.

Newbuildings to Strabane:

The Foyle Valley has an open, expansive character, its eastern margins linked by the A5 road corridor around which the majority of settlement is focused. The valley is framed by the Sperrin and Donegal hills, with locally prominent hills rising from the broad river floodplain. Pastoral farmland defines the hill slopes above the more developed local valleys.

The Proposed Scheme would run broadly in parallel with the existing A5, maintaining a similar relationship through the valley landscape between Londonderry and Strabane. Effects on landscape character would relate to the proximity of the route to the river setting south of Newbuildings, which would impact locally upon the designated Area of High Scenic Value.

The proposed cutting through Sollus Hill at Bready would affect the profile of this locally prominent hill slope, although mitigation of the cutting and its transitions would reduce the severity of this impact. Effects would be evident where the Proposed Scheme encroaches onto the floodplain south of Bready and towards Strabane, where the route runs on embankment and would initially be exposed; maturation of planting would integrate the scheme within a landscape that is characterised by its linear form and features.

Across Strabane, the alignment of the Proposed Scheme alongside the existing A5 corridor would not markedly change the nature of the towns setting and relationship with the Foyle in the longer term. South of the Mourne crossing, the

diversion of the Proposed Scheme along the margins of the River Finn have a locally significant effect on the landscape quality of the river setting.

Between Newbuildings and Strabane the Proposed Scheme will have an overall Moderate Adverse impact on the landscape, with 0.9km (5%) experiencing a Large Adverse impact, 13km (68%) experiencing a Moderate Adverse impact and 5.1km (27%) experiencing a Slight Adverse impact.

Of the 2,871 properties assessed as potentially having a view of the Proposed Scheme (19km), 539 properties (19%) would remain subject to an adverse visual effect at Design Year. 203 properties (7%) would remain subject to a moderate or large adverse visual impact.

Strabane to Omagh:

The Proposed Scheme would by-pass the historic centre of Sion Mills, heading broadly south along the course of the Mourne and Strule river valleys towards Omagh. The route would run across rising ground west of the existing A5 corridor, somewhat more exposed in aspect though remaining within the perceived confines of the river valleys. The cultural legacy of settlement, transportation and landscape utilisation within the river valleys has generated a character that would be further influenced by the Proposed Scheme.

At Newtownstewart the landscape setting of Harry Avery’s Castle (State Care Monument) would be significantly affected locally where the Proposed Scheme passes to its immediate south, and within the wider Baronscourt Valley landscape.

The Strule Valley is encompassed by the western limits of the Sperrin AONB and the Proposed Scheme would pass within its designation. The existing A5 corridor is a feature of this locally attractive landscape setting, with the valley and its meandering river framed by the hill slopes of Bessy Bell and the Sperrin Hills.

Although the Proposed Scheme would be a more visible element of the valley landscape, particularly in early years as new planting establishes, the character impact would be mostly confined to the immediate valley and the context of the AONB setting would not dramatically change.

Approaching Omagh the Proposed Scheme would negotiate a landscape of drumlin farmland and scattered woodland, largely contained by landform and bypassing the town to its west. Character impacts would be very much localised due

to the nature of the terrain, although the rural margins of the town would be physically eroded.

Between Strabane and Omagh the Scheme would have an overall Slight Adverse impact on the landscape, with 1.4km (5%) experiencing a Large Adverse impact, 6.4km (24%) experiencing a Moderate Adverse impact and 19.7km (71%) experiencing a Slight Adverse impact.

Of the 715 properties assessed as potentially having a view of the Proposed Scheme (27.6km length), 163 properties (23%) would remain subject to an adverse visual effect at Design Year. 79 properties (11%) would remain subject to a moderate or large adverse visual effect.

Omagh to Aughnacloy:

The Proposed Scheme would depart from the existing A5 corridor alignment, passing through a cohesive rural and tranquil landscape of drumlin topography that rises toward the Brougher Ridge. The nature of the drumlin terrain would accommodate the route alignment without widespread character impact; however the transition of the ridge line between Tycanny and Errigal would place the Proposed Scheme in a sensitive and visually appealing landscape setting with a consequent large and adverse effect across the ridge setting.

The crossing of the existing A4 corridor and modified road links near Ballygawley would extend the influence of traffic movement to the west of the town. Towards Aughnacloy the Proposed Scheme would pass through a defined and visually appealing drumlin landscape, crossing the existing A5 corridor before bypassing the town to its east. The character of the town itself would not be significantly impacted upon, although the road corridor would present an erosion of the rural drumlin landscape surrounding the town.

Between Omagh and Aughnacloy the Scheme would have an overall Slight Adverse impact on the landscape, with 3.5km (9%) experiencing a Large Adverse impact, 4.7km (12%) experiencing a Moderate Adverse impact and 29.3km (74%) experiencing a Slight Adverse impact.

Of the 486 properties assessed as potentially having a view of the Proposed Scheme (39.4km length), 183 properties (38%) would remain subject to an adverse

visual effect at Design Year. 161 properties (33%) would remain subject to a moderate or large adverse visual effect.

Historic Environment

The assessments focused on likely impacts and effects relative to archaeological resources, built heritage and historic landscapes.

The assessment of archaeological resources indicated that the Proposed Scheme would have an impact on 66 sites and features identified during the studies of documents and records and the site-based investigations undertaken to date. The impact on 55 of these would be neutral or slight adverse, the impact on 8 would be moderate adverse and the impact on 3 would be large adverse.

Six of the 8 which would be subject to moderate adverse impact are Scheduled Monuments. Two of the three which would be subject to large adverse impact are State Care Monuments. The impact on the two State Care Monuments would be on the setting of both sites, Harry Avery’s Castle and Errigal Keerogue Graveyard. The third site which would be subject to large adverse impact was identified during site investigations in 2013 and comprises an enclosure and burnt mound of low cultural heritage value.

The impacts on the setting of Harry Avery’s Castle and Errigal Keerogue Graveyard would constitute significant effects on the environment.

The assessment of built heritage resources has indicated the Proposed Scheme would have an impact on 25 sites identified during the studies of documents and records and the site-based investigations undertaken to date.

The impact on 22 of these would be neutral or slight adverse, the impact on two would be moderate adverse and the impact on one would be large adverse.

The one resource which would be subject to a large adverse impact is Castletown House, a grade B1 listed building located on the western fringe of Strabane, which would be demolished to accommodate the Proposed Scheme.

The assessment of historic landscapes identified five historic landscape types along and in the vicinity of the Proposed Scheme corridor; enclosed land, settlements, communications and industry, woodland and parks and recreation.

The first two were classified as being of medium cultural heritage value and the remaining three as being of low cultural heritage value.

It was concluded that the introduction of the Proposed Scheme into the existing pattern of historic landscapes would not constitute a significant effect on the environment.

Biodiversity

The assessments focused on likely impacts and effects relative to designated sites, habitats and fauna associated with the Proposed Scheme corridor and surrounding areas. The assessments investigated impacts and likely effects on 4 Special Protection Areas (SPAs) (3 of which are Ramsar sites), 4 Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) (3 of which are also ASSIs), 4 other ASSIs and 1 Local Nature Reserve.

With proposed mitigation in place, the impacts and effects for all of the designated sites would not constitute a significant effect on the environment individually or in combination.

The assessments investigated impacts and likely effects on river habitats and on woodland and scrub, grassland and marsh, bog, ponds, hedgerows and veteran trees and bryophytes.

Taking into account the nature and extent of habitat loss, potential for deterioration in habitat quality and mitigation measures focused on the protection of retained habitats and habitat creation, it was concluded that impacts and effects relative to all but one habitat type would not constitute a significant effect on the environment.

The exception comprises the loss of long established ancient woodland at Mulvin Park and Routing Burn which would constitute a significant effect on the environment. The assessments investigated likely impacts and effects on fish, salmon and trout in particular, and on otter, bats, red squirrel, pine marten, badger, Irish hare, deer, breeding birds, wintering birds and smooth newt.

There are a number of key constraints within the scheme footprint and in proximity to the Proposed Scheme, in particular the presence of 8 (eight) Natura 2000 sites and three Ramsar sites that the Proposed Scheme would interact with, however, mitigation proposals within the scheme design have significantly reduced these

impacts to protected and / or sensitive sites and species. As such the majority of the constraints identified are considered to have a neutral appraisal score.

Some adverse impacts remain, including the loss of open water, aquatic flora and bryophytes on a number of watercourses and loss of habitat or disturbance to species such as newts and breeding birds. However, the scheme also provides beneficial impacts through an increase in habitat extent in some areas, including unimproved grassland, woodland and marshy grassland, with associated benefits for species including wintering and breeding birds.

The WebTAG environment assessment concludes an assessment score of Neutral to Moderate Adverse for biodiversity.

Water Environment

There are six Water Framework Directive (WFD) Groundwater Bodies along the length of the Proposed Scheme with a range of sizes. WFD bedrock overall status is Good for the majority of groundwater bodies and has been used to determine the quality and importance values for the entire scheme appraisal, this classification applies to the following bodies; Claudy, Ballybofey, Gortin and Castlederg. WFD bedrock overall status is Poor for the remaining bodies; Omagh and Aughnacloy.

This area is underlain by bedrock geology of generally low groundwater productivity but localised aquifers within superficial deposits, typically glacial sands and gravels in the River Foyle corridor, enabling groundwater abstraction for private water supplies. The study area is considered of high groundwater vulnerability, but lower vulnerability occurs where deep deposits of glacial till act as a barrier.

Tully Bog SAC & ASSI and McKean's Moss ASSI sites are raised bogs which are considered to be primarily rainwater-fed, however, the local groundwater regime may also have an influence.

There are 58 cuttings with the potential for slight / moderate local impact along the Proposed Scheme, with loss of permeable area due to A5WTC construction no greater than 0.1% in any of the WFD groundwater bodies.

There are 24 active well and spring supplies within the A5WTC boundary, which will require decommissioning and alternative supply. In addition, there are 79 nearby groundwater supplies which will be potentially influenced by the scheme.

The main concerns from a water environment perspective relate to the very high water quality features of the Foyle and Tributaries SAC and River Finn SAC, increased flood risk at specific locations and the groundwater regime at Tully Bog SAC & ASSI and McKean's Moss ASSI.

Local water abstractions would be sensitive to effects, particularly in relation to groundwater supplies. The construction phase is considered to be the stage with the highest risk of environmental effect in terms of water quality, with flood risk and groundwater effects of greater concern during operation.

The assessment assumes that the A5WTC detailed design, construction and operational activities shall take account of the design features and mitigation measures identified in both the Environmental Statement and Draft Flood Risk Assessment to protect surface watercourses, stillwater, floodplain and groundwater.

Across surface water, flooding and groundwater appraisal categories, the overall scheme appraisal is evaluated as being of slight adverse effect and therefore not significant .

Social and Distributional Impacts (SDIs) of Complete Scheme

An appraisal of the social impacts of the Proposed Scheme and the distribution of these impacts was carried out using the guidance set out in TAG Units A4.1 (Social Impact Appraisal) and A4.2 (Distributional Impact Appraisal) .

This assessment built upon the assessment of the impacts of the Proposed Scheme on the users of local roads, the results of which are reported in Chapter 14 of the Environmental Statement (ES). This was undertaken with reference to the methodology set out in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB).

Scope of Social Impacts

Guidance on the appraisal of social impacts is set out in TAG Unit A4.1 released by the DfT in November 2014. This defines social impacts as the effects covering

the human experience of the transport system and its impact on social factors, not considered as part of economic or environmental impacts.

A total of 8 social impacts are identified as follows:

• Accidents;

• Physical Activity (walking and cycling);

• Security;

• Severance;

• Journey Quality (perceived physical and social environment experienced while travelling);

• Option and Non-Use Values (changes to the availability of services e.g. closure / opening of bus and rail services);

• Accessibility; and

• Personal Affordability.

Of the above, Accidents, Severance and Personal Affordability are of most relevance to highway schemes and therefore formed the basis for the Social Impact Appraisal undertaken for the Proposed Scheme38 .

Social Impacts – Accidents

The assessment of the Social Impact of accidents was carried out in accordance with TAG Unit A4.1 and comprised:

• The forecast numbers of accidents by severity between the ‘with scheme’ (Do-Something) and ‘without scheme’ (Do-Minimum) scenarios across the whole network;

• Overall accident costs for the Do-Minimum and Do-Something scenarios; and

• Monetised benefits as a result of the change in accident costs.

38 In the context of TAG Unit A4.1, accessibility refers to public transport opportunity which has not been modelled nor scientifically assessed. However, the construction of the A5WTC and © WSP 2017 161

As described in Section 5.6, the DfT program COBALT was used to calculate the number and cost of accidents, between the ‘without scheme’ and ‘with scheme’ scenarios.

The assessment of the reduction on accidents as a result of the Proposed Scheme using COBALT is fully documented in the “A5 Western Transport Corridor, Economic Appraisal Report, (2015 Rebased Traffic Model)” 39 , Appendix G to this OBC.

The value of the prevention of an accident varies by accident type (severity). The number of accidents on a given length of road is expressed as an accident rate, defined as ‘Personal Injury Accidents per million vehicle kilometres’.

Local accident data has been used for the existing A5. It is noted that the local data shows that accident rates are lower than national average rates for single carriageway roads. Therefore the predicted accidents from COBALT will reflect the lower than average rates for the existing A5.

An injury accident is classified according to the most severe casualty and may involve more than one casualty. The severity of the injuries sustained is defined in the following categories:

• Fatality: any death that occurs within 30 days from causes arising out of the accident;

• Serious injury: records casualties who require hospital treatment and have lasting injuries, but who do not die within the recording period for a fatality; and

• Slight injury: where casualties have injuries that do not require hospital treatment, or, if they do, the effects of the injuries quickly subside.

the transfer of traffic off the existing road (and bus) network will provide opportunity for the bus operators to operate a more efficient service and as such provide benefits to the public transport user. 39 A5 Western Transport Corridor, Economic Assessment Report (2015 Rebased Traffic Model), Document Reference: 718736-2700-R-029

Table 5-24 shows the predicted numbers of casualties from COBALT by severity for both with and without scheme forecasts over the 60 year appraisal period, 2019 to 2078. (Note that this table is reproduced from Table 5-11 in Section 5.6).

Number of Accidents Severity No Scheme A5WTC Scheme Difference

Slight 47,470 45,056 -2,414

Serious 5,006 4,691 -315

Fatal 458 439 -19

Total 52,934 50,186 -2,748

Table 5-24: Forecast number of casualties (over 60 years)

Table 5-24 shows the reduction in the total number of casualties and for each type of severity individually. The total reduction in the number of fatal, serious and slight casualties is predicted to be 2,748 .

The costs of accidents by category of severity, together with the net benefits of the Proposed Scheme is summarised in Table 5-25.

Costs (£M) Severity Category No Scheme A5WTC Scheme Difference

Slight £365.79 £347.82 -£17.97

Serious £500.49 £469.94 -£30.55

Fatal £407.67 £390.69 -£16.98

Costs No Scheme A5WTC Scheme Difference

Insurance £19.57 £18.35 -£1.22

Damage £663.30 £625.81 -£37.49

Police £26.89 £25.41 -£1.48

Total £1,983.71 £1,878.02 -£105.68

Table 5-25: Costs of accidents by severity (over 60 years)

Table 5-25 demonstrates that the total reduction in the accident costs as a result of the Proposed Scheme is predicted to be £105.68 million .

Social Impacts – Severance

TAG Unit A4.1 defines community severance as the separation of residents from facilities and services they use within their community. It advises that severance should be assessed based on the impacts on pedestrians. For example, where infrastructure presents a physical barrier to movement or vehicle flows are significant enough to impede pedestrian movement.

Guidance on the assessment of severance impacts is also provided in DMRB Volume 11. This focuses on community facilities and routes affected by severance in various locations.

An assessment of the Proposed Scheme on footpaths and local routes used by pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians e.g. through closure or re-alignment is reported in Chapter 14 of the Environmental Statement. This was undertaken in accordance with the guidelines set out in DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 8 (Pedestrians, Cyclists, Equestrian and Community Effects). This also includes an assessment of the reduction of severance along the existing A5 as a result of traffic transfer to the Proposed Scheme.

WebTAG guidance advises that the impact of a transport scheme on severance should be based on an assessment of the level of severance with and without the scheme at a number of locations across a network.

Additional analysis was therefore carried out that built on the work reported in the ES, to meet the requirements of WebTAG. This encompassed an analysis of the roads experiencing a flow change as a result of the scheme, and an analysis of the impact of changes in traffic flows in the vicinity of schools and pedestrian crossings where pedestrian movements are likely to be high. The additional analysis is described below.

Analysis of changes in link flows

An analysis of traffic flows was carried out to identify links with flow changes of 10% or more as a result of the Proposed Scheme.

The analysis was carried out for the opening year, 2028 and based upon Annual Average Daily traffic flow totals (AADTs). Figure 5-5 shows the links with flow increases and flow decreases of 10% or more.

Figure 5-5: Links with flow changes of greater than 10% lower and 10% higher as a result of the Proposed Scheme (2028 AADT)

Figure 5-5 shows that the number of roads with a decrease in flow far exceeds the numbers experiencing an increase. This demonstrates that there will be a net

reduction in the Severance Impact as a result of the Proposed Scheme, although the extent of the impact will depend upon the character of the individual road.

Schools

WebTAG describes a number of local amenities where severance might be an issue in the context of a proposed transport facility. Given the size of the area affected by the proposed A5WTC, Primary Schools have been selected as a proxy for all community facilities and because they attract a high number of pedestrian access.

A total of 36 schools are located within the traffic model simulation area. These 36 schools are deemed to be affected by flow changes as a result of the Proposed Scheme.

Figure 5-6 shows the location of the schools.

Figure 5-6: Location of primary schools affected by Proposed Scheme

Traffic flows were analysed by defining a 1km buffer around each school in order to capture changes in traffic movements on all potential roads in the catchment of the school.

The flow analysis for each school is presented in Table 5-26. This shows the net change in flow, aggregated across all links within the 1km catchment.

Aggregated flow (2028 AM peak) Primary School Name A5WTC No Scheme Difference Scheme Ardstraw Jubilee Primary School 1,236 237 -81%

Artigarvan Primary School 643 693 8%

Aughnacloy Primary School 8,680 5,836 -33%

Ballougry Primary School, Londonderry 2,382 1,776 -25%

Barrack Street Boys' Primary School 5,840 5,151 -12%

Bready Jubilee Primary School 5,286 323 -94%

Christ the King Primary School 9,334 8,757 -6%

Donemana Primary School 143 98 -31%

Gaelscoil na gCrann 2,826 2,752 -3%

Gaelscoil U¡ Dhochartaigh 7,143 5,946 -17%

Gibson Primary School 19,523 18,632 -5%

Holy Family Primary School 23,516 20,059 -15%

Mcclintock Primary School 1,328 1,129 -15%

Newbuildings Primary School 15,035 7,198 -52%

Newtownstewart Model Primary School 6,210 2,263 -64%

Omagh County Primary School 13,281 13,617 3%

Omagh Integrated Primary School 9,318 6,034 -35%

Recarson Primary School 442 398 -10%

Richmond Primary School 10,856 5,041 -54%

Roscavey Primary School 5,500 1,416 -74%

Sion Mills Primary School 9,718 4,168 -57%

St Anne's Primary School 4,082 3,595 -12%

St Columba's Primary School, Clady 2,070 2,332 13% St Columba's Primary School, 12,367 5,585 -55% Newbuildings St Conor's Primary School 16,883 14,407 -15%

St Eugene's Primary School 9,296 6,203 -33%

St Malachy's Primary School, Glencull 2,518 486 -81%

St Mary's Primary School, Aughnacloy 9,739 6,441 -34%

St Mary's Primary School, Ballygawley 11,462 5,810 -49%

St Mary's Primary School, Cloughcor 2,761 185 -93%

Aggregated flow (2028 AM peak) Primary School Name A5WTC No Scheme Difference Scheme St Mary's Primary School, Omagh 9,211 9,263 1%

St Mary's Primary School, Strabane 15,679 6,457 -59%

St Matthew's Primary School 4,998 936 -81%

St Patrick's Primary School 3,582 1,604 -55%

St Theresa's Primary School 1,664 1,744 5%

Strabane Controlled Primary School 19,107 9,958 -48%

All Affected Primary Schools 283,659 186,527 -34%

Table 5-26: Traffic flow changes on roads nearby school affected by the Proposed Scheme

Of the 36 schools analysed, 31 would experience a net reduction in flow on roads within the 1km catchment area, ranging from 3 to 93%. Five schools are predicted to experience a slight increase in flows, ranging from 1 to 13%. In total there is predicted to be a net reduction in traffic flows across all schools of some 34%.

