– – BORDER

ARDEE – CASTLEBLAYNEY CLONTIBRET – BORDER

ARDEE TO CASTLEBLAYNEY ROAD SCHEME CLONTIBRET // BORDER

ARDEE TO CASTLEBLAYNEY ROAD SCHEME

FEBRUARY 2021

rgb rgb // 22 238 69 60 130 72

#154582 #e83d49 rgb rgb // 44 29 175 29 226 27

#2dafe2 #e8e7e7

OPTION SELECTION REPORT VOLUME 1 - MAIN REPORT

[Blank Page]

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme

Project No: 32110000 Document Title: OPTION SELECTION REPORT – VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT Document No.: N2-JAC-HWG-A2C-RP-OS-0003 Revision: R0 Document Status: Published Copy Date: February 2021 Client Name: County Council

Client No: MN/18/16483 & WH0202 Project Manager: Gerry Healy Author: Tomás Cleary File Name: N2-JAC-HWG-A2C-RP-OS-0003.docx

Jacobs Engineering Ireland Limited

Merrion House Merrion Road 4, D04 R2C5 Ireland T +353 1 269 5666 F +353 1 269 5497 www.jacobs.com

© Copyright 2021 Jacobs Engineering Ireland Limited. The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Jacobs. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Jacobs constitutes an infringement of copyright.

Limitation: This document has been prepared on behalf of, and for the exclusive use of Jacobs’ client, and is subject to, and issued in accordance with, the provisions of the contract between Jacobs and the client. Jacobs accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for, or in respect of, any use of, or reliance upon, this document by any third party.

Document history and status

Revision Date Description Author Checked Reviewed Approved

R0 Feb 2021 Published Copy TC LH GH GH

N2-JAC-HWG-A2C-RP-OS-0003 i

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Overarching Structure of Option Selection Report

Volume Ref. No. & Title Contents Volume 0 – Executive Summary Volume 1 – Main Report Part A – Route Corridor Drawings Volume 2 – Drawings Part B – Constraints and Environmental Drawings Volume 3 – Constraints Study Report Main Report Volume 4 – Phase 2 Stage 1 Main Report & Associated Appendices Assessment Working Paper Report Volume 5 – Stage 2 Environmental Main Report & Associated Appendices Appraisal Report Part A – Traffic Modelling Report Part B – RSA Stage F Part 1 Report Volume 6 – Engineering Appendices Part C – RSA Stage F Part 2 Report Part D – Cost Benefit Analysis Report Part A – Public Consultation 1 – Study Area & Constraints Volume 7 – Non-Statutory Post Part B – Public Consultation 2 – Route Corridor Options Consultation Reports Part C – Public Consultation 3 – Emerging Preferred Corridor Volume 8 – Project Appraisal Balance PABS Sheet (PABS)

N2-JAC-HWG-A2C-RP-OS-0003 ii

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Contents 1. Introduction and Description ...... 1 1.1 Introduction ...... 1 1.2 Description of the Project ...... 2 1.3 Scheme Development to Date ...... 4 1.4 Purpose of the Option Selection Report ...... 5 1.5 Scheme Objectives ...... 7 1.6 Design Strategies ...... 8 2. Identification of Need ...... 10 2.1 Strategic Fit and Priority of the Project ...... 10 2.2 Development Policy ...... 10 2.3 Project Specific Need ...... 33 3. Consideration of Alternatives and Options ...... 35 3.1 Introduction ...... 35 3.2 Do-Nothing Option ...... 35 3.3 Do-Minimum Option ...... 51 3.4 Do-Something Alternative – Public Transport ...... 56 3.5 Do-Something Option - Traffic Management Option ...... 65 3.6 Combination of Public Transport Alternative & Traffic Management Option ...... 84 3.7 Do-Something Option – Feasible Route Corridor Option ...... 87 3.8 Consideration of Alternatives and Options – Conclusion ...... 87 4. Traffic Assessment and Option Cross-section ...... 88 4.1 Introduction ...... 88 4.2 Summary of Traffic Modelling ...... 88 4.3 Traffic Assessment of Route Corridor Options ...... 103 4.4 Initial Selection of Road Type ...... 112 4.5 Consideration of Indicative Junction Design Approach ...... 114 5. Constraints Study ...... 116 5.1 Introduction ...... 116 5.2 Definition of the Study Area ...... 116 5.3 Existing Constraints ...... 118 6. Non-Statutory Public Consultations ...... 128 6.1 Introduction ...... 128 6.2 General Overview ...... 128 6.3 Non-Statutory Public Consultation 1 – Study Area & Constraints (June & July 2019) ...... 129 6.4 Non-Statutory Public Consultation 2 – Route Corridor Options (November & December 2019) .... 130 6.5 Non-Statutory Public Consultation 3 – Route Corridor Options (August to October 2020) ...... 131 6.6 Consultation with Statutory Bodies ...... 134 7. General Overview of the Three Stage Option Selection Process ...... 135

N2-JAC-HWG-A2C-RP-OS-0003 iii

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

7.1 General Overview ...... 135 7.2 General Options Development and Appraisal Methodology ...... 136 8. Stage 1 – Preliminary Options Assessment ...... 140 8.1 Introduction ...... 140 8.2 Description & Development of the Stage 1 Route Corridor Options ...... 140 8.3 Stage 1 Methodology & Criteria ...... 142 8.4 Engineering Assessment ...... 145 8.5 Environment Assessment ...... 147 8.6 Economy Assessment...... 148 8.7 Overall Stage 1 Assessment Matrix ...... 149 8.8 Recommendation of Options to be taken forward to Stage 2 (Project Appraisal Matrix) ...... 150 9. Stage 2 – Project Appraisal Matrix...... 153 9.1 Introduction ...... 153 9.2 Description & Development of the Stage 2 Route Corridor Options ...... 153 9.3 Stage 2 Appraisal Methodology & Criteria ...... 159 9.4 Economy Appraisal ...... 162 9.5 Safety Appraisal ...... 171 9.6 Environment Appraisal ...... 187 9.7 Accessibility and Social Inclusion Appraisal ...... 198 9.8 Integration Appraisal ...... 211 9.9 Physical Activity Appraisal...... 238 9.10 Stage 2 Project Appraisal Matrix ...... 254 10. Stage 3 – Preferred Option ...... 263 10.1 Introduction ...... 263 10.2 Emerging Preferred Route Corridor Option ...... 263 10.3 Project Appraisal Balance Sheet ...... 266 10.4 Road Safety Audit Stage F (Part 2) ...... 276 10.5 Recommendation of the Preferred Option ...... 276

N2-JAC-HWG-A2C-RP-OS-0003 iv

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

1. Introduction and Description

1.1 Introduction

Monaghan County Council is working in partnership with Louth County Council and in association with Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII) to develop a scheme to upgrade a 32km section of the N2/A5 Dublin- Road. The proposed project is in the Counties of Monaghan and Louth between Ardee and Castleblayney. The project is named the ‘N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme’, hereafter also referred to as the ‘Project’ or the ‘Scheme’ in this Report.

The Option Selection Report has been divided into the following volumes: • Volume 1 – Main Report (i.e. this Report) • Volume 2 – Drawings • Volume 3 – Constraints Study Report • Volume 4 – Phase 2 Stage 1 Assessment Working Paper Report • Volume 5 – Stage 2 Environmental Appraisal Report • Volume 6 – Engineering Appendices • Volume 7 – Non-Statutory Post-Consultation Reports • Volume 8 – Project Appraisal Balance Sheet

The purpose of the Option Selection Report is to document TII’s Phase 2 (Option Selection) process for the N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme, which has been undertaken in accordance with Project Management Guidelines (PMGs) PE-PMG-02041 (January 2019), TII’s Project Manager's Manual (PMM) for Major National Road Projects PE-PMG-02042 (February 2019), TII’s Project Appraisal Guidelines (PAG) for National Roads and other applicable guidelines /regulations. The Phase 2 process essentially comprises of the identification of a Study Area, the identification of constraints within that Study Area, consideration and assessment of various alternatives/options such that an Emerging Preferred Option can be identified, and ultimately a Preferred Option selected before the project progresses to its subsequent design and planning phases. A further description of the purpose of the Option Selection Report and TII’s Phase 2 (Option Selection) process is provided in Section 1.4 (Purpose of the Option Selection Report) below in this Report.

With reference to Figure 1.1 below, TII’s PMGs provide a framework for an eight-phase process to the management, development and delivery of National Road and Public Transport Capital Projects in Ireland. The Option Selection Report describes the planning and design work undertaken to the end of Phase 2 (Option Selection) of the N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme.

Figure 1.1: TII’s Project Management Guidelines Project Phases (Excerpt from TII’s PMGs)

1

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

1.2 Description of the Project

The N2/A5 Dublin to Derry route is a linking Dublin to and the North-West of the country, passing through the towns of , Ardee and , and bypassing , Castleblayney and Monaghan before becoming the A5 as it passes through Northern Ireland. It provides key North/South and regional connectivity, along with accessibility to other strategic national roads such as the N33, M1, N52 and N53. The N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney forms part of the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) corridor. This is a network of multi-modal strategic transport corridors identified to improve the mobility of goods and people throughout the European Union (EU). In terms of National Policy, and as outlined in greater detail in Section 2.2 (Development Policy) of this Report, Project Ireland 2040 via. the National Planning Framework (NPF) 2040 and the National Development Plan (NDP) 2018 – 2027 has specifically identified the strategic importance of the existing N2 in terms of investment to the Border Region and enhanced regional accessibility between Dublin and the North-West.

The proposed N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme is situated between Ardee in and Castleblayney in . The length of the existing N2 section between Ardee and Castleblayney is approximately 32km. A general location plan of the existing N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney is shown in Figure 1.2 below, whilst Figure 1.3 is a location plan showing the proposed scheme in the context of the region and the proposed N2 Clontibret to Border Road Scheme. The proposed N2 Clontibret to Border Road Scheme is a separate project, which proposes to upgrade a 28km section of the N2 North of the N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme. More detailed maps of the areas are provided in Volume 2 (Drawings), in the context of the option selection process, which is outlined in the subsequent sections of this Report.

Figure 1.2: Location Plan of existing N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney

2

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Figure 1.3: Location Plan of existing N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney in the context of the proposed N2 Clontibret to Border Road Scheme

The N2 route between Ardee and Castleblayney, and the surrounding N2 has been subject to a number of road improvement schemes in recent years, including:

• The N2 Carrickmacross Bypass (2005) • The N2 Castleblayney Bypass (Clontibret to Castleblayney 2+1 Road Realignment Scheme) (2007) • The N2 Monaghan Town Bypass (2006) • N2 Monaghan to Emyvale Road Improvements ▪ Phase 1 (2011) ▪ Phase 2 & 4 (2014) ▪ Phase 3 (2020) • N2 Blackwater Bridge Replacement – Monaghan Town (substantially complete 2020)

There are also a number of schemes currently in the planning and detailed design/procurement stages within or in relatively close proximity to the Study Area, and adjoining the N2, including but not limited to the following:

• N2 Clontibret to Border Road Scheme • The A5 Western Transport Corridor (Northern Ireland) • N14 Manorcunningham to /Strabane/A5 Link Road Scheme (Part of Donegal TEN-T priority route improvement project) • N52 Ardee Bypass • N2 Slane Bypass • N2 Rath to Kilmoon Cross 3

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

• N53 Hackballcross to Rassan • N2 Tullyvaragh Junction Realignment Scheme (North of Carrickmacross) • N53 Ballynacarry Bridge Replacement Scheme

In addition to the above, there is a number of proposed schemes which are at scoping, pre-appraisal or feasibility stages, including, but not limited to the following:

• Cavan to Dundalk Strategic Route Improvement Scheme • Castleblayney (South) – N53 Dundalk Road to N2 Tullyvin Roundabout Link Road

The exact location of the start and end points of the proposed N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme will be determined during the later stages of the planning and design of the proposed scheme. For the purposes of the option selection process and to allow a consistent comparison of the Route Corridor Options, a starting point of approximately 600m north of the Carrickmacross Road Roundabout (N2/N33/R171) on the existing N2 in the Townlands of Mullanstown and Glebe was selected. This is the location of the connection point between the existing N2 and the proposed N52 Ardee Bypass Scheme (current design location – See Chapter 8 of this Report for further details on the starting point and status of the proposed N52 Ardee Bypass Scheme). The existing N2/N53 roundabout at the Southern end of the N2 Castleblayney Bypass was chosen for the Northern tie-in point.

There is no existing rail network within the Study Area, resulting in a sole reliance on road transport for private, commercial, public and freight vehicles. There are also no current plans to introduce railway provision to this part of the North-West as part of the NPF 2040 or within the NDP 2018-2027. Further details on the consideration of existing rail network is outlined in Section 3.4 (Do-Something Alternative – Public Transport) of this Report.

1.3 Scheme Development to Date

In 2017, arising from a number of road safety reviews of the existing N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney, the Minister of Transport, Tourism, and Sport (DTTaS) and TII announced the activation of planning and design work for a major roads scheme on this existing 32 km section of the N2 (i.e. N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme). At the same time, the re-activation of a previous road scheme on a 28km section of the existing N2 between Clontibret and the Northern Border Road Scheme (i.e. N2 Clontibret to Border Road Scheme) was announced.

Following the activation of the scheme, Westmeath National Roads Office (WNRO) undertook the initial scoping stage (TII’s PMG Phase 0 – Scope and Pre-Appraisal) for both the N2 Ardee to Castleblayney and N2 Clontibret to the Border Road Schemes. During the same period in 2018, Project Ireland 2040, comprising of the National Planning Framework (NPF) 2040 and the National Development Plan (NDP) 2018 – 2027 was published by the Government. The NDP 2018 – 2027 specifically identified the prioritisation of both schemes to support investment in the border region and to support the NPF 2040 objective of enhanced regional accessibility to the North-West through the upgrading of the N2/A5 route. Along with proposed improvements to the N2, the Northern Ireland Executive and the Department for Infrastructure (DfI) Roads as part of a separate project aims to upgrade 85km of the A5 route to standard from the Northern Ireland Border at Aughnacloy to South of Derry. This project is named the A5 Western Transport Corridor (A5WTC).

In October 2018, following completion of TII’s PMG Phase 0 and a subsequent procurement process of Technical Consultants, Jacobs Engineering Ireland Ltd. (‘Jacobs’) was commissioned by Monaghan County Council to progress the planning and design of both schemes in accordance with the TII’s PMG, from Phase 1 (Concept and Feasibility) to Phase 4 (Statutory Processes). Each scheme is a standalone project, however both schemes are being progressed through Phases 1 to 4 concurrently.

Following Jacobs appointment, TII’s PMG Phase 1 was successfully completed in February 2019, with both schemes progressing to TII PMG Phase 2 (Option Selection) thereafter.

4

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

1.4 Purpose of the Option Selection Report

The purpose of the Option Selection Report is to document the TII Phase 2 (Option Selection) process for the proposed scheme. The Option Selection Report is the main deliverable for Phase 2. As stated in Section 1.1 (Introduction) above, the Phase 2 process essentially comprises of the identification of a Study Area, the identification of constraints within that Study Area, consideration and assessment of various alternatives/options, such that an Emerging Preferred Option can be identified, and ultimately a Preferred Option selected before the project progresses to its subsequent design and planning phases. The purpose of Phase 2 (Options Selection) is to examine alternatives/options against prescribed criteria, and the Scheme Objectives as outlined in Section 1.5 (Scheme Objectives) of this Report, through a structured and systematic appraisal process.

Phase 2 (Option Selection) is a process which seeks to identify and select a Preferred Option through a structured appraisal process. As per the TII’s PMGs, PMM, and PAG Unit 4.0 – Consideration of Alternatives and Options (October 2016), the options selection process is split into three distinct stages, as shown in Figure 1.4 below each requiring a more detailed level of assessment and appraisal.

Figure 1.4: TII’s Phase 2 Three Stage Option Selection Process

Stage 1: Preliminary Options Assessment

A preliminary assessment of feasible options is undertaken comprising of a comparative assessment of the potential impacts of the options against the following assessment criteria:

• Engineering • Environment • Economy

This assessment results in a reduced number of options to be taken forward to the next stage of the appraisal process (Stage 2 – Project Appraisal Matrix).

5

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Stage 2: Project Appraisal Matrix

A more detailed assessment of the options advanced from Stage 1 is undertaken using a Project Appraisal Matrix comprising of the following appraisal criteria, which align with the criteria within the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport (DTTaS) Common Appraisal Framework (CAF, March 2016):

• Economy • Safety • Environment • Accessibility and Social Inclusion • Integration • Physical Activity

This assessment results in the identification of an Emerging Preferred Option to be taken forward to the next stage of appraisal process (Stage 3 – Preferred Option).

Stage 3: Preferred Option

Following the identification of an Emerging Preferred Option, an assessment of this option using a Project Appraisal Balance Sheet (PABS) is undertaken to summarise the benefits and impacts associated with this option.

A further description of the three-stage process and associated methodology is provided in Chapter 7 (Overview of Three Stage Option Selection Process) of this Report. A detailed description of the assessment and results of each of the three stages are provided in Chapters 8 to 10 of this Report.

In advance of undertaking the three-stage process, the Study Area is defined, and the existing constraints are identified within this Study Area as part of the Constraints Study. This activity is described in Chapter 5 (Constraints Study) of this Report, with a copy of the associated Report provided in Volume 3. As part of the Phase 2 Option Selection Process, all reasonable / feasible options, which include the Do-Nothing Option, Do-Minimum Option, Do-Something Alternative – Public Transport, and the Traffic Management Option, are considered and assessed. This activity is described in Chapter 3 (Consideration of Alternatives and Options) of this Report. In order to inform Stage 2 and 3 assessments, facilitate a Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) of Stage 2 Options, and identify the Preferred Option, a traffic assessment is undertaken. This assessment is described in Chapter 4 (Traffic Assessment and Option Cross-Section) of this Report, with a copy of the Traffic Modelling Report provided in Volume 6.

Non-Statutory Public Consultation forms a key part of TII’s Phase 2 (Option Selection) process, where a number of consultations are undertaken to generate awareness and initiate engagement with the public and stakeholders, and to obtain feedback for consideration by the Project Team. In the case of the N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme, three Non-Statutory Public Consultations were undertaken during the Phase 2 process:

• Public Consultation 1 – Study Area & Constraints – June – July 2019 • Public Consultation 2 – Route Corridor Options (i.e. Options Progressing to Stage 2) – November – December 2019 • Public Consultation 3 – Emerging Preferred Corridor Option – August – October 2020

Further details of the three Non-Statutory Public Consultations are provided in Chapter 6 (Non-Statutory Public Consultations) of this Report.

6

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

1.5 Scheme Objectives The objectives of the proposed scheme are outlined below. The objectives are assessed based on the multiple criteria headings outlined by the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport (DTTaS) in the Common Appraisal Framework for Transport Projects and Programmes (March 2016). The multi-criteria headings are as follows:

• Economy • Safety • Environment • Accessibility & Social Inclusion • Integration • Physical Activity

It is noted that the Scheme Objectives were originally established during TII PMG Phases 0 and 1 for the proposed scheme. The objectives were subsequently reviewed and updated as part of the Phase 2 Option Selection Process. With reference to Chapter 2 of this Report and the ‘Need for the Scheme’, the Scheme Objectives were developed based on the identified deficiencies of the existing road infrastructure and in response to the aims and aspirations of European, national, regional, and local strategic policy.

The Scheme Objectives for the proposed scheme against the six CAF criteria headings are provided below.

1.5.1 Economy 1) To reduce the costs of travel between the endpoints of the scheme at an investment cost that offers good value for money.

1.5.2 Safety To reduce the potential for collisions through provision of an improved and safer route between Ardee and Castleblayney, in accordance with current design standards. This scheme will seek to:

1) Provide safe overtaking opportunities for motorists along the entire length of the route in accordance with design standards. 2) Reduce the frequency and severity of collisions by providing improved and safer infrastructure for all users (vehicles and vulnerable road users). 3) Reduce junction numbers and conflict points for N2 traffic. 4) To improve safety for vulnerable road users and provide a better environment for vulnerable road users within the study area. 5) Support the Road Safety Authority’s (RSA) Road Safety Strategy and its objective in the reduction of collisions and fatalities through the provision of a safer, more forgiving and more consistent standard of improved route.

1.5.3 Physical Activity 1) Provide opportunities for vulnerable road users (including pedestrians and cyclists) to pursue more active travel options between Ardee and Castleblayney as part of this scheme. 2) To support the national Planning Framework’s National Strategic Outcome 4 (Sustainable Mobility) and other relevant active travel policies by providing safe and accessible routes for vulnerable road users.

1.5.4 Environment To minimise the environmental impact and the private land take required for the scheme. This scheme will seek to: 1) Implement sustainable development principles and measures to minimise effects on the environment to support the government’s carbon and Climate Action Plan and UN Sustainable Development Goals. 2) Minimise impacts to Natural Heritage and Cultural Heritage areas (such as environmentally sensitive areas and National Monuments).

7

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

3) Reduce/Minimise air quality and climate impacts, and noise impacts on sensitive receptors as far as reasonably practicable. 4) Minimise the impact to agricultural and private land, reducing the impact to people as far as reasonably practicable.

1.5.5 Accessibility & Social Inclusion 1) To reduce social exclusion by enhancing accessibility to services from designated rural zones within the Study Area. 2) To support the National Planning Framework’s National Strategic Outcome 3 (Strengthen Rural Economics and Communities) by investing in strategic road improvement projects in rural areas to ensure access to critical services such as education, healthcare and employment. 3) To strengthen and support public transport connectivity between cities, towns and rural areas by improving existing journey times and journey time reliability on this section of N2/A5 Corridor. 4) To support the integration and expected growth of existing and future bus services in the Study Area by providing safer strategic connectivity to this section of the N2 corridor.

1.5.6 Integration 1) To improve the strategic connectivity and overall route consistency of the national road network and on the N2/A5 Corridor. 2) To be compatible with land use objectives as set out in regional and local land use plans. 3) To improve transport links between the Greater Dublin Area and the North West region for all strategic traffic including the transfer of freight and heavy goods, which will support economic resilience post- Brexit. 4) To maintain the strategic capacity of the national roads network including planning for future capacity enhancements.

1.6 Design Strategies As stated in Section 1.2 (Description of the Project) above, the proposed scheme is currently at TII PMG Phase 2 (Option Selection). The Phase 2 Option Selection Process for the proposed scheme has been undertaken in accordance with TII’s PMGs, PMM, PAGs and Cost Management Manual (May 2010), and has followed the three- stage systematic appraisal process.

In order to inform the appraisal process, the Design Strategy for Phase 2 followed the following general steps:

• Step 1 – Identification of Scheme Objectives: As per Section 1.5 (Scheme Objectives) above, the Phase 1 Scheme Objectives were reviewed and confirmed. • Step 2 – Identification of Study Area: As outlined in Chapter 5 (Constraints Study) of this Report, the Study Area was identified, and its extents defined. • Step 3 – Identification of Constraints: Following identification of the Study Area, the existing constraints (Natural, Artificial, and External) were identified within this area, with completion of a Constraints Study (See Chapter 5). A Non-Statutory Public Consultation took place to seek input and feedback from the public and stakeholders in relation to the Study Area and any existing constraints within it. • Step 4 – Consideration of Options/Alternatives: Taking the identified constraints into account, all reasonable / feasible options (Including the Do-Nothing Option, Do-Minimum Option, Do-Something Alternative - Public Transport and the Traffic Management Option), were considered and assessed (See Chapter 3). • Step 5 – Identification and Development of Feasible Options: Following assessment of all options /alternatives, feasible options were identified, and developed taking cognisance of the Scheme Objectives, existing constraints and TII’s Design Standards. • Step 6 – Appraisal of Options: The options were appraised in accordance with TII’s three stage systematic appraisal process, where Stages 1 and 2 assessments were undertaken. Throughout this process, the development of the options was refined. A Non-Statutory Public Consultation was undertaken on the Route Corridor Options selected for progression to the Stage 2 assessment (Project Appraisal Matrix).

8

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

• Step 7 – Identification of Emerging / Preferred Option: As part of Stage 3 of the Option Selection Process, and following the identification of an Emerging Preferred Option, and a Non-Statutory Public Consultation on this option, an assessment of this option using a Project Appraisal Balance Sheet (PABS) was undertaken to summarise the benefits and impacts associated with this option.

As stated in Section 1.4 (Purpose of Option Selection Report) of this Report, Non-Statutory Public Consultation forms a key part of TII’s Phase 2 (Option Selection) process. Feedback from these consultations, helped inform the Option Selection Process and Design Strategy, including the identification / confirmation of existing constraints.

9

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

2. Identification of Need

2.1 Strategic Fit and Priority of the Project

The proposed scheme and its objectives are consistent and compatible with the following European, national, regional and local policy documents, and other relevant policy documentation, which are listed below and outlined in Section 2.2 below; • European Policy – Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) Network Policy • National Policy – Project Ireland 2040 (National Planning Framework 2040 and the National Development Plan 2017 – 2027) • Regional Policy – Regional Planning Guidelines for the Northern and Western Region (2020), and for Eastern and Midlands Region 2019 – 2031(2019) • Local Policy – Monaghan County Development Plan 2019 – 2025 and associated Local Area Plans, Louth County Development Plan 2015 – 2021 and associated Local Area Plan • Other Relevant Policy Documents – Road Safety Strategy 2013 – 2020, the forthcoming Planning Land Use and Transport Outlook (PLUTO) 2040, Climate Action Plan 2019 & Climate Action Bill 2020, Smarter Travel 2009 – 2020, and other relevant documentation outlined below.

2.2 Development Policy

2.2.1 Introduction

As outlined in the sections below, it is considered that the N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme and its objectives align with current European, national, regional and local policy documents.

2.2.2 European Policy

2.2.2.1 TEN-T Network Policy

The European Union (EU) aims to provide a modern integrated transport system that strengthens the EU’s global competitiveness and is able to meet the challenges linked to sustainable, smart and inclusive growth. Through the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) policy, supported by a number of EU funding programmes and initiatives, the EU aims to provide an effective transport infrastructure network across all member states.

The current TEN-T Policy is outlined in EU Regulation No. 1315/2013 – Union Guidelines for the development of the trans-European Network. The TEN-T policy addresses the implementation and development of a Europe-wide network of railway lines, roads, inland waterways, maritime shipping routes, ports, airports and railroad terminals. The ultimate objective of the policy is to close gaps, ‘address bottlenecks’, ‘enhance cross-border connections’, as well as to strengthen social, economic and territorial cohesion in the EU. The objective is to improve transport infrastructure, reduce the environmental impact of transport, enhance energy efficiency and increase safety1.

With reference to Article 4 of EU Regulation No.13/2013, the specific TEN-T Policy objectives, in the context of all TEN-T’s transportation modes, are summarised below: • Cohesion through: Accessibility to remote, outermost and peripheral regions and a reduction of infrastructure quality gaps between member states. Cohesion for both passenger and freight traffic, interconnection between transport infrastructure for, on one hand, long-distance and, on the other hand, regional and local traffic.

• Efficiency through: Removal of bottlenecks and bridging of missing links, both within the transport infrastructures and at connecting points between these, within Member States territories and between them. The interconnection and interoperability of national transport networks. Efficient use of new and existing infrastructure.

1 Source: European Commission Transport and Mobility TEN-T Website: https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/infrastructure/ten-t_en 10

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

• Sustainability through: Development of all transport modes in a manner consistent with ensuring transport that is sustainable and economically efficient in the long-term. Contribution to the objectives of low-greenhouse gas emissions and promotion of low-carbon transport with the aim of achieving a significant reduction in CO2, in line with relevant European Union CO2 reduction targets. Sustainability through environmental protection.