Pedestrian Crossings

An important aspect of severance is the difficulty in crossing roads. In order to assess this element of severance, each pedestrian crossing place along the A5 within the study area was identified and the traffic flow with and without the scheme at each crossing was extracted from the traffic model.

The crossings included within the analysis includes crossings at road junctions, standalone signalised pedestrian crossings and non-signalised pedestrian crossings.

A total of 34 locations were identified that contained 48 crossing places. These 34 locations are shown in Figure 5-7.

Figure 5-7: Location of pedestrian crossing facilities

For the purposes of the analysis, where pedestrian crossings are located at road junctions, the flows on each arm of the junction were extracted. Overall, the analysis showed that traffic flows decrease at 43 of the 48 crossing places and increase at only four locations, with no change in traffic flows at one location. It

should be further noted that 31 of the 48 crossings (65%) experience a flow reduction greater than 50%.

Social Impacts – Personal Affordability

Personal affordability is a social impact that relates to the monetary cost of travel which can be a major barrier to mobility for certain groups of people.

The assessment of personal affordability was based on an analysis of the change in vehicle operating costs as a result of the Proposed Scheme. The change in vehicle operating costs was analysed for separate income groups and is therefore a key distributional impact.

This analysis is presented in the following section below alongside other Distributional Impacts.

Distributional Analysis of User Benefits

User benefits from a scheme, comprising journey time savings, are experienced in certain areas / locations and by different groups of people. While it is not possible to attribute social impacts to user benefits, TAG Unit 4.2 requires that an assessment of the distribution of benefits be carried out to determine the impact amongst different income groups.

The distributional impacts of user benefits uses the time benefits of the scheme, as output from TUBA. The distributional Impact analysis is carried out for non- business journeys since these impacts are experienced by individuals. Business related journeys are excluded.

The distributional impact analysis for the Proposed Scheme is based on Northern Ireland Indices of Multiple Deprivation (NIIMD). NIIMDs were obtained for each area in Northern Ireland from NINIS at Ward (and Super Output Area) level.

There are some 580 Wards in NI and 880 SOAs. These were matched against the traffic model zones as the analysis uses data from the TUBA appraisal. A system of 220 zones for the SDI analysis were defined to facilitate the comparison of NIIMD data and TUBA outputs.

The NIIMDs were ranked in quintiles ranging from the most deprived to the least deprived areas for each SDI zone together with population data from the 2011 Census.

The benefits comprising user time benefits for non-business journeys, i.e. commuting and other purposes, were extracted from the TUBA economic appraisal. The benefits were then aggregated for each SDI zone individually across Northern Ireland only and allocated to a category of deprivation. The benefits were then summed by category to provide a total value of benefits for each quintile of deprivation and expressed as a proportion or ‘share’ of the benefits.

The distribution of user benefits in presented in Table 5-27.

NI Multiple Deprivation Measures 2010 - Income Domains Most deprived Least deprived Total 0%<20% 20%<40% 40%<60% 60%<80% 80%<100% Total Benefits (£M) £145.75 £163.41 £92.63 £64.61 £20.32 £486.72

Total Disbenefits (£M) £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0

Share of User Benefits 30% 34% 19% 13% 4% 100%

Share of User Disbenefits ------

Share of Population 20% 18% 18% 20% 23% 100%

Assessment +++ +++ ++ + +

Table 5-27: Distribution of User Benefits

Table 5-27 demonstrates that the total benefits, excluding indirect tax revenue, amount to some £486.72M at 2010 prices discounted to 2010 with the highest benefits accruing to the most deprived areas.

The assessment score follows the example given in TAG Unit A4.2 , where 3 pluses (ticks in WebTAG) are allocated where the benefits (for any quintile) exceed the % population by 5% or more. The two most deprived quintiles both have 3 pluses.

Distributional Analysis of Accident Benefits

TAG Unit A4.2 advises that the Distributional Impact analysis should consider vulnerable groups of road users who may be particularly prone to accidents. These include:

• Children;

• Older People;

• Young Males (as drivers);

• Motorcyclists; and

• Cyclists.

The social impact of the Proposed Scheme was described in Section 5.8.6 above. This showed that there would be a reduction in accidents resulting in an overall benefit.

The purpose of the distributional assessment is to identify whether, within the overall benefit, there are specific vulnerable groups potentially disadvantaged by the Proposed Scheme.

The screening process set out in WebTAG requires that if the intervention is likely to cause significant changes to traffic, then a distributional assessment of accidents should be undertaken.

In the ‘ Social Impacts – Severance’ section, Figure 5-5 identified links for which traffic flows change by more or less than 10%. This showed that the Proposed Scheme would provide relief to the majority of the existing road network but with a number of connecting roads to the Proposed Scheme showing increases in traffic

flow. It was therefore determined that a distributional appraisal for accidents should be undertaken.

An analysis of the observed accident data was carried out in order to identify whether any of the specific vulnerable groups represented a significantly higher proportion compared with the national average for Northern Ireland. Where this was shown to be the case, then further analysis was carried out to assess the impact of the Proposed Scheme in relation to the specific vulnerable groups and whether there is a beneficial or adverse impact.

Observed (PIA) accident data was obtained from Police Service Northern Ireland (PSNI) records for the 5 years 2011-2015 inclusive. This data was analysed to identify the proportion of accidents that include casualties in each of the vulnerable groups. This was then compared with the overall NI proportion.

For the purpose of the analysis, a total of 7 areas were defined which include the areas most affected by the proposed scheme. The number of casualties within each area was summed to ensure that there were over 50 to be consistent with the WebTAG guidance.

Figure 5-8 identifies the areas identified for the distributional assessment.

Figure 5-8: Areas defined for Distributional Impact Assessment of Accidents

Table 5-28 shows the number of casualties over the 5 year period within each zone subdivided to show those occurring on the A5 separately from those on other roads.

Number of Casualties Zone Description Other A5 All Roads Roads 1 Londonderry to Strabane 142 45 187

2 Strabane 78 129 207

3 Strabane to Newtownstewart 61 20 81

4 Newtownstewart to Omagh 50 31 81

5 Omagh 71 147 218

6 Omagh to Ballygawley 91 29 120

7 Ballygawley to Aughnacloy 52 3 55

Total All Zones 545 404 949

Table 5-28: Number of casualties for the period 2011-2015 with each Zone

Table 5-28 shows that the total number of casualties recorded within each zone ranges between 55-218.

For each zone the proportion of casualties for each of the identified vulnerable groups was calculated. This was compared with national average statistics in order to identify any zones where there may be a ‘hotspot’ of casualties involving the vulnerable groups. A ‘hotspot’ is defined by WebTAG where the proportion of vulnerable group casualties is 30% higher or more than the national average.

Table 5-29 shows the national average for each vulnerable group and the proportion within each zone. Zones identified as containing ‘hotspots’ are highlighted.

Pedestrian Motorcyclist Cyclist Children Aged 65+ Young Drivers National 8.1% 2.9% 2.9% 10.5% 8.4% 20.0% Average Zone 1 5.3% 1.6% 0.5% 12.3% 4.3% 22.5% Zone 2 12.6% 0.0% 5.8% 18.4% 8.3% 15.5% Zone 3 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 9.9% 9.9% 30.9% All Zone 4 4.9% 1.2% 1.2% 8.6% 3.7% 23.5% Zone 5 11.0% 1.8% 3.7% 11.5% 9.2% 14.2% Zone 6 0.0% 0.8% 0.8% 6.7% 14.2% 29.2% Zone 7 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 9.1% 9.1% 21.8% Total All 5.1% 1.0% 2.1% 10.9% 8.4% 22.5%

Table 5-29: Distributional Analysis of Accidents involving Vulnerable Groups

Table 5-29 shows that across all zones, the proportions of casualties within each vulnerable group is broadly consistent with the national average. This provides confidence in the data set used for the assessment.

Vulnerable groups in zones which are identified as 30% (or more) higher than the national average, are highlighted as follows:

• Zone 2 – Pedestrians, cyclists and children (Aged 16yrs and under);

• Zone 3 – Young Drivers (Aged 17-24yrs);

• Zone 5 – Pedestrians; and

• Zone 6 – Elderly (Aged 65yrs and greater) and Young Drivers (Aged 17- 24yrs).

Further analysis was undertaken for the zones for which vulnerable groups were higher than the national average. This was undertaken by identifying, for these groups, whether the Proposed Scheme would result in an increase or decrease in the volume of traffic on specific links. The analysis was further split into links on the existing A5 and links on surrounding roads.

Table 5-30 shows the number of vulnerable group casualties in each zone and whether these occur on links where there is a flow increase or decrease by more than 10%. These are highlighted for the zones which include a ‘hotspot’.

The observed casualties highlighted in red occur on links where flows are forecast to increase and green for links where flows are forecast to decrease. Yellow denotes where no accidents occurred.

Pedestrians Motorcyclist Cyclists Children Under 17 Elderly (65+) Young Drivers Zone Increase Decrease Increase Decrease Increase Decrease Increase Decrease Increase Decrease Increase Decrease A5 Other A5 Other A5 Other A5 Other A5 Other A5 Other A5 Other A5 Other A5 Other A5 Other A5 Other A5 Other Zone 1 1 0 5 4 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 0166 0 1 4 3 6 02313 Zone 2 0 6 5 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 7 0 121214 0 6 4 7 0 3 1613 Zone 3 0000000000100125008004183 Zone 4 0121000100010052000300910 Zone 5 0 3 2190 0 3 1 0 2 2 4 0 4 9120 6 8 6 0 5 917 Zone 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 7 1 0 0161 0 22112 Zone 7 0010001001000050005000111

Table 5-30: Number of casualties over 2011-2015 by Zone for each Vulnerable Group

Table 5-30 shows that there may be an adverse impact at some locations which are shown in red indicating flow increases. However, in overall terms, there are many more roads having a decrease in traffic flows which indicates a clear

beneficial impact in those areas where vulnerable groups are identified as being higher than the national average.

A detailed analysis of the casualties in Zones 2, 3, 5 and 6 where flow changes of more than 10% are experienced is presented in Table 5-31 below.

Number of Casualties Locations with Vulnerable Group All Locations Vulnerable Casualties are ‘High’ Zone Assessment Group Links with Links with Links with Links with flow flow flow flow increase decrease increase decrease 10% or 10% or 10% or 10% or more more more more

2 6 20 Large Pedestrians 11 54 5 3 21 Beneficial Moderate - Motorcyclists 0 0 0 10 Beneficial Large 2 Cyclists 0 12 3 22 Beneficial Children Large 2 12 26 18 96 under 17 Beneficial

3 Young 4 21 Large 20 176 6 Drivers 2 33 Beneficial Large 6 Elderly 65+ 0 17 13 65 Beneficial

Table 5-31: Casualties 2011-2015 by Vulnerable Group, Area and Forecast Flow Change

In overall terms the assessment shows that the majority of existing ‘hotspot’ accidents involving vulnerable groups, occur on roads where there is forecast to be a reduction in flows (and hence accidents) with the Proposed Scheme.

The Assessments follow the criteria given in TAG Unit A4.2 , Table 11, and show the results to be mostly Large Beneficial. For Motorcycles the Assessment is given

as Moderate Beneficial as there are no hotspots for this category in the impact area of the scheme.

Distributional Analysis of Severance

TAG Unit A4.2 identifies a number of groups who are potentially vulnerable to the effects of severance as a result of the transport network that should form the basis for a Distributional Impact assessment. These are listed below:

• People without access to a car;

• Older people;

• People with disabilities; and

• Parents with pushchairs and children.

Data was obtained for these groups from the 2011 Census at Output Area level for the area of impact of the Proposed Scheme. This data comprises:

• The percentage of no-car households;

• The percentage of children (Aged 16yrs and under);

• The percentage of older residents (70+yrs); and

• The percentage of Households with disabled residents.

For each group, the mean percentage and a standard deviation were computed and outliers identified where the percentage exceeded 1.96 Standard deviations above the mean.

This definition follows conventional statistical analysis of outliers, assuming a normal distribution. The analysis identified a group of (some 20) Output areas where the percentages were ‘significantly’ higher than the average.

These selected output areas were then overlaid on a map of the traffic model network in order to identify which model links occurred in the output areas. This

resulted in 104 individual links. Links that formed part of the Proposed Scheme were excluded on the basis that pedestrian access will not be permitted.

Forecast traffic flows were extracted for each of the identified network links, with and without the scheme, using the AM peak as a typical indicator of the traffic pattern.

The majority of the links showed a decrease in traffic flow, indicating that pedestrians in the vulnerable groups would benefit from the scheme in terms of reduced severance. A small minority of road links showed flow increases, although these increases were mainly where link flows were quite low.

Table 5-32 summarises the flows aggregated to the OAs, in terms of total flow across all links in each OA.

No Cars or Vans 2-way Traffic Flow (2028 - AM) Small Area Ward Difference Without Scheme A5WTC Scheme N00004432 STRULE 11,774 10,498 -11% N00004475 EAST STRABANE 415 360 -13%

Children 2-way Traffic Flow (2028 - AM) Small Area Ward Difference Without Scheme A5WTC Scheme N00004403 GORTRUSH 3,065 3,486 +14% N00004534 WEST STRABANE 6,894 2,682 -61%

Elderly 2-way Traffic Flow (2028 - AM) Small Area Ward Difference Without Scheme A5WTC Scheme N00004344 CAMOWEN 1,123 908 -19% N00004345 CAMOWEN 1,016 784 -23% N00004360 DERGMONEY 15,446 11,142 -28% N00004413 LISANELLY 3,066 2,773 -10% N00004432 STRULE 11,774 10,498 -11% N00004536 WEST STRABANE 1,096 809 -26%

Disabled 2-way Traffic Flow (2028 - AM) Small Area Ward Difference Without Scheme A5WTC Scheme N00004344 CAMOWEN 1,123 908 -19% N00004345 CAMOWEN 1,016 784 -23% N00004348 CAMOWEN 713 662 -7% N00004349 CAMOWEN 227 196 -14% N00004356 COOLNAGARD 7,511 6,352 -15% N00004361 DERGMONEY 29,920 25,028 -16% N00004382 DRUMRAGH 3,294 3,230 -2% N00004413 LISANELLY 3,066 2,773 -10% N00004432 STRULE 11,774 10,498 -11% N00004521 SOUTH STRABANE 2,534 1,231 -51% N00004536 WEST STRABANE 1,096 809 -26%

Table 5-32: Severance Impact

Table 5-32 shows that in all but 1 of the 16 OA’s, there is a net reduction in traffic flow. This demonstrates a net benefit to vulnerable pedestrians, reducing severance.

Distributional Analysis of Personal Affordability

In accordance with TAG Unit A4.2 , the assessment of the Distributional Impact of Personal Affordability was carried out with reference to the distribution of costs among different income groups. This was based upon the Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) ranked into quintiles as adopted for the analysis of user benefits.

Since personal affordability is concerned with changes in the monetary cost of travel, vehicle operating costs were used for the analysis. The car fuel and non- fuel costs, excluding vehicles in working time, were extracted from TUBA. These were then accumulated at the production end of each trip and mapped to the zones defined for the SDI analysis.

Table 5-33 presents the results of the Personal Affordability Impact, showing the distribution of user costs (VOC) by IMD quintiles. NI Multiple Deprivation Measures 2010 - Income Domains Most deprived Least deprived Total 0%<20% 20%<40% 40%<60% 60%<80% 80%<100% Total increase in User £10.94 £10.16 £5.22 £5.55 £3.60 £35.48 Charges (£M) Total Decrease in User £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 Charges (£M) Share of User Charge 31% 29% 15% 16% 10% 100% Increase Share of User Charge ----- Decrease Share of Population 20% 18% 18% 20% 23% 100%

Assessment XXX XXX XX X X

Table 5-33: Distributional Analysis of User Costs

Table 5-33 shows that the user costs increase, as is typical of road scheme assessments so appear in the table as increases in user charges. It also shows that highest charges (dis-benefits) accrue to the most deprived areas.

The two most deprived quintiles are both given an assessment of 3 crosses. A comparison with Table 5-27 shows that the two most deprived quintiles have a high proportion of user benefits and costs (where these exceed the proportion of the

population). It should be noted however, that the benefits for these areas exceed the costs and so there is a net benefit to these quintiles.

Distributional Impact Analysis of Noise

In total there are approximately 39,900 residential properties in the area of study, with an estimated population of 94,176 as recorded in the 2011 census. The majority of dwellings are houses or bungalows.

The distributional impacts of noise was assessed in accordance with TAG Unit A4.2 and based on the following social groups:

• Income Distribution;

• Children: proportion of population aged <16; and

• Older people: proportion of population aged 70+.

The study area for SDI assessment is the same as that identified in the Environmental Statement Noise Assessment, defined by criteria within DMRB HD213/11 rev. A.

The Super Output Areas (SOA) within the study area and their population and income profile are detailed in Table 5-34 below.

SOA Code SOA Population Quintile 95YY13S1 Gortrush_1 1,493 0 - 20 % 95YY15S2 Lisanelly_2 1,699 0 - 20 % 95ZZ02W1 Ballycolman 2,003 0 - 20 % 95ZZ06W1 East 1,810 0 - 20 % 95ZZ07W1 Finn 2,630 0 - 20 % 95ZZ09W1 Newtownstewart 2,171 0 - 20 % 95ZZ12W1 Sion Mills 2,188 0 - 20 % 95ZZ14S1 South_1 1,963 0 - 20 % 95ZZ16S2 West_2 1,501 0 - 20 % 95MM12S1 Crevagh_1 2,076 20 - 40 % 95MM18S1 Holly Mount_1 2,051 20 - 40 % 95YY11W1 Fintona 2,202 20 - 40 % 95YY13S2 Gortrush_2 1,302 20 - 40 % 95ZZ05W1 Dunnamanagh 2,117 20 - 40 % 95ZZ10W1 North 3,087 20 - 40 % 95ZZ15W1 Victoria Bridge 2,265 20 - 40 % 95ZZ16S1 West_1 2,070 20 - 40 %

SOA Code SOA Population Quintile 95MM21S1 Newbuildings_1 1,712 40 - 60 % 95OO04W1 Ballygawley 2,494 40 - 60 % 95YY02W1 Camowen 2,458 40 - 60 % 95YY04W1 Coolnagard 3,292 40 - 60 % 95YY07W1 Drumnakilly 2,714 40 - 60 % 95YY18W1 Sixmilecross 2,316 40 - 60 % 95YY19W1 Strule 1,788 40 - 60 % 95ZZ04W1 Clare 2,542 40 - 60 % 95OO03W1 Aughnacloy 2,497 60 - 80 % 95YY01W1 Beragh 2,321 60 - 80 % 95YY05W1 Dergmoney 1,991 60 - 80 % 95YY20W1 Termon 2,503 60 - 80 % 95ZZ01W1 Artigarvan 2,553 60 - 80 % 95ZZ11W1 Plumbridge 2,240 60 - 80 % 95ZZ13W1 Slievekirk 2,232 60 - 80 % 95ZZ14S2 South_2 1,515 60 - 80 % 95MM18S2 Holly Mount_2 2,693 60 - 80 % 95MM21S2 Newbuildings_2 1,778 80 - 100 % 95OO02W1 Augher 2,186 80 - 100 % 95OO09W1 Clogher 2,172 80 - 100 % 95YY03W1 Clanabogan 2,934 80 - 100 % 95YY09W1 Drumragh 2,557 80 - 100 % 95YY10W1 Fairy Water 2,194 80 - 100 % 95YY12W1 Gortin 2,484 80 - 100 % 95YY15S1 Lisanelly_1 997 80 - 100 % 95YY16W1 Newtownsaville 2,385 80 - 100 %

Table 5-34: SOAs in the SDI study area

Using a Geographic Information System (GIS), the number of residential properties experiencing an increase, decrease or no change in noise level, in each of the LSOAs, as a result of the scheme in the 15 th year after opening were identified.

The noise impact of the proposed scheme for each quintile in the income domain of Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) is presented in Table 5-35.

IMD Income Domain 0-20% 20-40% 40-60% 60-80% 80-100% TOTAL Population with 4,569 3,625 746 930 1,352 11,222 increased noise Population with 3,594 1,694 3,736 4,583 2,221 15,829 decreased noise Population with no 9,295 11,851 14,834 15,032 16,114 67,126 change in noise level Net number with -975 -1,930 2,990 3,653 868 - positive change Total number of positive change - - - - - 4,607 across all groups Net positive change -21.2% -41.9% 64.9% 79.3% 18.9% - as % Share of total population in study 18.5% 18.2% 20.5% 21.8% 20.9% 100% area Moderate Large Large Large Moderate Assessment Adverse Adverse Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial

Table 5-35: SDI analysis for Noise

Table 5-35 shows the adverse impacts that are experienced, in noise terms, by the households in the lowest two income groups, where net adverse noise impacts due to the proposed scheme are experienced. These income groups experience Moderate Adverse and Large Adverse impact in noise terms.

In contrast, net beneficial noise impacts are experienced in the three higher income groups. These groups have a Moderate Beneficial and Large Beneficial noise impact.

TAG Unit A4.2 also requires the noise impact of the scheme on children and the elderly to be assessed. This was carried out by appraising the change in noise level with and without the Scheme at all identified schools, care homes, and day centres in the area, in the project design year.

The results of the appraisal is summarised in Table 5-36.

No of Care Homes/Day Impact No of Schools Centres Major Beneficial 3 0 Moderate Beneficial 2 0 Minor Beneficial 9 7 Negligible Beneficial 7 1 No Change 2 1 Negligible Adverse 7 1 Minor Adverse 13 4 Moderate Adverse 5 1 Major Adverse 2 1

Table 5-36: Noise impact on care homes and day centres in the study area

Distributional Impact Assessment of Air Quality

The assessment of air quality impacts of the proposed scheme was carried out in accordance with the TAG Unit 4.2 . It focused on two main user groups; income distribution and children under 16 years in schools.

A detailed air quality assessment completed in accordance with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB, Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1, HA 207/07), is included in the Environmental Statement. The results were used to provide input to the Distributional Impacts (DI) Appraisal.

Subsequent to the Environmental Statement, updated traffic data for the Scheme were provided in May 2017 to undertake outline business case modelling, the results of which are presented below.

In accordance with guidance set in TAG Unit A3 (Environmental Impact Appraisal) , the air quality assessment reported in the ES included a screening exercise to determine affected roads as defined by the DMRB, HA 207/07.

Roads were flagged as affected if any of the following criteria were met:

• Road alignment will change by 5 m or more; or

• Daily traffic flows will change by 1,000 AADT or more; or

• Heavy Duty Vehicle (HDV) flows will change by 200 AADT or more; or

• Daily average speed will change by 10 km/hr or more; or

• Peak hour speed will change by 20 km/hr or more.

The screening included identification of relevant sensitive receptors within 200m of affected roads, resulting in the selection of 10,271 properties to be included in the atmospheric dispersion modelling exercise.

TAG Unit A4.2 , Chapter 4 outlines the requirement to assess the impact of changes in air quality that are experienced by lower income groups and children (nurseries and schools). Evidence is provided which suggests that these lower income groups and children are more at risk from air pollution.

A total of 24 schools and nurseries were identified in the air quality study area. The

change in traffic-related air pollutant concentrations, nitrogen dioxide (NO 2) and

particulate matter (PM 10 ), was reported for each of these schools for the opening year (2028), based on the updated OBC phase three local air quality assessment

results. The results are presented in Table 5-39 for (NO 2) and Table 5-40 for PM 10.

Income Domain data 40 from the Northern Ireland Multiple Deprivation Measure (NIMDM) were used to classify each lower layer super output area (LSOA) within the air quality study area into deprivation quintiles (0-20% being most deprived, 80-100% being least deprived).

All relevant receptors (residential, education, hospitals and care homes) within 200 meters of the affected road network were included in the DI analysis.

40 http://www.nisra.gov.uk/deprivation/nimdm_2010.htm © WSP 2017 187

The DI Analysis requires identification of the number of receptors in each Income Domain quintile that experience an improvement, worsening or no change in air

quality, specifically NO 2 and PM 10 .

The respective air quality benefits / disbenefits are assessed for each Income Domain quintile, in relation to the share of the number of modelled properties within each domain. Each quintile is then given an overall Assessment Score.

The results are shown below in Table 5-37 for NO 2 and Table 5-38 for PM 10 for the opening year (2028).

IMD Income Domain (0 Most Deprived Area - 100 Least Deprived Area) Air Quality DI Analysis 80- 0-20% 20-40% 40-60% 60-80% Total 100% No. of Properties with 2,655 1,864 983 1,776 453 7,731 Improved Air Quality No. of Properties with No Change in Air 470 50 178 109 145 952 Quality No. of Properties with 447 199 156 272 514 1,588 Worsened Air Quality No. of Net Benefits / 2,208 1,665 827 1,504 -61 - Losses Total Number of Benefits / Losses across - - - - - 6,143 all Groups Net Benefits / Losses in 35.9% 27.1% 13.5% 24.5% -1.0% - each Area as % of Total Share of Total Population of Study 18.5% 18.2% 20.5% 21.8% 20.9% 100% Area Large Large Slight Moderate Neutral Assessment Score Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Adverse

Table 5-37: Air Quality (NO 2) DI Analysis (Opening Year 2028)

The results of the assessment presented in Table 5-37 indicate that local air

quality, with respect to concentrations of annual mean NO 2, is predicted to improve in four of the five income domains for the opening year of the proposed scheme (2028), including a large beneficial change in the most and second most deprived areas. The least deprived area is predicted to be neutral.

IMD Income Domain (0 Most Deprived Area - 100 Least Deprived Area) Air Quality DI Analysis 80- 0-20% 20-40% 40-60% 60-80% Total 100% No. of Properties with 2,702 1,858 1,003 1,751 419 7,733 Improved Air Quality No. of Properties with No Change in Air 539 100 228 186 295 1,348 Quality No. of Properties with 331 155 86 220 398 1,190 Worsened Air Quality No. of Net Benefits / 2,371 1,703 917 1,531 21 - Losses Total Number of Benefits / Losses across - - - - - 6,543 all Groups Net Benefits / Losses in 36.2% 26.0% 14.0% 23.4% 0.3% - each Area as % Share of Total 18.5% 18.2% 20.5% 21.8% 20.9% 100% Population Large Large Slight Moderate Neutral Assessment Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial

Table 5-38: Air Quality (PM 10 ) DI Analysis (Opening Year 2028)

The results of the assessment presented in Table 5-38 indicate that air quality, with

respect to concentrations of annual mean PM 10 , is predicted to improve in four income domain quintiles for the opening year of the proposed scheme (2028), including a large beneficial change in the most and second most deprived areas. The least deprived area is predicted to experience no change.

Receptor classification data were used to determine the relative air quality benefits / disbenefits in terms in relation to children (nurseries and schools). The predicted results with regard to NO2 and PM10 are presented in Table 5-39 and Table 5-40, respectively.

Table 5-39 demonstrates that of the schools and nurseries identified within the air quality study area, 14 were predicted to experience a negligible change in annual

mean concentrations of NO 2 in the proposed scheme opening year (2028), with 4 experiencing a slight beneficial change, 3 experiencing a moderate beneficial

change, and 3 with no change in levels of NO 2 versus the without scheme scenario.

Table 5-40 shows that with respect to annual mean PM 10 concentrations, 12 of the 24 schools are predicted to experience a negligible change in the opening year of

the proposed scheme versus the without scheme scenario, with 9 schools experiencing no change and 3 schools with a slight beneficial change.

Opening Year (2028)

Receptor ID Address Do Nothing NO 2 With Scheme NO 2 NO 2 Change Descriptor (µg/m 3) (µg/m 3) (µg/m 3) St Patrick's Primary School, 59 Dublin 185674306 3.8 4.1 0.3 Negligible Adverse Street, BT78 4AQ Strabane Academy, 61 Derry Road, 185704664 14.1 13.3 -0.8 Negligible Beneficial BT82 8LD St Catherine's Primary School, 185704285 8.0 8.0 0.0 No Change Newtownkennedy Street, BT82 8HT Dervaghroy Primary School, 10 Church 185836932 8.8 6.7 -2.1 Slight Beneficial Road, BT79 0XH Omagh Academy, Dublin Road, BT78 185837478 47.1 40.3 -6.7 Moderate Beneficial 1HF St. Marys Boys Primary School, 48 185707193 10.1 9.2 -0.9 Negligible Beneficial Melmount Road, BT82 9EF Christian Brothers' Grammar School, 185837671 20.4 19.1 -1.3 Slight Beneficial Kevlin Road, BT78 1LD Loreto Convent Primary School, 185678478 18.6 17.3 -1.4 Slight Beneficial Brookmount Road, BT78 5HZ St. Ciaran’s High School, 15 Tullybryan 185641823 5.4 5.6 0.1 Negligible Adverse Road, BT70 2LY St. Matthews Primary School, 70 185641042 6.1 5.1 -1.0 Slight Beneficial Rarogan Road, BT70 2DY Strabane Primary School, 43 Derry 185703963 10.3 10.5 0.3 Negligible Adverse Road, BT82 8DX St. Eugene’s Primary School, 58 Fyfin 185708356 7.4 8.1 0.7 Negligible Adverse Road, BT82 9JH

Opening Year (2028)

Receptor ID Address Do Nothing NO 2 With Scheme NO 2 NO 2 Change Descriptor (µg/m 3) (µg/m 3) (µg/m 3) St Mary's Primary School, 1 185641512 5.9 5.7 -0.2 Negligible Beneficial Whitebridge Road, BT70 2JH Newtownstewart Model Primary 185841467 School, 6 Baronscourt Road, BT78 4.9 4.8 -0.1 Negligible Beneficial 4EX Ballougry Primary School, 30A 185817768 6.0 5.4 -0.6 Negligible Beneficial Mullenan Road, BT48 9XN Sion Mills Primary School, Westview 185842302 - - - No Change Terrace, BT82 9HP Glencull Primary School, 107 Omagh 185640966 14.7 8.2 -6.5 Moderate Beneficial Road, BT70 2DB St. Marys Girls Primary School, 43 185842424 9.6 8.7 -0.9 Negligible Beneficial Melmount Road, BT82 9EF Newbuildings Primary School, 83 185484754 17.5 10.7 -6.8 Moderate Beneficial Victoria Road, BT47 2RL Loreto Grammar School, Brook Street, 185874494 14.4 13.6 -0.8 Negligible Beneficial BT78 5HD Aughnacloy High School, 23 Carnteel 185637718 8.0 8.1 0.2 Negligible Adverse Road, BT69 6DX Strabane Academy, 4 Liskey Road, 185856273 8.9 8.9 0.0 No Change BT82 8NW Knockavoe School & Resource Centre, 187135944 7.2 7.0 -0.3 Negligible Beneficial Melmount Gardens, BT82 9EB

Opening Year (2028)

Receptor ID Address Do Nothing NO 2 With Scheme NO 2 NO 2 Change Descriptor (µg/m 3) (µg/m 3) (µg/m 3) Glenside Special School, Derry Road, 185841772 9.0 9.2 0.2 Negligible Adverse BT82 8DX

Table 5-39: Schools and Nurseries (NO2) – Opening Year (2028)

Opening Year (2028)

Receptor ID Address Do Nothing PM 10 With Scheme PM 10 Change 3 3 3 Descriptor (µg/m ) PM 10 (µg/m ) (µg/m ) St Patrick's Primary School, 59 185674306 8.4 8.5 0.1 Negligible Adverse Dublin Street, BT78 4AQ Strabane Academy, 61 Derry 185704664 10.2 9.9 -0.3 Negligible Beneficial Road, BT82 8LD St Catherine's Primary School, 185704285 Newtownkennedy Street, BT82 10.5 10.5 0.0 No Change 8HT Dervaghroy Primary School, 10 185836932 9.0 8.7 -0.3 Negligible Beneficial Church Road, BT79 0XH Omagh Academy, Dublin Road, 185837478 18.7 17.2 -1.5 Slight Beneficial BT78 1HF St. Marys Boys Primary School, 185707193 11.4 11.2 -0.2 Negligible Beneficial 48 Melmount Road, BT82 9EF Christian Brothers' Grammar 185837671 13.9 13.6 -0.3 Negligible Beneficial School, Kevlin Road, BT78 1LD

Opening Year (2028)

Receptor ID Address Do Nothing PM 10 With Scheme PM 10 Change 3 3 3 Descriptor (µg/m ) PM 10 (µg/m ) (µg/m ) Loreto Convent Primary School, 185678478 13.9 13.5 -0.4 Negligible Beneficial Brookmount Road, BT78 5HZ St. Ciaran’s High School, 15 185641823 9.3 9.3 0.0 No Change Tullybryan Road, BT70 2LY St. Matthews Primary School, 70 185641042 9.0 8.8 -0.2 Negligible Beneficial Rarogan Road, BT70 2DY Strabane Primary School, 43 185703963 9.6 9.6 0.0 No Change Derry Road, BT82 8DX St. Eugene’s Primary School, 58 185708356 9.2 9.3 0.1 Negligible Adverse Fyfin Road, BT82 9JH St Mary's Primary School, 1 185641512 9.5 9.5 0.0 No Change Whitebridge Road, BT70 2JH Newtownstewart Model Primary 185841467 School, 6 Baronscourt Road, 9.4 9.4 0.0 No Change BT78 4EX Ballougry Primary School, 30A 185817768 8.9 8.8 -0.1 Negligible Beneficial Mullenan Road, BT48 9XN Sion Mills Primary School, 185842302 - - - No Change Westview Terrace, BT82 9HP Glencull Primary School, 107 185640966 10.0 9.0 -1.0 Slight Beneficial Omagh Road, BT70 2DB St. Marys Girls Primary School, 185842424 11.3 11.1 -0.2 Negligible Beneficial 43 Melmount Road, BT82 9EF

Opening Year (2028)

Receptor ID Address Do Nothing PM 10 With Scheme PM 10 Change 3 3 3 Descriptor (µg/m ) PM 10 (µg/m ) (µg/m ) Newbuildings Primary School, 83 185484754 12.5 11.3 -1.2 Slight Beneficial Victoria Road, BT47 2RL Loreto Grammar School, Brook 185874494 13.2 13.0 -0.2 Negligible Beneficial Street, BT78 5HD Aughnacloy High School, 23 185637718 9.1 9.1 0.0 No Change Carnteel Road, BT69 6DX Strabane Academy, 4 Liskey 185856273 10.3 10.3 0.0 No Change Road, BT82 8NW Knockavoe School & Resource 187135944 Centre, Melmount Gardens, BT82 11.0 10.9 -0.1 Negligible Beneficial 9EB Glenside Special School, Derry 185841772 9.5 9.5 0.0 No Change Road, BT82 8DX

Table 5-40: Schools and Nurseries (PM 10 ) – Opening Year (2028)

Initial Value for Money Assessment – Complete Scheme

The Value for Money assessment is intended to assist decision-makers judge whether the expected costs of a proposal are justified by its expected benefits to the public as a whole. This includes both positive and negative impacts of the proposal on the economy, society, environment and public accounts.

The value for money assessment for the A5WTC scheme was undertaken with reference to the Value for Money Framework published by the DfT in July 2017.

The Value for Money Framework sets out a process to assign a Value for Money Category that is intended to provide a succinct, overarching summary of the outcome of the scheme. The category is determined by considering costs and benefits and also takes account of all relevant risks, uncertainties and impacts.

Initial Benefit-Cost Ratio

The first stage of the assessment is to calculate an initial Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR). This is derived by dividing the Present Value of Benefits (PVB) by the Present Value of Costs (PVC).

The initial value of BCR includes the Established monetised benefits including transport user benefits, accident savings, greenhouse gas reductions and indirect taxation impacts, and the monetary benefits for noise and air quality. Evolving monetised benefits are not included at this stage.

The calculation of the initial BCR is set out in Table 5-41 below.

2010 Prices discounted to 2010 Costs and Benefits (£M) Consumer User Benefits: Commuting £202.74

Consumer User Benefits: Other £286.20

Business Benefits £562.72

Total Economic Efficiency Benefits £1,051.67

Accident Benefits £105.68

Construction and Maintenance £55.60

Benefits Benefits Carbon Benefits (Greenhouse Gas) -£103.94

Monetised Noise Benefits £4.33

Monetised Air Quality Benefits £9.61

Indirect Tax Revenue £63.91

Present Value of Benefits (PVB) £1,186.84

Construction Cost £669.41

Operating Costs £49.68 Costs Costs Present Value of Cost (PVC) £719.09

Net Present Value (NPV) £467.76 Net Value Value Present Present

Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) 1.65 Cost Cost Ratio Ratio Benefit Benefit

Table 5-41: Initial BCR for Whole Scheme

Table 5-41 shows that for the Proposed Scheme, total monetised benefits exceed the costs by £467.76M giving an initial BCR of 1.65.

Adjusted Benefit to Cost Ratio

The next stage of the assessment involves calculating an adjusted BCR by including the Evolving monetised impacts. These encompass the Wider Impacts and journey time reliability benefits.

The adjusted BCR is presented in Table 5-42 below.

2010 prices discounted to Adjusted BCR Reference 2010 (£M) Established Benefits Table 5-41 £1,186.84 Table 5-14 (Wider Impacts) £204.90 Evolving Benefits Table 5-17 (JT Reliability) 59.21 Adjusted Present Value of £1,450.95 Benefits (PVB) Present Value of Costs Table 5-6 (Construction) 669.41 (PVC) Table 5-7 (Maintenance) 49.68 TOTAL £719.09 Net Present Value (NPV) £731.86

Adjusted BCR 2.02

Table 5-42: Adjusted BCR for Whole Scheme

Table 5-42 shows that with the addition of the Evolving monetised benefits the NPV increases to £731.86M giving an adjusted BCR of 2.02.

The adjusted BCR is used as a basis for determining an initial Value for Money Category. Six Value for Money (VfM) categories are defined within the DfT framework and these are set out in Table 5-43 below.

Value for Money Category Implied by

Very High BCR greater than or equal to 4

High BCR between 2 and 4

Medium BCR between 1.5 and 2

Low BCR between 1 and 1.5

Poor BCR between 0 and 1

Very Poor BCR less than or equal to 0

Table 5-43: Value for Money Categories (Source: DfT Value for Money Framework)

With reference to Table 5-43, using the adjusted BCR the initial VfM category for the Proposed Scheme between Newbuildings and Aughnacloy indicates High Value for Money.

The last stage of the process is to determine a final Value for Money Category. This is based upon a consideration of relevant indicative and / or non-monetised

impacts together with risks and uncertainties. This could result in a final value for money category different to that which is implied solely by the adjusted BCR.

The sources of uncertainty are detailed in Section 5.10 below. The factors used to determine the final Value for Money category are considered in Section 5.12.

Sensitivity Testing

Sources of uncertainty

The forecasts and economic benefits reported in this document are based on the Core scenario. This represents the most unbiased and realistic set of assumptions that will form the central case that is presented in the Appraisal Summary Table (AST) in Section 5.11.