• Increasing the benefits for its users through: Meeting the mobility and transport needs of its users within the European Union (EU) and countries outside of the EU. Ensuring safe, secure and high-quality standards for both passenger and freight transport. The establishment of infrastructure requirements, in particular in the field of interoperability, safety and security, which will ensure quality, efficiency and sustainability of transport services. Accessibility for elderly people, persons of reduced mobility and disabled passengers.

As part of the TEN-T Network, there are nine Core Network Corridors identified across the European Union. The island of Ireland has one Core Network Corridor crossing the and Northern Ireland; The North Sea-Mediterranean Corridor, with Cork, Dublin and Belfast identified as nodes within this corridor. In addition, and with reference to Figure 2.1 below, the TEN-T Network and each Core Network Corridor comprise of two network layers as per EU Regulation No.13/2013:

• Comprehensive Network – This network ensures ‘enhanced accessibility and connectivity for all regions of the Union while taking into consideration the specific case of islands, isolated networks and sparsely populated, remote and outermost regions’. This network is necessary for ‘bridging missing links and removing bottlenecks, particularly in cross-border sections.’ Furthermore, the Regulation states that ‘the guidelines laid down by this Regulation (“the guidelines”) should set the requirements for the infrastructure of the comprehensive network, in order to promote the development of a high-quality network throughout the union by 2050’.

In terms of roads, the regulation consequently defines ‘high-quality roads’ as ‘those which play an important role in long-distance freight and passenger traffic, integrate the main urban and economic centres, interconnect with other transport modes and link mountainous, remote, landlocked and peripheral NUTS 2 regions2 to central regions of the Union. Those roads shall be adequately maintained to allow safe and secure traffic.’ The regulation broadly outlines that these roads will be either ‘motorways, express roads or conventional strategic roads’, with ‘strategic roads’ being defined as ‘not a motorway or express road but which is still a high-quality road’.

As per Figures 2.1and 2.2 below, the existing section of the N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney which forms the N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme is identified as part of the Comprehensive Network of the TEN-T Network. The existing N2 and A5 routes in their entirety from Dublin to Derry, including the connections of N13, N14 and N15 to Donegal, all form part of TEN-T Comprehensive network. The N2, A5, N13, N14, N15 are strategic cross-border routes, which offer transport connectivity between the Northwest, the main urban and economic centres along their routes and other parts of the TEN-T Network (Including Dublin and Belfast). As identified in National Planning Framework (NPF) 2040 and the National Development Plan (NDP) 2017 -2028 (See Section 2.2.3 below), they are particularly important for both industry and tourism to the Border and North-West Regions and provide the main transport connectivity (due to the lack of rail infrastructure) within and to/from these regions.

2 NUTS = Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics. This is a system created by Eurostat for defining territorial units for statistics across the EU. In relation to N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme, as per Section 2.2.4 (Regional Policy), the Scheme falls under the Northern and Western Region, and the Eastern and Midland Region, which are NUTS2 Regions. In relation to N2 Clontibret to Border Road Scheme, as per Section 2.2.4 (Regional Policy), the Scheme falls under the North and Western Region, which is a NUTS2 Region. 11

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

• Core Network - The Core Network consists of those parts of the Comprehensive Network, which are identified as of the highest strategic importance in achieving the objectives of the TEN-T Network. In the case of the island of Ireland, the Core Network links the ports of Cork, Dublin, and Belfast, with a spur to the Port of Foynes in Limerick.

Figure 2.1: TEN-T Road Network across the Island of Ireland

12

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Figure 2.2: N2, A5, N13 – N15 TEN-T Comprehensive Network

As stated above, the proposed N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme forms part of the TEN-T Comprehensive Network. It is considered that the proposed Scheme and its project objectives aligns with the TEN-T objectives of cohesion, efficiency, sustainability, and benefit increase for its users. The proposed scheme will improve the existing infrastructure (providing a high-quality road), contribute to the enhancement of cross-border connections along the existing N2/A5 Route, improve accessibility to the North-West and the main urban and economic centres along this route, whilst supporting other sustainable transport modes and minimising environmental impact as per the Scheme Objectives.

13

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

2.2.3 National Policy

2.2.3.1 Project Ireland 2040 - National Planning Framework & National Development Plan Project Ireland 2040 is the overarching policy and planning framework for the social, economic and cultural development of the country. It includes a detailed capital investment plan for the period 2018 to 2027; the National Development Plan (NDP) 2018-2027, and the 20-year National Planning Framework (NPF) 2040. The NPF 2040 and NDP 2017-2027 was formally adopted in February 2018.

With reference to the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government (DoHPLG) document ‘Implementation Roadmap for the National Planning Framework (July 2018)’; ‘the National Planning Framework (NPF) was adopted and published by the Government on 16th February 2018, as a strategy to replace the National Spatial Strategy (2002 – 2020)’.

Furthermore, the document states that one of the key reasons that the Government put in place the NPF is to shape and co-ordinate planning, economic and spatial development and infrastructure development at national, regional, and local levels, through the Regional Spatial and Economic Strategies (RESs), City and County Development Plans and Local Area Plans. Figure 2.3 below shows an illustration of the planning hierarchy in Ireland.

Figure 2.3: National Planning Hierarchy in Ireland (Excerpt from the RSES Eastern and Midlands Area 2019 – 2031 – June 2019)

The NPF 2040 sets outs ten overarching key goals / objectives, named as National Strategic Outcomes, and 75 National Policy Objectives. Whilst the NDP 2018 – 2027, sets out ten Strategic Investment Priorities that will underpin the implementation of the NDP over a ten-year period and support the National Strategic Outcomes of the NPF 2040. As per National Policy Objective 74 of the NPF, the objective is to ‘Secure the alignment of the National Planning Framework and the National Development Plan through delivery of the National Strategic Outcome’. Figure 2.4 below shows an illustration of the NPF’s ten National Strategic Outcomes and the NDP’s ten Strategic Investment Priorities.

14

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Figure 2.4: National Planning Framework (NPF) and National Development Plan (NDP) 2018 -2027 – National Strategic Outcomes and Strategic Investment Priorities (Excerpt from NPF 2040 – February 2018)

National Planning Framework 2040 As stated above, and with reference to Figure 2.4 above, the NPF 2040 identifies and outlines ten National Strategic Outcomes (NSOs). The following NSOs, which are particularly relevant to the N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme are noted below:

National Strategic Outcome 2 - Enhanced Regional Accessibility: As per Section 1.3 of the NPF 2040, the goal of this Outcome is ‘to enhance accessibility between key urban centres of population and their regions. This means ensuring that all regions and urban areas in the country have a high degree of accessibility to Dublin, as well as to each other. Not every route has to look east and so accessibility and connectivity between places like Cork and Limerick, to give one example, and through the Atlantic Economic Corridor to Galway as well as access to the North-West is essential.’

15

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

In the introductory to the Outcome itself, the NPF states that:

‘Better accessibility between the four cities and to the Northern and Western region will enable unrealised potential to be activated as well as better preparing for potential impacts from Brexit.’

It is noted that the N2 /A5, which the proposed N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme forms part of, is a key strategic route providing accessibility between Dublin and the North-West.

The National Strategic Outcome 2 objectives are structured under the three headings of ‘Inter-Urban Roads’, ‘Accessibility to the North-West’ and ‘Public Transport’. The objectives under these headings, which are of particular relevance to the proposed Scheme, are provided below:

• Inter-Urban Roads - ‘Maintaining the strategic capacity and safety of the national roads network including planning for future capacity enhancements’ - ‘Improving average journey times targeting an average inter-urban speed of 90kph’

• Accessibility to the North-West - ‘Upgrading access to the North-West border area, utilising existing routes (N2/N14/A5)’;

• Public Transport • ‘To strengthen public transport connectivity between cities and large growth towns in Ireland and Northern Ireland with improved services and reliable journey times’

It is considered that the proposed Scheme Objectives align with these NPF objectives, where the proposed scheme seeks to improve the connectivity, capacity and the transport links between the Greater Dublin Area and the North West Region (See the Integration Scheme Objective), improve road safety on the route (See the Safety Scheme Objective), and support and improve public transport by improving journey times and reliability (See the Accessibility & Social inclusion Scheme Objective).

The importance of enhanced accessibility to the North-West, via. key routes, in collaboration with Northern Ireland is further outlined in the NPF Policy Objective below:

• National Policy Objective 2c - Accessibility from the north-west of Ireland and between centres of scale separate from Dublin will be significantly improved, focused on cities and larger regionally distributed centres and on key east-west and north-south routes.

The N2 / A5 is a key ‘North-South’ route in the context of the objective above, whilst the importance of enhanced accessibility via improved infrastructure is identified in the objectives listed below;

• National Policy Objective 43 – ‘Work with the relevant Departments in Northern Ireland for mutual advantage in areas such as spatial planning, economic development and promotion, co-ordination of social and physical infrastructure provision and environmental protection and management.

• National Policy Objective 46 – ‘In co-operation with relevant Departments in Northern Ireland, enhanced transport connectivity between Ireland and Northern Ireland, to include cross-border road and rail, cycling and walking routes, as well as blueways, greenways and peatways.’

National Strategic Outcome 3 – Strengthened Rural Economics and Communities: The goal of this Outcome is to support the sustainable development of rural areas by encouraging growth and arresting decline in areas that have experienced low population growths or decline in recent decades.

National Strategic Outcome 3 is structured under the heading of ‘Rural Development’. The following objective is of particular relevance to the proposed scheme;

16

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

• ‘Invest maintaining regional and local roads and strategic road improvement projects in rural areas to ensure access to critical services such as education, healthcare and employment.’

With reference to the above, it is considered that the proposed Scheme Objectives align with this NPF objective, where the proposed scheme seeks to provide improved strategic road infrastructure in a predominately rural Study Area, and aims to reduce social exclusion by providing safer and enhanced accessibility to the road network, and consequently to services from designated rural zones within the Study Area (See the Accessibility & Social Inclusion Scheme Objective).

National Strategic Outcome 4 – Sustainable Mobility: The NPF introduces sustainable mobility as ‘The provision of a well-functioning, integrated public transport system, enhancing competitiveness, sustaining economic progress and enabling sustainable mobility choices for citizens, supports the overall Framework objectives.’

Under the heading of Public Transport, it outlines the objective to:

‘Expand attractive public transport alternatives to car transport to reduce congestion and emissions and enable the transport sector to cater for the demands associated with longer term population and employment growth in a sustainable manner through the following measures:

• ‘…provide public transport infrastructure and services to meet the needs of smaller towns, villages and rural areas;’ • ‘Develop a comprehensive network of safe cycling routes in metropolitan areas to address travel needs and to provide similar facilities in towns and villages where appropriate.’

With reference to the first measure regarding public transport, the proposed scheme seeks to address the existing deficiencies and improve the existing road infrastructure on the N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney. Consequently, this will support and fully realise the potential of future investment and improvements in public transportation, within and through the Study Area, which is primarily bus transportation. In addition, as stated in the context of NSO 2 (Enhanced Regional Accessibility) and public transport, the proposed scheme seeks to improve journey times and journey reliability, which will strengthen and support existing and future bus services operating on the N2 corridor. Therefore, it is considered the proposed Scheme Objectives (See Accessibility & Social Inclusion) align with this NPF objective.

Regarding the second measure on cycling, the provision of pedestrian and cycle facilities on the majority of new road schemes is now required in TII’s current Design Standards (See Section 4.4 – Initial Selection of Road Type of this Report for further details). The proposed scheme seeks to provide formal dedicated pedestrian and cycle facilities throughout the length of the scheme. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed scheme, and its Scheme Objective (See the Physical Activity Scheme Objective) aligns with this NPF objective.

In conclusion, it is considered that the proposed N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme and its Scheme Objectives align with NPF 2040 and its National Strategic Outcomes.

National Development Plan (NDP) 2018 – 2027 As stated above, the NDP 2018 – 2027, sets out ten Strategic Investment Priorities that will underpin the implementation of the NDP over a ten-year period and support the National Strategic Outcomes of the NPF 2040.

As shown in Figure 2.4 above, the ‘National Road Network’ forms one of the ten Strategic investment Priorities.

Section 4.3 (Investing in the Border Region) of the NDP notes that Project Ireland 2040 ‘represents a particular step change for the northern part of the island of Ireland, including the border counties and the North-West’.

And continues by stating:

17

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

‘As set out in the NPF, the Government wants to work with Northern Ireland authorities across three main dimensions: • Working together for economic advantage; • Co-ordination of infrastructure investment; and • Managing our shared environment.

Working together, we can realise the full potential of the North-West, the Central Border Region, and the Dublin- Belfast Corridor.’

Section 4.3 further outlines that the NDP ‘provides for investment to support the ambition for development of the border region’ and specifically references; ‘the N2/A5 road, serving Meath, Monaghan and Donegal’.

Linked with NPF’s National Strategic Outcome 2 (Enhanced Regional Accessibility), and the Strategic Investment Priorities 2018 – 2027 (Regional Roads Network and Accessibility to the North-West), the NDP states in the context of linkages between Dublin and the North-West, which the N2 forms part of;

‘Under the National Development Plan, the objective is to complete those linkages so that every region and all major urban areas, particularly those in the North-West, which have been comparatively neglected until recently, are linked to Dublin by a high-quality road network’.

To this end, the N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme is one of the schemes specifically identified for prioritisation in the NDP:

‘The following sections of the national road network will be progressed through pre-appraisal and early planning during 2018 to prioritise projects which are proceeding to construction in the National Development Plan.

• N2 Clontibret to the Border • N2 Ardee to south of Castleblayney’

In addition to the Government’s prioritisation of the N2 projects, and in relation to the A5 route between the North Ireland Border and Derry, the NDP states: ‘A commitment has been made to provide support and funding for the first part3 of the A5 road project. The Government is committed to participation in the further development of the A5 and will continue to engage with the Northern Ireland executive in relation to this project.’ It is also noted that the ‘A5 Road Development’, known as the A5 Western Transport Corridor (WTC), is specifically included in the NDPs Strategic Investment Priorities 2018 – 2027 (Accessibility to the North-West).

In conclusion, it is considered that proposed N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme and its Scheme Objectives align with the NDP 2018 – 2027 and its Strategic Investment Priorities.

Brexit in the Context of the Proposed Scheme and the NPF 2040 & NDP:

It is recognised that Brexit may present significant challenges to the all-Ireland economy. It is likely that the border region, including the counties of Monaghan and Louth, will be the most exposed to potential impacts as there is a substantial number of industrial sectors (including agri-food, construction, engineering), which operate and trade on both sides of the Northern Ireland Border. A substantial number of businesses in the Study Area of the proposed scheme cross back and forth over the Border on a daily basis using the existing road infrastructure, and the N2/A5 corridor, which is the main linkage between the Greater Dublin Area, the North-West, Derry, and key towns and urban settlements along this route.

3 For clarity purposes, the ‘first part’ referenced in the National Development Plan 2018 – 2027 is considered to refer to the A5 Western Transport Corridor (WTC) Phase 1a – New Buildings to North Strabane. 18

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

In order to mitigate the potential adverse impacts, and keep industries competitive and sustainable post-Brexit, the NPF and NDP recognises that substantial investment is required in the all-island economy, with a ‘particular focus on building economic resilience and linkages in the cross-border regions’. The NDP recognises that investment is particularly required in the supporting services and infrastructure, including transportation, where Chapter 4 (A Connected Island), under the heading of ‘Planning and Investing for Implications of Brexit’ states the following:

‘Our investment priorities will ensure that our economy remains competitive and resilient. This includes significant investment in: • Connectivity through improved roads and public transport…’

Following on from the identification of this Brexit investment priority, and in order to also fully realise the potential of the North-West and ‘Central Border Region’, Section 4.3 (Investing in the Border Region) of the NDP, states:

‘The National Development Plan provides for investment to support the ambition for development of the border region, including:

• N2/A5 road…’

As previously identified in the preceding section, the NDP specifically identifies the N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme and the N2 Clontibret to Border Road Scheme for prioritisation to support NPF’s National Strategic Outcome (NSO) 2 (Enhanced Regional Accessibility), along with the Government’s commitment to participate in the funding of the A5 WTC project. As per the NSO 2, both N2 projects and the A5 WTC project, will enhance accessibility between the Greater Dublin Area, and the North-West and ‘will enable unrealised potential to be activated as well as better preparing for potential impacts from Brexit.’

In conclusion, the proposed Scheme seeks to enhance strategic connectivity along the N2/A5 Corridor, which will support economic resilience post-Brexit. It is considered that the Scheme Objectives (See the Integration Scheme Objectives) align with national policy objectives of NPF and NDP in terms of Brexit.

2.2.3.2 PLUTO 2040

As an update and replacement of the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport’s (DTTaS) ‘Strategic Investment Framework for Land Transport’ (SIFLT), published in 2015, the Department of Transport (DoT) are currently preparing the Planning Land Use and Transport – Outlook 2040, known as PLUTO 2040. It is expected that the forthcoming PLUTO 2040 will be published in 2021. PLUTO 2040 is to align with the NPF 2040 and the NDP 2018 – 2027, as DoT’s response to Project Ireland 2040. Specifically, it will focus on how to ensure the realisation of the National Strategic Outcomes as outlined in the NPF, whilst taking account of the investment plans in the NDP. The development of PLUTO 2040 is overseen by a steering group of members from the DoT, the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government (DHPLG), TII and the National Transport Authority (NTA).

PLUTO 2040 is a long-term framework to support the prioritisation of transport interventions and investment, and to support the delivery of Project Ireland 2040. PLUTO 2040 will not identify specific projects or schemes. As part of the development of PLUTO 2040, challenges and constraints on the transport network were identified, with a list of key intervention priorities, which are currently being formalised. As part of this process, PLUTO 2040 has identified a number of key goals. The draft PLUTO 2040 goals are listed below: • A high-level of service on a safe, accessible, reliable and efficient network • A strong and balanced economy • A clean, low-carbon and environmentally sustainable transport system • Supporting successful places and vibrant communities.

19

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

As stated above, at the time of writing, PLUTO 2040 is yet to be formally published. Based on the outlined draft information, and the draft goals above, it is considered that the proposed scheme will align and support the objectives of PLUTO 2040. In terms of its draft goals, the proposed Scheme seeks to provide a high-quality infrastructural improvement to the existing network, which will improve accessibility, safety and reliability in the Study Area (See Integration and Safety Scheme Objectives). In addition, the proposed Scheme seeks to support the economy, communities, sustainable low-carbon public transport, with the minimisation of environmental impacts (See Economy, Accessibility & Social Inclusion and Environment Scheme Objectives).

2.2.4 Regional Policy

The Planning and Development Act 2000 makes statutory provision for the preparation of Regional and Spatial and Economic Strategies (RSES), which are more broadly-based policy documents than the Regional Policy Planning Guidelines (RPGs). Following the enactment of the Local Government Reform Act 2014, a number of changes were made to the regional planning structures in Ireland where the eight regional authorities were dissolved. Three new Regional Assemblies (Southern, Eastern and Midland, and Northern and Western) came into effect on 1st January 2015. In October 2017, the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government directed the three Regional Assemblies to commence the preparation of the RSESs for each individual region. With the adoption of the NPF 2040 in February 2018, the existing RPGs were replaced by a RSES for each of the Regional Assembly Areas. The counties of Monaghan and Louth had originally been included in the Regional Planning Guidelines for the Border Region 2010 – 2022 (September 2010), which was replaced by the Regional Spatial and Economic Strategy for the Eastern Midland Region 2019 - 2031 (June 2019), and is applicable to County Louth, and the Regional Spatial and Economic Strategy for the North and West Region (January 2020), which is applicable to County Monaghan. A map of the regional assembly areas is shown in Figure 2.5 below.

20

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Figure 2.5: Map of the three Regional Assembly Areas -RSES (Excerpt from NPF Document February 2018)

The RSES provide the strategic plan and investment framework to shape the future development of each of the three regional assembly areas in Ireland up to 2031 and beyond. The RSESs identify regional assets, opportunities and pressures, and provide policy responses in the form of regional policy objectives. RSESs are required under the Planning and Development Act 2000 to address employment, retail, housing, transport, water services, energy, communications, waste management, education, health, sports and community facilities, environment and heritage, landscape, sustainable development and climate change.

21

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

The principal statutory purpose of the RSESs is to support the implementation of Project Ireland 2040 including the NPF and NDP 2018-2027, and the economic policies of the Government by providing a long-term strategic planning and economic framework for the development of the Regions. Just as the RSESs must be supportive of and compliant with the NPF, each local authority County Development Plan must be consistent with the appropriate RSES, where a period of transition will operate until 2027.

Further details of the RSESs for the Northern and Western Region, and Eastern and Midlands Region in terms of the proposed N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme are provided in the sections below.

2.2.4.1 Regional Spatial and Economic Strategy for the Northern and Western Region The Northern and Western Region Assembly adopted the RSES for the Northern and Western Region on 24th January 2020. The region comprises of nine local authorities. In developing the RSES, the Assembly structured the strategy into five main ‘Growth Ambitions’, with associated regional policy objectives identified throughout the document. These growth ambitions are listed below and will act as a framework to facilitate and manage growth in a sustainable manner within the region.

• Growth Ambition 1 – Economy & Employment – Vibrant Region • Growth Ambition 2 – Environment – Natural Heritage • Growth Ambition 3 – Connectivity – Connected Region • Growth Ambition 4 – Quality of Life • Growth Ambition 5 – Infrastructure – Enabling Our Region

Under Growth Ambition 3 – Connectivity – Connected Region, the RSES outlines that ‘The provision of prudently managed transport and digital infrastructure is key to delivering our vision. Distinctly in the context of the Northern and Western Region, which has a particularly dispersed settlement pattern and lacks critical mass evident in other parts of the island’. In Section 6.2 (Transport) of this ambition, the RSES recognises the economic benefits of and challenges to transport within the region:

• ‘People moving to, from or between workplaces, and movement of commodities and products are important components of the regional economy…’ • ‘An attractive, effective transport infrastructure system can also be a key factor in attracting (and retaining) skilled labour to the region…’ • ‘This region is highly dependent upon private car for travel to work and education, with approximately 70% of the population having commuted by private car according to the Census 2016, up from 66% in 2011. This is reflective of the low level of alternative suitable transport modes available within the region and the dispersed and low level of urbanisation. In addition to this high dependency in road transport travel, there are significant gaps in transport network across the region, which require prioritised investment to bring it up to a comparable standard with the rest of the country…’ • ‘In order to enable effective regional development, it will be necessary for prioritised investment in roads and environmentally sustainable public transport that will provide for high quality inter-regional and intra-regional connectivity to places and markets, including international accessibility’.

In terms of prioritising investment in roads, the RSES outlines the following in Section 6.5 (Road Network):

• ‘Both the National Planning Framework and the National Development Plan strongly acknowledge that accessibility from the northern and western region of Ireland and between centres of scale separate from Dublin will need to be significantly improved, focussed on cities and larger regionally distributed centres and on key east-west and north-south routes. Better accessibility will enable improved road safety and unrealised potential to be activated as well as better preparing for potential impacts from Brexit.’

In the concluding part of Section 6.5, the RSES provide a priority list of road projects within the region under its Regional Policy Objectives for National Roads, where it identifies the proposed N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme:

22

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

‘All these projects are integrated with the targeted development of the major urban centres in the region:

109. The following projects shall be progressed through pre-appraisal and early planning in the short term and shall thereafter proceed to construction and be delivered to an appropriate level of service within the lifetime of the RSES:

• N2 Clontibret to the Border connecting to the A5 • N2 Ardee to south of Castleblayney’

Separately, under Section 9 (All Island Cohesion) of the document, the RSES identifies the strategic importance of the N2 (Dublin to the Northern Ireland Border) and the A5 (Derry, Letterkenny & ‘North West City Region’ to the Northern Ireland Border), in terms of all island cohesion, the North West Strategic Partnership and in order to maximise the growth potential of the North West Region. The RSES states:

‘Central to the advancement of this partnership will be the provision of necessary economic infrastructure… this includes upgrades between Letterkenny – Lifford/Strabane and the A5 (/N24) from Derry to Monaghan/Dublin…’

In conclusion, it is considered that the proposed N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme and its objectives align with this RSES, as the proposed scheme seeks to improve transport connectivity to and within the region, including the main urban and economic centres along this route, and Greater Dublin Area and the North-West (See Integration, and Accessibility & Social Inclusion Scheme Objectives). In addition, the proposed scheme seeks to improve road safety by providing a high-quality road (See Safety Scheme Objective) and support sustainable public transport by improving journey times and journey time reliability along the route (See Accessibility & Social Inclusion Objective).

2.2.4.2 Regional Spatial and Economic Strategy for Eastern and Midlands Region 2019 – 2031 The Eastern and Midlands Region Assembly adopted the RSES for the Eastern and Midlands on 28th June 2019. The region comprises of 12 local authorities and includes the Dublin Metropolitan Area. In developing the RSES, the Assembly identified 16 ‘Regional Strategic Outcomes (RSOs)’ which aim to achieve the shared goals set out in the National Strategic Outcomes (NSOs) in the NPF 2040. In terms of transport, RSO 6 (Integrated Transport and Land-Use) states the following:

• ‘Promote best use of Transport Infrastructure, existing and planned, and promote sustainable and active modes of travel to ensure the proper integration of transportation and land use planning (NSO 2, 6, 8 & 9)’

In addition to the RSOs, the RSES contains a series of Regional Planning Objectives (RPOs) which are provided under various themed chapters within the document.

Within Section 8.3 of Chapter 8 (Connectivity), the RSES as per RPO 8.1 outlines the guiding principles of the integration of land use and transport, where it states in context of national roads: ‘The Strategic transport of National Roads and associated junctions should be maintained and protected’.

Section 8.4 (Transport Investment Priorities) recognises that major transport infrastructure investments, which are identified in the NDP, have an important role in enabling the sustainable and balanced development of the region over the period of the RSES. Under the Strategic Road Network heading, it outlines the following RPO for Investment in Improved Strategic Road Connectivity:

• ‘RPO 8.10: The RSES supports appraisal and or delivery of the road projects set out in Table 8.4 subject to the outcome of appropriate environmental assessment and the planning process’.

4 Original text within the RSES omits specific reference to ‘N2’. This considered an error in this document, as the A5 Technically terminates at the Northern Ireland Border, and switches designation to N2 from the Northern Ireland Border and where the N2 continues to Monaghan Town and Dublin. 23

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

With reference to Table 8.4 (Road Projects for the Region) in the RSES, it is noted that the ‘N2 Ardee to south of Castleblayney’ (i.e. N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme) is specifically identified.

Separately, under Section 11 (All Island Cohesion) of the document, the RSES identifies the strategic importance of the N2 (Dublin to the Northern Ireland Border) and the A5 (Derry and Letterkenny to the Northern Ireland Border), in terms of all island cohesion, and collaboration with the North West Region. Section 11.3 (Collaboration with the Southern Region and Northern and Western Region) states that ‘Inter-regional accessibility and co- operation is also central to delivering the overall Growth Strategy for the Eastern and Midland Region’. In terms of identifying opportunities that enable greater collaboration, and that could potentially offer economic, social and environmental advantage, it identifies the enhancement of the A5/N2 corridor, by stating:

• ‘development of the cross border A5 route connecting to the N2/M2 will improve connectivity between Dublin and the border counties to Derry and Letterkenny’.

In conclusion, it is considered that the proposed N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme and its objectives align with this RSES, as the proposed Scheme is specifically identified as a Transport Investment Priority. In addition, the Scheme seeks to support sustainable public transport by improving journey times and journey time reliability along the route (See the Accessibility & Social Inclusion Scheme Objectives).