The core scenario is based upon the following:

• the latest projections of demographic and economic data and using the TEMPRO-NI software as described in Appendix C - Traffic Forecast Report (2015 Rebased Model);

• Assumption that the Three Rivers Development in Strabane will proceed; and

• Standard model parameters defined in WebTAG.

It is recognised that forecasts are subject to uncertainty with the accuracy of forecasts decreasing in the later years in the forecast period.

Uncertainty can be at a national or local level. National uncertainty concerns national projections such as population, households and employment, GDP growth and fuel price trends.

Local uncertainty depends on whether developments or other planned transport schemes go ahead in the vicinity of the scheme being built.

Uncertainty has a bearing on forecast traffic volumes, patterns of traffic flows with a consequential impact on the economic and environmental assessments.

At the national level, one of the most significant sources of uncertainty is the Brexit process. Northern Ireland faces distinct challenges from Brexit primarily due to

the current open land border and the very close trading relationship with the Republic of Ireland.

The economic consequences of Brexit on the Northern Ireland economy in terms of future economic growth could be significant. For example, restrictions on the flow of goods and services between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland could have an adverse impact on Northern Ireland's economy.

The nature of the cross border arrangements and extent of free movement to and from the Republic of Ireland including customs controls and immigration checks will be addressed as part of the terms of exit negotiations, although the process will not be fully completed until 2019. As such key uncertainties will remain over the post-Brexit settlement and the extent to which this will influence future economic growth.

In view of the continued uncertainties, and until the status of cross border arrangements begin to emerge, any attempt to predict the impact of Brexit in terms of future traffic on the existing A5 and Proposed Scheme is unlikely to be meaningful.

It is recommended that traffic flows within the study area continue to be monitored so the impacts of Brexit can be captured within the monitoring process. In this respect, it will be important to distinguish between the short term traffic impacts arising from Bexit and the effects over a longer period which may be very different.

The monitoring programme will enable the observed flows to be compared against the forecast flows and will highlight any significant changes in flows on the A5WTC. The results from the monitoring programme will be used to inform the addendum of the subsequent phases of the Proposed Scheme as these are taken forward for approval.

At the local level, the Three Rivers Development in Strabane is the most significant in terms of potential impacts and this has been included in the model.

Apart from Three Rivers, no other developments have been explicitly included within the model since all future development is deemed to be included within the

TEMPRO-NI forecasts which take account of future growth projections provided by NISRA.

To complete the new road network across the border into County Donegal from Junction 7 at Strabane to the existing N15 National Primary Route at Lifford, Transport Infrastructure Ireland and Donegal County Council have developed and will fund the construction of a new bridge over the River Finn. This scheme is programmed to be constructed and opened to traffic at the same time as Phase 2 of the A5WTC is completed and has been included in the traffic forecasting.

No other committed transport schemes have been identified that are likely to influence traffic flows within the A5 corridor.

In summary, the main source of uncertainty is likely to arise from the impact of Brexit and the future arrangements for cross-border movements which are unlikely to be settled in the short term.

Due to the impracticality of providing any meaningful analysis to assess the sensitivity of the forecasts as a result of Brexit, it was decided to adopt the advice set out in WebTAG and develop a low and high growth assessment. This is described in the following section.

Low and High Growth Assessment

TAG Unit M4 (Forecasting and Uncertainty) advises that an effective way to test the uncertainty of national trends such as population and GDP growth and fuel price trends is by using high and low growth scenarios.

In accordance with advice in TAG Unit M4 , low and high growth forecasts were prepared by increasing the forecast demand matrix by a proportion of the base year matrix which for highway demand is defined as: Ə ̋. ̎ ∗ √ª % where N represents the number of years into the future with respect to the base year.

For the A5WTC, this amounts to a variation of 10% between the base year and Design Year (2043).

The transport user and accident benefits for the low and high growth scenarios were assessed using TUBA and COBALT, respectively.

A QUADRO analysis for low and high growth was not carried out since the benefits / dis-benefits as a result of construction and maintenance activities were very small. The benefits were therefore taken from the QUADRO for the core scenario.

The results of the sensitivity tests for the low and high growth scenario sensitivity are presented in Table 5-44 below.

Indirect Total (£M Non- Growth Scenario User Time Fuel Tax discounted to fuel Revenue 2010) Low Growth 883.71 -109.37 -13.84 57.98 818.47

High Growth 1,569.86 -126.34 -7.60 66.87 1,502.79

Core 1,184.23 -120.57 -11.99 63.90 1,115.57

Table 5-44: High Growth, Core and Low Growth scenario TUBA benefit sensitivity tests

The benefits arising from the accident savings are summarised in Table 5-45 below.

Growth Scenario Accident Benefits (£M)

Low Growth £88.11

High Growth £123.78

Core £105.68

Table 5-45: Present value of accident savings over 60 years (2010 prices, discounted to 2010)

Monetised values for greenhouse gas emissions, noise and local air quality were calculated for low and high growth based upon the low and high growth forecasts. These are given in Table 5-46 below:

2010 Prices discounted to 2010 (£M) Environmental Benefits High Low Growth Core Growth Carbon Benefits (Greenhouse Gas) -£46.57 -£161.31 -£103.94 Monetised Noise Benefits £4.47 £4.31 £4.33 Monetised Air Quality Benefits £4.78 £10.92 £9.61

Table 5-46: High Growth, Core and Low Growth scenario environmental benefits

Finally, low and high growth values were calculated for the Evolving monetised impacts that included wider Impacts and journey time reliability. These are given in Table 5-47 below.

2010 Prices discounted to 2010 (£M) Evolving Benefits High Low Growth Core Growth Wider Impacts – Agglomeration £109.03 £200.18 £148.60 Wider Impacts – Imperfect Markets £41.30 £75.82 £56.30 Journey Time Reliability Benefits £44.18 £78.49 £59.21

Table 5-47: High Growth, Core and Low Growth scenario evolving benefits

The Established benefits including QUADRO and those set out in Table 5-43, Table 5-44 and Table 5-47 and the evolving monetised impacts set out in Table 5-47 were combined to produce BCRs for the low and high growth scenarios. These are presented in Table 5-48 that provides a summary of benefits together with a comparison with the core scenario.

2010 Prices discounted to 2010 (£M) Costs and Benefits Low Growth High Growth Core Total Economic Efficiency £760.50 £1,435.92 £1,051.67 Benefits Accident Benefits £88.11 £123.78 £105.68

Construction and Maintenance £55.60 £55.60 £55.60 Carbon Benefits (Greenhouse -£46.57 -£161.31 -£103.94 Gas) Monetised Noise Benefits £4.47 £4.31 £4.33

Monetised Air Quality Benefits £4.78 £10.92 £9.61

Indirect Tax Revenue £57.98 £66.87 £63.90 Present Value of Benefits £924.87 £1,536.09 £1,186.85 (PVB) Wider Impacts – Agglomeration £109.03 £200.18 £148.60 Wider Impacts – Imperfect £41.30 £75.82 £56.30 Markets Journey Time Reliability Benefits £44.18 £78.49 £59.21 Adjusted Present Value of £1,119.38 £1,890.58 £1,450.96 Benefits (PVB) Present Value of Cost (PVC) £719.09 £719.09 £719.09

Net Present Value (NPV) £400.29 £1,171.49 £731.87

Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) 1.56 2.63 2.02

Table 5-48: BCR for Core, Low and High Growth scenarios

Table 5-48 shows that the adjusted BCR ranges from 1.56 for low growth to 2.63 for high growth corresponding to Medium and High value for money, respectively.

Appraisal Summary Table

The AST presents in a single table all the evidence from the economic appraisal. It records all the impacts which have been assessed and described above including economic, fiscal, social distributional and environmental impacts, assessed using monetised, quantitative or qualitative information as appropriate. The AST is included at Appendix H.

Final Value for Money Category – Complete Scheme

Factors influencing the final VfM Category

As noted in Section 5.9, the adjusted BCR is used to define an initial VfM category. Consideration is then taken of other non-monetised impacts together with risks and uncertainties in order to determine the final VfM category.

In determining the final VfM category for the complete A5WTC scheme, consideration has been given to:

i. The extent to which the adjusted BCR captures all the impacts of the proposal (either monetised or non-monetised);

ii. Whether the magnitude of any non-monetised impacts are sufficient to enhance or diminish the initial VfM category;

iii. The extent to which the impacts vary across different social groups (distributional impacts); and

iv. Sensitivity analysis and the extent to which the risks and uncertainty widens the range of benefits.

With respect to item i) the assessment has captured all the main monetised impacts with one exception. This is the productivity benefits that could result from a relocation of jobs as a result of the scheme.

As noted in paragraph 5.6.67, this can only be valued with a LUTI model which was not developed for the A5WTC. This impact would, if assessed, fall into the ‘Indicative’ category using the DfT VfM framework. While this could be relevant to the Proposed Scheme this cannot be quantified and therefore cannot be considered in determining the final VfM category.

In respect to item ii) it is acknowledged that the non-monetised impacts of the Proposed Scheme, are generally adverse. These are detailed in Section 5.7 and demonstrate that the impacts on landscape vary between moderate adverse between Newbuildings and Strabane to slight adverse south of Strabane. The impacts of the Proposed Scheme on the historic environment is either moderate or large adverse for only 11 of the 66 sites. The impacts on ecology / biodiversity

is neutral to moderate adverse and the impact on the water environment is slight adverse and therefore not significant.

The non-monetised impacts were not considered to weigh substantially against the initial VfM category.

The Social and Distributional impact analysis presented in Section 5.8 demonstrated that the Proposed Scheme had positive social impacts including a reduction in severance. This largely results from a reduction in traffic flows on the existing A5.

The distributional analysis of user benefits demonstrated that the highest benefits accrued to the most deprived income groups. The accident analysis also demonstrated that vulnerable road users generally benefitted from the Proposed Scheme.

In terms of air quality benefits, the largest beneficial change accrued to the most deprived income groups. However, the noise dis-benefits were shown to be experienced by the lowest income groups.

While the social and distributional impacts of the scheme were shown to largely benefit lower income groups and vulnerable road users, this is not considered sufficient to warrant any adjustment of the initial VfM to a higher category.

The final consideration is the sensitivity testing as reported in Section 5.10. The sensitivity testing presented in Table 5-48 showed that under the low growth scenario the BCR for the Proposed Scheme would reduce to 1.56, lowering the VfM category from High to Medium. Under the high growth scenario the VfM category would remain High.

The adjusted BCR for the core scenario is 2.02 which is close to the Medium to High VfM threshold. This means that the scheme benefits would only need to be reduced by £13M to £1,438M to result in a BCR of less than 2 and a change in the VfM category to Medium. This equates to a reduction in benefits of 0.9%.

A further test to determine whether these sensitivity tests may change the VfM category of the Proposed Scheme was undertaken in following guidance set out

in the DfT ‘Value for Money Supplementary Guidance on Categories’, published in July 2017.

This approach is based upon the assumption that each of the three estimates for user benefits i.e. Low, High and Core is equally likely. The average estimate for user benefits for the three scenarios is calculated and if this is less than the ‘switching’ value required to change the VfM Category, it can be judged that the sensitivity tests do not provide sufficient evidence to change the VfM category.

Applying this to the Proposed Scheme, the average estimate for user benefits is calculated at £1,486.97M, which is an increase of £36.01M above the core scenario. With reference to paragraph 5.12.12 above, it is noted that the ‘switching value’ required to change the VfM category to Medium is -£13M. It is therefore judged that these sensitivity tests do not provide sufficient evidence to reduce the VfM category.

Conclusions

From the analysis presented above, it is concluded that although the non- monetised impacts would be adverse, they are not considered significant to merit any adjustment to the initial VfM category.

By contrast, the social and distributional impacts are largely positive and to an extent offset some of the non-monetised impacts. The social and distributional impacts were, however, not considered sufficient to warrant any adjustment of the initial VfM.

The sensitivity analysis showed that under the low growth scenario, the VfM category would reduce to Medium. However, based upon an average of the three scenarios tested, the VfM category would remain High.

It is acknowledged that the adjusted BCR of 2.02 is borderline between Medium and High VfM. This means that benefits would only need to be reduced by £13M, for the VfM category to be changed from High to Medium.

This is regarded as significant with respect to determining the final VfM category, since a reduction in benefits of 0.9% would result in a BCR of less than 2. In view of the small margin and to allow for uncertainties, the final VfM category for the

Scheme between Newbuildings and Aughnacloy has been determined as Medium to High .

Economic Appraisal of Phases of Scheme

Methodology

The economic appraisal of each individual phase of the Proposed Scheme required the calculation of benefits over a 60 year period from the start of each of the four phases.

Phase 1a was assessed against the Do-Minimum as adopted for the full scheme assessment, whereas Phase 1b was assessed against a Do-Minimum that contained Phase 1a, since this will be operational upon opening of Phase 1b.

The assessment periods and forecast scenarios adopted for each of the four phases is summarised in Table 5-49 below.

Phase Do Minimum Network Do Something Network Evaluation Period

1a Do Minimum Phase 1a 2019 to 2078

1b Phase 1a Phase 1a+1b 2021 to 2080

2 Phase 1a+1b Phase 1a+1b+2 2023 to 2082

3 Phase 1a+1b+2 Full scheme 2028 to 2087

Table 5-49: Methodology for Evaluation of Benefits by Phase

It should be noted that the assessment of benefits by phase was based upon the core scenario and no sensitivity testing, for example for low and high growth, was carried out.

Established Monetised Impacts

Transport Economic Efficiency

The transport economic efficiency benefits of each Phase of the scheme were derived from TUBA for the time savings and vehicle operating costs as a result of the scheme and QUADRO for maintenance savings and delays during construction.

The TEE benefits for each Phase from TUBA and QUADRO are presented in Table 5-50 and Table 5-51 respectively.

Road User Benefits Total (all Phase 1a Phase 1b Phase 2 Phase 3 (£M) Phases) Consumer User Benefits

Commuting £21.50 £18.75 £153.08 £10.96 £204.29

Other £30.12 £17.47 £231.91 £6.68 £286.18 Net Consumer £51.62 £36.22 £384.99 £17.64 £490.47 Benefits Business User Benefits

Business – Personal £20.59 £29.46 £209.81 £12.78 £272.64

Business – Freight £18.84 £30.71 £271.87 £10.54 £331.96

Net Business Impact £39.43 £60.17 £481.68 £23.32 £604.60 Present Value of Transport Economic £91.05 £96.39 £866.67 £40.96 £1,095.07 Efficiency Benefits (PVB)

Table 5-50: TUBA Benefits by Phase

Road User Benefits Total (all Phase 1a Phase 1b Phase 2 Phase 3 (£M) Phases) Construction -£0.86 -£0.30 -£0.63 -£0.15 -£1.94

Maintenance £8.26 £23.96 £24.57 £0.75 £57.54

Total £7.40 £23.66 £23.94 £0.60 £55.60

Table 5-51: QUADRO Benefits by Phase

The total TEE benefits from TUBA and QUADRO by Phase are presented in Table 5-52.

Phase 1a Phase 1b Phase 2 Phase 3

Total TEE Benefits (£M) £98.45 £120.05 £890.61 £41.56

Table 5-52: Total TEE Benefits by Phase

It should be noted that the sum of the TEE benefits for each phase differs from the TEE benefits for the whole scheme presented in Table 5-8 while costs remain the same.

The difference in benefits is due to the evaluation periods, with the benefits from the full scheme (opened successively from 2019 to 2028) being evaluated over a 60 year period from opening of Phase 1a in 2019, whereas the benefits for each Phase were based on four evaluation periods from the respective years of opening.

Tables 5-49 to 5-51 demonstrate that Phase 2 generates the majority of benefits within the complete scheme and Phases 1a and 1b act as preparatory works, which enable the benefits of Phase 2 to be realised.

Accident Reduction Benefits

The number of casualties saved attributed to each phase of the scheme is presented in Table 5-53 below.

Number of Casualty Savings by Phase Total (all Phase 1a Phase 1b Phase 2 Phase 3 Phases Fatal 2.5 6.4 11.5 0.1 20.5

Serious 44.4 57.3 208.6 16.7 327.0

Slight 258.5 345.2 1,780.7 146.0 2,530.4

TOTAL 305.4 408.9 2,000.8 162.8 2,877.9

Table 5-53: Casualty savings by phase over 60 years

The economic benefits of the accident savings is calculated by comparing the cost of accidents over the 60 year appraisal period, with and without the scheme, at 2010 prices, discounted to 2010.

The benefits per phase arising from the accident savings are summarised in Table 5-54 below.

Phase Accident Benefits (£M)

Phase 1a £13.40

Phase 1b £18.67

Phase 2 £72.12

Phase 3 £5.14

Table 5-54: Present value of accident savings over 60 years (2010 prices, discounted to 2010)

Table 5-54 demonstrates that the highest proportion of total monetary accident benefits is derived from Phase 2 of the Proposed Scheme. The cumulative total from each of the phases amounts to £109.33M.

Environmental Benefits

The monetised environmental benefits/dis-benefits include noise, greenhouse gasses and local air quality. The benefits by phase, at 2010 prices and discounted to 2010 values, are summarised in Table 5-55.

Environmental Benefit (£M) Phase 1a Phase 1b Phase 2 Phase 3

Greenhouse Gasses -£17.67 -£28.06 -£45.73 -£12.47

Local Air Quality £1.63 £2.60 £4.23 £1.15

Noise £0.74 £1.17 £1.90 £0.52

Total -£15.30 -24.29 -39.60 -10.80

Table 5-55: Monetised Environmental Benefits by Phase (£M)

Evolving Monetised Impacts

The evolving monetised impacts include wider impacts and journey reliability benefits. Table 5-56 provides a breakdown for each phase of the scheme.

Benefits (£M) Phase 1a Phase 1b Phase 2 Phase 3

Wider Impacts £19.31 £19.24 £156.20 £10.14

Journey Time Reliability £4.54 £5.85 £45.49 £2.38

Total £23.85 £25.09 £201.68 £12.52

Table 5-56: Evolving Monetised Benefits by Phase

Present Value of Costs

The Present Value of Cost (PVC) for each Phase was determined using the same methodology as for the Full Scheme, described in the ‘Present Value of Costs ’ section from paragraph 5.5.11.

The PVC for each Phase is presented in Table 5-57 below.

Value for Money Assessment by Phase

The adjusted BCRs for each phase of the scheme are presented in Table 5-57.

Costs / Benefits (£M) Phase 1a Phase 1b Phase 2 Phase 3

Established Benefits £96.54 £114.43 £923.12 £35.90 Evolving Benefits (Wider impacts and journey time £23.85 £25.09 £201.69 £12.52 reliability) Adjusted Present Value of £120.39 £139.52 £1,124.81 £48.42 Benefits (PVB) Present Value of Costs £125.22 £180.13 £333.33 £81.36 (PVC) Net Present Value (NPV) -£4.83 -£40.61 £791.49 -£32.93

Adjusted BCR 0.96 0.77 3.37 0.60

Table 5-57: Adjusted BCR by Phase

Table 5-57 shows that the adjusted BCR ranges from 3.37 for Phase 2 to 0.60 for Phase 3. The initial VfM category is therefore ‘Poor’ for Phases 1a, 1b and 3 and ‘High’ for Phase 2.

It should be noted that a final VfM category for each Phase has yet to be determined. This will be assessed and included in the Full Business Cases that will be prepared for each Phase of the Proposed Scheme.

Summary (Complete Scheme and Phases)

The initial Value for Money assessment for the complete scheme produced an adjusted BCR of 2.02 which demonstrated that the Proposed Scheme offered High value for money.

Sensitivity testing demonstrated, given equal probability of a low, core and high growth scenario, that the Proposed Scheme would be in the High value for money category.

In determining a final Value for Money category, non-monetised impacts and the social and distributional impacts were considered in addition to the sensitivity tests.