2.2.5 Local Policy

2.2.5.1 Monaghan County Development Plan 2019 - 2025 The Monaghan County Development Plan (CDP), set out by Monaghan County Council, prescribes the programme and objectives of County Monaghan through the stated period, with Chapter 7 specifically addressing Transport and Infrastructure. It outlines that improved national, regional, county and local infrastructure and services are essential to improve the economic competitiveness and quality of life within the county. It notes that basic infrastructural development and investment in roads are required to promote balanced and sustainable economic development and to improve the quality of the built and natural environment, throughout the county.

References in the context of the proposed N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme in the CDP are outlined below:

Chapter 2 – Core Strategy – Section 2.3.2 (Monaghan Town): ‘The draft Regional Spatial and Economic Strategy (RSES) recognises its importance as an economic driver in the Central Border Region and how it is crucial that it continues to expand seamless cross border links, aided by, for example the upgrade of the N2 / A5.’

Chapter 7 – Transport and Infrastructure – Section 7.1 (National & Regional Transport Policy Context): ‘The National Planning Framework 2040 specifically references the N2/A5 (Clontibret to Tyrone/NI border) roads project. It is considered that this route should be prioritised given its strategic importance and the lack of any direct rail infrastructure serving significant urban areas in the northwest along the route of the N2/A5.’

Chapter 7 – Transport and Infrastructure – Section 7.6 (Transport Policy):

• TP4 – ‘To plan for future traffic and transportation needs in County Monaghan and to ensure that new development does not prejudice the expansion of road and cycling corridors in the County. Proposed road routes, road realignment schemes and future cycle route corridors shall be kept free from development that would compromise their future delivery.’

Chapter 7 – Transport and Infrastructure – Section 7.8 (National Roads): ‘The N2 is part of the Trans-European transport Network (TEN-T). This is a network which comprises roads, railway lines, inland waterways, inland and maritime ports, airports and rail-road terminals throughout the 28 Member States. The characteristic is a key factor for the network’s efficient, safe and secure operation, using seamless transport chains for passengers and freight.

24

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

The N2 is categorised as being part of the ‘comprehensive network’, a multi-modal network of relatively high density which provides all European regions (including peripheral regions) with an accessibility that supports their further economic, social and territorial development as well as the mobility of their citizens.’

With reference to Table 7.2 in Section 7.8, which lists the strategic national road proposals for the county, where the ‘N2 Clontibret – NI Border’ and ‘Ardee -Castleblayney Road Upgrade’ are specifically listed, it states that ‘these national road projects that form key routes and linkages with other development centres, sea-ports and airports will be advanced in partnership with Transport Infrastructure Ireland.’

Chapter 7 – Transport and Infrastructure – Section 7.8.1 (National Roads Policy) This section outlines the CDP’s National Road Policies. Policies which are considered particularly relevant to N2, are listed below:

• ‘NRP1 – To protect the traffic carrying capacity of national roads, the level of service they deliver and the period over which they continue to perform efficiently, by avoiding the creation of new access points or the generation of increased traffic from existing accesses onto the N-2, N-53, N-54, and N-12 outside the 60 km/h speed limit, in accordance with the DoECLG’s publication Spatial Planning and National Roads - Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2012).

• NRP5 – To seek to progress and ensure the upgrade of the N2 in co-operation with Transport Infrastructure Ireland and the relevant adjoining local authorities.’

It is noted that Variation No. 1 to the CDP, which was adopted on 6th January 2020, included the following additional National Roads Policy under Section 7.8.1:

• ‘NRP7 – To protect the selected route of the N2 upgrade road scheme between Ardee and Castleblayney and the selected route between Clontibret and the border with Northern Ireland, and to prohibit development that could prejudice their future delivery’

In terms of background and reasoning for this variation, it is noted that at the time of the decision to proceed with the development of the proposed N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme, the preparation of the CDP 2019 – 2025 was at an advanced stage, whereas the selection of a Preferred Route Corridor (i.e. ‘selected route’) for the proposed scheme was at initial stages. Consequently, it was identified that there was a need to update the existing policy within the CDP to ensure it was consistent with current development of the proposed scheme in relation to the identification of a Preferred Route Corridor.

In conclusion, it is considered that the proposed N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Scheme and its objectives align with the Monaghan County Development Plan 2019 - 2025.

2.2.5.2 Louth County Development Plan 2015 – 2021 The Louth County Development Plan (CDP) contains an overall strategy for the proper planning and sustainable development of County Louth over the lifetime of the Plan.

References made in the context of Transport and the proposed N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme are outlined in Chapter 7 (Transport) of the CDP:

In Section 7.3 (Road Infrastructure), the CDP recognises the importance of road infrastructure, by stating:

‘Similar to the remainder of the county, road transport remains the dominant mode of transport within County Louth playing a crucial role in contributing to business and industrial competitiveness.’

In Section 7.3.3 (National Routes), the CDP states:

25

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

‘The NRA (now TII) advocates that the strategic role of this road network in catering for the safe and efficient movement of major inter urban and inter regional traffic be safeguarded to allow for the effective delivery of these investments. Table 7.1 outlines the national routes that run through County Louth’.

In Table 7.1, ‘N2 Dublin – Derry’ is listed which contains the existing section of the N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney, which forms part of the proposed N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme.

Section 7.3.3 continues by stating: ‘Louth County Council will continue to implement measures to safeguard the capacity and safety of national routes so that they can continue to perform their strategic role and maintain their importance to the future development of the County.’

In relation to the CDP’s Transport Policy Objectives, TC7 in Chapter 7 states:

“To provide and maintain a road hierarchy based on motorway, national routes, regional routes and local roads and to maintain the carrying capacity and lifespan of the road network and ensure high standards of safety for road users…”

It is noted that Variation No. 2 to the CDP was adopted in July 2020, which comprised of the following:

Section 7.3.10 (Roads Improvement Programme 2015 – 2021 – Inclusion within Table 7.7:

Within Chapter 7 (Transport), Section 7.3.10 outlines Louth County Council’s proposed Road Improvement Programme between the period of 2015 to 2021, which are identified in Tables 7.7 to 7.9. The CDP states that this programme will be progressed /implemented by the Council and the NRA (now TII) over the period of the Plan. Variation No. 2 outlined the following:

• Inclusion of ‘N2 Ardee-Castleblayney Road Upgrade’, i.e. the N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme, within Table 7.7 (Motorways and National Routes)

With this variation, it is noted that the CDP Policy Objective TC20 is relevant to the proposed N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme:

‘To secure the implementation of the Council’s Road Improvement Programme 2015 – 2021 as detailed in Tables 7.7, 7.8 and 7.9 in consultation and agreement with the Department of Transport and (now TII) subject to available funding and to keep from development all lands identified for the construction and improvement of national, regional and local roads within the County. All proposed transport routes will be required to comply with the Habitats, EIA and SEA Directives.’

As noted above, the proposed N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme has been included in Table 7.7 (Motorways and National Routes) through Variation No. 2.

Section 7.3.10 (Roads Improvement Programme 2005 – 2021 – Inclusion of new CDP Transport Policy Objective TC20A

Variation No. 2 included the additional CDP Transport Policy Objective, TC20A under TC20, within Section 7.3.10 in Chapter 7 (Transport). TC20A outlines the following objective:

‘To protect the selected route of the N2 upgrade road scheme between Ardee and Castleblayney and to prohibit development that could prejudice its future delivery’

The ‘N2 upgrade road scheme between Ardee and Castleblayney’ being the proposed N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme.

26

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

In terms of background and reasoning for this variation, at the preparation of the CDP 2015 – 2021, the proposed N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme was yet to be initiated. In the intervening period, Monaghan County Council in partnership with Louth County Council and in association with TII have commenced the early planning and development of the N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme. The current CDP and the County Roads Improvement Programme 2005 – 2021 did not make specific provision for the proposed scheme. Consequently, with the adoption of Variation No.2, the CDP and the County Road Improvement Programme 2005 – 2021 is consistent with the current development of the proposed scheme in relation to the identification of a Preferred Route Corridor (i.e. ‘selected route’).

In conclusion, it is considered that the proposed N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme and its objectives align with the Louth County Development Plan 2015 - 2021.

2.2.5.3 Draft Louth County Development Plan 2021 – 2027

At the time of writing, the Louth County Development Plan (CDP) 2015 – 2021 was still in place. Louth County Council (LCC) are currently preparing the CDP 2021 – 2027. Following a Pre-Consultation Stage in 2019, and the publication of a Pre-Draft Consultation 2019 Chief Executive Report in January 2020, LCC issued the Draft Louth County Development Plan (CDP) 2021 – 2027 in October 2020, as part of a public consultation between October 2020 and December 2020. Following receipt and consideration of feedback from the public and stakeholders, it is expected that the draft CDP 2021 – 2027 will be updated, with the formal CDP 2021 – 2027 being adopted in 2021.

Within Chapter 7 (Movement) of the Draft CDP 2021 – 2027, it notes the strategic importance of the existing N2, with section 7.7.2 (National Roads) stating:

‘The National Primary Roads that travel through Louth are the N2 Dublin-Derry road, N1/A1 Dundalk-Belfast road, and the N33, which runs from the Charleville Interchange (Junction 14 of the M1) to Ardee. These roads are critical in supporting more balanced regional development as they provide a vital connection to the north-west of the country.’

Within the same section, it outlines the Movement Policy Objective, MOV 35, as follows:

• ‘To protect the strategic transport function of national roads, including motorways through the implementation of the ‘Spatial Planning and National Roads – Guidelines for Planning Authorities’

Within Section 7.8 (Strategic Road Projects), the Draft CDP states:

‘Whilst this Draft Plan promotes and supports a modal shift to more sustainable modes of transport, it also recognises that improvements to the existing road infrastructure in the county are required in order to improve connectivity and support more balanced economic development. This will allow settlements to fulfil their economic potential. The progression of the following projects will be support in the Draft Plan:’

Thereafter, it lists the ‘N2 Ardee to Castleblayney’ Road Scheme within Table 7.3 (National Road Projects), with Movement Policy Objective, MOV 39 stating the following:

• ‘To support major road and bridge improvement projects set out in Tables 7.3 and 7.4 and any other project identified by the Council or included in the Roads Programme by reserving the corridors, as and when they are identified, of any such proposed routes, free of development, which would interfere with the provision of such proposals.’

Within Section 7.8.1 (N2 Upgrade to Castleblayney), the Draft CDP notes that the proposed scheme:

‘…will upgrade approximately 32 kilometres of road between Ardee and Castleblayney. In addition to improving the N2/A5 route this scheme will also provide more efficient access to additional strategic routes including the N33/M1, N52 and N53.’

27

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Thereafter, the draft CDP outlines Movement Policy Objective, MOV 40, as follows:

• ‘To support the progression of the long term upgrade of the N2; and in particular to protect the selected route of the upgrade road scheme between Ardee and Castleblayney, and prohibit development that could prejudice its future delivery; and to continue to work closely with Transport Infrastructure Ireland, Monaghan County Council, property owners, and residents affected, and other stakeholders in the delivery of this project.’ In conclusion, it is considered that the proposed N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Scheme and its objectives align with the Draft Louth County Development Plan 2021 – 2027.

2.2.5.4 County Monaghan– Local Area Plans

At the time of writing, and with reference to the Monaghan CDP 2019 – 2025, no Local Area Plans (LAPs) have been developed for the County at this stage. Section 9.16 of the CDP 2019 – 2025, where LAPs are named as ‘Local Area Action Plans’, it states that ‘Local Area Action Plans will be required for specified sites within some of the towns. They will establish strategic planning principles for each area including land use, infrastructure provision, layout, open spaces, linkages and design. Existing residential amenities must be given strong consideration as well as potential to create linkages to surrounding lands.’

In relation to objectives for Local Area Action Plans, the CDP 2019 – 2025 lists six objectives, APO 1 to 6. APO 5 states:

‘To require that all plans are consistent with the policies and objectives of the County Development Plan 2019 – 2025’.

As outlined in Section 2.2.5.1 above, it is considered that the proposed scheme and its objectives align with the Monaghan CDP 2019 -2025. Consequently, and with reference to APO 5 above, as any future Monaghan LAPs will be consistent with the policies and objectives of the CDP 2019 – 2025, it is considered that the proposed Scheme and its objectives will align with these.

2.2.5.5 County Louth – Local Area Plans

At the time of writing, a number of Local Area Plans (LAPs) and masterplans exist within Louth County, primarily concentrated in four areas: • Dundalk and Environs; • Drogheda and its environs (Including North Drogheda and Drogheda Docklands Area) • Ardee • Dunleer

With the exception of Ardee LAP, all other LAPs are outside the Study Area of the proposed scheme. It is noted that the Ardee Local Area Plan was published in April 2011 and spans the period between 2010 and 2016. Consequently, as the proposed N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme was yet to be initiated at the time of development of this LAP, there is no reference to the proposed scheme in this LAP.

With reference to Section 11.2 (Local Area Plans) of the Louth CDP 2015 – 2021, it states:

‘Local area plans must be consistent with the policies and objectives of the development plan, its core strategy and any regional planning guidelines that apply to the area of the Plan.’

As outlined in Section 2.2.5.2, it is considered that the proposed Scheme and its objectives align with the Louth CDP 2015 – 2021. Consequently, and with reference to the statement above, as any future Monaghan LAPs will be consistent with the policies and objectives of the CDP 2015 – 2021, it is considered that the proposed scheme and its objectives will align with these. It is envisaged that the same principle will apply to the future Louth CDP 2021 – 2027 but this will be reviewed upon the future adoption of this Plan. 28

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

2.2.6 Other Relevant Plans and Policies

2.2.6.1 Road Safety Authority – Road Safety Strategy 2013 – 2020 The Road Safety Authority’s (RSA) strategy for road safety sets out the plan to reduce the number of collisions occurring on Irish roads. The main target of this plan is to provide a reduction of road collision fatalities on Irish roads to 25 per million population or less by 2020. This plan seeks to close the gap between Ireland and the safest countries in the EU. This means reducing deaths from 162 in 2012 to 124 or fewer by 2020. A provisional target for the reduction of serious injuries by 30%, from 472 (2011) to 330 or fewer, by 2020 or 61 per million population has also been set. It is considered that the provision of new and improved road infrastructure along this section of the N2 would contribute to the reduction of the number of collisions and fatalities occurring annually on this section of road. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed scheme is consistent with the Road Safety Strategy.

In conclusion, it is considered that the proposed N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme and its Safety Objectives align with the RSA Road Strategy 2013 – 2020.

Separately, it is noted that the RSA are currently preparing their next Road Safety Strategy, which will last for ten years, from 2021 to 2030. It is noted that the alignment of the proposed scheme and its associated objectives with this new policy document will be undertaken as part of subsequent development of the scheme.

2.2.6.2 Climate Action Plan 2019 & Climate Action Bill 2020

Following the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015 coming into legislation, the Government published the Climate Action Plan 2019 in June 2019. The objective of the plan is to enable Ireland to meet its EU targets to reduce its carbon emissions by 30 per cent between 2021 and 2030 and lay the foundations for achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050. The plan set out 180 actions which extends to all sectors of the economy including Transport. In Section 10.3 of the Plan, it outlines a number of measures in the transport sector to deliver the 2030 Target. The main measures are outlined below: 1) Modal Shift – A significant shift from individual vehicle usage to sustainable modes including public transport, cycling and walking. 2) Conversion of Public Fleets – Commitment to transition to Low Emission Vehicles (LEVs), including electric buses. 3) Incentives & Regulation – No new non-zero emissions vehicles will be sold in Ireland post-2030. 4) Electrical Vehicle (EV) Charging Network – Expansion of the national EV charging network. 5) Use of Biofuels – Expansion of biofuels obligation scheme. 6) Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Network – Delivery of 14 CNG fuelling stations as part of the Causeway Project. 7) Emerging Technologies – Further investigate decarbonisation options such as hydrogen vehicles, biomethane and AD substitutes for natural gas. This would also include the continued participation in the Conference of European Directors of Roads transnational research projects and the implementation of best environmental practice.

In addition to the transport sector, road projects cross into the Waste and Circular Economy Sector, where measures are outlined for the prevention, recycling/reuse, and diversion of waste, and the Agriculture, Forestry and Land Use Sector, where impact to existing lands types (forestry, bogs, etc.), which store carbon and other greenhouse gases, is considered.

In terms of TII’s response to the challenges of climate change, TII’s Environmental Strategy (February 2019) recognises the importance of decarbonising transport and ensuring that road infrastructure is resilient to climate change. TII’s Strategy for Adapting to Climate Change on Ireland’s Light Rail and National Road Network (December 2017) outlines general resilience measures to be considered for its road network. As part of the future development of the proposed scheme, impacts due to extreme weather events and temperatures will be considered in the design and assessment of the scheme, including flood risk and drainage design. The proposed scheme will be designed to mitigate the impacts to the surrounding environment and to the road infrastructure itself due to these ever-increasing climatic events/conditions.

29

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Regarding the decarbonisation of transport, and with reference to the Modal Shift measure in the Climate Action Plan 2019, the proposed scheme seeks to support and promote sustainable transport, which will encourage a modal shift from individual vehicle usage. As identified in Section 2.3 (Project Specific Need) of this Report, the existing section of N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney has no formal pedestrian and cycle facilities. The proposed scheme seeks to provide continuous dedicated cycle and pedestrian facilities throughout the length of the scheme, with the aim of encouraging a modal shift to this sustainable transport mode within the Study Area.

In relation to a modal shift to public transport, the existing and future public transportation within the Study Area is limited to road-based bus transportation as identified in the Public Transport Alternative (See Section 3.4 of this Report). Through increasing capacity and improving the journey times and journey time reliability on the N2 corridor, the proposed scheme seeks to support the integration and growth of bus transportation in the Study Area, with the aim of encouraging a modal shift to this sustainable transport mode. In addition, should any opportunities arise in terms of Park & Ride / Park & Share facilities, which could be potentially integrated with the proposed scheme, these will be investigated and considered as part of future development of the scheme.

Regarding waste, the proposed scheme will seek to maximise the re-use of waste (including earthworks) and aim to reduce the amount of disposal of material. An Outline Construction Environmental Management Plan (Outline CEMP) will be developed in the next phase of the scheme development, which will identify measures to manage material resources, to reuse non-hazardous soils and aggregates from excavation and demolition, and, where feasible, measures to minimise greenhouse gases associated with the importation of materials. In terms of existing land use, the proposed scheme will seek to limit, where feasible, the land take required for the scheme, and the associated impacts to land types (bogs, forestry, etc.).

In conclusion, it is considered that the proposed scheme and its associated Scheme Objectives (See Environment, Physical Activity, and Accessibility & Social Inclusion Scheme Objectives) align with the Climate Action Plan 2019.

Separately, it is noted that Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Bill 2020 (Climate Action Bill 2020) was recently published in October 2020, where it is envisaged that this will be enacted within 2021. This bill establishes a 2050 net-zero emissions target for Ireland, with the introduction of 5-year, economy-wide carbon budgets starting in 2021. In addition, it introduces a requirement to annually revise the Climate Action Plan. Therefore, it is expected that the current Climate Action Plan 2019 will be replaced in due course. It is noted that the alignment of the proposed scheme and its associated objectives with this future Action Plan will be undertaken as part of subsequent development of the scheme.

2.2.6.3 Smarter Travel – A Sustainable Future 2009 – 2020

Smarter Travel: A Sustainable Transport Future, A New Transport Policy for Ireland 2009 – 2020, was published by the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport (DTTaS) in 2009 to align and respond to the Government’s overarching transport policy at the time; Transport 21. The Smarter Travel policy document sets out a vision in achieving sustainable travel and transport system by 2020. The policy sets five key goals and 49 actions. The five key goals are as follows: 1) To reduce overall travel demand. 2) To maximise the efficiency of the transport network. 3) To reduce the reliance on fossil fuels. 4) To reduce transport emissions. 5) To improve accessibility to Transport.

Similar to the current National Planning Framework (NPF) 2040 and National Development Plan 2018 – 2027 (See Section 2.2.3.1 of this Report), the Smarter Travel Policy document recognises that investment is required in road infrastructure, as well as in sustainable travel, in order to support bus transportation, walking and cycling.

30

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

In terms of the Smarter Travel goals of reducing travel demand on the existing road network, maximising the efficiency of the transport network, and improving accessibility to transport, the proposed scheme seeks to support these goals. As outlined in the Climate Action Plan 2019 section above, the proposed scheme seeks to support a modal shift from individual use vehicle travel to more sustainable modes, such as walking, cycling and bus transportation. In relation to walking and cycling, and as identified in Section 2.3 (Project Specific Need) of this Report, the existing section of N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney has no formal pedestrian and cycle facilities. The proposed scheme seeks to provide continuous dedicated cycle and pedestrian facilities throughout the length of the scheme. Regarding bus transportation, through increasing capacity, and improving strategic connectivity, journey times and journey time reliability on the N2 corridor, the proposed scheme seeks to support the integration and growth of bus transportation in the Study Area. It is considered that these proposed improvements would support the Smarter Travel goals of reducing demand on the existing road network, maximising the efficiency of the transport network, and improving accessibility to transport.

Regarding the Smarter Travel goals of reducing the reliance on fossil fuels and reducing emissions, a key aim in meeting this challenge in the transport sector is to increase the number electrical vehicles (to circa 1 million by 2030) as outlined of the Government’s Climate Action Plan 2019. The proposed scheme will accommodate this expected shift to electrical vehicles by providing a safe, efficient and reliable route (i.e. improving journey times and reliability). It is also noted, as discussed above, that the proposed scheme will support the expected increases in the sustainable travel modes of walking, cycling and bus transportation, which will contribute to decarbonisation of travel.

In conclusion, it is considered that the proposed scheme and its associated Scheme Objectives (See Physical Activity, Accessibility & Social Inclusion, Integration and Environment Objectives) align with Smarter Travel – A Sustainable Future 2009 – 2020.

Separately, it is noted that the Department of Transport is currently preparing the Sustainable Mobility Review. This policy document will cover both public transport and active travel and is expected to replace the Smarter Travel policy document, when it is published. It is noted that the alignment of the proposed scheme and its associated objectives with this new policy document will be undertaken as part of the subsequent development of the scheme.

2.2.6.4 Communities and Cross-Border Cooperation: Challenges and Opportunities (2019)

The Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement considers issues arising from Ireland’s role as a signatory to the good Friday Agreement and ongoing developments in the implementation of the Agreement. It reports back to both Houses of the Oireachtas at least once a year. In October 2019, the Committee published the report, ‘Communities and Cross-Border Cooperation: Challenges and Opportunities (August 2019)’.

The Report followed written submissions to the Committee and hearings with three cross-border local authorities organisations; Irish Central Border Area Network (ICBAN), Eastern Border Region (EBR), and the North-West Strategic Growth Partnership (NWSGP).

The Report identifies the importance of improving infrastructure in the border regions, and of urgently fulfilling commitments made under the Agreement, including the A5/N2 Upgrade.

As part of its key recommendations, it states:

‘The Committee recommends comprehensive upgrading of infrastructure, both transport and broadband, to assist connectivity in the region.

In that context the Committee recommends that both governments formally recommit to the long-planned A5-N2 Dublin to Derry dualling project, highlighting its priority nature, and re-pledging what was originally agreed.’

Under the section titled ‘Trade Issues for Consideration in the North-West City Region (NWCR)’ in Chapter 3 of the Report, it states:

31

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

‘The North West is also the only area of the country which is not connected by a major motorway or dual carriageway. In this context, the Committee heard that it is of vital importance to ensure that the long-promised upgrade of the A5-N2 road network takes place. The promised update of the A5-N2 road network has been impending since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement in 1998. The development of this road would allow the region to fully realise its economic potential, retain people within the region and to be more connected with the rest of the island.’

2.2.6.5 Regional Strategic Framework for the Central Border Region 2013 - 2027

The Regional Strategic Framework (RSF) for the Central Border Region 2013-2027 was published in November 2013 by the Irish Central Border Area Network (ICBAN). ICBAN was founded to promote cross-border co-operation at a local government level and to provide a forum to respond to the unique economic and social needs of the Central Border Region. ICBAN includes representatives from eight member Councils including Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon; Fermanagh and ; Mid and the counties of Cavan, Donegal, Leitrim, Monaghan and Sligo.

The RSF for the Central Border Region 2013 – 2027 is a framework which sets out the key ambitions, aims and objectives for the Central Border Region for the period up to 2027. As part of its structure, the framework draws upon other strategies and supporting reports, including the Socio-Economic Case for Improvements to the N16/A4 Sligo to Ballygawley and N2/A5 Monaghan to Letterkenny Transport Corridors (MVA Consultancy, October 2012).

In terms of transport and improvements to road infrastructure, the RSF states that ‘The Central Border Region needs to improve its roads infrastructure to enhance competitiveness of its businesses, to encourage tourists to visit the Region and to improve access to key services’. It identifies the delivery of the A5/N2 Upgrade as being one of ‘ICBAN’s established strategic priorities for the Region’.

2.2.6.6 Joint UK and Ireland ‘New Decade, New Approach’ Deal (January 2020) The Tánaiste and Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have published the text of a deal to restore devolved government in Northern Ireland. The deal, entitled ‘New Decade, New Approach Deal’ was tabled at talks at Stormont House for the political parties in Northern Ireland to agree.

As part of this deal, commitments from Irish and UK Governments were included. Annex B of this document, which includes the Irish Government Commitments, sets out its commitments regarding connectivity, infrastructure and investment in the North-West and to border communities. The document states that the Irish Government wants to ‘work with the Northern Ireland Executive and UK Government to achieve greater connectivity on this island - by road, rail and air’, and wish to ‘move forward quickly together to deliver on plans to complete key infrastructure projects including the A5...’.

The document also states that Irish Government ‘also recognises that the North-West region is in particular need of Strategic investment, and that there is a clear argument for further enhancing cross-border co-operation and connections, to the benefit of all.’ Along with the A5 Western Transport Corridor (WTC), the proposed N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme and N2 Clontibret to Border Road Scheme will enhance accessibility to the north- West and the border region.

32

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

2.3 Project Specific Need

The ‘Need for the Scheme’ is defined by the identified deficiencies, and operational and safety issues of the existing road infrastructure in combination with aims and aspirations of European, national, regional and local strategic policy. These identified deficiencies and relevant strategic policy then inform the Scheme Objectives.

As outlined in Section 2.2 (Development Policy) above, the N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme aligns with current European (in the form of current TEN-T regulations), national, regional and local policy, where specific reference is made to the proposed scheme at national, regional and local level. As stated in Section 1.5 (Scheme Objectives) above, a key objective of the proposed scheme is to improve strategic connectivity, capacity and route consistency between the Greater Dublin Area and the North West Region, along with enhanced regional connectivity within the counties of Monaghan and Louth. The proposed scheme is specifically identified for prioritisation as part the National Development Plan (NDP) 2018 – 2027’s Strategic Investment Priorities (National Road Network) in support of the National Planning Framework’s (NPF) National Strategic Outcome 2 (Enhanced Regional Accessibility). The NPF and NDP identify the need to improve accessibility to the North-West and border areas by upgrading the existing N2 to a high-quality road network, which the proposed scheme seeks to achieve.

In the context of European Policy, and the TEN-T Regulations, the existing section of N2 forms part of the TEN-T Comprehensive Network. It is considered that the proposed Scheme aligns with the TEN-T objectives of cohesion, efficiency, sustainability, and benefit increase for its users. The proposed scheme seeks to improve the existing infrastructure (providing a high-quality road), contribute to the enhancement of cross-border connections along the existing N2/A5 Route, improve accessibility to the North-West and the main urban and economic centres along this route, whilst supporting other sustainable transport modes and minimising environmental impact as per the Scheme Objectives.