Analysis of social and distributional impacts showed that areas within the study area with lower average incomes will benefit most. Impacts on the environment have been assessed and range from neutral to moderate adverse. However, none of these impacts were considered to weigh substantially against the overall scheme benefits.

A significant factor in determining the final value for money category was that benefits would only need to be reduced by £13M (equivalent to 0.9% of total benefits) for the BCR to be reduced to below 2 and hence the Value for Money category to be changed from High to Medium.

This is regarded as significant with respect to determining the final Value for Money category, since a reduction in benefits of 0.9% would result in a BCR of less than 2. In view of the small margin and to allow for uncertainties, the final

Value for Money category for the Proposed Scheme between Newbuildings and Aughnacloy was therefore determined as Medium to High .

Initial Value for Money categories have been produced for each Phase of the Proposed Scheme based upon the adjusted BCRs. The final Value for Money categories will be determined in the Full Business Case that will include a more detailed assessment of each Phase.

The Financial Case

Introduction to Financial Case

This chapter sets out the financial case for the proposed scheme to demonstrate its affordability. This chapter describes:

• How much the proposed scheme is expected to cost, and how this has been calculated;

• How the scheme will be paid for and by whom; and

• The anticipated profile of expenditure over time (whole life costs).

This chapter deals with costs and accounting issues. The question of value for money is dealt with separately in the Economic Case (Chapter 5).

Scheme / Project Costs

The estimated capital cost of the scheme, at 2017:Q2 prices, excluding sunk costs, client costs and non-recoverable VAT, is shown in Table 6-1.

Scheme Cost (£) A5 Western Transport Corridor £968,660,606 (including Phase 1a, Phase 1b, Phase 2, Phase 3)

Table 6-1: Estimated capital costs of the Proposed Scheme

The build-up of the cost estimate and spend profile over time is demonstrated in Table 6-2.

Financial Year (Cost in £) Scheme Element 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 Total

Construction Contracts £3,469,717 £51,840,559 £49,529,012 £50,856,212 £104,143,396 £136,878,089 £107,211,744 £53,605,872 £0 £43,257,524 £43,257,524 £0 £0 £644,049,648 Statutory Undertakers £198,182 £396,364 £639,091 £1,070,000 £1,634,545 £3,140,000 £2,654,545 £1,327,273 £516,667 £516,667 £516,667 £0 £0 £12,610,000 Works Land and £1,971,710 £3,944,033 £5,258,301 £8,544,893 £12,290,826 £13,177,324 £11,863,056 £8,807,977 £14,092,763 £6,889,331 £4,443,306 £3,770,078 £1,885,039 £96,938,636 Compensation Design Investigations, Surveys, Procurement, £2,969,650 £1,707,200 £2,931,450 £6,349,400 £4,648,950 £623,350 £0 £0 £1,999,592 £1,999,592 £0 £0 £0 £23,229,184 IDT Costs Supervision £635,200 £1,858,000 £1,985,100 £1,741,700 £2,069,200 £3,574,800 £2,674,800 £1,361,200 £0 £1,398,710 £1,431,025 £113,102 £56,551 £18,899,388 Finn Crossing (inc. Construction, Preparation and £0 £0 £0 £0 £3,327,011 £6,654,022 £6,654,022 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £16,635,056 Supervision, Land and Compensation) Total Cost (Excluding quantified risk and £9,244,458 £59,746,155 £60,342,954 £68,562,205 £128,113,929 £164,047,586 £131,058,168 £65,102,321 £16,609,022 £54,061,824 £49,648,521 £3,883,180 £1,941,590 £812,361,913 optimum bias) Quantified Risk £2,544,694 £2,544,694 £6,616,205 £6,616,205 £10,649,761 £10,649,761 £6,578,250 £6,578,250 £2,323,291 £2,323,291 £2,323,291 £0 £0 £59,747,693 Risk-adjusted Total Cost (Excluding £11,789,152 £62,290,849 £66,959,159 £75,178,410 £138,763,690 £174,697,346 £137,636,418 £71,680,571 £18,932,313 £56,385,116 £51,971,813 £3,883,180 £1,941,590 £872,109,606 Optimism Bias) Total Cost @2017:Q2 £11,789,152 £62,290,849 £66,959,159 £75,178,410 £138,763,690 £174,697,346 £137,636,418 £71,680,571 £18,932,313 £56,385,116 £51,971,813 £3,883,180 £1,941,590 £872,109,606 prices Adjustment to out- £1,246,000 £2,637,000 £4,523,000 £11,402,000 £18,419,000 £17,897,000 £11,184,000 £3,457,000 £11,830,000 £12,350,000 £1,033,000 £573,000 £96,551,000 turn (Inflation) Scheme Cost (out- £11,789,152 £63,536,849 £69,596,159 £79,701,410 £150,165,690 £193,116,346 £155,533,418 £82,864,571 £22,389,313 £68,215,116 £64,321,813 £4,916,180 £2,514,590 £968,660,606 turn prices)

Table 6-2: Breakdown of the scheme costs for the Proposed Scheme

Sunk Costs

‘Sunk’ costs are those costs which represent expenditure incurred prior to the scheme appraisal and which cannot be retrieved. In line with TAG Unit A1.2 (Scheme Costs), these ‘sunk’ costs were not included in the economic appraisal. The costs incurred prior to the scheme appraisal, at 2017:Q2 prices, are presented in Table 6-3.

Scheme Element Spend to Date (2017:Q2 Prices, in £’s)

Construction Contracts £0

Statutory Undertakers Works £1,049,607

Land and Compensation £2,787,879 Preparation (inc. Design Investigations, £73,489,310 Surveys, Procurement and IDT Costs) Supervision £0

Finn Crossing £0

Total £77,326,796

Table 6-3: A5WTC Spend to Date (‘Sunk’ Costs)

Scheme Preparation and Construction

The cost of the Proposed Scheme’s preparation and construction has been estimated by the Department’s cost consultant, ChandlerKBS.

Risk Budget

The cost of delivering the Proposed Scheme will not be fully known until the detailed design has been completed, land purchased and tender prices have been received. These costs will be quantified in the production of the Full Business Case for the respective phases of the Proposed Scheme. To reflect the uncertainty associated with known risks at this stage, a quantified risk assessment (QRA) has been undertaken 41 . Details of the QRA is presented in Section 8.9.

41 Risk allowance is a factor applied to project costs to act as a contingency for unforeseen circumstances. At the concept stage, the risks of being able to accurately assess cost is deemed high, and this reduces throughout the scheme’s lifecycle

Out-turn Price Adjustment

The cost estimates assume a price base of 2017:Q2. An allowance is therefore made for expected inflation between the date of the estimate and the date when the expenditure is expected to occur. The uplift factors to reflect price inflation have been estimated based on the GDP deflator methodology recommended by WebTAG. No further allowance has been made for construction inflation above GDP as, based on the Building Cost Information Services (BCIS) five-year forecast for increases in tender prices, the WebTAG GDP index is reflective of the movement of tender prices over this period. Should this not be the case, it is considered that any further movement is sufficiently allowed for in the QRA.

Summary of Scheme Costs

A summary of the scheme costs that will form the basis for approval is presented in Table 6-4. Information source Item Description Cost (£)

OBC Table 6-2 Scheme Cost (out-turn prices) (includes £ 968,660,606.00 (Final Row) inflation)

OBC Table 6-2 (6 th Finn Crossing (£ 16,635,056.00) + Associated £ 18,476,055.00 and 11 th Row) Inflation (£ 1,840,999.00)

Scheme Cost less all costs relating to Finn £ 950,184,551.00 Crossing

OBC Table 5-6 (8 th Optimism Bias £ 70,366,453.00 and 9 th Row)

Total Scheme Cost (including Inflation and £ 1,020,551,004.00 OB)

Table 6-4: Summary of Scheme Costs

Table 6-4 confirms that the costs for which approval is sought amounts to £1,020.55M . This is based on the outturn cost of the scheme (that includes an

allowance for future inflation 2017 to 2028) and Optimism bias. The Finn Crossing is excluded.

It should be noted that the outturn cost for which approval is sought differs from the £942.48M used in the economic appraisal. This is at 2017 Q2 prices and includes the Finn Crossing, but excludes future inflation.

Whole Life Costs

The Proposed Scheme will give rise to additional revenue liabilities for capital renewals and maintenance, when compared to the situation in which the Proposed Scheme does not exist. These have been compared as part of the QUADRO analysis and all maintenance obligations will be met as part of the maintenance regime operated by the Department.

Traffic-related Maintenance Costs

It is estimated that approximiately £188.08M (at current 2017 price base) is required for resurfacing / renewing the new highway infrastructure relating to the whole scheme. This is based on a 60 year appraisal period commencing on the opening of each Phase of the Proposed Scheme. Therefore, the total traffic- related maintenance cost is a sum of the traffic-related maintenance cost for each Phase, respective of each Phase’s appraisal period. The costs are based on the surface and binder courses being replaced approximately every 10 years after the opening of each Phase.

The traffic-related maintenance cost, over 60 years, for each Phase is shown in Table 6-5 below.

Phase Traffic-related Maintenance Cost (2017 prices)

Phase 1a £30,406,801

Phase 1b £48,566,140

Phase 2 £89,226,165

Phase 3 £19,880,907

Total £188,080,014

Table 6-5: Traffic-related maintenance cost over 60 years, by Phase, at 2017 prices

Annual Maintenance Costs

It is estimated that approximately £9.71M (at current 2017 price base) will be required to meet routine annual highways maintenance liabilities including Sustainable Urban Draingage System (SUDS) clearance, communications equipment, road and street lighting operation, winter maintenance (i.e. application of salt and snow clearance) and infrastructural and safety inspections. This is based on a 60 year appraisal period commencing on the opening of each Phase of the Proposed Scheme. Therefore, the total routine maintenance cost is a sum of the routine maintenance cost for each Phase, respective of each Phase’s appraisal period.

The routine (annual) maintenance cost, over 60 years, for each Phase is shown in Table 6-6 below.

Phase Routine (Annual) Maintenance Cost (2017 prices)

Phase 1a £1,606,039

Phase 1b £2,472,608

Phase 2 £4,542,698

Phase 3 £1,090,242

Total £9,711,586

Table 6-6: Routine (annual) maintenance cost over 60 years, by Phase, at 2017 prices

The whole life costs identified above have been factored into the economic appraisal, contained within the Economic Case, and have therefore been included within the BCR and NPV calculations.

Key Financial Risks

The strategic importance of the Proposed Scheme is recognised at Northern Ireland Executive level, being designated as a flagship project. As such it is an Executive priority for the allocation of capital funding. At present, sufficient funds, including commitments from the Irish Government under the ‘Fresh Start Agreement’, are in place for the delivery of Phase 1a, while the delivery of further

Phases will be dependent on future budgeting settlements. An indicative programme is shown in Section 8.3.

A risk register has been developed for the construction of the Proposed Scheme accounting for all risks and their management relating to the development of its entire length. Section 8.9 details the risk management strategy for the Proposed Scheme. The risk register is shown in Appendix I.

Budget and Funding by Other Parties

It is proposed that 100% of the scheme cost will be covered by public funding via the Northern Ireland Executive and Irish Government. The Irish Government reaffirmed its existing financial commitment to the Proposed Scheme in the ‘Fresh Start Agreement’ in November 2015. In accordance with the revised project timeline, the Irish Government funding will be provided in three tranches of £25m in the years 2017, 2018 and 2019 respectively.

The Commercial Case

Introduction

The Commercial Case outlines the commercial viability of the scheme and describes the procurement strategy which has been used to engage the market and deliver the scheme. It provides the planned method for risk allocation and transfer, contract and implementation timescales, as well as how the capability and technical expertise of the team delivering the project will be secured.

The project brief recognised the challenging delivery programme placed on the Department and its consultants by both Governments to achieve all the milestone targets. The initial Business Case Assessment task completed in early 2008 addressed a number of the project objectives and how they could be achieved and these included the Procurement Strategy and Supply Chain Strategy and Contract whilst also achieving the objective of speeding up delivery.

The outcome of this initial assessment determined the approach adopted by the project team in achieving the delivery programme between 2008 and 2012 and the overarching aims and objectives of that assessment have been maintained as the project has been taken through the statutory process again between 2013 and 2017.

In June 2008, the Project Team presented a Discussion Paper: ‘An Integrated Approach to Major Project Delivery’ to the Project Delivery Team which advocated using the integrated approach to delivery and Early Contractor Involvement (ECI) as the most appropriate way of achieving the project aims of value for money and minimal affordable cost.

This early work continued with a Market Sounding questionnaire of the construction sector to gather the industry’s concerns on how a scheme of approximately 88km, including 85km of new dual carriageway, could be delivered and all materials supplied to achieve this in the accelerated delivery programme.

The final report in this task was the ‘Procurement Strategy Summary for Outline Business Case Discussions’ which recommended the way forward in terms of promoting collaborative working through an integrated delivery team; sharing the risk throughout the industry by splitting the scheme into three contracts; and

rewarding risk allocation through a pain gain mechanism within the NEC Option C form of contract.

Whilst accepting the use of the Early Contractor Involvement (ECI) approach, the Department did recognise that the delivery programme did not provide an appropriate timeframe for the scheme design to be passed from the consultant to the contractor and as such it was decided that the consultant (WSP) would lead the design development through the statutory process with input from the contractors and their designers in value engineering and matters of construction impacts and mitigation.

The remainder of this chapter describes the approach and procedures followed in more detail.

Procurement Strategy

The procurement strategy was developed in line with government policy and best practice advice to develop an integrated approach to delivery. Early appointment of the A5WTC contractors to form part of the integrated delivery team prior to the Public Inquiry in 2011 generated the following benefits:

• The design was informed by the knowledge and experience of contractors and key supply chain partners prior to being constrained by the draft Orders and Environmental Statement;

• There is more time for the contractor to plan, recruit, motivate and retain the best team and to plan and source the necessary labour, plant and materials;

• There is more time to plan ahead and to address buildability requirements, which promotes safe delivery and a ‘right first time’ approach during construction;

• There is more time to assess construction risks, mitigate the consequences and agree the optimal allocation of risks for the construction phase;

• The Department has more time to assess proposed value engineering, and to approve any necessary departures from standards;

• There are greater opportunities for strong relationships and understanding to be built within the team; and

• As part of the integrated team, the contractors have been involved earlier in developing relationships with the local communities and stakeholders that can help to minimise scheme objections and programme risk.

The appointment of contractors to the Proposed Scheme effectively manages risk and reduces cost uncertainty.

Visions, Aims and Objectives relating to the Procurement Strategy

The section below presents the visions, aims and objectives as outlined in ‘Procurement Strategy Summary for Outline Business Case Discussions’ from 2008, which is included in Appendix J.

The A5WTC vision is for ‘a first-class and affordable A5 corridor upgrade delivered safely and sustainably through effective partnerships and project excellence’. Linked to this vision, the core aims and objectives relating to the procurement strategy, as defined in 2008 for the A5WTC, are:

1. NIRS Satisfaction with the Product – the product is a dual carriageway upgrade along the length of the existing A5 route that maximises performance against highway investment criteria (environment, economy, safety, accessibility, and integration);

2. NIRS Satisfaction with the Service – the service is the service received from the delivery team during the design and construction of the project (including risk management, supply chain management and communications);

3. Delivery to Budget – the project is currently valued within the range of £650 million to £850 million;

4. Delivery to programme – the current key programme dates are:

Element Opening Date

Preferred Corridor Late 2008

Preferred Route Announcement Mid 2009

Draft Orders Late 2010

Start on Site 2012

Open to Traffic 2015

Table 7-1: Key programme dates (at 2008)

5. Excellent Health and Safety – including safety of the workforce and public during construction and workforce welfare; and

6. Sustainable Delivery – excellent standards of sustainable planning and environmental management during construction.

Priorities and Constraints

The section below sets out the priorities and constraints that were taken into account in strategy development, as outlined in ‘ Procurement Strategy Summary for Outline Business Case Discussions ’, included in Appendix J:

1. Rapid delivery is a high priority requirement to align delivery to the timetable outlined in the Republic of Ireland’s NDP. Failure to meet the NDP timetable may result in the loss of the £400m contribution from the Republic of Ireland;

2. The development timetable (see Table 7-1 Section 7.3.12) is particularly challenging and will require a significant reduction on the time typically taken (six years) to bring a major road scheme to the point of construction; and

3. The procurement strategy options must build upon central and local government best practice in the delivery of major highway improvements.

Statutory Process

A major risk to delivery and influence on the procurement strategy was the Public Inquiry process.

The programme did not provide time for separate and consecutive Public Inquiries for sections of the A5WTC. Separate and concurrent Public Inquiries for different sections of the A5 route would have been very difficult to co-ordinate and control and could have led to consistency issues and an argument could have been made that the inquiries should be heard together as the route was developed and justified as a whole. A large single inquiry would however have carried the risk of the whole project being delayed if problems were to arise.

Whilst the budget profile for the scheme changed dramatically in November 2012 when the Republic of Ireland withdrew the majority of the intended £400m contribution, the aims, objectives and priorities have been maintained by The Department as the scheme procedures have been revisited.

On balance, The Department decided that the best approach to satisfy the key priorities and constraints (see Section 7.4) will be to undertake one Public Inquiry for the full A5WTC. This involved the same team (and inspector / commissioners) moving to hear evidence at different venues along the route. This decision was taken into account in the selection of the procurement strategy.

Procurement Strategy Development

Option Development and Initial Appraisal

Based on current industry practices, best practice advice and government policy, four main procurement options were identified for delivery of the A5 WTC

• Option 1 – Integrated Delivery Teams leading the design and statutory processes (IDT-A);

• Option 2 – Integrated Delivery Teams supporting the design and statutory processes (IDT-B);

• Option 3 – Fast-track Design and Build (FD&B); and

• Option 4 – Design, Build, Finance and Operate (DBFO).

These options are described in more detail in Appendix A of the Procurement Strategy Summary for Outline Business Case Discussions (included in Appendix J of this report).

An initial review identified the key milestones and potential delivery timescales for each option, which is presented in Figure 7.1 below. Following this initial appraisal work it was clear that the DBFO option would not be suitable for the delivery of the A5WTC for two primary key reasons:

• It did not meet with the clear priority for rapid delivery. The earliest possible start on site was October 2013, which was beyond the then current ROI NDP period. However, the DBFO option required substantial time for consultation with the industry, preparation of specialist reports, and negotiations which could easily have led to significant slippage to this timescale; and

• The accounting treatment and financial profile for DBFO would be different to that required under a conventional procurement. This was incompatible with, and would have affected, the ROI Government funding.

The options being considered and the results of the initial review work were discussed with the SIB and, as a result, the DBFO option was discounted on the above grounds.

Preferred Option Selection

Following the initial review, which ruled out the DBFO option, the remaining options were appraised to determine which approach was most likely to deliver value for money i.e. ‘the full achievement of the A5WTC aims for a minimal affordable cost’.

The likelihood of the procurement options delivering the aims and priorities outlined in Section 7.3 was considered. From this appraisal it was found that the Integrated Delivery Team options were most likely to deliver the full range of A5WTC project aims compared to the FD&B option.

A market soundings exercise was held over the summer of 2008 during the finalisation of the preferred option. The market feedback suggests that the construction industry would find the A5WTC scheme very attractive and would support the integrated delivery team approach that was developed.

Contract Packages

The market soundings exercise suggested that the work should be packaged to provide a number of opportunities to the industry. The potentially increased competition pre-award and competitive tension post-award from a greater number of contract packages needed to be set against the greater complexity arising from a higher number of contractual and physical interfaces. This balance was considered and, in overall terms, The Department considered that three works contracts would provide the best balance between competition and interface complexity.

The four options considered are described below and the characteristics of the three sections that were selected to develop a good balance between engineering characteristics, interface issues and contract value are given in Appendix J.

Option 1 – Integrated Delivery Teams Leading the Design and Statutory Processes (IDT-A)

For each A5WTC contract package Integrated Delivery Teams (IDT) would be appointed to undertake design development, the statutory procedures (including the Public Inquiry) detailed design and construction. Ideally, these contracts would be awarded around the time of the Preferred Route Announcement to allow a reasonable period for handover and mobilisation before draft Order publication.

Each package would be awarded to a different IDT organisation, which would comprise a contractor (single firm or JV), designers and key supply chain partners. The IDT would be required to have all of the skills and competence needed to deliver a successful outcome for their contract package. One of the IDT’s would be appointed to co-ordinate the overall approach to the statutory process and Public Inquiry.

Following IDT appointment the Department would be supported by WSP in a Client Advisor role, which would include overall programme management, project controls, contract management and ensuring consistency of engineering standards along the A5 route. The IDT organisation would be expected to deliver in partnership with the Department. Incentives would be developed to encourage collaboration between the separate IDTs.

Option 2 – Integrated Delivery Teams Supporting the Design and Statutory Processes (IDT-B)

Under this option, WSP would undertake design development and the statutory procedures up to and including the Public Inquiry. For each A5 contract package Integrated Delivery Teams (IDT) would be appointed to support WSP during this process and to begin to plan delivery. Following a favourable decision the IDT organisations would take responsibility for detailed design and construction.

The IDT contracts would be awarded around the time of the Preferred Route Announcement, the supporting role requiring much less input than IDT Option A up to the publication of the inspector’s decision. Each package would be awarded to a different IDT organisation, which would comprise a contractor (single firm or JV), designers and key supply chain partners. The IDT would be required to have

all of the skills and competence needed to deliver a successful outcome for their contract package.

Following transfer of design responsibility to the IDT organisations The Department would be supported by WSP in a Client Advisor role, which would include contract management. The IDT organisation would be expected to deliver partnership with the Department. Incentives would be developed to encourage collaboration between the separate IDTs.

Option 3 – Fast-track Design and Build (FD&B)

Under this option WSP would undertake design development and the statutory procedures up to an including the Public Inquiry and confirmation of Orders. The fast-track design and build (FD&B) team would comprise a contractor (single firm or JV) and designer that would have all of the skills and competence to finalise design and construct the project. The FD&B team would be appointed after the statutory processes were completed but, to save time, the OJEU procedures would be started before the inspector’s decision. The Department would be supported by WSP as Employer’s Agent, undertaking a contract management and administration function.

This option had no early contractor involvement element, but it may have been possible to involve a contractor during the early scheme preparation stage to provide advice on construction methods that could be taken into account in the design. However, this contractor would normally be excluded from the subsequent D&B competition, so interest in this role was likely to be limited. In addition, the contractor’s incentive to use the best people to find the most effective solution would be limited.

Option 4 – Design, Build, Finance and Operate (DBFO)

The Design, Build, Finance and Operate (DBFO) option is based on established practices for major highways PFIs. The following assumptions have been made for the purposes of considering the potential timescales for this option:

• WSP would undertake design development and the statutory procedures up to and including the Public Inquiry and confirmation of Orders;

• The DBFO competition would start after a positive inspector’s decision is received and a (short) industry consultation exercise has been completed;

• Payments to the DBFO contractor would be funded by Government on an availability charge basis and not through real tolls which would require different statutory procedures;

• DBFO tenders would be progressed largely on the basis of an output specification with tender documents prepared by WSP;

• Competitive Dialogue would be used to confirm NIRS’s requirements and the DBFO bidders would be invited to submit tenders based on these requirements;

• Appointment of a preferred bidder would be followed by a Funding Competition; and

• Following the outcome of the funding competition the DBFO contract could be awarded, the design completed and the scheme constructed.

Preferred Option

Of the integrated delivery team approaches, IDT-B was selected as the preferred option for two main reasons:

• It was more compatible with a single route Public Inquiry. IDT-A was not as well suited to a single route Public Inquiry because a number of different suppliers would take lead responsibility for developing and progressing their section of the project. Applying the IDT-A strategy in conjunction with a single contract would resolve this problem but it would also eliminate the

opportunity to benchmark costs between suppliers and maintain a degree of competitive tension post-award; and

• It was a faster procurement route, which satisfied the top priority of rapid delivery.

Figure 7-1: Procurement options for the Proposed Scheme

Procurement Route

The procurement route was developed to comply with best practice guidelines, procurement regulations and to deliver best value for money by supporting the full achievement of the A5WTC project aims for a minimal affordable cost. The key points of the procurement route are:

• The approach included dividing the A5WTC into three similar sized contract packages to establish a good balance between level of competition, use of available resources and complexity of the contractual and physical interfaces, minimising the risk of legal challenge;

• The main contract was taken forward in two phases resulting in an efficient procedure with no unnecessary activities. There is a clear break point at the end of the statutory procedures when an economic appraisal report would be submitted to DoF before progressing to the construction phase; and

• The contract was based on the NEC3 Option C – a target cost approach that will involve open-book accounting procedures. Additional project-wide incentives will be developed to encourage the contractors to co-operate with one another over the full duration of the A5WTC project.

In relation to the Regulations, the procurement route also took into account the lessons learnt from previous relevant court cases including Henry Brothers v NI Department of Education, McLaughlin & Harvey v NI Department of Finance and Personnel, Lettings International v London Borough of Newham and the Lianakis case in Greece. Key lessons learnt included:

• The importance of fairness, transparency and non-discrimination;

• The need to be clear and open on pre-qualification thresholds, assessment criteria and weightings;

• Robust record keeping to provide clear evidence of decisions taken;

• Effective communications with the industry, potential bidders and tenderers;

• Robust procedures needed for dealing with non-compliant and variant bids, and abnormally low tenders;

• The need for price to be dealt with in an appropriate way in assessing the most economically advantageous offer;

• The need for a process that provides flexibility as far as possible without undermining transparency;

• The need for adequate training of staff involved in the assessment process; and

• The importance of good quality and appropriate feedback at the conclusion of the selection process.

Alignment with Procurement Strategy

The aspects of the procurement strategy that were taken into account when developing the detailed procurement route in line with the The Public Contracts Regulations 2006 were:

• The A5WTC was packaged into three separate contracts to maximise competition at the tender stage. The three sections, each valued around £160 million to £210 million in 2008, individually represented the largest highways projects procured by the Department. A single £500 million to £600 million contract was highly unlikely to result in an effective competition because very large, unwieldy and complex joint ventures would have been required to successfully demonstrate economic and financial standing (Regulation 24) and technical ability (Regulation 25). It was noted that any packaging configuration carried the risk of not being supported by companies within the supply chain. Large firms would prefer the opportunity to bid for very large packages which would eliminate smaller firms from the competition. A decision to package the work as a single contract would however, also be viewed as being discriminatory

against those smaller firms that would have been able to bid for the work on their own if it had been packaged in conventional sized contracts.

• All three contracts would not be awarded to the same economic operator to ensure healthy post-award ‘competitive tension’ and to provide more than one source of cost information for effective contract management and cost benchmarking. This required economic operators to be restricted to a maximum of two tendering opportunities. If they had been allowed three opportunities then they could have won all three contracts, which would have nullified important elements of the procurement strategy and exposed the Department to criticism that they were not demonstrating value for money.

• The contracts were awarded at the same time by Autumn 2009 to allow the contractors time to help optimise the route design from a construction viewpoint prior to finalising the land take that informed the draft statutory Orders (the A5WTC is being promoted as a single route and would be subject to a single public inquiry held at various locations along the route).

Preferred Form of Contract

For civil engineering works in the UK, there are two main forms of contract: the Institution of Civil Engineers Conditions of Contract (ICE), which since August 2011 has been rebadged as the Infrastructure Conditions of Contract (ICC) and sponsored by the Association for Consultancy and Engineering (ACE) and Civil Engineering Contractors Association (CECA); or the New Engineering and Construction Contract NEC3 suite of contracts.

In line with the Department’s adopted approach, the preference was to procure the works for the Proposed Scheme using NEC3. Within this, there are five main payment options:

• Option A: Priced contract with activity schedule;

• Option B: Priced contract with bill of quantities;

• Option C: Target cost with activity schedule;

• Option D: Target cost with bill of quantities; and

• Option E: Cost reimbursable.

The final tender option selected by the Department was that which provided the greatest degree of cost certainty and value for money. Option C was therefore selected for the Proposed Scheme, which means that the contractors / JVs would negotiate a target cost, based on competitively tendered rates by means of an activity schedule.

Integrated Delivery Team

The Integrated Delivery Team (IDT) comprises of the Department and three contracting organisations including:

• Consultant, WSP, responsible for leading the Proposed Scheme through the statutory procedures;

• 3 No. Contractor JVs, responsible for construction of the Proposed Scheme; and

• Key supply chain partners, responsible for several aspects involved in the design and construction of the Proposed Scheme.

Contractors were integrated into the team as outlined in an Integrated Service Delivery Plan, including a Steering Group, Project Integration Team and Technical Working Group (TWG) meetings.

Integration was supported by project-wide incentives that were developed to encourage the contractors to co-operate with one another over the full duration of the Proposed Scheme.

The ‘early’ appointment of the IDT was possible after Preferred Route Announcement and well before draft Order publication. The Employer’s Requirements were specified in terms of the delivery of the project aims in line with the Department’s policies, processes and procedures. This is supported by the latest HM Treasury advice to use output or outcome based specifications to provide more scope for innovative solutions. The early appointment allowed the

IDT to have maximum influence on the planning and design before constraints are imposed by the statutory procedures.

Payment Mechanisms

The contract includes incentives to motivate the IDT to work closely together and with the Department to achieve the scheme aims for minimal out-turn cost within the available budget.

The contract is divided into two broad phases:

• Phase 1 – preliminary design process and promotion of the project through the statutory process up to the Orders being confirmed and operative; and

• Phase 2 – completion of the design and construction.

It was intended that both phases would be progressed using target cost mechanisms with actual costs reimbursed. In reality, Phase 1 utilised the Professional Services Contract with costs being budgeted and paid for using tendered daily rates for resources. The task orders for Phase 1 were estimated using tendered rates and agreed post award using procedures given in the contract. The target cost for Phase 2 would be developed during scheme development and be agreed, in conjunction with a schedule of construction risks, before the client commits to Phase 2. Construction risks are assessed and allocated by the Client in the light of risk cost premiums proposed by the contractor.

A number of controls are incorporated to give the Client comfort that the target represents good value and that the accounting of actual costs is robust. These include a tendered quality plan for building up the target cost (which would be a contractual commitment), the development of resourced programmes of work based on benchmarked productivity rates, processes to agree quantities of work and appropriate market rates for labour, plant and materials.

In addition, the contract includes open book accounting arrangements and provision is included for independent third party reviews of the target price. Finally, the financial and performance incentives are structured in a way so as to reward an accurate target cost.

Given that the NEC3 ECC contract through Main Option C is being used, the contract includes two share mechanisms:

• One related to performance against the contract target cost (the Section Share); and

• The other related to performance against a pre-set Project Target Cost (the Project Share).

Risk Allocation and Transfer

The 3 no. contractor JVs were appointed in 2009 and under Phase 1 of their contracts were actively engaged in the development of the specimen design of the scheme, providing value engineering and buildability input into the design and the land take requirements for the draft Vesting Order. As such, the level of risk reduced through this process was captured and quantified within the QRA process. The detailed description of this process is outlined with Section 8.9 in the Management Case.

Once the tendering process is complete, some of the risk (such as scheme cost increases associated with the design and construction) can be transferred to the contractor. Other risks, such as the identification of statutory undertaker equipment, and mitigation costs associated with these, can be removed from the ‘risk pot’ completely if they do not materialise, or transferred to ‘actual’ scheme costs if they do materialise, rather than remaining as risk.

The construction contract amends some of the core clauses of the NEC Conditions of Contract to facilitate the transferring of specific risks from the Department to the Contractor – some examples of these are specified below. These risk would be associated with the potential increasing of the scheme costs above those predicted in the Financial Case and transferring them to the Contractor affords the employer an element of cost certainty.

The delivery and programme risk will substantially lay with the Contractor, though the following examples of risks have been considered by the Department:

• Unforeseen ground conditions;

• Exceptional Weather;

• Flooding;

• Cost Inflation;

• Vandalism / Theft;

• Protestors (delay);

• Environmental (delay);

• Archaeology; and

• Surveys (adequacy / suitability).

Contract Length

The Proposed Scheme is currently at the end of the preconstruction stage. This stage takes the scheme from feasibility to full planning being granted. It is envisaged that the Delivery agreements for each contractor JV will be signed as funding becomes available for each Phase; commencing with Phase 1a works in late 2017 with scheme completion occurring in 2028 when Phase 3 is completed.

The Department has a central Procurement Branch which oversees all contracts and provided the appropriate clauses for the Proposed Scheme – a number of which are specific to Northern Ireland.

The programme for implementation of the Proposed Scheme is summarised in Section 8.3, although more details will be provided in the Full Business Cases for each Phase of the Proposed Scheme.

Contract Management

The form of contract selected provides the contracting authority with an appropriate contract to reduce risk, but with an ability to bring forward the detailed design process in the programme depending on funding allocation. WSP will supervise the Target Cost negotiations, the detailed design and construction phases of the project, alongside the Department advisors and cost consultants,

ChandlerKBS. More details on contract management will be provided in the Full Business Case for each phase.

Summary

The Proposed Scheme used the OJEU ‘restricted procedure’ procurement tendering process, which is appropriate for large scale infrastructure projects due to the “pre-qualification” of suppliers based on their financial standing and technical or professional capability. It also had clear and distinct timescales for each of its stages which permitted the contracting authority to ensure that the tenders were received by the dates required.

The Project Managers are supported by a range of experts covering procurement, legal and financial matters within WSP. There is also a wider partnership group with representatives from the key partners including ChandlerKBS, Rowsell Wright and the Department’s Procurement Branch.

The information provided demonstrates how the Proposed Scheme was commercially viable, with a resilient contracting and procurement strategy. The contractual and commercial arrangements are appropriate and workable, notably:

• the OJEU “restricted procedure” procurement strategy has been well utilised by the Department for Infrastructure;

• the proposed method is in full agreement with the Department for Infrastructure’s procurement systems and processes;

• the procurement route includes risk management as a core principle, using strategies of risk allocation and transfer to the contractor, using disincentives and penalties for programme overruns / missing key milestones, to achieve delivery on time and of required quality; and

• there was a high demand / level of competition amongst contractors for the design and construction of the proposed scheme.

The Commercial Case demonstrates that the Proposed Scheme is commercially viable, with a robust contracting and procurement strategy. The contractual and commercial arrangements are appropriate and workable.

The Management Case

Introduction

This chapter forms the Management Case for the Proposed Scheme. It describes how the scheme will be delivered through project management, best practice, confirming that the timescales are realistic, and demonstrating that an appropriate governance structure is in place to oversee the project.

Specifically, the section provides and sets out:

• Programme and project dependencies;

• The governance structure (management framework);

• The scheme / project scheduling (i.e. the development of the project programme, and the process for monitoring progress against the milestones within the programme);

• The stakeholder management process (how stakeholders have been identified, and their influence on the project management);

• The risk management process; and

• How the benefits set out in the Economic Case will be monitored and realised.

The Management Case presents and outlines the approach taken to assess and ensure project deliverability.

Project Governance

A well-functioning governance structure will be crucial to the successful delivery of the scheme. The governance structure for the Proposed Scheme is shown in Figure 8-1 below.

Figure 8-1: Governance structure for the Proposed Scheme

Investment Decision Maker

The Department’s Roads and Rivers Management Group (RRMG) is the Investment Decision Maker (IDM) and is responsible for the delivery of the project. A member of the RRMG, Mr. Pat Doherty, the Director of Engineering, is the Senior Responsible Owner (SRO) who leads the Project Delivery Team in the delivery of the Proposed Scheme.

The IDM is responsible for:

• Managing the scheme and ensuring its successful delivery;

• Completion of milestones, ensuring the scheme is delivered within the constraints of time and budget;

• Providing guidance and support to the SRO; and

• Authorising necessary funds and spending.

The SRO is responsible for chairing meetings and providing guidance and support to the Project Owner and Project Sponsor as required. The SRO ensures that the Proposed Scheme is progressing in line with the originally envisaged project programme and that key deliverables and milestones agreed by the RRMG are achieved. RRMG Membership is set out in Table 8-1.

The IDM consists of individuals in the following roles:

Individual Role

Dr. Andrew Murray Deputy Secretary

John Irvine Director – Network Services

Pat Doherty Director – Engineering

Deirdre Mackle Director – DfI Rivers Director – DfI Roads: Transport Projects and Ciarán de Búrca Business Services Division

Table 8-1: The Project Board

Project Delivery Team

The Department has established a Project Delivery Team for the Proposed Scheme. The team is led by the SRO and includes representatives of the various disciplines and work streams involved in delivering the project to completion. The Project Delivery Team meets monthly, or as required, and the SRO is responsible for determining which disciplines or work streams need to be represented at any particular meeting, which may include additional specialist expertise.

The main responsibilities of the Project Delivery Team are to:

• co-ordinate the different activities which make up the project;

• provide direction to the technical delivery of the project;

• undertake monthly reviews of progress against targets and programme;

• undertake monthly review of the risk register, and initiate corrective action where appropriate; and

• provide, as a minimum, quarterly progress reports for the Project Board. The Board will consider any matters of a strategic nature and give advice accordingly.

The Project Delivery Team is set out in Table 8-2. It currently comprises of the following individuals:

Individual Role Role in Own Organisation

Pat Doherty Senior Responsible Owner (DfI) Director of Engineering Divisional Manager – Western Conor Loughrey Project Owner (DfI) Division Principal Engineer – Western Seamus Keenan Project Sponsor (DfI) Division Director of Engineering Philip Hamilton PDT Member (DfI) Services Willie Kerr PDT Member (DfI) Programme Manager Senior Engineer – Western Manny Gault Project Manager (DfI) Division Peter Edwards Project Director (WSP) Technical Director

John Cassidy Technical Manager (WSP) Principal Engineer Michele Kilfeather- Project Manager (WSP) Project Manager Hughes

Table 8-2: Project Delivery Team

Programme / Project Plan

A project programme has been developed for the Outline Business Case setting out all the key project tasks and their duration and the interdependencies between each task. Certain elements of the programme have built in tolerance / contingency to account for risks identified within the risk register (see Section 8.9).

The programme will be a live document, with progress on planned task completion being monitored against actual progress by the SRO. The SRO will report progress against plan to the IDM (the Department’s RRMG).

The programme key stages, at high-level, are illustrated in Figure 8-2.

Figure 8-2: Project Programme

Assurances and Approvals Plan

Approvals

The responsibility for assurance and approval of the Outline Business Case rests with the Department of Finance, who will assess the technical content of the business case against appropriate financial and transport appraisal guidance, which in this case, is an agreed combination of the DfT five case model approach and NIGEAE’s 10 step approach.

The Outline Business Case (OBC) covers the broad structure of the DfT’s five case model approach and adheres to the key principals of NIGEAE’s 10 step guidance approach. It delivers a proportionate and balanced appraisal of the Proposed Scheme which includes an economic appraisal for a combination of all phases of the project, and an incremental phased approach, therefore providing an assessment of value for money for the entirety of the Proposed Scheme and phases. This will be presented to the Department of Finance for conditional approval.

The OBC is the gateway to proceed to the development of the Full Business Case for each individual phase of the Proposed Scheme, i.e. Phase 1a, Phase 1b, Phase 2 and Phase 3, but does not guarantee full funding or commitment to the project.

As noted in Chapter 2, due to budgetary constraints the Proposed Scheme will now be delivered in separate phases. This OBC will be supplemented by a phase specific addendum prior to the construction of each phase. The OBC together with the phase specific addendum will constitute the Full Business Case (FBC) for that phase, which accounts for a combination of transport appraisal guidance provided by the DfT and NIGEAE.

Phase specific addenda will review the continued accuracy of assumptions made within this OBC with a view to ensuring the robustness of the appraisal. Factors which will be considered include; scheme estimates, delivery dates, traffic growth rates and lessons learned from previous phases. If phases commence construction in line with the programme outlined within this OBC, then the level of

detail required within the addendum for each Phase is likely to be limited; however, as time progresses it will become more comprehensive.