Lastly, at a local policy level, the current Monaghan and Louth County Development Plans identify the specific need for the proposed scheme, where the strategic role of the N2 network through the counties of Monaghan and Louth is recognised, with specific objectives outlined in the Plans to ensure the progress and protection of the proposed scheme in co-operation with TII.

In terms of identified deficiencies, when compared with current design standards, the existing section of N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney presents significant infrastructural, operational and safety deficiencies, which are described in detail in Section 3.2 (Do-Nothing Option) of this Report and are summarised below;

These are summarised below; • Existing Road Layout – When compared with current design standards, there are a high number of direct accesses along the route, combined with inconsistent and/or deficient infrastructural provision of junction controls (i.e. no dedicated right-turn lanes at some locations, some junctions having sight visibility splays that do not conform with current standards, etc.). Coupled with the high number of accesses, there are a number of existing bends on the existing N2, which are below desirable minimum standard. • Traffic Capacity and Composition – In terms of the existing cross-section of the N2 and based on existing and future forecasted traffic flows (See Section 3.2 of this Report), the current N2 is nearing capacity and is likely to fall below the required Level of Service for a national road in the future. In addition, the percentage of Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) using the existing road is considerably higher than typical averages on the National and Network. • Overtaking Opportunities – The existing N2 is below current design standards with respect to overtaking opportunities. A lack of safe overtaking opportunities on a single carriageway is likely to lead to driver frustration and may lead to unsafe overtaking manoeuvres. • Vulnerable Road Users – The existing N2 does not have formal dedicated facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, where formal separation distances with the live trafficked carriageway and formal crossing facilities with accesses/junctions are not provided.

33

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

• Collision Occurrence – The percentage of fatal collisions is particularly high when compared with the national average. There are a number of clusters of collisions which are generally in the vicinity of junctions or on straight sections, with the full length of the route collectively experiencing a high frequency of collisions. The existing N2 route contains a number of sections which are vulnerable to being ‘Above the TII Expected Collision Rate’ and ‘Twice Above the TII Expected Collision Rate’. • Journey Times and Journey Reliability – The average existing journey times for the entire section of the N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney, yield an average speed of 80.5 Kph, which is considerably less than the National Planning Framework’s (NPF) 2040 target of 90kph for Inter-Urban Roads. With the under- performance of journey times, journey reliability is also considered to be negatively affected on this existing section of the N2. • Excessive Traffic Speeds on the Existing Road Infrastructure – Separate from the operational issue of journey times and reliability, excessive speeds have been recorded at particular locations on the existing N2 section. Measured 85th percentile speeds at these sites were above the posted speed limit. High and excessive speeds combined with the existing issues identified above (i.e. high number of accesses, lack of overtaking opportunities, growing traffic demand, etc.) presents a safety concern.

With the existing infrastructural deficiencies, and significant operational and safety issues outlined above, the need for an improvement to this section of the N2 has been identified in order to meet the future demands on the route in a safe and efficient manner.

34

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

3. Consideration of Alternatives and Options

3.1 Introduction As part of TII Phases 0 (Scope and Pre-Appraisal) and 1 (Concept and Feasibility) consideration of alternatives and options was undertaken. These alternatives and options were further identified, developed and assessed as part of TII Phase 2 (Option Selection), which is documented in the sections below.

The consideration of alternatives and options was undertaken in accordance with the TII’s PAG Unit 4.0– Consideration of Alternatives and Options (October 2016) and TII’s PMM. The following alternatives and options were identified, developed and assessed:

1) Do-Nothing Option 2) Do-Minimum Option (‘The Base Case’ as per the PAG) 3) Do-Something Alternative – Public Transport 4) Do-Something Option – Traffic Management Option i. Localised Operational and Safety Infrastructure Improvements ii. Speed Reduction Measures iii. Park & Ride, and Park & Share Facilities 5) Combination of Public Transport Alternative and Traffic Management Option 6) Do-Something Option – Feasible Route Corridor Option The alternatives and options were assessed against how they would meet and respond to the defined Scheme Objectives, which as per Section 2.3 (Project Specific Need) above were informed by the identified existing deficiencies and strategic policy. With reference to Section 1.5 (Scheme Objectives) of this Report, the Scheme Objectives Headings are as follows:

• Economy • Safety • Physical Activity • Environment • Accessibility & Social Inclusion • Integration

It is noted as part of the initial stage of the Option Selection Process, Stage 1 (Preliminary Options Assessment), the alternatives and options listed above were assessed, and discounted as documented within Volume 4 (Phase 2 Stage 1 Working Paper Report). Notwithstanding this, these alternatives and options were further considered and assessed as part of Stage 2 (Project Appraisal Matrix) of the Option Selection Process. This assessment is documented in the sections below.

3.2 Do-Nothing Option In defining the Do-Nothing Option, TII’s PAG Unit 4.0, states the following:

‘Note that the Do-Minimum is distinct from the Do-Nothing. The Do-Nothing assumes that there will be no other investment in the transport network (other than regular maintenance) during the appraisal period beyond that being considered as part of the scheme under appraisal.’

Though now superseded by TII’s 2019 PMG (and the accompanying PMM), TII’s 2010 PMG defined the Do-Nothing Option in a similar manner:

35

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

‘The ‘Do-Nothing’ alternative (Option) shall comprise an investigation of the existing road infrastructure and its ability to meet future demands for traffic and safety without any upgrade works, other than routine maintenance.’

As part of the assessment of the Do-Nothing Option for this Scheme, proposed regular maintenance works were firstly identified, followed by an investigation of the existing road infrastructure in the Study Area.

In terms of regular maintenance, Monaghan and Louth County Councils, and TII’s ongoing and future road maintenance programmes were reviewed. These programmes primarily consist of maintenance of existing facilities and services in the Study Area, including verge/tree cutting, road drainage repairs, and pavement remediation works (resurfacing/overlay of defective sections of the existing carriageway, rutting/jointing/pot-hole repair, and skid resistance works). Although, these works are necessary and beneficial to maintain the existing infrastructure, they do not offer improvements to meet the future demands for traffic and safety, and do not meet all of the defined Scheme Objectives (Incl. Economy, Safety, Physical Activity, Accessibility & Inclusion, and Integration).

In relation to the existing infrastructure, as part of the investigation of existing N2 road network within the Study Area, a number of operational and safety issues were identified. These are summarised in the headings below.

3.2.1 Operational and Safety Issues - Existing Road Layout The existing N2 section in the Study Area generally has a consistent Type 1 Single Carriageway cross-section for its entire length.

The N2 route has a speed limit of 100kph for the entire section from Ardee to Castleblayney. The road geometry is generally consistent with a 100 kph design speed. In terms of horizontal geometry, the majority of existing bends along this section are generally at or above the desirable minimum radius of 720m as set out in the TII Design Standard DN-GEO-03031 - Rural Road Link Design (2017), however, there are a number of existing bends, as outlined in Table 3.1 below, which are below desirable minimum standard. These characteristics result in a lesser degree of driving comfort for road users, generally result in a reduction of Stopping Sight Distance, and when combined with other existing deficiencies (vertical alignment, proximity to and high number of junctions/accesses, and sub-standard visibility from junctions) can lead to Departures in Standards and can further exacerbate operational and safety issues at these locations.

Desirable Ref. Approx. Approx. General Location Specific location Min. Comment No. Radius (m) Length Radius 280m South of 1 Step 1 Townland of Rathory N2/L1201 Staggered 720 600 168 Relaxation Junction At N2/L1201 Townland of 1 Step 2 Staggered Junction 720 600 303 Reaghstown Relaxation (Dooley’s Restaurant) Townland of 350m North of Tullyvaragh (North of 1 Step 3 N2/L8100/L4500 720 600 396 Castleross Retirement Relaxation Staggered Junction Village) Townland of Broomfield 1 Step 4 (South of Broomfield At N2/L4300 Junction 720 600 328 Relaxation Meeting House) Townland of Broomfield (Directly North of 1 Step 5 At N2/L4110 Junction 720 600 337 McCaughey’s Filling Relaxation Station) Table 3.1 Existing Horizontal Radii between Ardee and Castleblayney that fall below Desirable Minimum Standard 36

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Typically, hard shoulders of 2.5m-3.0m in width are provided along the route except at locations where ghost islands are provided. At these locations the hard shoulder can reduce to approximately 0.5m. This reduction increases the potential risk of conflict between vulnerable road users and high-speed traffic. It is also noted that there are a number of simple junctions where ghost islands and dedicated right-hand turn lanes are not present on the existing N2. Right turning drivers at these locations on the existing N2 may be exposed to rear shunt collisions, whilst also adding to congestion on the N2 mainline as traffic waits behind or undertakes in the hard shoulder. This may result in risk-taking being executed by right-turning drivers. A typical example of an existing junction without a ghost island or a dedicated right-hand turn lane on the existing N2 is shown in Figure 3.1 below.

Figure 3.1: L-5199/N2 Junction (on right hand side) without dedicated right-hand turning facility from the existing N2

In relation to accesses and junctions onto the existing N2, each junction from a regional and local road, and/or a direct private access point (domestic, commercial and agricultural) creates an additional hazard for all road users. A junction / direct access generates a potential conflict area between motorists which may result in collisions. A total of 284 junctions/direct accesses have been identified on the existing N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney. A breakdown of this total is provided in Table 3.2 below. Figure 3.2 further below shows a typical section of the existing N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney, where a relatively high number of individual direct private (dwelling/commercial) accesses, field accesses and local roads are present.

Ref. Description of Access Total No. 1 Existing Roads (Regional/Local) 47 2 Private (Domestic/Commercial /Other) 106 3 Field/Agricultural 131 Total 284 Table 3.2: Breakdown of Junction/Access Type

37

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

L-1201

Field Accesses

Dwelling / Commercial Access Dooley’s Restaurant

Field Accesses

Dwelling / Commercial L-5199 Access Existing N2

Dwelling Accesses

Figure 3.2: A 1.5km section of the existing N2 in the Townlands of Rathory, Reaghstown and Edmondstown illustrating the number of existing private (dwelling/commercial) accesses, field accesses and local roads present.

A figure of 284 access points represents a significant number of potential conflict locations. Combined with expected traffic growth (See Section 3.2.2 below) and identified issues with overtaking opportunities (See Section 3.2.3 below), the high number of access points is considered an operational and safety problem.

In addition to the deficiencies listed above, it is noted that two site safety inspections were undertaken which observed and reported safety issues at access points along with a number of further issues related to the existing layout;

• A TII Road Safety Inspection (RSI), in accordance with TII Standard AM-STY-06044 – Road Safety Inspection, was commissioned by TII in 2016 on the existing N2 across the Counties of Monaghan and Louth. The inspections form part of TII’s regular Road Safety Inspection Programme of all existing national roads in the Country and were not specifically commissioned for the N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme. • As part of the Phase 1 Road Safety Impact Assessment (RSIA) for this project, a site inspection was undertaken in December 2018 in accordance with the TII Standard PE-MG-02001 Road Safety Impact Assessment.

The RSI highlighted a number of safety issues relating to the mainline and side roads along the N2 within the Study Area of the proposed scheme, which can be summarised as follows:

• Junction Layout: Issues relating to junction width, longitudinal gradient, confusing layout or see through effect/lack of junction awareness; • Public Lighting: Poor visibility of pedestrians at night or layout of junction is unclear; • Sight Distance: Inadequate sight distance exiting side roads due to road furniture, boundary hedges/ trees and parked cars

38

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

The Phase 1 RSIA site inspection identified the following road layout and safety issues: • Inconsistent Infrastructure Provision:

a) The general approach to ghost island provision from the mainline to regional and local side roads appeared inconsistent to the RSIA Auditor. b) At locations where no dedicated right-hand turn lanes are provided, vehicles turning from the mainline are exposed to rear shunt collisions.

• Existing Side Road Junctions – Observed Non-Compliances with current design standards:

a) Junctions with stagger of below the design standard of 50m between centrelines (Including L5199 to Arthurstown/Churchtown, and L5203 to Aclint/ Reaghstown – See Figure 3.3 below). b) Presence of direct crossroad junction layouts (L4810, L8301 to Taplagh and Edingilrevy, L8170 to Broomfield) c) A left right junction layout (L5198/ L52010) with a stagger of 20m between centrelines. d) There were a number of junctions which were located on bends or adjacent to a crest which may result in insufficient sight visibility splays. e) A number of junctions with wide bellmouths may also lead to high exit/ entry speeds;

Existing N2

L-5199 (E) – To L-5199 (W) – Reaghstown To Aclint

Figure 3.3: Existing L-5203 Stagger Junction in the Townland of Aclint and Reaghstown which is below design standard of 50m between staggers

• High Number of Direct Accesses: There are many direct accesses to residential properties and fields along the route. There is also a section of the N2 between the L4300 and L4110 where a number of commercial premises are located, along with a number of accesses to farms and residential premises and it was considered complex to navigate through due to the number of right turn pockets provided.

In conclusion, when taking account of the high number of access points and junctions, the existing geometry, and other observed and reported safety issues in the recent inspection reports, it is considered likely that road layout in its current arrangement will not serve the future needs of the route safely and efficiently.

39

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

3.2.2 Operational and Safety Issues – Traffic Capacity and Composition There are two existing TII permanent Traffic Monitoring Units (TMUs) on the existing N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney. These TMUs record traffic volumes flows and can differentiate between cars and Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV). Data collected by the TMUs is available to view on the TII Traffic Counter Data Website5. Tables 3.3 and 3.4 below show the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) flows (incl. % increase over the previous year) and % of HGV recorded at the two existing TII TMUs for the years 2013 – 2019.

Year AADT AADT Growth Over Previous Year (%) % HGVs 2019 10,669 -0.01% 10.5% 2018 10,727 3.01% 9.7% 2017 10,413 1.84% 9.6% 2016 10,224 2.25% 9.6% 2015 9,999 9.85% 9.4% 2014 9,102 2.01% 9.7% 2013 8,923 - 9.9% Table 3.3: Traffic Flows at Donaghmoyne between Carrickmacross and Castleblayney Counter Number (TMU N02 080.0N) – TMU Location 1

Year AADT AADT Growth Over Previous Year (%) % HGVs 2019 10,428 -0.81% 10.9% 2018 10,513 3.09% 11.0% 2017 10,198 2.99% 10.9% 2016 9,902 4.03% 10.8% 2015 9,518 8.57% 10.6% 2014 8,767 1.92% 10.4% 2013 8,602 - 10.4% Table 3.4: TMU Location 2 - Traffic Flows at Drumgeeny between Ardee and Carrickmacross Counter Number (TMU N02 070.0N) – TMU Location 2

With the exception of 2018 to 2019, which showed a minor decrease in the annual growth level, the TII Counters show that AADT traffic volumes are increasing year on year and have increased between 18% and 20% over the past 7 years. In relation to traffic composition, and with reference to the tables above, it is noted that the HGV % between 9.4% to 10.5% at TMU Location 1 and between 10.4% to 11.0% at TMU Location 2. This HGV% is considerably high when compared to a typical average of 5.7% on the National and National Secondary Road Network, which is based on a sample group of National and National Secondary Roads, assessed during Phase 0.

The high percentage of HGVs on the existing single carriageway section, combined with the lack of an adequate number of overtaking sections (See Section 3.2.3 below), further increases the likelihood of drivers becoming frustrated and attempting inappropriate unsafe overtaking manoeuvres. Also, it is noted that the practice of HGVs travelling partly in the existing hard shoulder to allow overtaking to occur has been observed. This practice is unsafe as it may encourage drivers to overtake at unsafe locations on the existing N2 and it may compromise the safety of vehicles pulling out of accesses and junctions on the N2. Figure 3.4 below shows an image of this practice occurring on an existing section of the N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney.

5 TII Traffic Counter Data Website: https://www.tii.ie/roads-tolling/operations-and-maintenance/traffic-count-data/ 40

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Figure 3.4: A Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) travelling partly on the Hard Shoulder

In relation to existing AADT levels, as previously stated, it is noted that existing N2 carriageway between Ardee and Castleblayney generally aligns with a Type 1 Single Carriageway. As per Table 3.5 below, the TII Design Standard DN-GEO-03031 - Rural Road Link Design (2017) outlines that the maximum AADT capacity for a required Level of Service (LOS) D6 is 11,600 for a Type 1 Single Carriageway.

Year AADT - LOS D Type 3 Single Carriageway (6.0m) 5,000 Type 2 Single Carriageway (7.0m) 8,600 Type 1 Single Carriageway (7.3m) 11,600 Type 3 Dual (7.0m + 3.5m) 14,000 Type 2 Dual (7.0m x 2) 20,000 Type 1 Dual (7.0m x 2 with hard shoulder) 42,000 Table 3.5: Road Type and Capacity required for Level of Service (LOS) D

Based on the TII traffic count volumes in Tables 3.3 and 3.4 (approximately 10,500 AADT), the existing N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney is nearing capacity for a Type 1 Single Carriageway at LOS D (11,600 AADT).

Regarding future traffic flows, as part of TII PMG Phase 2 (Options Selection), and with reference to Chapter 4 (Traffic Assessment & Option Cross-section) of this Report, additional project specific traffic surveys were undertaken within the Study Area in April, May and September 2019. This data collection was undertaken to supplement the existing information (Including the above data) and was used to inform the scheme specific traffic model and traffic assessment, where forecasted traffic flows for 2027 (Opening Year), 2042 (Design Year) and 2057 (Horizon Year) were estimated.

6 In TII Standard DN-GEO-03031, carriageway cross-sections are categorised on the basis of capacity and level of service (LOS). The capacity of a road is the ability of that section of road to carry the maximum number of vehicles (AADT) in safety at an appropriate LOS. The LOS is an industry standard measure to describe and qualitatively assess the driver experience in terms of operating speed, the ability to overtake in safety, traffic congestion, and overall driver safety comfort. TII Standard DN-GEO-03031 defines a LOS Target of D.

41

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

The AADTs for the Do-Minimum Option for the Design Year estimate flows up to approximately 15,000 – 16,000 which exceed the required LOS D of 11,600 for the existing cross-section (Type 1 single carriageway). Further background information on the scheme specific data collection and traffic modelling/assessment is provided in Section 4 of this Report and the Traffic Modelling Report in Volume 6 (Engineering Appendices).

In conclusion, in terms of traffic capacity, it is assessed that the existing road cross-section between Ardee and Castleblayney is currently nearing capacity and is expected to exceed the required level of service in the near future. Overall, when taking account of the existing and expected future traffic demands, the expected reduction in LOS, the high percentage of HGVs and associated observed practices, traffic capacity and composition on the existing N2 is considered an operational and safety issue.

3.2.3 Operational and Safety Issues – Overtaking Opportunities

A lack of safe overtaking opportunities on a single carriageway is likely to lead to driver frustration and to result in drivers undertaking unsafe overtaking manoeuvres. A measure of the provision of overtaking opportunities /sections on a road is the Overtaking Value7. TII’s Design Standard DN-GEO-03031 - Rural Road Link Design (2017) specifies that a Type 1 single carriageway requires an overtaking value of 30% for online improvements and 50% for newly constructed schemes.

To compare how the existing section of N2 compares with current design standards, approximate estimates of the existing overtaking sections along the length of the existing N2, with calculated overtaking values for individual sections and for the overall length between Ardee and Castleblayney, are presented in Table 3.6 below.

Estimated Length of Approximate % Overtaking Individual Sections Overtaking Sections Lengths Sections (Approx.) Ardee to Carrickmacross Bypass 15,500m 2,070m 13.4% Carrickmacross Bypass 2,800m 660m 23.6% Carrickmacross Bypass to 13,500m 4,570m 33.9% Castleblayney Bypass Totals: 31,800m 7,300m 23.0% Table 3.6: Existing Overtaking Sections on the Existing Single Carriageway on the N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney

The overall overtaking value of 23.0% falls short of the online improvement target of 30% and is considerably lower than the 50% required for newly constructed schemes.

When taking account of the high percentages of HGVs (See Section 3.2.2), the occurrence of slow-moving agricultural vehicles in a rural setting that use the existing N2, and the large volumes of traffic (See Section 3.2.2), the lack of an adequate number and combined length of overtaking opportunities on the existing N2 is considered a safety and operational problem.

7 TII Standard DN-GEO-03031 defines the Overtaking Value as the total length of Overtaking Sections for each direction shall be summed and divided by the total length of the road improvement. The target values of 30% and 50% have been obtained from Table 7.3 of TII Standard DN-GEO-03031.

42

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

3.2.4 Operational and Safety Issues – Vulnerable Road Users

As identified in Section 3.2.1 (Road Layout) above, the existing carriageway between Ardee and Castleblayney is generally a Type 1 single carriageway for its entire length, with hard shoulders of between 2.5m and 3.0m reducing to approximately 0.5m at locations with existing ghost islands. The existing cross-section between Ardee and Castleblayney does not have formal dedicated facilities for vulnerable road users (pedestrians and cyclists), also known as Non-Motorised Users (NMUs). Vulnerable road users have been observed using the hard shoulder to walk or cycle, however, there is no formalised segregation/safe separation distance provided between the live trafficked carriageway (which includes the hard shoulders) and the vulnerable road users. It is also noted that this section of the N2 does not provide any formal crossing facilities across existing junctions and accesses along the mainline. In the period from 2005 to 2016 along this section of the N2 the validated RSA data indicates there has been four recorded collisions involving Vulnerable Road Users (three pedestrian and one cyclist). Of these, two resulted in fatalities, one resulted in serious injury and one resulted in non-serious injury. Regarding the two VRU fatalities recorded on this section of the N2 during the stated period, this represents 1.75% of the total collisions which either resulted in injury or fatalities and 13% of the total collisions resulting in fatalities alone. The national average with regard to collisions involving VRU’s in the same period was 1%8 of the total collisions resulting in injury and or fatalities and 23.8%9 of the total collisions resulting in fatalities alone.

Pedestrians and cyclists who use these hard shoulders/hardstrips/verges, are considered to be at risk due to the lack of separation distance from high speed traffic, the noted reduction of hard shoulder width at ghost islands, and the observed occurrence of HGVs, slow-moving agricultural vehicles and parked vehicles using the existing hard shoulders.

In conclusion, the lack of formal dedicated facilities for vulnerable road users on the existing N2 and on the adjacent existing regional and local road network between Ardee and Castleblayney is considered an operational and safety issue.

3.2.5 Operational and Safety Issues – Collision Occurrence Historic road collision data for the route has been gathered from the Road Safety Authority (RSA) and Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII) for the period 2005 to September 2019, as set out in Table 3.7 below. There was a total of 114 personal injury collisions in this period on the existing N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney. There were 19 fatal collisions, 9 serious injury collisions and 86 minor injury collisions.

8 Based on the data available on RSA website, between 2005 and 2016 there were nationally 67,813 collisions resulting in injury or a fatality. Of these collisions 690 fatalities were recorded as VRU’s which represents 1% of the overall collisions in that period. 9 Based on the data available on RSA website, between 2005 and 2016 there were nationally 2,901 fatalities resulting from Road traffic collisions. Of these collisions 690 fatalities were recorded as VRU’s which represents 23.8% of the overall collisions in that period

43

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Year Fatal Collisions Serious Injury Minor Injury Total Collisions Collisions 2005 1 0 5 6 2006 0 1 5 6 2007 1 2 11 14 2008 1 0 7 8 2009 0 0 5 5 2010 2 1 4 7 2011 1 0 7 8 2012 1 0 4 5 2013 3 2 4 9 2014 3 2 7 12 2015 0 0 8 8 2016 2 0 6 8 2017* 3 0 5 8 2018* 1 1 6 8 2019* 0 0 2 2 Total: 19 9 86 114 * = It is noted at the time of writing that 2017, 2018 and 2019 data, obtained from TII, has not yet been through the RSA validation process Table 3.7: Accident Collision Data on the N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney 2005 - 2019

It is noted that a significant percentage (17%) of collisions are fatal. Based on the RSA website published validated data, between 2005 and 2016, the average percentage rate of fatalities in collisions (not including material damage only collision) is 4%10. An analysis of the validated 2005 to 2016 data from TII, was undertaken which, highlighted the following:

• The largest defined collision types were ‘Rear End on a Straight’ and ‘Head on Conflict’. Twenty-three collisions (24.0%) on the N2 involved a rear end shunt type collision on a straight and Seventeen collisions (17.7%%) involved a head on conflict. • Of the fifteen fatal collisions, two occurred at the junction with the L4110 and 6 involved a head on conflict. • Three (<4%) of all the collisions involved a pedestrian of which two where fatal, one (< 1%) involved a cyclist, nine (11.25%) involved goods vehicles, and 1 (<1%) involved a motorcyclist. • In relation to defined time periods of collisions, 10:00-16:00 contained the largest number of collisions, with 28 (29.2%). • Less collisions happened on Tuesday than any other day (6 collisions, 7.5%). All other days were between 12.5 and 16.25%.

TII undertake a Network Safety Ranking of the national road network, based on average collision rates on the various road cross-sections types, and compare with national averages, to identify high collision locations. The national routes are categorised into four groups (‘Twice Above the Expected Collision Rate’, ‘Above the Expected Collision Rate’, ‘Below Expected Rate’, and ‘Twice Below the Expected Rate’). TII publish this data typically in 3- year datasets. The four latest available datasets of 2010 to2012, 2012 to 2014, 2014 to 2016, and 2016 to 2018 on the existing N2 section between Ardee and Castleblayney are shown on Figures 3.5 to 3.8 respectively.

10 Based on the RSA website, between 2005 and 2016 there were 2,657 fatal collisions, which represents 4% of the overall collisions in that period (67,813). 44

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Figure 3.5: TII Network Safety Ranking 2010-2012 Figure 3.6: TII Network Safety Ranking 2012 - 2014

Figure 3.7: TII Network Safety Ranking 2014 - 2016 Figure 3.8: TII Network Safety Ranking 2016 - 2018

45

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

With reference to the figures above, it is noted that there is a relatively high degree of variability between the various time periods. There is a general dis-improvement from the 2010 – 2012 dataset to 2012 – 2014 dataset (i.e. general increase of ‘Above the Expected Collision Rate’, Yellow Sections, and ‘Twice Above the Expected Collision Rate’ – Red Sections). Whilst when comparing 2014 – 2016 and 2016 – 2018 datasets, there is an improvement on certain sections (i.e. North of Carrickmacross, with more ‘Twice Below the Expected Collision Rate’, Green Sections, and ‘Below the Expected Collision Rate’, Blue Sections) but a dis-improvement in other sections (I.e. South of Carrickmacross, with more ‘Above the Expected Collision Rate’, Yellow Sections). Taking cognisance of the susceptibility to change between the various time periods and reviewing the historical data as a whole from 2012 to 2018, it is noted that there is a number of sections between Ardee and Castleblayney, which are vulnerable to being ‘Above the Expected Collision Rate’ and ‘Twice Above the Expected Collision Rate’.

In conclusion, in terms of collision occurrence, it is noted from accident collision data that the percentage of fatal collisions on the existing section of existing N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney is particularly high when compared with the national average. From the subsequent analysis of the data, it is noted that there are a number of clusters which are generally in the vicinity of junctions or straight sections, with the full length collectively experiencing a high collision frequency. Lastly, from the TII Network Safety Ranking, it is noted that there is a number of sections, which are vulnerable to being ‘Above the TII expected Collision Rate’ and ‘Twice Above the Expected collision Rate’.

3.2.6 Operational and Safety Issues – Journey Times and Journey Reliability

As outlined under National Strategic Outcome 2 (Enhanced Regional Accessibility) of the National Planning Framework (NPF) 2040, a target of an ‘average inter-urban speed of 90kph’ has been set for strategic Inter-Urban Roads, which includes and is applicable to the N2/A5 Corridor and the proposed Scheme.