On full approval of each Full Business Case, which will contain an agreed Phase Target Cost with the relevant IDT member (Contractor JV already appointed - see Section 7.10.5), the Department will be able to start drawing down funding and begin construction of the relevant Phase of the Proposed Scheme.

Assurance

It is essential that large, complex and long running projects are monitored effectively. All major transport schemes have to demonstrate that a system for monitoring progress is part of the management structure and plan. The Office of Government Commerce (OGC) Gateway review process is a formal assessment of the progress of a project at key stages in its development which is endorsed by the Department.

A Gateway review is a ‘peer review’ in which independent project managers from outside the project use their experience and expertise to examine the progress and likelihood of successful delivery of the project.

A Gateway review provides assurance and support to the senior responsible owner that:

• Suitable skills and experience are deployed on the project;

• All stakeholders understand the project status and issues;

• There is assurance that the project can progress to the next phase;

• Time and cost targets have a realistic basis;

• Lessons are learned; and

• The project team are gaining input from appropriate stakeholders.

OGC Gateway 3B reviews will be undertaken prior to committing to the construction of each phase. The previous gateway reviews which have been undertaken are as follows:

• February 2010 – OGC Gateway 3 Review: This review covered all aspects of the delivery of the whole scheme; and

• June 2012 – OGC Gateway 3 Review (referred to as the Gateway 3b Review): This review focussed on the delivery of Phase 1 of the scheme which aligned with the phased delivery programme that was set in 2012.

The Department will liaise the Department of Finance to develop and agree the Assurance and Approvals plan during the development of the Full Business Case for each individual phase of the Proposed Scheme.

Communications Strategy and Stakeholder Management

When developing the Project Brief in 2007, the Department recognised the importance of a clear and informative communications strategy in enabling the project team to deliver the scheme to the agreed milestones. As such public consultation, as part of the overall communications strategy, has been a key phase running throughout the delivery period.

The Department has a committed approach to Communication, and as such a number of documents have been published to support this, including the Roads Service Communication Strategy 2008 – 2011 which is now superseded by the DRD Corporate Communications Improvement Plan and the Communications Guidelines for Major Works Projects.

The Department has embarked on an extensive consultation process to develop and maintain the active support and commitment of stakeholders and the community, to facilitate the timely and successful implementation of the project.

This approach has been enhanced, where necessary, to help stakeholders manage the potentially rapid change they will experience by the construction of a new dual carriageway in their communities.

Stakeholder Engagement

As well as the written word, the Department also recognises the importance of one-to-one communication and has embarked on an extensive consultation process within the study area to develop and maintain the active support and commitment of stakeholders and the community and to facilitate the timely and successful implementation of the project. The various forms of this process are described below.

Public exhibitions

April / May 2008

A series of Public Awareness days were held during April and May 2008. These involved individual one day events in Londonderry, Strabane, Omagh and Ballygawley and were attended by 388 persons. The purpose was to:

• advise the public that the Department was promoting the scheme;

• explain the objectives of the scheme;

• introduce the key transport, engineering, economic and environmental criteria that would inform the planning, design and assessment process;

• outline the statutory process that would be followed;

• introduce the public to the extent of the initial study areas being considered; and

• seek initial information and responses from attendees.

Feedback was received by making a written record of conversations at the Public Information days, completion of event questionnaires, subsequent correspondence and via the project website.

February 2009

A series of Public Consultation days were held in February 2009 for the exhibition of the Preferred Corridor and potential route options. These events adopted the

same format, and used the same locations as the 2008 Public Information days. There were 2,546 attendees recorded.

The Preferred Corridor and the route options had emerged following preliminary consideration of key constraints. Comments were sought relating to the preliminary route options and the public were encouraged to provide information relating to the corridors. This information assisted with the refinement and, where relevant, modification of the route options prior to their subsequent evaluation and selection of a Preferred Route.

The feedback from this second public consultation included concerns relating to local ecology, the severance of farms, potential impacts on floodplains and on designated ecological and heritage sites, impacts on the landscape, interactions with proposed development sites, loss of traffic from the existing A5WTC and the consequential impacts that would result on local businesses, community severance and loss of community facilities (e.g. sports fields) and impacts on property and homes.

July 2009

A series of Public Exhibitions were held in July 2009 over four consecutive days in Omagh, Strabane, Londonderry and Ballygawley. This was to present the Department’s Preferred Route to the public. Over 2,500 attendees at the exhibitions were invited to comment on the Preferred Route and individual landowners who would be potentially affected, were offered the opportunity for individual discussions with members of the Project Team.

The feedback from these events included issues similar to those raised previously including the severance of dairy farms and the locations of junctions as well as more local issues with regard to moving the alignment to avoid natural features (away from rivers and floodplains), public amenities (e.g. footpaths) and community severance.

November 2010

Pre-Orders Public Exhibitions for the scheme proposed in 2010 were held in November 2010 over four consecutive days in Omagh, Strabane, Londonderry and Ballygawley. This involved presentation of the Department’s proposals to the

public and was attended by 1,219 people. The aims and objectives of this event were to:

• demonstrate the assessments carried out so far and explain how the proposals had been developed including the approach to alternatives;

• highlight the key factors which had influenced the choice and development of the proposals;

• present the junction layouts;

• explain the direct or indirect effects that the proposals would have on property, the community and the environment;

• detail the next steps in the process;

• inform the public of the statutory procedures and anticipated programme to the opening of the road;

• increase public awareness of the project; and

• engage with a range of stakeholders.

Following the Pre-Orders Public Exhibitions the draft Orders were published in November 2010. There was an 8 week formal consultation period associated with this which ended on 21 st January 2011.

2016 Statutory Orders

The Department (DfI) published new draft Orders in February 2016 as follows:

• Environmental Statement 2016;

• Notices of Intention to Make a Vesting Order Phase 1A;

• Notices of Intention to Make a Vesting Order Phase 1B;

• Notices of Intention to Make a Vesting Order Phase 2;

• The Draft trunk Road T3 (Western Transport Corridor) Order (Northern Ireland) 2016 (referred to as the Notice of Intention to Make a Direction Order); and

• The Draft Private Accesses on the A5 Western Transport Corridor (Stopping-Up) Order (Northern Ireland) 2016 (referred to as the Notice of Intention to Make a Stopping Up Order).

Associated with the publication of these Orders, as in 2010, was a series of Public Exhibitions.

March 2016

In early March 2016 the Department held a series of Public Exhibitions over four consecutive days in Londonderry, Strabane, Omagh and Ballygawley attended by over 1,000 people. The aims and objectives were to:

• present the Proposed Scheme 2016 and draft Orders;

• demonstrate the assessments carried out so far and to explain the changes that had taken place since 2010 to comply with current engineering and environmental standards and agreed commitments from the 2011 Public Inquiry;

• explain the assessment and consultation process under the Environmental Impact Assessment and Habitats Directive associated with Special Areas of Conservation and internationally designated sites;

• highlight the key factors which have influenced the development of the Proposed Scheme to date;

• explain the anticipated phased approach to the draft Orders, assessment and construction programme;

• explain the direct and / or indirect effects that the Proposed Scheme would be likely to have on property, the community and the environment;

• inform the public of the statutory procedures and the next steps in the scheme development process;

• engage with a range of stakeholders; and

• increase public awareness of the scheme.

Statutory consultees and other stakeholders

A wide range of statutory authorities and organisations have been consulted as part of the studies and assessments which have been undertaken during the preparation of the Orders and Environmental Statement for the Proposed Scheme.

Meetings have been held with many stakeholders including:

• Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) – an Executive Agency of DAERA;

• Loughs Agency (LA);

• DfI Rivers (formerly Rivers Agency);

• The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB);

• The Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA) (formerly the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD));

• PlanningNI (formerly DoE Planning Service); and

• Local Authorities.

In the Republic of Ireland, to cover any trans-boundary issues, the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS), a part of the Heritage Division of the Department of Arts, Heritage, Regional, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, was consulted. A full list of the consulted stakeholders can be found in Table 4-13.

A transboundary consultation was carried out in June 2016 by Donegal County Council and Monaghan County Council on the 2016 A5WTC Environmental Statement.

The objective of the consultations with the above authorities, agencies and bodies has been to:

• collect and verify known environmental data relevant to the wider study area and specific to the Proposed Scheme;

• seek comment relating to the assessment process, the scope of the ES and the methods of assessment adopted; and

• discuss mitigation requirements and measures.

Landowners and other affected parties

The project team has maintained an accurate record of all communications with stakeholders since the commencement of the scheme using the proprietary database system, Pinpoint (a wholly owned process developed by the project consultants, WSP).

Pinpoint contains records of over 8,700 land interests and nearly 40,000 unique communications. The 2016 Public Inquiry process resulted in 7,500 items of communication with 1,008 objections received. Pinpoint has been used to generate mail merges of standard letters and enclosures to recipients as well as the development of the Statutory Orders schedules and plans and the logging of representations to the draft Statutory Orders and the formatting of the written responses by the Department prior to the public inquiry in 2016.

The system is also able to carry out any gap analysis to ensure any recipient list is complete and also provides the monthly statistics to demonstrate compliance with the requirement for the Department to respond to third parties within a set period.

In addition to any written communications, specific consultation with landowners and other parties, who would be directly affected by the Proposed Scheme, has generally involved a series of landowner / stakeholder meetings, held during key stages of the design development. The issues discussed at these meetings have been considered throughout the process of appraising alternatives and when developing the Proposed Scheme. The objectives for each of the meeting types are outlined in Table 8-3 below.

Meeting Type Date Key Objectives • introduce specific landowners to the reasoning behind the selection of the Preferred Route; • confirm the lines of communication between each landowner and the project team; • gather data from landowners to further inform August 2009 – Introductory local design development and identify potential October 2009 mitigation needs; • explain the process through to the preparation of Orders; and • outline the expected programme of subsequent meetings. • update landowners on progress and any emerging information such as development of side roads, junctions and alignments; • review impacts specific to each landowner April 2010 – Mitigation including potential landtake in light of the further October 2010 development of the design proposals; and • discuss and seek agreement to proposed mitigation measures and outline accommodation works. • confirm the extent of landtake proposed and other impacts specific to each landowner / stakeholder; October 2010 – • confirm the proposed design and mitigation Pre-vesting November 2010 measures specific to each landowner / stakeholder; and • reprise the statutory context and rights relative to landowners and potential sources of advice. • confirmation of the land ownership and interests and particular recording changes that may have taken place since the previous orders; • inform landowners of progress with the scheme; • discuss and agree accommodation works September 2011 (Phase 1 only); Additional – April 2015 • explain the Permit to Enter agreement process to be used to reduce the area of vested lands and request signing of the PTE prior to finalising the vesting boundary (Phase 1 only); and • to note any recent planning applications or change in use, conacre etc.

Meeting Type Date Key Objectives • explain the Permit to Enter agreement process to be used to reduce the area of vested lands and request signing of the PTE prior to finalising the vesting boundary (Phase 1a and 1b only); • discuss and agree accommodation works Pre-vesting March 2017 (Phase 1a only); • confirmation of the land ownership and interests and particular recording changes that may have taken place since the previous orders; and • to note any recent planning applications or change in use, conacre etc.

Table 8-3: Summary of landowner meetings

Public Inquiries

May-July 2011

Between May and July 2011, the Department held a series of Public Inquiries. A total of 2,579 letters / signatories were received during the statutory objection / comment period associated with the publication of the draft Orders and the ES 2010.

Comments and recommendations following the Public Inquiries were published in the Inspector’s Report in February 2012. The recommendations and comments were reviewed and, where accepted, recorded in the Departmental Statement and incorporated into the Proposed Scheme design. The DRD Minister made the decision to proceed with the A5WTC project on 31 st July 2012.

However following a challenge in the High Court, Justice Stephens ruled that the Habitats Regulations Assessment had not been completed and as such the Orders were rescinded and the statutory process was revisited.

October-December 2016

Following the publication of the draft Orders and the ES in February 2016, a Public Inquiry, administered by the Planning Appeals Commission (PAC), commenced on 4 th October 2016 and concluded on 14 th December 2016. The PAC report into the inquiry was submitted to the Department on 25 th May 2017 and its recommendations have been considered in detail, as reported in the Departmental Statement, and taken into consideration before a decision made on

whether to proceed with the Proposed Scheme and make the necessary Statutory Orders.

Project Reporting Arrangements

The Project Brief defined the reporting arrangements required to deliver the commission including:

• Monthly reports to the PDT including:

o Progress Report

o Director’s Report

o Risk Dashboard

o Minutes of Previous Meeting

• Commission Management reports:

o Project Initiation Document for each Phase of the delivery programme

o Integrated Service Delivery Plans for the ECI Phase 1 delivery

• Major milestone reports in accordance with the DMRB and RSPPG E030

o Stage 1 Scheme Assessment Report – Preliminary Options Report

o Stage 2 Scheme Assessment Report – Preferred Options Report

o Stage 3 Scheme Assessment Report – the Proposed Scheme

o Environmental Statement

o Habitats Regulations Assessment Reports

• Supplementary reporting required of the scheme including:

o Procurement Strategy

o Flood Risk Assessment

o Traffic Modelling and Forecasting Reports

o On-line Assessment Report

o Risk Registers

o Safety Audits

o Geotechnical Reports

These reports were prepared in accordance with WSP’s QMS and finalised following approval from the Project Sponsor and his team. The Project Team also had to present the results of each stage of the assessment to the DfI Roads and Rivers Group.

Contract Management

Pat Doherty, the SRO, issued letters of appointment to WSP to deliver the various Phases of the scheme. The Project team then prepared a PID for each appointment which defined the programme for delivery and the budget fees and costs. As additional tasks are identified the Project Sponsor would issue instructions to WSP and Change Orders are approved identifying additional deliverables and associated fees and recoverable costs.

The Department’s Project Sponsor and support team are responsible for the day to day management of the delivery programme by WSP as defined in the PID and associated change orders. To achieve the delivery programme, the WSP Project Director is supported by a Project Manager and a Technical Manager who are in turn supported by teams of engineers, consultants and technicians for the various disciplines together with peer reviewers to ensure the accuracy of the products. The Project Sponsor also leads the Integrated Delivery Team in aspects of the project relating to the construction phases.

The Project Team manage the project in a collaborative, open and trusting manner with the Project Sponsor and team working closely with WSP’s Project Director and team (including the contractor JV teams). The team meet monthly to review

progress and agree the forward workload and deliverables including managing and minimising risks as well as reviewing the liaison with stakeholders.

The Commission requires WSP to provide timely information to the Project Sponsor to monitor the delivery of the services and Key Performance Indicators including:

• MS Project Programmes and agreed milestones;

• Actual hours v anticipated hours and associated approved change controls;

• Outturn and forecast costs against project estimate;

• Quality of output; and

• Client satisfaction.

The overall reporting structure to achieve the above is a monthly cascade of meetings reporting upwards to the PDT requiring:

• Week 1 – WSP team co-ordination meeting: to report on progress by discipline, review delays and risks and how to manage tasks to maintain the overall scheme programme;

• Week 2 – DfI / WSP Progress Meeting: to review progress and financial targets; manage risks; agree programming changes to achieve milestones; review IDT progress; and review stakeholder liaison; and

• Week 3 – PDT Meeting: to present monthly progress to the SRO; review the key risks and delays to programme and agree any strategic decisions required to maintain the delivery programme.

This cascade is augmented by ad hoc meetings with the team and stakeholders to maintain the delivery programme and achieve the milestones.

All meetings are recorded by agreed minutes with actions and their owners clearly identified. The WSP Project Manager monitors the delivery of actions and presents progress using a RAG system to enable the key delivery issues to be

highlighted, allowing focussed attention on resolving issues and maintaining the delivery programme.

Risk Management Strategy

Risk management is the methodical approach to identifying, quantifying and managing risks that occur during the lifecycle of a project. The key to effectively mitigating risks is to develop a series of well-defined steps to support better decision-making through an understanding of the potential risks inherent to a scheme and their likely impact.

The Treasury Green Book recommends a four-stage process which is broadly cyclical (plan-do-review) requiring on-going review and update of risks to ensure that effective controls are implemented during scheme development and delivery. The risk management strategy is illustrated in Figure 8-3.

Identify Risks

Implement & Assess & Review Evaluate

Establish Response Plan & Responsibilities

Figure 8-3: Risk Management Strategy

Risk management process

Risk management is seen as a key process underpinning good scheme governance and achievement of scheme objectives in a cost effective manner. TAG Unit A1.2 (Scheme Costs) requires all project related risks, which may impact

on the scheme costs, to be identified and quantified in a Quantified Risk Assessment (QRA) to produce a risk-adjusted cost estimate.

The outcome of the QRA process is the prediction of an ‘expected’ risk value which is the average of all risk outcomes, factoring in the various probabilities of these risks materialising. This ‘expected’ value effectively becomes the ‘risk adjusted cost estimate’. The risk assessment has been undertaken using the following four-stage process:

• Risk identification;

• Risk quantification;

o Assessing the impacts of risk;

o Assessing the likelihood of risk; and

o Managing risk.

This process is described below.

Risk identification

Risks for this scheme have been identified during multi-disciplinary discussions, including inputs from technical experts in highway engineering, transport planning and environmental disciplines. These risks have been catalogued within a risk register, which is contained within Appendix I.

The scheme risks can largely be grouped into the following categories:

• Risks to the project programme;

• Risks to the scheme cost;

• Risks to scheme funding;

• Risks to the operation of the transport network;

• Design and information risks;

• Health and safety risks;

• Cumulative risks such as unforeseen ground conditions and weather disruption; and

• Reputational risks.

Quantification of risks

Assessing the impact of risk (costs)

Each risk has been evaluated in terms of the cost outcomes of the risk. Whilst the DfT recommends 42 the use of empirical evidence to estimate a range of cost outcomes, wherever possible, it is noted that ‘common sense approximations’ should be used when such empirical data is not available, rather than aiming for unrealistic levels of accuracy.

At this stage, the cost range associated with the consequences of each risk are estimated. The estimates have been derived following input from each discipline specialist working alongside the Quantity Surveyor, to ensure estimates of cost (and probability, discussed within the next section) are complete and accurate, and consistent with the basis of the base cost estimate.

Estimating the likelihood of the outcomes occurring

Having estimated the likely impact (in cost terms), the likelihood (probability) of the risk occurring also needs to be estimated. Assigning probabilities is not an exact science 43 and therefore technical specialists, including Quantity Surveyors, have had to apply a degree of judgement based on experience gained from working on other similar projects.

Once the ‘impacts’ and ‘probabilities’ have been estimated, the risks are mapped onto a 5-point risk matrix (see Table 8-4) to generate an overall ‘risk score’.

Each risk has been assigned a likelihood rating, which is expressed in terms of a percentage. This has been multiplied by the estimated financial value of the risk occurring, to give an expected value. The sum of these expected values forms the

42 TAG Unit A1.2, page 8, paragraph 3.2.10 (2014) 43 TAG Unit A1.2, page 8, paragraph 3.2.14 (2014)

total included in the financial case as the ‘cost of risks identified in quantified risk assessment’.

Nil VL L M H VH

0 1 2 3 4 5

Probability (%) 0 ≤20 >20 ≤40 >40 ≤60 >60 ≤80 >80 ≤100

Min 0k Min 500k Min 1,000k Min 2,000k Min 4,000k Cost Impact (£k) 0 Max 500k Max 1,000k Max 2,000k Max 4,000k Max 9,000k

Time Impact (Months) 0 < 1 month 1 to 3 months 3 to 6 months 6 to 12 months > 12 months

Risk Classification Table (RCT)

The probability impact grid (PIG) shows how the probability and impact classifications combine to produce the risk category

VH 0 5 10 15 20 25

H 0 4 8 12 16 20

M 0 3 6 9 12 15

L 0 2 4 6 8 10

VL 0 1 2 3 4 5 PROBABILITY PROBABILITY Nil 0 0 0 0 0 0

Nil VL L M H VH

COST IMPACT

Table 8-4: Impact / Probability Matrix

Deriving the probability distribution for the costs of the scheme

As noted above, the outcome of the QRA process is the prediction of an ‘expected’ value which is the average (or a percentile) of all risk outcomes, weighted by the various probabilities of these outcomes materialising. It is to this ‘expected’ value, also known as the ‘unbiased’ risk adjusted outcome, that the optimism bias has been applied. A probability distribution around the costs of the scheme has been derived using @RISK 7.5 44 and is illustrated in Figure 8-4 and Figure 8-5 below.