As part of the Traffic Assessment, which is outlined in Chapter 4 of this Report, and in the Traffic Modelling Report in Volume 6 (Engineering Appendices), the existing journey times and associated average speeds on the existing section of the N2 between the extents of the Ardee and Castleblayney Road Scheme were estimated. Existing travel times were calculated using real-time travel data on the existing N2 section over a 30-day period (9th May to 10th June 2019) from Google Directions Application Programming Interface (API) data, where the mid-week neutral days of Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday were considered. The Google Directions API is a service provided by Google as part of the Google Maps Platform and allows for more effective and efficient data gathering over prolonged periods in terms of journey time estimation when compared to conventional methods. Table 3.8 below provides approximate existing average journey times and speeds between the start and end points of the proposed Scheme (i.e. a length of approximately 31.2km), where an overall average journey time and speed has been provided, along with AM peak, Interpeak (IP) and PM peak journey times in both directions.

Average Journey Times Overall Overall Average Average Direction AM Peak PM Peak Interpeak (IP) (AM Peak, PM Peak Speed & Interpeak) (Mins:Secs) (Mins:Secs) (Mins:Secs) (Kph) (Mins:Secs) N2 Northbound 22:30 23:35 23:24 23:10 N2 Southbound 22:11 23:42 23:58 23:17 Average (Both Directions) 22:21 23:39 23:41 23:13 80.5 Table 3.8: Existing Average Journey Times in each direction in the AM Peak, PM Peak and Interpeak, along with Overall Average Journey Time and Average Speed, on the existing N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney

46

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

With reference to Table 3.8 above, the existing average journey time is 23 minutes 13 secs, which corresponds to an average existing speed (both directions) of 80.5 kph. An average existing speed of 80.5 Kph is considerably less than the NPF 2040 target of 90 kph for Inter-Urban Roads, and significantly less than the posted speed limit of 100 Kph. It is considered that a combination of the existing conditions and deficiencies, as identified in the sections above, contribute to the existing average journey times and associated average speeds being less than the NPF Target. The existing N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney is a single carriageway throughout, with a percentage of HGVs higher than the national average (including slow moving agricultural vehicles), together with the lack of an adequate number and combined length of overtaking opportunities. In addition, as per TII Design Standards, it is noted that the existing road cross-section (i.e. a Type 1 Single Carriageway) between Ardee and Castleblayney is nearing its traffic capacity for the required Level of Service (i.e. LOS D). All of these factors negatively impact on journey times and journey reliability.

In terms of potential impacts on public transport, the primary public transportation mode is bus transportation within and through the Study Area. As the existing bus services use the existing N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney, the factors listed above also negatively impact on their associated journey times and journey reliability.

In conclusion, the average existing journey times for the entire section of the N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney, yield an average speed of 80.5 Kph, which is considerably less than the NPF 2040 target of 90kph for Inter-Urban Roads. With the under-performance of journey times, journey reliability is also considered to be negatively affected on this existing section of the N2. Therefore, existing journey times and journey reliability are considered an operational issue on this existing section of the N2.

3.2.7 Operational and Safety Issues – Excessive Traffic Speeds on the Existing Road Infrastructure

Separate from the operational issue of average journey times and associated average speeds, which are below the NPF 2040 target of 90kph, and that have been assessed for the entire section of the N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney, observed excessive speeds have been noted at particular locations on the existing N2 section.

As stated in Section 3.2.1 (Road Layout) above, the existing section of the N2 from Ardee to Castleblayney has a posted speed limit of 100 Kph for the entirety of this section, where the road geometry is generally consistent with a design speed of 100 Kph. With reference to the Traffic Modelling Report in Volume 6 (Engineering Appendices), traffic surveys were carried out between 29th April and 12th May 2019, traffic speed measurements were recorded by traffic counters installed at various locations within the Study Area. Two traffic counters were located on the N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney, namely Counter 20 located south of Carrickmacross near Blackfort Road and Counter 21 located south of Aclint Bridge. Table 3.9 below presents the result of the speed measurements taken at each counter during the period stated above. The measured 85th percentile speeds11 across both sites were either at or above the posted speed limit, and in some cases, the recorded maximum speeds were almost twice the posted speed limit.

High and excessive speeds combined with the existing infrastructure issues, as stated in the sections above, including a high number of accesses/junctions, lack of an adequate number of overtaking opportunities, and growing traffic demand, presents a safety concern.

11 The 85th percentile speed is a standard industry measurement, which represents the speed at or below which 85% of the motorists drive on a given road unaffected by slower traffic or poor weather. This speed indicates the speed that most motorists on the road consider safe and reasonable under ideal conditions 47

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Counter 20 (N2 North of Blackfort Road) Counter Site 21 (N2 South of Aclint Bridge) Mean Max Speed Max Speed Day/Date 85th Percentile Mean Speed 85th Percentile Speed Recorded Recorded Year 2019 Speed (kph) (Kph) Speed (Kph) (Kph) (Kph) (Kph) NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB Mon 29th April 91 95 101 108 163 139 95 91 105 105 161 149 Tues 30th April 90 94 100 107 148 156 95 91 105 103 150 146 Wed 1st May 91 93 102 109 176 133 96 90 106 106 141 137 Thur 2nd May 90 94 100 108 130 144 95 90 106 105 154 116 Fri 3rd May 90 94 101 110 129 123 95 92 105 106 151 133 Sat 4th May 93 96 103 112 160 152 97 93 108 108 130 152 Sun 5th May 94 98 104 113 194 175 98 94 108 108 147 145 Mon 6th May 93 96 103 110 139 194 97 92 108 106 163 129 Tue 7th May 91 95 100 109 128 181 95 91 105 106 144 120 Wed 8th May 91 95 100 108 140 132 95 91 106 105 137 123 Thur 9th May 91 94 101 108 139 134 96 91 104 104 146 139 Fri 10th May 91 94 100 109 129 167 95 91 106 104 151 147 Sat 11th May 93 97 102 111 157 157 97 93 108 108 169 138 Sun 12th May 94 97 104 112 156 166 98 93 108 109 154 126 14 Day Average 92 95 101 109 96 92 106 106

Max Speed 14 Day 194 194 169 152 Recorded Speed

Table 3.9: N2 Traffic Counter Site 20 and 21 Recorded Speed Measurements

48

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

3.2.8 Do-Nothing Option – Conclusion

Further to identifying and assessing the operational and safety issues of the existing N2 Section between Ardee and Castleblayney under the headings of Existing Road Layout, Traffic Capacity and Composition, Overtaking Opportunities, Vulnerable Road Users, Collision Occurrence, Journey Times and Journey Reliability, and Excessive Traffic Speeds on the Existing Road Infrastructure, it considered this existing section of the N2 presents significant infrastructural deficiencies, and significant operational and safety issues. As traffic volumes increase into the future, it is likely that these deficiencies and issues will be further exacerbated, and the safety and operational performance of the existing road would further deteriorate.

In terms of comparing the Do-Nothing Option against the Scheme Objectives (See Section 1.5 of this Report), Table 3.10 below shows an assessment summary of Do-Nothing Option against the Scheme Objectives.

Objective Physical Accessibility & Economy Safety Environment Integration Headings Activity Social Inclusion

on the N2/A5 the on

Overall

Assessment

&Cyclists (Achieve-

Infrastructure

ment of ALL to Services to

Scheme Reliability

& Landtake / Environmental Environmental / &Landtake Objectives)

Vulnerable Road Users Road Vulnerable

edestrians & Route Consistency &Route

Objectives

P

With Safer Safer With

s NSO 4 (Sustainable Mobility) (Sustainable 4 NSO s

Invest in Strategic Roads inStrategic Invest

bjectives (RSES &CDP) (RSES bjectives

–

Impacts Impacts

’

O

BusIntegration

Junction Reduction Junction

Strategic Traffic Capacity Traffic Strategic

Overtaking Opportunities Overtaking

Journey Time & Time Journey

Agricultural & Private Land Land & Private Agricultural

Alignment with RSA Strategy RSA with Alignment

Enhanced Accessibility Enhanced

Land Use Use Land

with NOFs NSO 3 (Strengthen Rural Economics & Economics Rural (Strengthen 3 NSO NOFs with

Opportunities for for Opportunities

Communities)

Environmental

Traffic Freight + West North to Dublin Links Transport

Collision Reduction Reduction Collision

Reduce the costs of Travel / Value for money for Value / Travel of costs the Reduce

Safer Environment for for Environment Safer

Strategic Connectivity Strategic

Alignment with NPF with Alignment

olicies / Natural & Cultural Heritage / Air, Climate & Noise / & Climate Air, / Heritage & Cultural Natural / olicies

Alignment Alignment

P

Minimise

Improved Improved

Do-Nothing Option

Assessment per X X X X X X X X ✓ X X X X X X X X Objective

Assessment per Objective X X X ✓ X X X Heading Table 3.10: Assessment Summary of Do-Nothing Option against the Scheme Objectives

With reference to Table 3.10 and the preceding sections above, it is assessed that the Do-Nothing Option, with the exception of Environment, does not meet the Scheme Objectives. In the case of Environment, for the purposes of this assessment, it is considered that Do-Nothing Option could potentially meet the environmental scheme objectives, as no significant works would be undertaken, other than regular maintenance, and hence no significant impacts to the environment would be generated. The Do-Nothing Option does not meet the remaining five Scheme Objective Headings as described below: 49

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

• Economy: The Do-Nothing Option would use the existing N2 road infrastructure. Therefore, journey times, and consequently travel costs would not reduce and would likely increase into the future, as traffic flows are expected to increase. • Safety: The Do-Nothing Option and the existing road infrastructure will not provide any new safe overtaking opportunities, a reduction in the existing number of junctions or new opportunities/facilities for Vulnerable Road Users (VRUs, including pedestrians and cyclists). Consequently, without these improvements and the provision of an overall safer route to current design standards, the Do-Nothing Option would not contribute to a reduction in the frequency and severity of collisions, nor support the same key RSA Road Strategy objective of collision reduction. • Physical Activity: As identified in the Section 3.2.4 (Vulnerable Road Users), the existing section of the N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney does not provide any formal dedicated facilities for pedestrians and cyclists. The Do-Nothing Option will not provide for any new opportunities for vulnerable road users, and/or any new or improved safe and accessible pedestrian and cycle routes in support of the National Planning Framework’s (NPF) National Strategic Outcome (NSO) 4 (Sustainable Mobility). • Accessibility & Social Inclusion: The Do-Nothing Option will not improve journey times and journey reliability on the existing section of the N2, and it is likely that journey times will increase as traffic flows increase on the existing infrastructure. Consequently, there is no opportunity to strengthen and support bus transportation in the Study Area. Also, as there will be no improvement to the existing infrastructure, under the Do-Nothing Option, there will be no opportunity to enhance accessibility to essential services in support to NPF’s NSO 3 (Strengthen Rural Economics and Communities). • Integration: With existing N2 road infrastructure staying the same, and its identified existing operational and safety issues, the Do-Nothing Option will not provide improvements to the strategic connectivity and transport links between Greater Dublin Area and the North-West. In terms of strategic capacity, the existing infrastructure will not be able to maintain and enhance traffic capacity on this section of N2 corridor, as the existing section of N2 is currently reaching capacity, and likely to exceed capacity in the future. In relation to land use objectives, and regional policy, both the Regional Spatial and Economic Strategy (RSES) for the Northern and Western Region, and the Eastern and Midlands Region, align with the NPF, and the National Development Plan (NDP) 2018 – 2027, where they specifically identify the ‘N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme’ as a priority scheme to improve strategic connectivity between Dublin, the North-West, and the border regions, and to support economic growth in their respective regions (See Section 2.24 – Regional Policy of this Report for further details). Regarding, Local Policy, the prioritisation and protection of a future ‘N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme’ is identified in both the current Monaghan and Louth County Development Plans (See Section 2.25 – Local Policy of this Report for further details). Therefore, with identification, prioritisation and protection of a proposed ‘N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme’, a Do-Nothing Option is not considered to be compatible with regional and local land use objectives.

In conclusion, with the exception of potentially meeting the environmental objectives, it has been determined that the Do-Nothing Option fails to meet all of the Scheme Objectives for the remaining five objectives (Economy, Safety, Physical Activity, Accessibility & Social Inclusion, and Integration). Therefore, overall, it is assessed that the Do-Nothing Option fails to meet all of the Scheme Objectives and has been discounted as a viable solution to meet the Scheme Objectives.

50

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

3.3 Do-Minimum Option As per TII’s PAG Unit 4.0 (October 2016), the Do-Minimum Option provides a baseline for establishing the impacts of all options and forms the basis of traffic assessment and its associated outputs as part of the Phase 2 Option Selection Process (See Chapter 4 of this Report). The Do-Minimum Option is referred to as the Base Case within the Common Appraisal Framework for Transport projects and Programmes (March 2016).

As per the TII’s PAG Unit 4.0, the Do-Minimum Option should include transportation facilities and services that are defined as ‘committed’ as opposed to ‘planned’. The definition and differentiation between ‘committed’ and ‘planned’ schemes as outlined in Section 4.1 of the PAG document is as follows:

‘Committed and Planned Schemes

There are often two possible definitions of complementary projects that should be considered in the appraisal of the scheme in question. Choice among these is determined by the local situation, particularly the degree of certainty that other transportation improvements will be made between now and the horizon year.

The possible definitions include:

a) “Planned” improvements that are included in the fiscally constrained long-range plan for which the need, commitment, financing, and public and political support are identified and may be reasonably expected to be implemented; and b) “Committed” improvements that have been progressed through planning and are either under construction or are programmed into the capital expenditure budget.

The Do Minimum option should consider “committed” schemes alone as the inclusion of “planned” improvements may lead to a set of scheme options that incorporate projects that may not happen.’

Furthermore, TII’s PAG Unit 4.0 further defines the Do-Minimum Option and ‘committed’ schemes, by stating:

‘To provide a basis of comparison the Do-Minimum Option must include the following features:

• The maintenance of existing facilities and services in the study corridor and region; • The completion and maintenance of committed projects or policies in the study corridor that have successfully completed their environmental review; and • The continuation of existing transportation policies.’

In relation to the final statement above, and the definition of the Do-Minimum Option for the N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme, it is noted that the ‘Maintenance of existing facilities…’ has been defined and assessed in the Do-Nothing Option (See Section 3.2 above), and this option has been discounted from further consideration.

In terms of ‘planned’ and ‘committed’ schemes, a list of projects within Study Area which have been identified by TII, and Monaghan and Louth County Councils were reviewed, and categorised as ‘planned’ and ‘committed’ schemes. Schemes outside of the Study Area which would likely impact on scheme appraisal were also considered. A list of the ‘committed’ schemes for the N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme is provided in Table 3.11 below.

51

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Approx. Ref. Scheme Name Authority General Description Length Status No. (km) Single Carriageway link road on Advance site fencing the north-eastern environs of completed in 2019. Ardee own connecting the Currently, undertaking a Louth existing N52 in the Townland of detailed review of the N52 Ardee County Mandistown to N2 in the current design, and further 1 Bypass 4.5 Council & Townland of Mandistown, environmental and Scheme TII approximately 600m North of the engineering studies in existing Carrickmacross Road advance of submitting an Roundabout (N2/N33/R171/ updated planning Carrick Road) application in 2021. Minor localised online safety improvements at 4 No. locations (Approach to Carrickmacross Roundabout, Cookstown Cross, N2 Ardee to Louth L1201 Reaghstown Junction, & Works are ongoing and Aclint Minor County 2 South of Aclint Bridge) on the 3.4 expected to be completed Improvements Council & existing N2 between Ardee and in 2021. Scheme TII Aclint. Works include additional signage, re-surfacing, and junction re-alignment within the existing carriageway. Table 3.11: List of ‘committed’ schemes for the N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme

A number of other schemes within or close to the Study Area were identified as ‘planned’ schemes in accordance PAG Unit 4.0, as they have not ‘fully progressed through planning or are programmed into the capital expenditure budget’, or they have not ‘successfully completed their environmental review’. These projects include, but are not limited to, the following:

• N2 Clontibret to Border Road Scheme – At Option Selection Stage • A5 Western Transport Corridor (Northern Ireland) – At Planning Stage / Environmental and Statutory Orders in process. • N14 Manor Cunningham to Lifford/Strabane/A5 Link Road Scheme (Part of Donegal Ten-T priority route improvement project) – Preferred Route Corridor Options identified, currently at Phase 3 (Design and Environmental Evaluation). • N2 Slane Bypass – Preferred Route Corridor Option identified, currently at Phase 3 (Design and Environmental Evaluation). • N2 Rath Roundabout to Kilmoon Cross – At Option Selection Stage. • N2 Ardee Bypass (East of Ardee Town) – On hold for a considerable period and would likely need to re- start at Pre-Feasibility Stage. • N53 Hackballcross to Rassan – Preferred Route Corridor Option identified. • N2 Tullyvaragh Junction Re-alignment (North of Carrickmacross) – Undergoing statutory procedures. • N53 Ballynacarry Bridge Replacement Scheme – At concept and feasibility stage.

With reference to Table 3.11 above, it is noted that the difference between the Do-Nothing Option and Do- Minimum Option, is limited to the addition of two ‘committed’ schemes; N52 Ardee Bypass Scheme, and N2 Ardee to Aclint Minor Improvements Scheme. The N52 Ardee Bypass Scheme will not offer capacity, travel time, journey reliability, and safety benefits on the extents of existing section of proposed N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road scheme.

52

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

In the case of the N2 Ardee to Aclint Minor Improvements Scheme, this scheme will offer minor safety improvements at a number of localised areas along a section of the N2, but it does not cover the full extents of proposed N2 scheme and will not address all of the Safety Objectives of the proposed N2 Scheme (i.e. improvement to overtaking opportunities, etc.). Also, as in the case of N52 Ardee Bypass Scheme, the N2 Ardee to Aclint Minor Improvement Scheme will not offer capacity, travel time and journey reliability benefits.

Therefore, as previously outlined for the Do-Nothing Option, as traffic volumes increase in the future, it is likely that these deficiencies and issues will be further exacerbated, and the safety and operational performance of the existing road would further deteriorate.

In terms of comparing the Do-Minimum Option against the Scheme Objectives (See Section 1.5 of this Report), a similar exercise to what was undertaken for the Do-Nothing Option was carried out for the Do-Minimum Option. Table 3.12 below shows an assessment summary of the Do-Minimum Option against the Scheme Objectives.

Objective Physical Accessibility & Economy Safety Environment Integration Headings Activity Social Inclusion

on the N2/A5 the on

Overall

Roads

Assessment

&Cyclists

(Achieve- Infrastructure

ment of ALL

to Services to

Scheme

& Landtake / Environmental Environmental / &Landtake

in Strategic inStrategic

Vulnerable Road Users Road Vulnerable Objectives) edestrians

Objectives Opportunities

P

With Safer Safer With

Invest

bjectives (RSES &CDP) (RSES bjectives

–

Impacts Impacts

O

BusIntegration

Junction Reduction Junction

Strategic Traffic Capacity Traffic Strategic

Overtaking Overtaking

Journey Time &Reliability Time Journey

Agricultural & Private Land Land & Private Agricultural

Alignment with RSA Strategy RSA with Alignment

Enhanced Accessibility Enhanced

Land Use Use Land

with NOFs NSO 3 (Strengthen Rural Economics & Economics Rural (Strengthen 3 NSO NOFs with

Opportunities for for Opportunities

Communities)

Environmental

Traffic Freight + West North to Dublin Links Transport

Collision Reduction Reduction Collision

Reduce the costs of Travel / Value for money for Value / Travel of costs the Reduce

Safer Environment for for Environment Safer

Alignment with NPF’ with Alignment Mobility) (Sustainable 4 NSO s

Alignment Alignment

Policies / Natural & Cultural Heritage / Air, Climate & Noise / & Climate Air, / Heritage & Cultural Natural / Policies

Minimise

Improved Improved Strategic Connectivity & Route Consistency &Route Connectivity Strategic Improved

Do-Minimum Option

Assessment per X X X X X X X X ✓ X X X X X X X X Objective

Assessment per Objective X X X ✓ X X X Heading Table 3.12: Assessment Summary of Do-Minimum Option against the Scheme Objectives

With reference to Table 3.12, it is assessed that the Do-Minimum Option, with the exception of Environment, does not meet the Scheme Objectives. In the case of Environment, for the purposes of this assessment, it is considered that Do-Minimum Option, similar to the Do-Nothing Option could potentially meet the environmental scheme objectives.

53

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

The N2 Ardee to Aclint Minor Improvement Scheme contains relatively minimal construction work, which is assumed to have no significant impacts to the environment. While the N52 Ardee Bypass Scheme as part of its updated planning application, will follow the necessary statutory requirements of Environmental Impact Assessment Screening and Appropriate Assessment Screening, and it is assumed that the scheme will adopt and implement the required mitigation measures to mitigate against any significant environmental impacts. Regarding the other five Scheme Objectives Headings, the Do-Minimum Option does not meet these objectives as described below:

• Economy: As per the Do-Nothing Option, the inclusion of the two identified schemes, will not reduce the costs of travel. The existing N2 road infrastructure between the start and end points of the proposed scheme will still stay the same in terms of length and road cross-section/type. As per the Do-Nothing Option, journey times, and consequently travel costs, would not reduce and would likely increase into the future, as traffic flows are expected to increase. • Safety: Although, the N2 Ardee and Aclint Minor Improvement Scheme will offer some minor safety improvements at a number of localised areas along a section of the existing N2. It does not cover the full extents of proposed N2 scheme, and it is considered not to assist in the Do-Minimum Option in meeting any of the Safety Scheme Objectives, which are based on the entire section of the N2 from Ardee to Castleblayney. The N52 Ardee Bypass Scheme, with exception of 1 No. proposed junction (with the N2), is removed from the existing N2, and is not considered to assist the Do-Minimum option in meeting any of the Safety Scheme Objectives. Therefore, similar to the Do-Nothing Option, the Do-Minimum Option and the existing N2 road infrastructure, will not provide any new safe overtaking opportunities, a reduction in the existing number of junctions or new opportunities/facilities for Vulnerable Road Users (VRUs, including pedestrians and cyclists). Consequently, without these improvements and the provision of an overall safer route to current design standards, the Do-Minimum Option would not contribute to a reduction in the frequency and severity of collisions, nor support the same key RSA Road Strategy objective of collision reduction. • Physical Activity: The N2 Ardee and Aclint Minor Improvement Scheme and N52 Ardee Bypass Scheme will not make provision for any formal dedicated pedestrian and cycle facilities on the existing N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney. Similar to the Do-Nothing Option, the Do-Minimum Option would use the existing section of the N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney, which does not provide any formal dedicated facilities for pedestrians and cyclists. The Do-Minimum will not provide for any new opportunities for vulnerable road users, and/or any new or improved safe and accessible pedestrian and cycle routes in support of the National Planning Framework’s (NPF) National Strategic Outcome (NSO) 4 (Sustainable Mobility). • Accessibility & Social Inclusion: Similar to the Do-Nothing Option, the Do-Minimum will not improve journey times and journey reliability on the existing section of the N2, and it is likely that journey times will increase as traffic flows increase on the existing infrastructure. Consequently, there is no opportunity to strengthen and support bus transportation in the Study Area in this regard. Also, as there will be no significant improvement to the existing N2 road infrastructure, under the Do-Minimum Option, there will be no opportunity to enhance accessibility to essential services in support to NPF’s NSO 3 (Strengthen Rural Economics and Communities). • Integration: The N2 Ardee and Aclint Minor Improvement Scheme and N52 Ardee Bypass Scheme will not make any capacity improvements to the existing section of the N2, with limited and localised safety improvements in the case of N2 Ardee to Aclint Improvement Scheme. Therefore, similar to the Do- Nothing Option, the Do-Minimum Option, which would use existing N2 road infrastructure, with its identified existing operational and safety issues, will not provide improvements to the strategic connectivity and transport links between the Greater Dublin Area and the North-West. In terms of strategic capacity, the existing infrastructure will not be able to maintain and enhance traffic capacity on this section of N2 corridor, as the existing section of N2 is currently reaching capacity, and likely to exceed capacity in the future. In relation to land use objectives, similar to the Do-Nothing Option, with identification, prioritisation and protection of a proposed ‘N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme’, a Do-Minimum Option is not considered to be compatible with regional and local land use objectives.

54

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

In conclusion, with the exception of potentially meeting the environmental objectives, it has been determined that the Do-Minimum Option fails to meet all of the Scheme Objectives for the remaining five objectives (Economy, Safety, Physical Activity, Accessibility & Social Inclusion, and Integration). Therefore, overall, it is assessed that Do- Minimum Option fails to meet all of the Scheme Objectives and has been discounted as a viable solution to meet the Scheme Objectives.

55

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

3.4 Do-Something Alternative – Public Transport Under this Do-Something Alternative, various public transport modes, which could present a potential viable alternative to other Do-Something Options (including a new Feasible Route Corridor Option), are considered and assessed.

Investment to and improvement of sustainable public transport is a key objective of The National Planning Framework (NPF) 2040, and the Regional Spatial and Economic Strategy (RSES) for the Eastern and Midlands Region (EMR) and Northern and Western Region (NWR).

The NPF 2040 identifies the importance of sustainable public transport in a number of its ten National Strategic Outcomes:

National Strategic Outcome 4 – Sustainable Mobility NPF 2040 introduces sustainable mobility as ‘The provision of a well-functioning, integrated public transport system, enhancing competitiveness, sustaining economic progress and enabling sustainable mobility choices for citizens, supports the overall Framework objectives.’

Under the heading of Public Transport, it outlines the objective to:

‘Expand attractive public transport alternatives to car transport to reduce congestion and emissions and enable the transport sector to cater for the demands associated with longer term population and employment growth in a sustainable manner through the following measures:

• ‘…provide public transport infrastructure and services to meet the needs of smaller towns, villages and rural areas…’

National Strategic Outcome 2 – Enhanced Regional Accessibility Under the heading of Public Transport, it outlines the objective:

• ‘To strengthen public transport connectivity between cities and large growth towns in Ireland and Northern Ireland with improved services and reliable journey times.’

The NPF recognises that public transport plays a key role in sustaining the vitality and viability of rural communities as well as providing essential inter-urban links.

The promotion and improvement of sustainable public transport is also a key objective of the RSESs. The RSES for the NWR in the context of its Growth Ambition 3 (Connectivity – Connected Region) recognises the challenges to the provision of public transport within the region, where it identifies that the region ‘has a particularly dispersed settlement pattern and lacks critical mass as evident in other parts of the island’. The RSES notes that the region is highly dependent upon car travel private car travel and follows on by stating; ‘This is reflective of the low level of alternative suitable transport modes available within the region and the dispersed and low level of urbanisation.’ In meeting the challenges of the dispersed nature of settlements and low level of public transport, the RSES recognises that increased investment is required in both roads and sustainable public transport: ‘In order to enable effective regional development, it will be necessary for prioritised investment in roads and environmentally sustainable public transport that will provide for high quality inter-regional and intra-regional connectivity to places and markets, including international accessibility’.

In the context of assessing the Public Transport alternative for N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme, it is noted that the Study Area is largely rural in character with the larger settlement centres of Ardee to the South, Carrickmacross in the middle and Castleblayney to the North. As identified in the Phases 0 and 1 Project Appraisal Plans (PAPs), there is a large variance in the existing transport profile going through and within the Study Area:

56

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

• Strategic – Traffic using the primary route of the N2/A5 and associated connected roads to link between Dublin to Northern Ireland, and Northwest of the country, where the N2/A5 serves the major hubs and towns of Ashbourne, Slane, Ardee, Carrickmacross, Castleblayney, Monaghan Town, Omagh, Strabane and links Letterkenny, Dungannon and Derry. • Local – Local traffic using primarily local and regional roads, along with national and national secondary roads, to access towns, villages and smaller settlements within the Study Area.

Due to large variance in the existing transport profile and considering that the Study Area does not interface with the sea, the public transport alternatives identified, as per the Phases 0 and 1 PAPs, are limited to bus, rail and air for this Scheme. These public transport modes are discussed in further detail below.

3.4.1 Public Transport Alternative – Bus There are currently a number of national public bus services, local community-based initiatives and private operators going through and operating within the Study Area, providing both strategic and local links.

In relation to national bus services, Bus Éireann operates an intercity long-distance ‘coach’ service along the existing N2 between Dublin, Northern Ireland and the North-West (including Letterkenny), with stops including Ardee, Carrickmacross and Castleblayney. In addition, Bus Eireann provides local bus links from Ardee, Carrickmacross and Castleblayney to the surrounding towns and local areas, including Monaghan Town, Dundalk, Drogheda, and Cavan. It is also noted that Translink (Ulsterbus) offers a number of services which utilise the N2, including to Derry service. A non-exhaustive list of the key Bus Éireann services operating through and within the Study Area are listed in Table 3.13 directly below and illustrated in Figure 3.9 further below.

Ref. Bus Route Name & Number Key / Applicable Stops Weekday Frequency No. Dublin Airport, Ardee, Carrickmacross, 32/X32: Dublin (Airport) – Castleblayney, Monaghan Town 1 Daily, approx. 11 times. Donegal Emyvale, Omagh, Lifford, Strabane, and Letterkenny. Dundalk, Castleblayney, Cullaville, 2 162: Dundalk – Monaghan Town Annyalla, Clontibret, and Monaghan Daily, approx. 5 times. Town. Dundalk, Inishkeen, Essexford, 3 166: Dundalk - Cavan Daily, approx. 4 times. Carrickmacross, Shercock and Cavan. Dundalk, Louth Village, Tallanstown, 4 167: Dundalk - Ardee Mullacrew Cross, Tallanstown and Daily, approx. 7 Times Ardee Drogheda, Ardee, Carrickmacross, 5 182: Drogheda – Monaghan Castleblayney, Annyalla, Clontibret Daily, approx. 7 times. and Monaghan Town 6 182A: Drogheda - Carrickmacross Drogheda, Ardee, and Carrickmacross, Daily, approx. 6 times Table 3.13: A Non-exhaustive List of key Bus Éireann Services operating within the Study Area12

12 The frequencies outlined were obtained at the time of writing from Bus Éireann Timetables from www.buseireann.ie. It is noted that time tables and stops are subject to change at short notice by Bus Éireann. 57

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Regarding local initiatives, 17 National Transport Co-ordination Units (TCUs) were set-up in 2014 on behalf of the National Transport Authority (NTA) to manage the Rural Transport Programme (RTP) in Ireland and provide transport services where existing public services are not readily available. Under NTAs current LocalLink RTP Strategic Plan 2018 to 2022, there are two TCUs operating within the Study Area of the N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme; Cavan Monaghan LocalLink in the county of Monaghan and Louth, Meath and LocalLink (Trading as Flexibus) in the county of Louth. These TCUs manage services connecting local areas and villages to Ardee, Carrickmacross, and Castleblayney. As part of the RTP, the TCUs typically provide two main types of transport services:

• Scheduled Fixed Transport (SRT) – Core services with a regular route, stopping places and timetable • Demand Responsive Transport (DRT) – These services do not operate on a fixed route but respond to requests for services by intending passengers and operate by making specific trips to pick up and drop off passengers at the door. They can be operated by large public service vehicles, hackneys or community cars.

In the case of Cavan Monaghan LocalLink, there are a number of SRT routes operating on a daily basis within the County of Monaghan. In relation to the Study Area of N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme, it is noted that all of these routes operate from Castleblayney and northwards, and therefore are outside of the Study Area. However, it is noted that Cavan Monaghan Local Link operate a number of DRT routes in the Study Area on a weekly door- to-door basis servicing rural community areas and regular events. These routes are illustrated in Figure 3.9 further below.

In terms of Louth, Meath and Fingal LocalLink, there are no SRT routes operating on a daily basis within the Study Area. However, Louth, Meath and Fingal LocalLink operate a number of DRT routes in the Study Area in County Louth on a weekly door- door-to-door basis servicing rural community areas and regular events. These are listed in Table 3.14 directly below.

Ref. Context with the Study Area and Bus Route Name & Number Key/Applicable Stops No. Existing N2 Churchtown, Reaghstown, Aclint, Within the Study Area. Traverses 1 LH503/LH504: Aclint to Ardee Philipstown, Mills of Louth and along / crosses the existing N2. Ardee LH305: Tallanstown to Stonetown, Louth Village, and Within the Study Area. Doesn’t 2 Stonetown Tallanstown intersect with the existing N2. LH702: Carrickmacross to Carrickmacross, Killanny, Within the Study Area. Traverses 3 Ardee Crosstown and Ardee along / crosses the existing N2. LH407: Tallanstown to Tallanstown, Louth Village, and Within the Study Area. Traverses 4 Dundalk Dundalk along / crosses the existing N2. Table 3.14: A Non-exhaustive List of Louth, Meath and Fingal LocalLink DRT Routes within the Study Area

58

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Figure 3.9: Map showing the existing Bus Éireann, and Cavan Monaghan LocalLink Bus Routes within the Study Area

In addition to the Bus Éireann and the Local Link initiative services, it is noted that there are a number of private operators providing strategic bus links between Dublin, Northern Ireland and the North-West. Similar to the Bus Éireann intercity coach services, these services operate through and within Study Area, offering connectivity between the main urban centres of Ardee, Carrickmacross, and Castleblayney with other major urban centres along the N2/A5 Route. A number of these services are listed below:

• Collins Coaches (Route 980: -Carrickmacross-Ardee-Dublin).

59

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

• McConnan Travel (Route 180: UCD-Ardee-Brady’s Cross-Carrickmacross Bypass-Broomfield-Monaghan Town-Clones) • John McGinley Coach Travel (Routes 932: Dublin City Centre-Monaghan-Letterkenny)

With reference to the identification of the existing bus services above, it is noted that the centres of Ardee, Carrickmacross, and Castleblayney are the key transport hubs supporting strategic and local bus links within the Study Area.

It is recognised that bus transport will be further prioritised in the future with increased investment, as outlined in the NPF 2040, NDP 2018 2018 – 2027 and RSESs, which will lead to potentially greater coverage, accessibility, and frequency of bus services and stops. Notwithstanding this, and as outlined above and identified in the RSESs, the region within the Study Area ‘has a particularly dispersed settlement pattern and lacks critical mass as evident in other parts of the island’. In order to meet this challenge, and as per the RSES for the NWR, it is recognised that investment is required in both roads and bus transportation. It is considered that bus transportation cannot solely meet the challenge of the dispersed settlement pattern in the study Area and the expected increased transport demands in the future. Furthermore, it is noted that bus transportation cannot reasonably serve the transportation needs of the strategic transfer of freight and large goods.

In terms of potential future modal shift from private vehicle to bus transportation, it is considered that the potential for improvements to existing bus service frequencies is likely to be limited by the dispersed settlement pattern and the low population density. Most existing bus services that operate along the exiting N2 corridor, operate a limited number of times per day, and only serve the main towns in the existing N2 corridor and typically only stop at one location within each settlement. This means that for most journeys, travelling by bus is much less convenient than travel by car, due to the time taken to walk to and from the bus stops at both ends of a journey, as well as the relatively long wait times for the next bus. This means that the potential for modal shift from private car to bus, due to improvements in bus service frequencies, is likely to be small and would not on its own negate the need to upgrade the road infrastructure. In conclusion, it is recognised that improved public transport can play a part in future mobility, but improvements or other changes to bus services would not on their own negate the need for a road scheme.

In terms of the Scheme Objectives of Integration, and Accessibility & Social Inclusion, it is recognised that improvements to bus transportation can meet some and/or contribute in part to meeting these objectives (i.e. ‘enhancing accessibility from rural zones’) but it cannot solely meet all of the objectives (i.e. improvement of journey times). It is apparent that improvements to road infrastructure (including the N2) are necessary to support and fully realise the potential of future investment and improvements in bus transportation. An upgrade of the N2 will facilitate the enhancement of bus services operating through and within the Study Area by improving capacity, journey times, journey time reliability and providing safer connectivity along the N2 corridor.

A summary assessment of the Do-Something Alternative – Public Transport (Bus) against all of the Scheme Objectives is provided further below in Section 3.4.3.

3.4.2 Public Transport Alternative – Rail & Air There are no existing operating rail services within the Study Area. The nearest operating train stations to the Study Area are Drogheda and Dundalk on the Dublin to Belfast line, which are approximately 12km and 19.5km (to the nearest point of the Study Area boundary), respectively.

Historically, there was a passenger and freight line which operated within the Study Area in the Counties of Monaghan and Louth;

• Dundalk – Enniskillen Line: This line passed through , Castleblayney, Ballybay, and Clones, with branches to Carrickmacross, Cootehill and the Armagh-Castleblayney line.

60

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

This rail network was operated by Great Northern Railway (Ireland)/Great Northern Railway Board. Passenger traffic ceased in 1957, and freight traffic ceased in 1959. The assets were transferred to Córas Iompar Éireann (now Irish Rail) at the time. The majority of railway lines were removed, with the land on certain sections of the line being sold to adjacent landowners and other sections of land being retained by Irish Rail.

In addition to the above lines, a passenger and freight line existed between Navan in Meath and Kingscourt in Cavan. The line was withdrawn to passengers in 1963, following which it was used for the transport of gypsum up to 2001 when it was closed. The closed Kingscourt Railway Station is approximately 4.5km to the nearest point of the Study Area boundary. There are currently no immediate proposals by Irish Rail to re-open this line.

The NPF 2040 identifies the importance of enhancing public rail infrastructure in its National Strategic Outcome 4 – Sustainable Mobility, although, there are no specific future plans or objectives to develop a new railway route within or near the Study Area. Instead, the emphasis of the NPF 2040 and NDP 2018 - 2028 is to further develop the existing Dublin to Belfast Rail Line as part of the identified ‘Dublin-Belfast Economic Corridor’ by ‘Examining the feasibility of a high-speed rail connection between Belfast and Dublin and Cork’. The RSES for the North and West Region (NWR) also identifies the importance of enhancing public rail infrastructure. Similar to the NPF 2040, the RSES does not outline any specific future plans or objectives to develop a new railway route within or near the Study Area. Instead, the emphasis is on the ‘Dublin-Belfast Economic Corridor’, ‘Atlantic Economic Corridor’ (Including the Western Rail Corridor; Athenry-Tuam-Claremorris, and enhancing capacity of the Sligo-Dublin Line. The NWR RSES identifies that further connectivity to the North-West will stem from the existing Dublin to Sligo line via. Policy Objective 118: ‘Investigate the feasibility of extending the rail network to the North West City region from Sligo and Dublin’.

Regarding Irish Rail’s own future infrastructure plans, the 2030 Rail Network Strategy Review (2011) outlines Irish Rail’s future development requirements. There is no identification of any new rail routes within or within close proximity to the Study Area.

With reference to the above, as there is no existing operating rail infrastructure within (or within close proximity) to the Study Area, and no future plans or national policy objectives for new rail infrastructure within (or within close proximity) to the Study Area, it is identified that the primary transport infrastructure for private, commercial and freight is and will be road-based.

In conclusion, a Rail Transport Alternative is considered not to meet the Scheme Objectives and has been discounted.

In relation to an Air Transport Alternative, it is noted that there is no existing or planned commercial passenger/freight airport within the Study Area. The nearest main passenger airports are Dublin, Belfast International and Belfast City Belfast, which are approximately 52 km, 81km and 70km (to the nearest point of the Study Area boundary), respectively. In terms to strategic connectivity to the North-West, it is noted there is currently a daily passenger service operating between Dublin Airport and Donegal Airport (Carrickfinn). It is considered that the travel numbers currently using this service and into the future would represent a very minor percentage of numbers using road infrastructure between Dublin and Donegal/North-West. It is also recognised that this service does not accommodate freight. Outside of strategic connectivity to North-West, it is noted that there is no existing or planned commercial services which would provide transportation linkages to areas within the Study Area.

In conclusion, noting that there are no existing or planned commercial passenger/freight airports within the Study Area, that the nearest airports are considerable distances from the Study Area, and noting the capacity and connectivity limitations, it is considered that an Air Transport Alternative does not meet the Scheme Objectives, and has been discounted.

61

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

3.4.3 Do-Something Alternative – Public Transport – Conclusion

As outlined above, with no existing rail infrastructure within (or within close proximity to the Study Area), and no future plans or national policy objectives for new rail infrastructure within (or within close proximity to) the Study Area, the Rail Transport Alternative has been discounted for further consideration. In relation to air transport, with no existing or planned commercial passenger/freight infrastructure within the Study Area, and very limited strategic connectivity, along with its limitations in accommodating freight, the Rail Transport Alternative is discounted.

In terms of the Public Bus Alternative, as discussed in Section 3.4.1, it is considered that this alternative will not meet all of the Scheme Objectives. As per the assessment of the Do-Nothing and Do-Minimum Options, Table 3.15 below shows a summary assessment of the Public Bus Alternative against the Scheme Objectives (See Section 1.5 of this Report).

Objective Physical Accessibility & Economy Safety Environment Integration Headings Activity Social Inclusion

on the N2/A5 the on

Overall

Assessment

&Cyclists (Achieve-

Infrastructure

ment of ALL

to Services to

(RSES &CDP) (RSES Scheme

& Landtake / Environmental Environmental / &Landtake Objectives)

Vulnerable Road Users Road Vulnerable

Objectives edestrians

ssibility

P

With Safer Safer With

Invest in Strategic Roads inStrategic Invest

bjectives bjectives

–

Impacts Impacts

O

BusIntegration

Junction Reduction Junction

Strategic Traffic Capacity Traffic Strategic

Overtaking Opportunities Overtaking

Journey Time &Reliability Time Journey

Agricultural & Private Land Land & Private Agricultural

Alignment with RSA Strategy RSA with Alignment

Enhanced Acce Enhanced

Land Use Use Land

with NOFs NSO 3 (Strengthen Rural Economics & Economics Rural (Strengthen 3 NSO NOFs with

Opportunities for for Opportunities

Communities)

Environmental

Traffic Freight + West North to Dublin Links Transport

Collision Reduction Reduction Collision

Reduce the costs of Travel / Value for money for Value / Travel of costs the Reduce

Safer Environment for for Environment Safer

Alignment with NPF’ with Alignment Mobility) (Sustainable 4 NSO s

Alignment Alignment

Policies / Natural & Cultural Heritage / Air, Climate & Noise / & Climate Air, / Heritage & Cultural Natural / Policies

Minimise

Improved Improved Strategic Connectivity & Route Consistency &Route Connectivity Strategic Improved

Do-Something Alternative – Public Transport – Bus

Assessment per X X X X X X X X ✓ ✓ X X ✓ X ✓ X X Objective

Assessment per Objective X X X ✓ X X X Heading Table 3.15: Assessment Summary of Do-Something Alternative – Public Transport – Bus against the Scheme Objectives

62

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

With reference to Table 3.15, it is assessed that the Do-Minimum Option, with the exception of Environment, does not meet the Scheme Objectives. In the case of Environment, for the purposes of this initial assessment, it is recognised that public transport is a sustainable transport mode, where this mode is broadly considered to align with environmental and sustainability goals / objectives. Therefore, it is assumed at this initial stage, that the Public Bus Alternative would meet the Environmental Objectives (i.e. minimising the environmental impact, landtake, etc.). Regarding the other five Scheme Objectives’ Headings, the Public Bus Alternative does not meet these objective Headings as described below:

• Economy: As per the Do-Nothing and Do-Minimum Options, this alternative would still need to use the existing N2 road infrastructure. Therefore, journey times, and consequently travel costs, on the existing N2 would not reduce and would likely increase into the future, as traffic flows increase on the existing N2. • Safety: This alternative would use the existing N2 road infrastructure and does not extend to addressing any of the existing safety issues identified on the existing section of N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney (See Section 3.2 – Do-Nothing Option). This alternative would not meet the Scheme Objectives in providing safe overtaking opportunities, reduction in existing junctions, safer facilities for Vulnerable Road Users, and consequently would not assist in the reduction of collisions in support of the RSA Strategy. • Physical Activity: This alternative will not provide any opportunities to improve pedestrian and cycle facilities on the N2. It will not provide for any new formal dedicated pedestrian and cycle facilities, nor will it provide any new or improved accessible pedestrian and cycle routes in support of the National Strategic Outcome (NSO) 4 (Sustainable Mobility). • Accessibility & Social Inclusion: As outlined in Section 3.4.1, the National Development Plan 2018 – 2027 has planned substantial investment for public transport in order to increase the number and frequency services. This also includes rural areas. Therefore, for the purposes of this initial assessment, it is considered that this alternative could potentially meet the objective of enhancing accessibility to services in designated rural zones. In addition, regarding the last objective, it is considered that this alternative would support the integration and expected growth of existing and future bus services. Notwithstanding the achievement of two of the Accessibility and Social Inclusion Scheme Objectives, the Public Bus Alternative will still use the existing N2 road infrastructure and will therefore not in itself improve journey times and journey reliability on the N2 corridor. In addition, as recognised in NPF’s NSO 3 (Strengthen Rural Economics and Communities), investment is required in strategic road improvements, as well as bus transportation, in order to fully realise the potential of bus transportation. Therefore, although this alternative meets the investment in bus transportation, it fails to meet the NPF’s NSO 3 other objective, and the associated Scheme Objective of investment in strategic road improvements. In conclusion, although the Public Bus Alternative meets two of the objectives under the heading of Accessibility & Social Inclusion, it fails to meet all four objectives, and therefore does not meet the overall Accessibility & Social Inclusion Heading Objective. • Integration: Regarding regional and land use objectives, it is noted that sustainable transport forms a key part of the RSESs, and the Monaghan and Louth County Development Plans, where the benefit and contribution of bus transportation is identified. Therefore, for the purposes of this initial assessment, it is considered that Public Bus Alternative meets this specific objective. However, this alternative, which would use the existing N2 road infrastructure, will not provide improvements to the strategic connectivity, transport links and route consistency between Greater Dublin Area and the North-West. It is also noted that this Public Bus Alternative cannot reasonably serve the transportation of freight and large goods. In terms of traffic capacity, and as outlined in Section 3.4.1, with increased investment in bus transportation, it is expected that the transfer from private vehicle to bus transportation will increase. However, due to dispersed nature of settlements, lack of critical mass, and perceived inconvenience, the potential of future modal shift to bus transportation is likely to be relatively small within the Study Area. Therefore, this alternative on its own will not be able to accommodate the existing traffic flows, which are currently nearing capacity for the existing infrastructure, and likely increase into the future.

63

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

In conclusion, although the Public Bus Alternative meets one of the objectives under the heading of Integration, it fails to meet all four objectives, and therefore does not meet the overall Integration Objective.

In summary, with exception of potentially meeting the environmental objectives, it has been determined that the Public Bus Alternative Option fails to meet all of the Scheme Objectives for the remaining five Objectives Headings (Economy, Safety, Physical Activity, Accessibility & Social Inclusion, and Integration). Therefore, overall, it is assessed that the Public Bus Alternative fails to meet all of the Scheme Objectives and has been discounted as a viable solution to meet the Scheme Objectives.

In terms of an overall assessment of the Do-Something Alternative – Public Transport, with the previous discounting of the Rail and Air Transport Alternatives, along with the discounting of the Public Bus Alternative above, it has been consequently determined that the overarching Do-Something Alternative – Public Transport, as a sole solution, is discounted.

64

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

3.5 Do-Something Option - Traffic Management Option

As per Chapter 4 (Consideration of Options) of TII’s PAG Unit 4.0, the Traffic Management Option is to be considered and assessed as part of option selection process. TII’s PAG Unit 4.0 defines the Traffic Management Option as ‘a realistic near-term package of improvements’ which ‘seeks to utilise the existing asset where feasible through on-line improvements, bottleneck removals, road safety works, traffic management measures or Intelligent Systems’. The option is deemed to ‘represent the “best” that can be done using the existing infrastructure’ and its components ‘tend to be small in scale and widely distributed in location’.

The existing operational and safety issues, which were identified under the Do-Nothing Option in Section 3.3 above, along with the relevant development policy (See Section 2.2) and the Scheme Objectives (See Section 1.5), were used to inform and define the particular Traffic Management Option(s) for this scheme, whilst recognising that the Traffic Management Option is ‘near-term’ and utilises ‘the existing infrastructure’. In this regard, the following three Traffic Management Option measures, which could be potentially delivered through smaller targeted investment, were identified for the N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme: 1) Localised Operational and Safety Infrastructure Improvements (See Section 3.5.1 below) 2) Speed Reduction Measures (See Section 3.5.2 below) 3) Park & Ride, and Park & Share Facilities (See Section 3.5.3 below)

These are defined and assessed in further detail in the sections below.

In terms of an option which consists of substantial on-line widening infrastructure improvements, this option is not considered to fall under or align with the definition of a Traffic Management Option. As per TII’s PAG Unit 4.0, a Traffic Management Option is to ‘utilise the existing infrastructure’, not substantially replace and widen it, whilst being relatively ‘small in scale’, and ‘near-term’. Substantial on-line widening infrastructure improvements do not align with these criteria. These types of improvements have been considered under the Do-Something Option – Feasible Route Corridor Option (See Section 3.7 and subsequent chapters of this Report).

In addition to substantial on-line widening improvements, it is considered that a proposal to retrofit additional lanes in the form of a Type 3 Dual Carriageway (2+1) or Type 2 Dual Carriageway (2+2) within the existing carriageway roadspace does not fall under or align with the definition of a Traffic Management Option. It is considered that these potential works, whether on the entirety of existing N2 between Ardee to Castleblayney or on certain sections, would require significant infrastructural investment and would be a long-term measure. As potential retrofitting is a form of substantial online improvement, it is noted that this type of improvement is considered under the Do-Something Option – Feasible Route Corridor Option (See Section 3.7 and subsequent chapters of this Report).

3.5.1 Traffic Management Option – Localised Operational and Safety Infrastructure Improvements

As stated above, localised operational and safety Infrastructure improvements would be ‘small in scale’, ‘near- term’, ‘utilise the existing infrastructure’, and provide interim safety and operational measures in advance of significant strategic investment. The improvements could vary in nature and location, whereby the improvements could consist of:

1) An Individual scheme targeting a particular location on the existing N2 consisting of various aspects of improvements at that location i.e. signage, road markings, pavement re-surfacing, widening within the extents of the existing road boundary, etc.;

2) An individual scheme across the entire length or a substantial section of the existing N2 consisting of a single particular aspect of improvement i.e. Signage improvement package across the entire length of the N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney;

65

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

3) A combination of the two types above / a package of a number of the individual schemes (item 1) at a series of locations.

In relation to the section of the N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney, an example of a typical localised operational and safety Infrastructure improvement is the N2 Ardee to Aclint Minor Improvements Scheme (See Section 3.2 – Do-Minimum Option). This scheme consists of a series of targeted online safety improvements at various locations between Ardee and Aclint, including signage and road marking works, and provision of a new dedicated right-turn within the extents of the existing carriageway. Another example of a typical localised operational and safety Infrastructure improvement scheme, which is currently being developed by Monaghan County Council, is the N2 Tullyvaragh Junction Re-alignment Scheme. This scheme seeks to provide interim safety measures at the existing N2/L8100/L4500 Junction (North of Carrickmacross & Castleross Village) by improving right-turn provision from the mainline and improving visibility from the side road(s).

The existing operational and safety issues (Road Layout, Traffic Capacity and Composition, Overtaking Opportunities, Vulnerable Road Users, Collision Occurrence, Journey Times and Reliability and Excessive Traffic Speeds on the existing road infrastructure) identified as part of the assessment of the Do-Nothing Option (See Section 3.2) were used to inform the identification of other potential localised operational and safety improvements on the existing N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney. These are listed below and outlined and assessed in the sections below: 1) Localised Junction Improvements (See Section 3.5.1.1) 2) Targeted Localised Road & Active Travel Improvements (See Section 3.5.1.2) 3) Additional & Improved Road Signage, Marking and Lighting (See Section 3.5.1.3) 4) Localised Reduction in Number of Accesses (See Section 3.5.1.4) 5) Removal and Set-Back of Existing Road Side Hazards (See Section 3.5.1.5) 6) Rest Areas for Drivers (See Section 3.5.1.6)

3.5.1.1 Localised Junction Improvements

With reference to Section 3.2.5 (Collision Occurrence) above, and further to a review of the historical collisions on this section of the N2, it is noted that a considerable portion of the collisions relate to right-turning movements at existing junctions. Targeted minor safety improvements to particular junctions, which have an existing elevated collision rate, would likely decrease the frequency / severity of future collisions at these locations. Potential improvements could consist of installation of ghost-island right-turning lanes, minor side road re-alignment to improve visibility, blocking traffic crossing the N2 from low volume local roads at particular sub-standard staggers/direct crossroads through left-in-left-out measures, and additional/revised road marking on local roads.

It is noted that Monaghan County Council has undertaken a number of similar type improvements on the existing N2 between Carrickmacross and Castleblayney over the last decade, including minor safety improvements at the existing Carrickmacross Southern and Northern Grade Separated Junctions, and at Broomfield.

It also recognised that both Monaghan and Louth County Councils will continue to undertake similar minor and interim safety improvements into the future including the N2 Ardee to Aclint Minor Improvements Scheme, and the N2 Tullyvaragh Junction Re-alignment Scheme, which were identified as part of the defining of the Do- Minimum Option (See Section 3.3 above).

3.5.1.2 Targeted Localised Road & Active Travel Improvements

It is noted that there have been a number of head-on collisions recorded at non-overtaking sections on the existing N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney. With reference to the existing deficiencies identified as part of the Do- Nothing Option, it is noted there is an inadequate number of overtaking opportunities on the existing N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney, combined with a number of horizontal bends with radii less than desirable minimum and a high number of accesses. Targeted localised improvements to particular bends and widening of verges may improve forward visibility / stopping sight distances and could have the benefit of increasing the lengths of permitted and safe overtaking sections on the N2.

66

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Though, these improvements may provide a greater percentage of overtaking sections on the existing N2, it is highlighted that these improvements would not provide additional carriageway lanes for the mainline N2 traffic and consequently would not provide additional capacity on the N2 mainline. It is also noted that the number of overtaking opportunities may reduce with the expected traffic growth on the N2.

In terms of head-on-collisions, it also noted that these targeted localised road improvements and any other localised operational and safety improvements would not address the safety issue of an errant vehicles crossing into the path of a vehicle in the opposing lane. The most effective method of preventing these types of collisions from occurring is to install a safety barrier to separate opposing streams of traffic. The installation of a safety barrier/road restraint system is not permitted by TII on a single carriageway. It is permitted only on a new or retrofitted dual carriageway (Type 2 & 3 cross-section). As the consideration of substantial online widening or a retrofitting proposal does form part of the Traffic Management Option, safety barrier/road restraint system cannot be considered.