44 @RISK 7.5 is a proprietary software that performs risk analysis using Monte Carlo simulation. The software carries out 10,000 iterations per run, randomly creates simulations of differing risk occurrence scenarios and estimates a range of risk costs.

These graphs provide the following values of risk. The 50 th percentile cost has been used in the preparation of the overall scheme cost as it is the value which represents the average likelihood that the project will be delivered within the proposed budget 45 :

Figure 8-4: Distribution of total risk – 1

Figure 8-5: Distribution of total risk – 2

Managing risks (response plans and mitigation)

Following the initial assessment of scheme risks, a systematic approach was adopted to respond to risks and allocate responsibility to the most appropriate party in line with governance arrangements set out in Section 8.2. One of the

45 TAG Unit A1.2, page 9, paragraph 3.2.18 (2014)

following four strategies has been adopted for each risk when developing a suitable response plan:

• Accept or tolerate consequences in the event that the risk occurs – In the event that a) the cost of taking any action exceeds the potential benefit gained; or b) there are no alternative courses of action available;

• Treating the risk – Continuing with the activity that caused the risk by employing four different types of control including preventative, corrective, directive and detective controls;

• Transferring the risk – Risks could be transferred to a third party e.g. insurer or contractor; and

• Terminating the activity that gives rise to the risk.

Development of the response plans to manage risks have been undertaken only where the likelihood and of occurrence and impact can be cost effectively managed.

The key risks identified during multi-disciplinary discussions are catalogued within a risk register contained with Appendix I, together with their proposed mitigation measures.

A summary of the top six risks are presented at each PDT meeting in a risk dashboard.

Implementation and review

Effectiveness of the response plan is dependent on the proper implementation and review of the residual risk (including any secondary risk associated with implementation). Reviews of the status of scheme risk assessments and their related response plans (as part of project reporting) will be an integral part of progress meetings during progression of detailed design and the construction period. All key risks will be formally reviewed at key decision points in the scheme lifecycle.

Risk workshops have been held at the commencement of and prior to completiom of each key stage. The attendees at each risk workshop would depend on the

stage being considered and the technical and procedural complexity required. The risk register is reviewed by the WSP Project Manager at least every 6 months between risk workshops.

Benefits Realisation Plan

This section outlines the approach that was taken for the preparation of a Benefits Realisation Plan. The full Benefits Realisation Plan forms part of the Full Business Case.

A Benefits Realisation Plan has been prepared for the Proposed Scheme . It will enable the benefits and disbenefits that are expected to be derived from the project to be planned, tracked, managed, and realised. It will help demonstrate whether the scheme objectives identified in Section 4.7.4 are being achieved in terms of the desired “measures for success”, seen in Section 4.7.

The desired outputs are those tangible effects that are funded and produced directly as a result of the scheme. The desired outcomes are the final impacts brought about by the scheme in the short, medium and long term. The scheme objectives, together with the desired outputs and outcomes are summarised in Table 8-5 below.

Scheme Objectives Desired Outputs Desired Outcomes Scheme Target Timing of Review 46 Accountable Owner A scheme which reduces road accidents at hotspots with high accident rates. 5% reduction in accidents DfI Roads Western Reduced number of fatalities and severe or slight 3 years post-scheme To improve road safety three years after full-scheme Division Project Sponsor: injuries due to road accidents on the A5WTC. opening A scheme which has been designed to opening Seamus Keenan minimise the risk of road accidents. i. 90% reduction in traffic flows on existing A5 between J1-J2 (Newbuildings) of A5WTC equivalent; ii. 65% reduction in traffic flows on existing A5 between J6-J8 (south of Reduced journey times on the A5WTC between the Strabane) of A5WTC A scheme which provides a direct road link North at Londonderry and the South at Aughnacloy. equivalent; between the North at Londonderry and the iii. 80% reduction in traffic i. 6 months post- South at Aughnacloy and improves journey To improve the road network Improved access between the North and the South, and flows on existing A5 scheme opening DfI Roads Western time reliability for movements of people and in the west of the Province connecting towns in between, for employment, between J9-J10 (west Division Project Sponsor: goods. and North / South Links education, social and recreational trips. of Newtownstewart) of ii. 3 years post-scheme Seamus Keenan

A5WTC equivalent opening A scheme which segregates strategic traffic Better potential and more attractive for increased inward iv. 70% reduction in traffic from local traffic. investment and commercial opportunities. flows on existing A5 between J13-J14 (southeast of Omagh) of A5WTC equivalent v. 40% reduction in traffic flows on existing A5 between J15-J16 (south of Ballygawley) of A5WTC equivalent A more efficient road network, reducing fuel consumption and emissions, and therefore, running A scheme which improves traffic flow at costs, for private, commercial and public service To reduce journey travel congestion hotspots on the A5WTC where operators. i. 6 months post- times and to provide journey times can currently be unpredictable 30% reduction in peak hour scheme opening DfI Roads Western increased overtaking due to congestion. Reduced incidences of congestion on the A5WTC journey times compared to Division Project Sponsor: opportunities for motorists Time savings which benefit users of the A5WTC and the the situation without the ii. 3 years post-scheme Seamus Keenan along the A5 Western A scheme which increases the provision for economy. scheme opening Transport Corridor overtaking opportunities for users of the A5WTC. Improved perceptions of accessibility between the North at Londonderry and the South at Aughnacloy for business.

Scheme Objectives Desired Outputs Desired Outcomes Scheme Target Timing of Review 46 Accountable Owner Reduced number of fatalities and severe or slight injuries due to road accidents on the A5WTC.

Minimises the scheme cost and impact on the built and natural environment and provides good value for money. To develop the final A scheme which improves safety for all road proposals in light of the Environmental assets protected and adverse impacts users, contributes to economic growth, 3 years post-scheme DfI Roads Western safety, economic, minimised or mitigated. All of the above targets minimises impacts on the environment, and opening Division Project Sponsor: environmental, integration enhances integration and accessibility to key Seamus Keenan and accessibility Contributes towards carbon reduction targets and economic centres and international gateways. considerations improved health and well being.

A more efficient road network, with greater connectivity between the North at Londonderry and the south at Aughnacloy, enhancing access to jobs and services and increasing the attractiveness for inward investment.

Table 8-5: Scheme objectives, desired outputs and desired outcomes

46 The construction of Phases may require the dates of monitoring to be reviewed

The SRO will develop the Benefits Realisation Plan further, intrinsically linking it to the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan set out in Section 8.11 below.

Monitoring and Evaluation of Impacts

Monitoring and evaluation of impacts is required to establish the extent to which the scheme meets the objectives and the forecast benefits described in the Economic Case section of the OBC as set out below:

• Monitoring – seeks to check progress against planned targets and can be defined as the formal reporting and evidencing that spend and outputs are successfully delivered and milestones met; and

• Evaluation – is the assessment of the initiatives effectiveness and efficiency during and after implementation. It seeks to measure the causal effect of the scheme on planned outcomes and impacts and to assess whether the anticipated benefits have been realised, how this was achieved, or if not, why not.

To be fully effective, plans for monitoring and evaluation should form part of the early development of the scheme’s business case and also be a continuous process within the project. The full Plan for each individual Phase of the Proposed Scheme will form part of the respective Full Business Case.

Monitoring and Evaluation of the Proposed Scheme

The Proposed Scheme is unique in that it will be completed in individual phases over different timescales, in accordance with the availability of funding. It is proposed that each phase is monitored in its own right, in order to evaluate the economic benefits delivered by the phases incrementally, as well as overall. The following sections summarise this proposed monitoring and evaluation methodology.

Phases

The Proposed Scheme will be delivered in Phases, which have been discussed initially in Section 2.1. The incremental benefits provided by the construction of the Phases over time have been calculated and presented in Section 5.13. Given that the Phases will be completed at different times, reviews will be conducted

after 6 months and 3 years following the completion of each Phase. This will result in adherence to the Department’s Post Project Review protocol (see below) due to each Phase being a project in its own right. A unique plan will therefore be presented in the Full Business Case for each Phase. An understanding of the monitoring and evaluation framework is presented below for the entirety of the Proposed Scheme.

Overall Proposed Scheme

Monitoring and evaluation will be carried out after the completion of each phase and the approach is outlined below.

At the completion of any project, the Department stipulate that a two-part review is carried out:

• Project Evaluation Review (PER); and

• Post Project Review (PPR).

These are described below. The PER records and comments on:

• Project management;

• Budget compliance; and

• Project schedule compliance.

The PER is to be completed no more than 6 months after the scheme opens to traffic or is completed (whichever is later). The PER involves a description of the project, a capital cost analysis supported by commentary on capital costs, a review of works duration and an overall assessment of project management.

The PPR records and comments on the achievement of:

• The project objectives;

• The project benefits;

• The project outcomes; and

• Lessons learned.

The PPR is completed three years after the scheme opens to traffic or is completed (whichever is later). This allows enough time to evaluate how the scheme is performing and gather sufficient information on journey times and accident rates, where deemed necessary.

The PPR includes an assessment of the degree to which the Project’s Objectives and Targets have been met. It also comprises a review of the Project’s Monetary and Qualitative Benefits which can be quantified during the scheme appraisal. It contains a description of how the project is currently operating and whether or not the scheme has provided good value for money. Finally, the PPR conducts a review of lessons to be learned and recommendations for the appraisal and management of future projects.

The works programmes for the construction and implementation phase of the scheme will be closely monitored by the Department. Monitoring of the construction process during implementation will be undertaken to ensure compliance with any planning conditions and all mitigation measures outlined in the Environmental Statement.

Construction of the scheme is programmed to start in late 2017 and the entire scheme is timetabled to be completed by 2028, though Phase 1a is planned to be completed in 2019. Monitoring of scheme construction would comply with the Department’s performance requirements, the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) and the Specification for Highways Work (SHW).

Each phase will receive separate monitoring and evaluation and therefore fuller plans will be further laid out within the FBC’s for each phase.

It is important that pre-scheme data be collected in the months leading up to and during the pre-construction phase of the scheme; this is because there needs to be a robust and accurate comparison available for the Post project Evaluation. Data of this nature quickly becomes out of date, especially when there is a pause between the end of the scheme assessments and the start of construction.

The Department’s monitoring will also focus on the wider set of impacts as a result of the scheme:

• Scheme benefits – a summary of the formal benefits review, six months and three years’ post-scheme completion; and

• Unexpected (dis)benefits – identifying any additional impacts that were not planned for as part of the Proposed Scheme.

Logic Model

A logic model is shown in Figure 8-6. It provides an illustrative overview of the inputs and activities of the scheme, and refers to its outcome measures of performance:

• Scheme – the proposal;

• Objectives – the overall objectives of the proposed scheme;

• Inputs – what is invested to deliver the proposal i.e. financial investment, skills and resources;

• Outputs – outlines what has been produced;

• Outcomes – short and medium term results of the scheme;

• Impacts – the longer term impacts; and

• Monitoring – the proposed methods of evaluating the scheme impacts.

Figure 8-6: Logic Map

Data Requirements

The proposed metrics for measurements and data collection requirements and frequency are set out in Table 8-6 below, in line with the Department’s requirements for the standard monitoring process.

Frequency of data Rationale for Measure Stage Data to be used Data collection methods collection and inclusion Timing of Reporting Knowledge / Continuous collection Accountability Progress against key Monitoring of construction works, Scheme build Input during construction / Determine if planned milestones project plan assessment monthly reporting inputs are being delivered on time Description (and Full description of scheme outputs and Accountability quantities) of the Post opening (up to 1 Delivered scheme Output design. Observation of scheme outputs Determine if output delivered scheme to be year) and identification of any changes. is delivered provided Financial monitoring/reporting, Monthly reporting scheme cost plans, Costs Input Financial monitoring system during delivery / post Accountability outturn costs, overall opening (up to 1 year) expenditure of each funding stream Output / Objective 1 Police Service of Northern Ireland Road Pre scheme, and 3 Outcome Road accident data Accountability Traffic Collision Statistics years post completion / Impact Output / ATC and manual counts/surveys, Pre scheme, 6 Objective 2 Traffic flows data, Outcome Journey time surveys or GPS data months and 3 years Accountability Journey time data / Impact collection post completion Output / Pre scheme, 6 Objective 3 Journey time data Journey time surveys or Outcome months and 3 years Accountability GPS data collection / Impact post completion

Frequency of data Rationale for Measure Stage Data to be used Data collection methods collection and inclusion Timing of Reporting AQMA Particulate Matter Existing AQMA monitoring reporting Pre scheme, 6 PM 10 Data, ONS health Accountability / Air Quality Impact and ONS data collection, noise months and 3 years data, noise level Knowledge monitoring surveys. post completion monitoring

Table 8-6: Data requirements and metrics

Data Sources

The following data / surveys will be collated by the Department in order to adequately monitor and evaluate the achievements of the benefits. These include the following:

“Before” Data and geographic Provider When Needed Surveys location Available Road traffic surveys Before, 6 months Available via the The Department ATC and Manual Counts after, 3 years after Department Road traffic accidents within Before, 3 years Available via the COBA-LT area specified PSNI after PSNI within the FBC Journey time data / GPS Before, 6 months Available via the The Department data after, 3 years after Department Stopping Sight Distances Before, 6 months Available via the (SSD), Full Overtaking The Department after, 3 years after Department Sight Distances (FOSD)

Particulate Matter PM 10 Derry City and Before, 6 months Available via Data for Strabane and Strabane District after, 3 years after DCSDC Newtownstewart AQMAs Council Before, 6 months Noise Level Data The Department TBA after, 3 years after Office for National Before, 6 months ONS Health Data Available via ONS Statistics after, 3 years after

Table 8-7: Data sources

Measures for Success

The specific objectives will have been achieved if the Proposed Scheme leads to:

• A reduced number of road accident casualties;

• Reduced congestion and delay at pinch points on the A5WTC;

• Reduced traffic flows on the existing A5WTC route;

• Improved journey time reliability on the A5WTC; and

• Improved accessibility to the key economic centres and international gateways for:

o Vehicles; and

o Buses.

Timescale for Evaluation

It is proposed the evaluation process consists of three key stages:

• Stage 1: Pre-construction Baseline;

• Stage 2: 6 months After Scheme Opening; and

• Stage 3: 3 years After Scheme Opening.

Before and after scheme monitoring will be undertaken to evaluate the schemes effectiveness against the stated objectives. Monitoring (data collection) will also take place at regular intervals before and after the scheme has opened at 6 months and 3 years after opening. This will allow a full before and after comparison to be made and allow judgment of whether the scheme has met its objectives. It should be noted that the collection of accident data is not proposed after 6 months since to be statistically significant, data is required over a period of at least 3 years.

It should also be noted that the monitoring programme for the Proposed Scheme, including the programmes for the Phases, should be adjusted accordingly subject to any construction programme changes. Lessons will be learned as each Phase progresses and will be carried forward into subsequent Phases for continual improvement.

A logic model, illustrated in Figure 8-6 sets out the key post-opening objectives, outcomes and indicators, in relation to the project.

Counterfactuals

Figure 8-7 illustrates a construction of the counterfactual position for the A5WTC. This shows the potential outcomes for the surrounding area, without the scheme implemented.

Outcomes: - Increase in traffic congestion on the existing A5. - Increase journey times between the North at Londonderry and the South at Aughnacloy. Output: - Continued occurrence of journey time unreliability. Continuation of current - Continued occurrence of traffic accidents and high accident rates scenario at particular hotspots. i.e. without scheme - Increase in community severance intervention in population centres on the existing A5. - Deterioration in air quality in population centres on the existing A5. - Negative economic impacts due to accessibility issues.

Figure 8-7: Counterfactual position

A counterfactual analysis has been put forward to assist in assigning the outcomes of the scheme directly to the A5WTC.

Setting Targets

The Department recognises the importance of setting specific indicators and targets. These will be set at the Full Business Case stage and included in the Plan. It may be possible to involve stakeholders to take ownership of some parts of the monitoring and evaluation.

Linking Indicators to Outcomes

It is important to demonstrate how the proposed indicators relate to the desired outcomes. A more detailed logic map / causal chain diagram was contained within the Strategic Case (Table 4-15, Section 4.7.9). This shows how interventions link to the achievement of objective and how these will be monitored either directly or indirectly.

Summary of Analysis

The monitoring and evaluation will be used to answer the following key questions:

• Have the anticipated outcomes and impacts been achieved?

• To what extent are the observed changes additional to what would have happened in the absence of the intervention?

• Were there any unanticipated impacts / displacement effects?

• Which elements of the scheme were particularly influential in achieving the overall goals?

• What lessons can be learnt for future scheme / policy development?

• What is the contribution of the policy to the Department’s strategic goals?

• To what extent did the anticipated costs and benefits match the actual outcome?

• Has the scheme been successful? If not, why not?

• The evaluation of the scheme will:

o Measure the level of traffic congestion on the existing network;

o Measure the level of traffic congestion on the improved network;

o Measure journey times on the existing A5 and the improved network i.e. the A5WTC; and

o Measure the levels of accidents on the existing and improved network.

The initial 6 month impact assessment will be used to understand the impact mainly on journey times and travel patterns. There may be some evidence at this stage of the scheme impact in terms of developments and jobs. The 3 year assessment will look at longer term benefits including accidents, travel patterns and jobs / additional investment.

Summary

In summary, the Proposed Scheme will be governed by the Department’s Roads and Rivers Management Group, who will act as the Investment Decision Maker and be responsible for its delivery. A Senior Responsible Owner, Mr. Pat Doherty, will lead the Project Delivery Team as set out by the Department. The main responsibilities of the Project Delivery Team are to:

• co-ordinate the different activities which make up the project;

• provide direction to the technical delivery of the project;

• undertake monthly reviews of progress against targets and programme;

• undertake monthly a review of the risk register, and initiate corrective action where appropriate; and

• provide, as a minimum, quarterly progress reports for the Project Board. The Board will consider any matters of a strategic nature and give advice accordingly.

Subject to the availability of funding, the Proposed Scheme will be constructed in the four periods set out below:

• Phase 1a: Newbuildings to north of Strabane (Junctions 1-3) – 2017-2019;

• Phase 1b: South of Omagh to Ballygawley (Junctions 13-15) – 2019-2021;

• Phase 2: North of Strabane to south of Omagh (Junctions 3-13) – 2021- 2023; and

• Phase 3: Ballygawley to Aughnacloy (Junctions 15-17) – 2026-2028.

The Project Sponsor also leads the Integrated Delivery Team in aspects of the project relating to the construction phases.

A Benefits Realisation Plan has been prepared for the Proposed Scheme which outlines the desired outputs, desired outcomes and SMART target against each of the four key scheme objectives defined in the Strategic Case. A Monitoring and Evaluation seeks to ensure that the Proposed Scheme meets these objectives and the forecast benefits described within the Economic Case.

Appendices

Appendix A – DfT / NIGEAE Guidance Matrix

Appendix B – Local Model Validation Report

Appendix C – Forecasting Report

Appendix D – Optimism Bias Calculator / E058 Estimates

Appendix E – Environmental Impact Calculations

Appendix F – A5WTC Wider Economic Benefits (Volterra)

Appendix G – Economic Appraisal Report

Appendix H – Appraisal Summary Table

Appendix I – Risk Register

Appendix J – Procurement Strategy Summary for Outline Business Case Discussions