Separately, in relation to active travel, provision of dedicated pedestrian and cycle facilities as part of these potential localised road improvements schemes or as a separate scheme could be considered. In order to meet current design standards, a prescribed separation distance would need to be provided between these facilities and the existing N2 carriageway. Accounting for this, and the fact that the road boundary and /or existing constraints (buildings, property walls, etc.) are particularly near to the existing N2 carriageway at several locations, the opportunity to provide these facilities along the existing N2 corridor would be limited. In order to provide more locations, or ultimately a continuous route, would require relatively substantial landtake and associated costs, whether the route was adjacent to the existing N2 or offline. An improvement scheme of this nature would not align with criteria of ‘near-term’, ‘small in scale’ and utilising the ‘existing infrastructure’.

3.5.1.3 Additional & Improved Road Signage, Marking and Lighting A number of minor safety improvements to signage, marking and lighting were identified below:

• Signage and Road Marking: The TII Road Safety Inspection (RSI) commissioned by TII in 2016 on this section of N2 identified that there was a considerable number of signs which were incorrectly positioned, misleading or missing. Measures to address these findings and findings from a new inspection would potentially contribute to a safer driving environment along the N2.

• Road Lighting: The TII Road Safety Inspection (RSI) identified that the lack of public lighting at particular junctions was a safety issue in terms of pedestrian and driver visibility. Measures to address these findings and findings from a new inspection would potentially contribute to a safer driving environment along the N2.

3.5.1.4 Localised Reduction in Number of Accesses

As identified in Do-Nothing Option (See Section 3.2.2 – Road Layout), the existing N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney contains a significant number of direct accesses (public roads, domestic, commercial and agricultural). Each access point creates a potential conflict point and hazard for all road users, which may result in collisions. Therefore, a reduction in the total number of accesses will provide a safer road environment and likely lead to a reduction in collisions.

Typically, the approach for reducing the number of direct accesses on an existing national primary road is through amalgamating a number of accesses, which are in relatively close proximity to each other, onto a new parallel link road or onto a downgraded section of previous primary road, that then connects to the national primary road at a safe and appropriately designed junction. The approach typically cannot be undertaken within the existing road boundary and requires additional landtake, and consequently may require considerable time and investment to deliver and is not normally a ‘near-term’ measure. Therefore, it is considered that it is likely that this approach would not align with Traffic Management Option. Albeit, there may be limited scope to adopt this approach at particular locations at a small scale.

67

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Alternatively, a reduction in conflict points maybe achieved by blocking traffic crossing the N2 from particular local roads through the introduction of left-in and left-out junctions and accesses, where appropriate and feasible. Subject to land negotiation, there may also be an opportunity to reduce agricultural field accesses onto the N2 by amalgamating multiple existing direct accesses into a single direct access where the landowner has substantial land holdings adjacent to existing N2. Notwithstanding the fact that there may be potential safety benefits with these alternative approaches, it is considered that the quantum of these opportunities and associated benefits would be quite low. Consequently, it is determined that they would not make a sizable improvement to the overall safety on this section of the N2.

3.5.1.5 Removal and Set-Back of Existing Road Side Hazards

Both site inspections undertaken for the TII RSI (2016) and N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme Phase 1 RSIA (2018) identified that there are a number of existing roadside furniture/features within the clearzone of existing N2 which present a hazard to errant vehicles. The features include existing electricity poles, trees, boundary walls and post and rail fences. In addition, Phase 1 RSIA identified a number of existing safety barrier features which are non-compliant with TII’s current standards. Subject to following the procedures of TII Standard DN-REQ-03079 Design of Road Restraint Systems (Online Improvements, Retrofitting and Urban Settings, May 2019), and undertaking the associated TII risk assessment of the existing hazards, it is considered that relocation, replacement, modification and/or removal of some of these features could be feasible and would potentially contribute to a safer driving environment on the existing N2. However, considering that the removal or appropriate mitigation of some of these existing hazards would be prohibitively expensive and/or require landtake, all road side hazards along this section N2 could not be resolved as part of Traffic Management Option, which is ‘near-term’ and ‘small in scale’ measure.

3.5.1.6 Rest Areas for Drivers

The RSA in its Road Safety Strategy 2013-2020 (2011) identifies driver fatigue as one of its key challenges, stating:

‘Road traffic collisions often have multiple causes, with the two most frequently cited contributory factors being excessive speed and/or alcohol. However, there is increasing recognition of the effects of fatigue and sleepiness on driver performance… Although published estimates vary, sleep-related crashes may account for 15—20% of all road traffic collisions.’

There are currently no existing dedicated rest areas / laybys provided by the Road Authority or TII on the existing N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney. However, it is recognised that there are private facilities (filling stations, and restaurants) adjacent to the existing N2 which offer parking facilities.

It is considered that provision of dedicated rest areas / laybys would have potential safety benefits if undertaken as part of a localised operational and safety improvement. Investigation into potential available land within the existing road boundary would firstly need to be undertaken. Having reviewed the corridor of the existing N2 at this initial stage, it is considered that there is very limited area within the existing road boundary for the provision of appropriately located designated rest areas/laybys.

3.5.1.7 Traffic Management Option – Localised Operational and Safety Infrastructure Improvements – Conclusion For the Localised Operational and Safety Infrastructure Improvements – Traffic Management Option, six specific measures were considered and assessed:

1) Localised Junction Improvements (Section 3.5.1.1) 2) Targeted Localised Road & Active Travel Improvements (Section 3.5.1.2) 3) Additional & Improved Road Signage, Marking and Lighting (Section 3.5.1.3) 4) Reduction in Number of Accesses (Section 3.5.1.4) 5) Removal and Set-Back of Existing Road Side Hazards (Section 3.5.1.5) 6) Rest Areas for Drivers (Section 3.5.1.6)

68

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

In general, it is assessed that all of these measures can potentially offer road safety benefits and assist in reducing the frequency and severity of collisions. Yet, as per defined criteria of the Traffic Management Option, they are limited to ‘near-term’ and ‘small in scale’ measures, which ‘utilise the existing infrastructure’. These improvements will be localised, and due to identified constraints, such as landtake and associated costs, cannot be delivered throughout the entire section of the N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney. Thereby, these measures cannot provide a consistent safety improvement along entire length of this section of the N2 corridor.

In addition, it is determined that none of these measures, whether treated in isolation or in combination, can provide additional traffic capacity to meet expected growing traffic demands, improve journey times and journey reliability (as per the Accessibility & Social Inclusion, and Integration Scheme Objective) and improve overall strategic connectivity and route consistency (as per the Integration Scheme Objective). Furthermore, it is considered that these measures as a sole solution cannot achieve the National Policy Objectives of the NDP 2018 – 2027 and NPF 2040. Specifically, in relation to the NPF 2040, its National Strategic Outcome 2 (Enhance Regional Accessibility) outlines the following in terms of Inter-Urban Roads, which N2/A5 forms part of;

• ‘Maintaining the strategic capacity and safety of the national roads network including planning for future capacity enhancements • Improving average journey times targeting an average inter-urban speed of 90kph;’

In conclusion, it is determined that these six potential measures, whether treated separately or in combination, cannot meet all of the Scheme and applicable National Policy Objectives. Therefore, the Localised Operational and Safety Infrastructure Improvements Traffic Management Option as a sole solution has been discounted.

A further summary assessment of this Traffic Management Option against all of the Scheme Objectives is provided further below in Section 3.5.4 (Traffic Management Option – Conclusion).

3.5.2 Traffic Management Option – Speed Reduction Measures

As identified in the Do-Nothing Option, and under the heading of Operational and Safety Issue – Excessive Traffic Speeds on Existing Infrastructure (See Section 3.2.7 of this Report), high and excessive speeds have been recorded on the section of N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney. High and excessive speeds combined with existing infrastructure issues, as identified in the Do-Nothing Option, including a high number of existing accesses/junctions, lack of an adequate number of overtaking opportunities, and growing traffic demand, presents a safety problem. A number of potential measures to reduce this particular safety problem have been identified and are listed below, and discussed in further detail in the sections below: 1) Increased Speed Monitoring and Enforcement (Section 3.5.2.1) 2) Reduced Posted Speed Limits (Section 3.5.2.2) 3) Average Speed Cameras (Section 3.5.2.3)

It is recognised that Measures 2 and 3 outlined above are interlinked with, and require, Measure 1 (Increased Speed Monitoring and Enforcement) to be in place. The Increased Speed Monitoring and Enforcement Measure is accounted for in Measures 2 and 3, but it is also separately reviewed in Item 1 for the purposes of this assessment.

3.5.2.1 Increased Speed Monitoring and Enforcement

An Garda Síochána outlines that ‘excessive or inappropriate speeding is a major factor in road traffic collisions13’. An Garda Síochána identifies sections of road where a significant portion of the collisions have occurred and were related to excessive/inappropriate speed. Subsequently, the Garda National Traffic Bureau (GNTB) decide on the specific locations where speed monitoring will operate. In terms of monitoring, the Gardaí use a range of speed monitoring equipment such as: • Handheld and tripod mounted laser guns;

13 Source: Garda Safety Camera Website Page: https://www.garda.ie/en/Roads-Policing/Safety-Cameras/ 69

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

• Vehicle mounted Puma speed detection equipment (both marked and unmarked vehicles); • Van mounted automatic speed detection radar (Garda operated); • Van mounted GoSafe vans (civilian operated).

In relation to GoSafe Programme, the Gardaí have identified 1,322 active Safety Zones (as of 17th February 2020) in the country where they undertake speed monitoring and enforcement. These Safety Zones, which are being continually updated, are shown on an interactive map on the Garda website (https://www.garda.ie/gosafe.html).

A representation of this interactive map showing the Safety Zones on the existing N2 section between Ardee and Castleblayney is shown in Figure 3.10 below.

Castleblayney

Lisdoonan

Inishkeen

Existing Carrickmacross N2

Louth Village

Tallanstown

Ardee

Figure 3.10: Excerpt of the Garda Síochána Interactive Website Map showing current enforcement and monitoring Safety Zones

70

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

With reference to Figure 3.10 above, it is noted that a significant portion of the existing N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney is within a Garda Síochána Safety Zone. Therefore, in this regard, in terms of increased enforcement and monitoring, there is limited further scope to increase the number of Safety Zones on this section of the N2. Also, the fact that a significant portion of the existing section between Ardee and Castleblayney has been designated as an existing Safety Zone by the Garda Síochána reinforces the case that there is still an existing speeding issue on this section of the N2.

It is noted that certain safety zones have been designated relatively recently (i.e. since May 2016), where it may take a number of years to see a significant impact on speed and collision reduction in these zones. However, the 2019 road traffic speed measurements as documented in the Section 3.2.7 (Excessive Traffic Speeds on Existing Road Infrastructure) of this Report, recorded 85th percentile speeds above the posted speed limit at or within close proximity of these zones. Therefore, it is considered that excessive speed still appears to be an issue.

Outside of the numbers and extents of safety zones, intuitively, an increase in enforcement time (i.e. actual hours of enforcement on-site) at the zones and/or on this section of the N2, would have a positive impact on speed reductions. Though, equally, it is recognised that potential increases in Garda and GoSafe enforcement hours are and will be governed by financial and staffing resources/constraints.

In conclusion, notwithstanding any potential increase in Garda monitoring and enforcement time, and its positive impact on speed (and consequently collision) reduction, it is considered that this alternative, as a sole solution, meets only part of one of the Scheme Objectives Headings (i.e. Safety – ‘Reduce the frequency and severity of collisions…’ and ‘Support the RSA Road Safety Strategy 2013-2020’). Also, it is noted that reductions in speed alone is not the only contributor to a reduction in collisions and to a safer road environment. Safety issues as outlined in the Do-Nothing Option, such as the high number of accesses/junctions, lack of an adequate number of overtaking opportunities, and growing traffic demand, will still exist if this measure is pursued. Therefore, it is considered that this option as a sole solution is discounted.

3.5.2.2 Reduced Posted Speed Limits Under this measure, reductions to the current posted speed limits between Ardee and Castleblayney on the existing N2 were considered. In implementing lower speed limits with appropriate Garda Síochána enforcement, it is expected that lower traffic speeds would occur on the N2, which would result in a reduction in the number and severity of collisions. Consequently, it is recognised that travel times would increase on this section of the N2.

Currently, there is a constant posted speed limit of 100 km/hr between Ardee and Castleblayney on the existing N2.

With reference to Section 2.1 (Development Policy) of this report, it is noted that this section of the N2, forms part of the overall strategic N2/A5 strategic ‘Inter-Urban Road’ connecting Dublin to the North-West of the country, as outlined in the NDP 2018 - 2027. As part of NPF 2040’s National Strategic Outcome 2 (Enhanced Regional Accessibility) under the heading of ‘Inter-Urban Routes’, it states an objective of:

• Improving average journey times targeting an average inter-urban speed of 90kph;

An average inter-urban speed of 90km/hr approximately equates to a Level of Service of D for a 100km/hr Design Speed. Therefore, any potential reduction to the existing posted speed limit (say to a proposed 80 km/hr post speed limit) would mean that the NPF 2040 target of 90km/hr would not be achieved and that there would be a dis-improvement to journey times on the overall N2/A5 strategic inter-urban road.

In addition to this option not meeting the National Policy Objectives, it is considered that this option would not meet the similar type Scheme Objectives of Integration (i.e. ‘To improve the strategic connectivity and overall route consistency of the national road network…’) and of Accessibility & Social Inclusion (i.e. ‘…improving journey times and journey time reliability’). Also, as outlined in Section 3.5.2.1 (The Increased Speed Monitoring and Enforcement Alternative) above, reductions in speed limits alone are not sufficient, as other safety issues (i.e. high number of junctions/accesses, etc.) will still persist. Therefore, in conclusion, it is considered that this option as a sole solution is discounted. 71

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

3.5.2.3 Average Speed Cameras As a standalone measure or supplementary to an increase in existing enforcement under the Increased Speed Monitoring and Enforcement measure (See Section 3.5.2.1 above), average speed cameras were considered.

Average speed cameras – or point-to-point (P2P) speed cameras – are a relatively new form of speed enforcement that measures persistent or sustained speeding over a certain distance, rather than the transitory speed of a vehicle at a particular point on the road, as detected by the traditional methods outlined in Section 3.5.2.1 above.

Average speed monitoring consists of the installation of a series of cameras at a minimum of two locations along a road section. Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) and Optimal Character Recognition (OCR) technology is used to capture and match the vehicle registration details. The average speed of a vehicle is calculated by dividing the distance between the camera sites by the time taken for the vehicle to travel between the two sites. If the average speed of a vehicle exceeds the posted speed limit for that road section, the offence data is forwarded for infringement processing and vehicle owners linked with validated offences are issued a penalty notice.

Although, average speed monitoring is relatively extensive in Great Britain, it is quite limited in the Republic of Ireland. TII and An Garda Síochána installed an average speed monitoring system in Tunnel in May 2017, which has been in operation since then.

As the number of and periods of operation of average speed monitoring systems are quite limited in Ireland, comprehensive data on its effectiveness particular to Irish conditions is unavailable. Notwithstanding this, Great Britain has undertaken a number of extensive studies on their effectiveness, which is considered applicable to Ireland in this regard. The Royal Automobile Club (RAC) Foundation published a report titled; ‘The Effectiveness of Average Speed Cameras in Great Britain’ in 2016. The report outlines a study of data obtained from 51 permanent average speed camera sites (Covering 294 km of road) between 2000 and 2015. From this data, the report states:

“On average, the permanent average speed camera sites analysed saw reductions in injury collisions:

• by 25-46% for fatal and serious collisions; • by 9-22% for personal injury collisions.”

Roadplan Consulting Ltd. 2017 undertook a cost benefit analysis for the installation of potential average speed cameras on the N2 as outlined in the N2 Drumgeeny to Castleblayney Scheme Feasibility Report (May 2017, Roadplan). In this report, Roadplan estimated an annual cost saving in collisions of between €834,762 and €1,541,714 per annum14 versus an estimated cost of €2.4m15 for the installation of an average speed camera system along the same section of the N2.

Notwithstanding the additional maintenance costs, based on this analysis by Roadplan and subject to further investigation, it is likely that the implementation of an average speed camera system would be a cost-effective solution in terms of speed and potential collision reduction.

14 Roadplan Consulting Ltd.’s cost saving estimates were based on historical collisions numbers on the existing N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney during a 5-year period (2011 to 2015). Cost of collisions were based on 2011 values contained in the 2016 CAF. Whilst annual collision reduction percentages were based on the percentages estimated in the RAC ‘The Effectiveness of Average Speed Cameras in Great Britain’ Report (2016), which are provided in the main body of this report above. 15 Installation costs were based on estimate of £100,000 per mile obtained from the 2016 RAC Report, by the length of N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney.

72

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Although it is recognised that this measure may be a cost-effective solution in reducing speed and potential collisions, as is the case with the other speed reductions measures stated in Sections 3.5.2.1 and 3.5.2.2, it is considered that this Traffic Management Option measure, as a sole solution, meets only part of one of the Scheme Objectives Headings (i.e. Safety – ‘Reduce the frequency and severity of collisions…’ and ‘Support the RSA Road Safety Strategy 2013-2020’). Also, as stated in the other sections of this Report, reductions in speeds alone are not sufficient, as other safety issues (i.e. high number of junctions/accesses, etc.) will still persist. Therefore, in conclusion, it is considered that this option as a sole solution is discounted.

3.5.2.4 Traffic Management Option – Speed Reduction Measures – Conclusion For the Speed Reduction Measures Traffic Management Option, three specific measures were considered and assessed:

1) Increased Speed Monitoring and Enforcement (Section 3.5.2.1) 2) Reduced Posted Speed Limits (Section 3.5.2.2) 3) Average Speed Cameras (Section 3.5.2.3)

As per their associated individual conclusions, it was determined that each of these measures as sole solutions address speed and potential collision reduction only. The same applies in terms of a combination of these measures. In relation to addressing the other identified existing safety issues (i.e. high number of junctions/accesses, etc.), reductions in speed alone are not sufficient, as these other safety issues will still persist into the future. In addition, it has been outlined that all three of the measures, as sole solutions, do not meet all the Scheme Objectives, and can only meet part of one of the Scheme Objectives Headings (i.e. Safety). The same applies in terms of a combination of these measures. Furthermore, the measures, as sole solutions or as a combination, do not achieve the relevant National Policy Objectives (i.e. National Strategic Outcome 2 – Enhanced Regional Accessibility – Inter-Urban Roads and Accessibility to the North-West). Therefore, in conclusion, the Speed Reduction Measures Traffic Management Option has been discounted.

A further summary assessment of this Traffic Management Option against all of the Scheme Objectives is provided further below in Section 3.5.4 (Traffic Management Option – Conclusion).

3.5.3 Traffic Management Option – Park & Ride, and Park & Share Facilities

Park & Ride facilities, which are integrated with bus transportation, and Park & Share facilities, which accommodate car/vehicle-pooling, can potentially increase the opportunity for the transfer of trips to public transport network, encourage a modal shift away from single occupancy vehicle use, and potentially assist in the reduction of road traffic congestion on the existing road network. These facilities serve to provide increased opportunity for people to access the transport system, and to extend the effective catchment of the public transport network. In addition, where informal car-pooling is occurring adjacent to existing high-speed roads, which presents identified road safety issues (parking on hard shoulders, pedestrians crossing, etc.), these dedicated parking facilities can provide a safer accessibility environment for all users. Also, as recognised in TII’s Measures and Initiatives taken by Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII) to Reduce Emissions (May 2020), Park & Ride / Park & Share facilities are identified as one of TII’s initiatives, which will promote and enhance sustainable transport and ‘smart mobility’, and thus assist in the transition to a low-carbon transport sector.

In terms of policy, Park & Ride/Park & Share facilities have been identified as an important component in supporting sustainable transport both at a national and regional level, as well as the local level. Under the National Planning Framework (NPF) 2040, Sustainability Mobility is one of the National Strategic Outcomes (NSO 4). In support of the NSO, the National Development Plan 2018 – 2027 has prioritised investment for a number of sustainable transport programmes, including a Park & Ride programme, as follows:

• ‘Park-and-Ride Programme: strategic park and ride sites plus investment in parking facilities at rail, and bus locations, for example, Swords, , Dunboyne, Liffey Valley, Naas Road, Carrickmines, Woodbrook and Greystones and with national development of BusConnects, for example, Galway, Cork, Limerick and Waterford.’

73

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

The list of potential sites within the Greater Dublin Area (I.e. Swords, Finglas, etc.) are the closest within this programme to the proposed scheme, albeit it is noted that they are outside of the Study Area. The same potential sites are identified in the National Transport Authority’s (NTA) Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area (GDA) – 2016 to 2035, along with some additional sites in the supporting Park & Ride Report (Draft, 2019), which are shown in Figure 3.11 below.

Figure 3.11: Locations of Existing and Proposed Park and Ride Facilities within the Greater Dublin Area (Excerpt from the Transport Strategy for the GDA 2016 – 2035 – Park & Ride Report)

With reference to Figure 3.11, it is noted that the closest proposed Bus Park & Ride Facility to the Study Area, is situated on the N2 North of Dublin between Junctions 2 and 3, at the Dublin and Meath County Border, approximately 55km south of Ardee. Within the context of the proposed scheme, all existing and proposed Park & Ride facilities listed in the NDP 2018 – 2027, and within the Transport Strategy for the GDA 2016 – 2035 are South of the proposed scheme. Therefore, this will not offer any direct benefit to commuters, using the road network within the Study Area of the proposed Scheme and/or the proposed scheme itself, in terms of modal shift to Public Transport. In relation to regional policy, the Regional Spatial and Economic Strategy for the North and West Region (January 2020) makes no specific mention of Park & Ride/ Park & Share facilities. While, the Regional Spatial and Economic Strategy for the Eastern Midland Region 2019 - 2031 (June 2019), identifies the same potential sites as listed in the NDP 2018 – 2027, which are stated above, whilst also noting; ‘…in addition, other (sites) may be developed in appropriate locations where the national road network meets the strategic public transport network’.

74

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Regarding local policy, the Monaghan County Development Plan 2019 – 2025 does not make specific mention of Park & Ride/ Park & Share facilities, but its stated Transport Policies in Chapter 7 (Transport & Infrastructure), support the implementation of a sustainable transport system, which these facilities form a part. Transport Policies (TP) 2 and 3 state the following: • ‘TP2 – To support the creation of an integrated and sustainable transport system to promote a choice of transport modes including public transport, cycling and walking facilities. • TP3 – To capitalise on the county’s existing transport infrastructure by implementing appropriate traffic management measures to reduce congestion and minimise travel times. ‘

The Louth County Development Plan (CDP) 2015 – 2021 makes specific note of Park & Ride / Park & Share facilities in Section 7.3 (Public Transport) of Chapter 7 (Transport). Regarding Park & Ride (‘Bus Based Park and Ride’) facilities, it states that ‘there is potential for the development of a network of bus-based park and ride facilities in the county at transport intersections’. In relation to Park & Share (‘Car Park and Share’) facilities, it states that ‘there may be opportunities for car park and share facilities within the county which can be utilised by commuters who car share’. Thereafter, the Louth CDP outlines the following objective:

• ‘TC39 – To seek to provide for bus and car-based park and ride facilities at a range of locations including motorway interchanges, subject to the availability of funding’.

Following on from this objective, and the identified safety issues with car/vehicle-pooling on the existing approaches to a number of M1 Junctions (including the N33 and R217), which are outside of the Study Area of the proposed scheme, TII in partnership with Louth County Council commissioned a feasibility study in 2017 for potential Park & Share facilities on the M1 Corridor in County Louth. Following completion of the feasibility study, TII committed funding for a Park & Share Pilot Scheme off the M1 Junction 16, adjacent to the R217, in the townland of Gibstown. The location of this proposed facility is shown in Figure 3.12 below. The proposed facility received planning approval in 2020, and construction is expected to be undertaken in 2021.

75

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

N53 Existing N2

Dundalk

Proposed Park & Share Pilot Scheme at Gibstown Carrickmacross

M1 Junction 16

R217

Existing N2

M1 Junction 14 N33

Ardee

Figure 3.12: Location map of the proposed Park & Share Pilot Scheme adjacent to the M1 Junction 16, in the Townland of Gibstown

The M1 Junction 16 Park & Ride facility plans to provide approximately 226 spaces and is currently proposed to accommodate car/vehicle pooling only, with potential further consideration to accommodate a bus stop, which would be subject to licencing/other approvals. The objective of this facility is to serve commuters primarily from the Ardee area (via. the R217) and Dundalk, who are commuting to Dublin, with expectation that the existing informal car-pooling on the approaches to the existing M1 Junctions (including the N33) will significantly reduce with provision of this new facility. Consideration of other Park & Share facilities on the M1 corridor may be undertaken in the future, but there are currently no formal proposals by TII. Within the context of the proposed scheme, whilst recognising that the proposed facility will likely resolve the observed safety issues connected with the existing informal carpooling, the magnitude of any potential modal shift from N2 private traffic to the proposed facility is likely to be very small. The proposed facility is a considerable distance from the N2 corridor, and the capacity of the facility (at approximately 226 spaces), which is primarily serving Dundalk and Ardee commuters (i.e. South and East of the proposed scheme) is very small relative to existing and future forecasted traffic flows on the N2 corridor (i.e. 2019 AADT flows of approximately 10,500 – See Section 3.2.2 of this Report).

Within the Study Area of the proposed scheme, it is noted that there is observed and anecdotal evidence of informal car/vehicle-pooling adjacent to the existing N2 carriageway and/or on the adjacent local network, which may be connected with long-distance commutes to Dublin and elsewhere. The observed and anecdotal evidence suggests that car/vehicle pooling occurs at Annayalla (Buckley’s Carpark, North of the proposed scheme), North Broomfield (opposite McCaughey’s Service Station), on the L-4700 in the townland of Monaltyduff in the environs of Carrickmacross Town, and within Carrickmacross Town. 76

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Regarding Carrickmacross Town, it is noted that Monaghan County Council in early 2020 commissioned a Carrickmacross Town Car Parking Strategy and Action Plan16 to be undertaken, where a public consultation took place in March 2020. As part of the Strategy, the future consideration and an outline assessment of a potential Park & Ride / Park & Share facility in the Carrickmacross Area is to be carried out. The purpose of this assessment is to understand if the provision of such a facility would potentially serve and benefit the town, and the surrounding area, by removing existing long-term parking (Including potential car/vehicle pooling), increasing the attractiveness of public transport, and reducing low-occupancy car based journeys (including potential long distance commuter trips). The extent of the study area of this outline assessment includes the existing N2, and potential interface and connectivity between a potential Park & Ride / Park & Share facility and the existing N2. Should it be recommended from the Strategy that such a facility requires further consideration, it is expected that a formal feasibility study would be undertaken, which would be subject to necessary funding and approvals. At this stage, without the completion of the Strategy or a subsequent feasibility study, it is assumed for the purposes of consideration of this potential facility, in the context of the proposed scheme, that it would be of a similar size as the proposed M1 Junction 16 facility of approximately 226 spaces. Unlike the M1 facility, this potential facility would be located within the Study Area of the proposed N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme, however, the capacity of this potential facility, assumed to be of a similar scale as the M1 facility, would again be very small compared to the existing and future forecast traffic flows on the N2 Corridor. Therefore, notwithstanding the potential for the bus connectivity at this potential facility also, it is considered that the modal shift from N2 private traffic to this facility would likely be very small.

In conclusion, and as outlined at the start of this section, it is recognised that Park & Ride / Park & Share facilities can potentially increase the opportunity for transfer trips to public transport, and encourage a modal shift away from single occupancy car use, with the associated potential benefits of reducing congestion on the existing road network. It is also recognised that there is a degree of potential demand for these facilities adjacent and within the Study Area. However, in the context of the proposed scheme and the assessment of the Traffic Management Option, it is considered that the modal shift due to existing/proposed/potential Park & Ride / Park & Share Facilities, which have been identified above, and any other future facilities, would likely be very small. Consequently, it is considered that these facilities would not on their own meet the future capacity demands on the network, and consequently cannot improve journey times and journey time reliability. Furthermore, it is noted that these facilities cannot reasonably serve the transportation needs of the strategic transfer of freight and large goods vehicles.

Therefore, it is concluded, that these facilities and this Traffic Management option cannot meet all of the Scheme Objectives (Integration and Accessibility & Social Inclusion), along with the associated National Policy Objectives (i.e. National Strategic Outcome 2 – Enhanced Regional Accessibility – Inter-Urban Roads and Accessibility to the North-West), and that this option as a sole solution is discounted. A further summary assessment of this Traffic Management Option against all of the Scheme Objectives is provided further below in Section 3.5.4 (Traffic Management Option – Conclusion).

Notwithstanding the discounting of this option as a solution at this stage, further consideration of future potential opportunities regarding Park & Ride / Park & Share facilities and their integration with the proposed scheme will be undertaken during Phase 3 (Design and Environmental Evaluation) of the scheme development.

16 See Website Link: https://www.carrickmacross.ie/carrickmacross-news/713-carrickmacross-town-and-car-parking-strategy-and-action-plan

77

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

3.5.4 Traffic Management Option – Overall Conclusion For the Do-Something Traffic Management Option, the following three potential measures, which could be potentially delivered through smaller targeted investment were identified and assessed:

1) Localised Operational and Safety Infrastructure Improvements (Section 3.5.1) 2) Speed Reduction Measures (Section 3.5.2) 3) Park & Ride, and Park & Share Facilities (Section 3.5.3)

As per the preceding sections, it was concluded that each of these traffic management measures would not meet all of the Scheme Objectives, and they were subsequently discounted. Table 3.16 below shows a summary assessment of these three individual measures against the Scheme Objectives. In addition, the subsequent Table 3.16 provides supporting justification text for the assessment presented in Table 3.17. A comparison of all three measures combined is also provided in these two tables.

In the case of the environmental objectives, similar to the Do-Nothing Option, Do-Minimum Option, and Do- Something Alternative – Public Transport, and for the purposes of this initial assessment, it is considered that the Traffic Management Option would meet the environmental Scheme Objectives. It is assumed that the potential Traffic Management Option measures/schemes identified in Sections 3.5.1 to 3.5.2 would follow the necessary statutory requirements (Environment Impact Assessment Screening and Appropriate Assessment Screening, where appropriate), and that any identified significant environmental impacts would be appropriately managed and mitigated.

78

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Physical Accessibility & Objective Headings Economy Safety Environment Integration Activity Social Inclusion

on the N2/A5 the on

Overall

Assessment

&Cyclists (Achieve-

Infrastructure

ment of ALL to Services to

Scheme

& Landtake / Environmental Environmental / &Landtake in Strategic Roads inStrategic

Objectives)

Vulnerable Road Users Road Vulnerable

Objectives edestrians

P

With Safer Safer With

Invest

bjectives (RSES &CDP) (RSES bjectives

–

Impacts Impacts

O

BusIntegration

Junction Reduction Junction

Strategic Traffic Capacity Traffic Strategic

Overtaking Opportunities Overtaking

Journey Time &Reliability Time Journey

Agricultural & Private Land Land & Private Agricultural

Alignment with RSA Strategy RSA with Alignment

Enhanced Accessibility Enhanced

Land Use Use Land

with NOFs NSO 3 (Strengthen Rural Economics & Economics Rural (Strengthen 3 NSO NOFs with

Opportunities for for Opportunities

Communities) Communities)

Environmental

Traffic Freight + West North to Dublin Links Transport

Collision Reduction Reduction Collision

Reduce the costs of Travel / Value for money for Value / Travel of costs the Reduce

Safer Environment for for Environment Safer

Alignment with NPF’ with Alignment Mobility) (Sustainable 4 NSO s

Alignment Alignment

Policies / Natural & Cultural Heritage / Air, Climate & Noise / & Climate Air, / Heritage & Cultural Natural / Policies

Minimise

Improved Improved Strategic Connectivity & Route Consistency &Route Connectivity Strategic Improved

Traffic Management Option Measure 1 – Localised Operational and Safety Infrastructure Improvements

Assessment per X X ✓ X X X X X ✓ ✓ ✓ X X X ✓ X X Objective

Assessment per Objective Heading X X X ✓ X X X

Traffic Management Option Measure 2 – Speed Reduction Measures

Assessment per X ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Objective x x x x x x x x x x x

Assessment per Objective Heading X X X ✓ X X X

Traffic Management Option Measure 3 – Park & Ride / Park & Share Facilities

Assessment per X ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Objective x x x x x x x ✓ x x x x

Assessment per Objective Heading X X X ✓ X X X

3 No. Traffic Management Option Measures Combined

Assessment per X ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Objective x x x x ✓ x x x x

Assessment per X X X ✓ X X X Objective Heading Table 3.16: Assessment Summary of Do-Something Option – Traffic Management Option against the Scheme Objectives 79

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Traffic Management Economy Safety Physical Activity Accessibility & Social Inclusion Integration Option

Measure 1 The majority of the six All six identified individual The majority of the six identified The majority of the six identified individual The majority of the six identified individual - Localised identified individual measures of Measure 1 can provide individual measures of Measure 1 measures are related to safety measures are related to safety improvements Operational & measures of Measure 1 are safety improvements at discrete address road safety in terms of improvements only, and do not specifically only, and do not specifically address integration Safety related to safety locations, and potentially meet the vehicle only. The individual measure address accessibility and social inclusion issues. The identified individual measures Infrastructure improvements only, and do Safety Objectives at these of Targeted Localised Road & Active issues. In relation to the individual measure would be tailored to address specific safety not specifically address travel particular locations, and Travel Improvements considered the of Targeted Localised Road & Active Travel issues at particular locations, and it is Improvements costs. In relation to the consequently contribute to provision of dedicated pedestrian and Improvements, it is considered that some of considered that they would not improve the individual measure of collision reduction at these cycle facilities as part of potential these improvements could meet the first overall strategic connectivity, route consistency, Targeted Localised Road & particular locations. However, as localised road improvements objective of enhanced accessibility at and transport links on the N2 Corridor between Active Travel Improvements, per the definition of the Traffic schemes or as a separate scheme. particular locations, and support the Dublin and the North-West (i.e. 1st and 3rd although this measure may Management Option, they are This measure would potentially National Strategic Outcome 3 (Strengthen Objectives). In addition, these individual address a number of existing limited to ‘near-term’ and ‘small in support the NPF National Strategic Rural Economics and Communities), as they measures would not provide additional traffic bends at particular locations, scale’, which ‘utilise the existing National Outcome 4 (Sustainable would be an investment into the existing capacity to the existing N2 infrastructure in it would not address infrastructure’. These measures will Mobility). However, regarding the strategic road network. In terms of the order the meet the future traffic demand, which additional capacity issues, be localised, and due to identified first objective, due to existing site remaining two objectives, Measure 1 would is likely to increase into the future (I.e. 4th and hence journey times and constraints, such as landtake and constraints and relatively substantial not provide additional capacity to the Objective). Regarding compatibility with the consequently, travel costs associated costs, cannot be landtake and associated costs which existing N2 infrastructure, and Regional and Local Policy, although, they do would not reduce, and would delivered throughout the entire would be required, improvements consequently would not improve journey not meet the RSESs’ and County Development likely increase into the future, length of the N2 between Ardee would be limited to isolated sections. times and journey reliability, in support of Plans’ objectives regarding the prioritisation of as traffic flows increase on and Castleblayney. Therefore, Therefore, a continuous and public (bus) transport, and the integration the ‘N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme’, the existing N2. these measures cannot not provide integrated pedestrian and cycle route thereof. they are not considered to be in conflict with a consistent safety improvement could not be provided along the In conclusion, Measure 1 would not meet all regional and local policy, and therefore are along the entire length of this entire length of this section of the N2, of the Accessibility & Social Inclusion considered to meet this objective. section of the N2. Hence, with the and it is considered that Measure 1 Objectives. In conclusion, Measure 1 would not meet all of exception of collision reduction would not meet this Physical Activity the Integration Objectives. (2nd Objective), Measure 1 is not Objective. considered to meet any of the objectives under the Safety Heading.

80

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Traffic Management Economy Safety Physical Activity Accessibility & Social Inclusion Integration Option

Measure 2 All 3 of the identified Measures to reduce excessive and None of the three identified speed None of the three identified speed Although, Measure 2 may align with regional – Speed individual measures are inappropriate speeding is reduction measures would directly reduction measures would directly provide and local policy (2nd objective), none of the Reduction related to safety considered to generally support the provide for opportunities for for the reduction in social exclusion and the three identified speed reduction measures th Measures) improvements only, and do RSA Strategy (5 Objective). In Vulnerable Road Users. Therefore, it enhancement of accessibility. Therefore, it would directly improve the overall strategic not address travel costs. In addition, Measure 2 would is considered that Measure 2 would is considered that Measure 2 would not connectivity and capacity on the N2 corridor. the case of the individual potentially contribute to a not meet the Physical Activity meet the Accessibility & Social Inclusion Therefore, it is considered that Measure 2 would measure of Reduced Posted reduction in collisions along the Objectives. Objectives. not meet all of the Accessibility & Social Speed Limits, this would entire section of the N2 (2nd Inclusion Objectives. significantly reduce journey Objective). However, it would not times, and hence travel costs address a reduction of junctions, would increase. and provide for safe overtaking opportunities and safe facilities for cyclists and pedestrians. Therefore, Measure 2 is not considered to meet all of the objectives under the Safety Heading. Measure 3 Modal shift from private This measure provides potential The main basis of Park & Ride / Park Park & Ride Facilities support the Park & Ride / Park & Share Facilities are – Park & Ride / vehicle to public transport / operational benefits but does not & Share facilities is to provide modal integration of bus transportation (4th considered to align with National, Regional and Park & Share car-pooling is likely to be provide any safety benefits in terms shift benefits from private vehicle to Objective), and with their bus integration, Local Policies in terms of sustainable transport nd Facilities very small relative to existing of the identified Scheme Safety public transportation/car-pooling. can potentially contribute to increased (2 Objective). Although these facilities can and future forecasted traffic Objectives. The facilities would not directly accessibility to services (1st Objective). Also, generally enhance overall connectivity on the flows. Consequently, these provide opportunities for Vulnerable both Park & Ride / Park & Share can form road network, they won’t improve overall route facilities would not meet Road Users. Therefore, it is part of the strategic investment into the consistency and transport links on the national future traffic capacity considered that Measure 2 would not existing road network (2nd Objective). road network within the N2 corridor, and cannot demands on the N2 corridor, meet the Physical Activity Objectives. However, as outlined under Economy, due serve all strategic traffic, including freight and and hence would not to the likely limited modal shift to public heavy goods vehicles (1st, & 3rd Objective). In improve journey times, transportation, these facilities would not terms of strategic capacity (4th Objective), and and/or reduce travel costs. meet the future traffic capacity demands on as outlined under other objective headings, the the N2, and hence would not improve modal shift from private vehicle to public existing journey times and journey times on transport / car-pooling is likely to be very small the existing N2 corridor. Therefore, relative to existing/future forecasted traffic Measure 2 would not meet all of the flows, and these facilities will not meet the Accessibility & Social Inclusion Objectives. future capacity demands of the N2 corridor.

81

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Traffic Management Economy Safety Physical Activity Accessibility & Social Inclusion Integration Option

All 3 No. Under this combined Under this combined scenario, Under this combined scenario, Under this combined scenario, Measure 2 Under this combined scenario, all measures Traffic scenario, the existing N2 Measure 1 would potentially meet Measure 1 would potentially support would not meet any of the Scheme potentially align with existing regional and local Management infrastructure would the Safety Objectives at the the NPF National Strategic National Objectives. While Measure 1 would land use policy (2nd Objective). All three Option predominately remain the particular locations where they are Outcome 4 (Sustainable Mobility). potentially meet the first two objectives, measures are not considered to improve the Measures same with no provision of applied. However, it cannot provide However, it would not provide a with Measure 3 meeting potentially overall strategic connectivity, transports links Combined additional traffic capacity. a consistent safety improvement or continuous and integrated pedestrian meeting three of the objectives. None of and route consistency on the national road Journey times, and meet the Safety Objectives along and cycle route on the entire length the measures would provide additional or network within the N2 corridor (1st & 3rd consequently travel costs the entire length of the route. of this section of N2, and hence would sufficient capacity benefits to meet the Objectives). In terms of strategic traffic capacity would not reduce, and would Notwithstanding its limitations, it is meet the other Physical Activity future traffic demands on the N2 corridor, (4th objective), Measures 1 and 2 will not likely increase, as traffic flows noted that it would contribute to a Objective. Measures 2 (Speed and hence would not improve the existing provide any capacity benefits to the existing N2 increase. As identified, Park & degree of collision reduction (2nd Reduction) and 3 (Park & Ride / Park journey times and journey reliability on this infrastructure. Whilst, regarding Ride / Park & Share facilities Objective). Measure 2 can & Share facilities) do not directly section of the N2 corridor. Therefore, this Park & Ride / Park & Share facilities, it has been rd would not offer the required potentially meet two of the Safety provide opportunities for Vulnerable combined scenario does not meet the 3 identified that the modal shift to public modal shift to negate the Objectives (RSA Strategy & Road Users. objective. transport / car-pooling is likely to be very small need for traffic capacity Collision Reduction) only. Whilst, relative to existing/future forecasted traffic improvements to the existing Measure 3 does not meet any of the flows, and these facilities will not meet the N2. Safety Objectives. future capacity demands of the N2 corridor. In conclusion, this combined scenario does not meet the 1st, 3rd and 4th objective.

Either combined or Either combined or individually, Either combined or individually, the Either combined or individually, the three Either combined or individually, the three Conclusion individually, the three the three measures would not three measures would not meet all measures would not meet all of the measures would not meet all of the Scheme measures would not meet all meet all of the Scheme Objectives of the Scheme Objectives under the Scheme Objectives under the Objective Objectives under the Objective Heading of of the Scheme Objectives under the Objective Heading of Objective Heading of Physical Heading of Accessibility & Social Inclusion. Integration. under the Objective Heading Safety Activity of Economy Table 3.17: Assessment of the Traffic Management Option against the Scheme Objectives – Supporting Justification Text

82

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

In summary, with the exception of potentially meeting the environmental objectives, it has been determined that the Traffic Management Option fails to meet all of the Scheme Objectives for the remaining five Objective Headings (Economy, Safety, Physical Activity, Accessibility & Social Inclusion, and Integration). Therefore, overall, it is assessed that the Traffic Management Option fails to meet all of the Scheme Objectives, and it has been discounted.

83

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

3.6 Combination of Public Transport Alternative & Traffic Management Option Following the individual assessments of the Do-Something Alternative – Public Transport (Bus) in Section 3.4 and the Do-Something Option – Traffic Management Option in Section 3.5, a combination of both against the Scheme Objectives was assessed. A summary assessment of the combination is provided in Table 3.18 below. It is noted that the previous individual assessments of the Public Transport Alternative and Traffic Management Option (i.e. the combination of the three identified measures) is repeated at the start of this table for clarification purposes.

Physical Accessibility & Objective Headings Economy Safety Environment Integration Activity Social Inclusion

Overall

Assessment

&Cyclists

(Achieve-

Infrastructure

to Services to ment of ALL

Scheme

& Landtake / Environmental Environmental / &Landtake

in Strategic Roads inStrategic

Vulnerable Road Users Road Vulnerable Objectives)

Objectives edestrians

P

With Safer Safer With

Invest

bjectives (RSES &CDP) (RSES bjectives

–

Impacts Impacts

O

BusIntegration

Junction Reduction Junction

Strategic Traffic Capacity Traffic Strategic

Overtaking Opportunities Overtaking

Journey Time &Reliability Time Journey

Agricultural & Private Land Land & Private Agricultural

Alignment with RSA Strategy RSA with Alignment

Enhanced Accessibility Enhanced

Land Use Use Land

with NOFs NSO 3 (Strengthen Rural Economics & Economics Rural (Strengthen 3 NSO NOFs with

Opportunities for for Opportunities

Communities) Communities)

Environmental

Traffic Freight + West North to Dublin Links Transport

Collision Reduction Reduction Collision

Reduce the costs of Travel / Value for money for Value / Travel of costs the Reduce

Safer Environment for for Environment Safer

Alignment with NPF’ with Alignment Mobility) (Sustainable 4 NSO s

Alignment Alignment

Policies / Natural & Cultural Heritage / Air, Climate & Noise / & Climate Air, / Heritage & Cultural Natural / Policies

Minimise

Improved Improved Strategic Connectivity & Route Consistency on the N2/A5 the on Consistency &Route Connectivity Strategic Improved

Do-Something Alternative – Public Transport – Bus (Section 3.4)

Assessment per X X X X X X X X ✓ ✓ X X ✓ X ✓ X X Objective

Assessment per Objective Heading X X X ✓ X X X

Do-Something Option – Traffic Management (3 No. Measures Combined – Section 3.5)

Assessment per X ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Objective x x x x x x x x

Assessment per Objective Heading X X X ✓ X X X

Public Transport Alternative (Bus) + Traffic Management Option

Assessment per X x ✓ x x ✓ x ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ x ✓ x ✓ x x Objective

Assessment per X X X ✓ X X X Objective Heading Table 3.18: Assessment Summary of the combination of the Public Transport Alternative (Bus) and Traffic Management Option

84

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

With reference to Table 3.18 above, it assessed that the combination of Public Transport Alternative and the Traffic Management Option, with the exception of Environment, does not meet the Scheme Objectives. In the case of Environment, and for the purposes of this assessment, it is assumed that public transport is a sustainable transport mode, where this mode is broadly aligned with environmental and sustainability goals/objectives. Equally, for the Traffic Management Option, it has been assumed that the identified measures/schemes (i.e. Park & Ride/Park & Share Facilities, minor safety improvement schemes, etc.) would follow the necessary statutory requirements, and any identified significant environmental impacts would be appropriately managed and mitigated. Therefore, it is considered that the combination of both the Public Transport Alternative and Traffic Management Option would meet the environmental objectives. Regarding the other five Objective Headings, the identified combination does not meet these Objective Headings as described below:

• Economy: Although the measures/schemes identified under Public Transport Alternative and Traffic Management Option may offer value for money in themselves, they will still predominately use the existing N2 road infrastructure. Therefore, journey times, and consequently travel costs on the existing N2 would not reduce and would likely increase into the future, as traffic flows increase on the existing N2.

• Safety: In the case of the Public Transport Alternative, this alternative would use the existing N2 road infrastructure, would not address any of existing section of N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney. This alternative would not meet the Scheme Objectives in providing safe overtaking opportunities, reduction in existing junctions, safer facilities for Vulnerable Road Users, and consequently would not assist in the reduction of collisions in support of the RSA Strategy. In terms of the Traffic Management Option, Park & Ride / Park & Share Facilities (Measure 3) would provide potential operational benefits but would not meet any of the specified Safety Objectives on the N2 corridor. Regarding Speed Reduction Measures (Measure 2), it is considered that this would potentially meet two of the individual Safety Objectives, where it is considered that measures to reduce excessive and inappropriate speeding align and form part of the RSA Strategy, and that these measures, which would be applicable to the entire length of N2, would contribute to collision reduction. In relation to Localised Operational & Safety Infrastructure Improvements (Measure 1), although these measures would contribute in part to collision reduction, they would be at discrete locations, and would not provide an overall consistent safety improvement along the entire length of this section of the N2. Therefore, with the exception of collision reduction objective, Measure 1 does not meet the Safety Objectives.

In conclusion, and where both the Public Transport Alternative and Traffic Management Option are considered, the combination does not meet all of the Scheme Objectives under the Objective Heading of Safety.

• Physical Activity: The Public Transport Alternative will not provide opportunities to improve pedestrian and cycle facilities on the N2. It will not provide for any new formal dedicated pedestrian and cycle facilities, nor will it provide any new or improved accessible pedestrian and cycle routes in support of the National Strategic Outcome (NSO) 4 (Sustainable Mobility). In relation to the Traffic Management Option, Park & Ride / Park & Share Facilities (Measure 3) and Speed Reduction Measures (Measure 2) would not directly provide opportunities for Vulnerable Road Users. Regarding Localised Operational & Safety Infrastructure Improvements (Measure 1), although these measures would potentially support the NPF National Strategic Outcome 2, due to existing site constraints and relatively substantial landtake and costs, a continuous and integrated pedestrian and cycle route could not be provided under this measure. Therefore, it is considered that this measure could not meet the first Physical Activity Objective.

In conclusion, and where both the Public Transport Alternative and Traffic Management Option are considered, the combination does not meet all of the Scheme Objectives under the Objective Heading of Physical Activity.

85

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

• Accessibility & Social Inclusion: In the case of the Public Transport Alternative, it was assessed that it would align with the first objective in terms of enhancing accessibility to services and support the integration and growth of existing and future bus services (4th Objective). However, as per the NPF’s National Strategic Outcome (NSO) 3 (Strengthen Rural Economics and Communities) and the second objective, investment is required in strategic road improvements (which will support bus transportation), as well as bus transportation, and the Public Transport Alternative does not meet this objective. In addition, this alternative which would use the existing N2 road infrastructure, will not in itself improve journey times and journey reliability on the N2 corridor.

Regarding the Traffic Management Option, speed reduction measures (Measure 2) would directly provide for the reduction in social exclusion and the enhancement of accessibility. Park & Ride Facilities support the integration of bus transportation (4th Objective), and with their bus integration, can potentially contribute to increased accessibility to services (1st Objective). Also, both Park & Ride / Park & Share can form part of the strategic investment into the existing road network (2nd Objective). However, due to the likely limited modal shift to public transportation, these facilities would not meet the future traffic capacity demands on the N2, and hence would not improve existing journey times and journey times on the existing N2 corridor (4th Objective). In relation to Localised Operational & Safety Infrastructure Improvements (Measure 1), although these measures could meet first objective of enhanced accessibility at particular locations, and support the NSO 3 (2nd Objective), these improvements would not lead to additional capacity to the existing N2 infrastructure, and consequently would not improve journey times and journey reliability.

In conclusion, and where both the Public Transport Alternative and Traffic Management Option are considered, the combination does not meet all of the Scheme Objectives under the Objective Heading of Accessibility & Social Inclusion.

• Integration: Both the Public Transport Alternative and Traffic Management Option (including Park & Ride / Park & Share Facilities) are considered to align with existing regional and local policy land use objectives. Sustainable transport forms a key part of the RSESs, and the Monaghan and Louth County Development Plans, where the benefit and contribution of bus transportation is identified. Regarding the other objectives, the Public Transport Alternative (Bus) would be limited to using the existing N2 road infrastructure and will not provide improvements to the strategic connectivity, transport links and route consistency (1st & 3rd Objectives). It is also noted that this alternative cannot reasonably serve the transportation of freight and large goods. In terms of strategic capacity (4th Objective), it is expected that the transfer from private vehicle to bus transportation will increase. However, due to dispersed nature of settlements, lack of critical mass, and perceived inconvenience, the potential of future modal shift to bus transportation is likely to be relatively small within the Study Area. Therefore, this alternative on its own will not be able to accommodate the existing traffic flows, which are currently nearing capacity for the existing infrastructure, and likely increase into the future.

In relation to the Traffic Management Option, speed reduction measures (Measure 2) and Park & Ride / Park & Share Facilities (Measure 3) would not improve the strategic connectivity, transport links and route consistency. Similar to the Public Transport Alternative, the modal shift due to Park & Ride / Park Share Facilities from private vehicles to public transportation/car-pooling is likely to be very small, existing/future forecasted traffic flows and these facilities will not meet the future capacity demands on the N2 corridor (4th Objective). In the case of localised Operational & Safety Infrastructure Improvements (Measure 1), these measures are predominately tailored to address specific safety issues, and would not improve the overall strategic connectivity, route consistency, and transport links on the N2 Corridor between Dublin and the North-West (1st & 3rd Objectives). In addition, these improvements would not provide additional traffic capacity to the existing N2 infrastructure in order the meet the future traffic demand, which is likely to increase into the future (4th Objective).

In conclusion, where both the Public Transport Alternative and Traffic Management Option are considered, the combination does not meet all of the Scheme Objectives under the Objective Heading of Integration.

86

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

In summary, with the exception of potentially meeting the environmental objectives, it has been determined that this combined option fails to meet all of the Scheme Objectives for the remaining five Objective Headings (Economy, Safety, Physical Activity, Accessibility & Social Inclusion, and Integration). Therefore, overall, it is assessed that the combination of the Do-Something Alternative – Public Transport (Bus) and Do-Something Option – Traffic Management Option fails to meet all of the Scheme Objectives, and it has been discounted.

3.7 Do-Something Option – Feasible Route Corridor Option TII’s PAG Unit 4.0 defines a Feasible Route Corridor as ‘a corridor improvement (which) can be delivered through a major investment to widen an existing road, or to develop a new alignment’

As per the TII’s PMM, Route Corridor Options are to be ‘developed to an appropriate level of detail to facilitate a systematic assessment of the potential impacts upon the findings of the constraints study’. The ‘systematic assessment’ namely being Stages 1 to 3 of the Option Selection Process (TII’s PMG Phase 2), which is described in detail in Chapters 7 to 10 of this Report.

3.8 Consideration of Alternatives and Options – Conclusion The Do-Nothing Option, Do-Minimum Option, Do-Something Alternative – Public Transport and Do-Something Option – Traffic Management Option, along with a combination of the Public Transport Alternative and Traffic Management Option, were defined and assessed as outlined in the preceding sections of this Chapter.

All of the above Options /Alternatives were determined to not meet the Scheme Objectives and were discounted. Following which, the identification, development and assessment of the Do-Something Option – Feasible Route Corridor Option was undertaken. This process is outlined in Chapters 7 to 10 of this Report.

87

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

4. Traffic Assessment and Option Cross-section

4.1 Introduction As part of TII’s PMG Phase 2 (Option Selection) process, a traffic assessment is undertaken in order to inform the comparative assessment of the identified feasible and refined Route Corridor Options, and the identification of the Emerging Preferred Route Corridor Option, and ultimately the Preferred Route Corridor Option. In particular, the traffic assessment informs the Economy, Safety, and Environment Appraisals of the Phase 2 Stage 2 Project Appraisal Matrix (See Chapter 9), the Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) of the Stage 2 Options (See Section 9.4 & the CBA Report in Part D of Volume 6), and the Stage 3 Project Appraisal Balance Sheet (PABS). In addition, through the traffic modelling process, estimated future year traffic flows are calculated for the Do-Minimum Option/Scenario and Do-Something Option/Scenario (i.e. the Route Corridor Options), which inform the initial identification of the road type and the indicative junction design approach for the proposed Scheme.

This Chapter provides a summary of the traffic modelling undertaken as part of the Phase 2 (Option Selection) process (See Section 4.2), a summary of the traffic assessment of the Stage 2 Route Corridor Options (See Section 4.3), and an overview of the initial identification of the road type and indicative junction design approach for the proposed Scheme (See Sections 4.4 and 4.5).

A full description of the traffic modelling and associated assessment, including supporting information, is outlined in the Traffic Modelling Report in Part A of Volume 6 (Engineering Appendices).

4.2 Summary of Traffic Modelling

As stated above, the purpose of the traffic modelling in TII’s PMG Phase 2 is to estimate future year traffic flows for the Do-Minimum Option/Scenario and Do-Something Option/Scenario (i.e. the Route Corridor Options), which will allow a traffic assessment to be undertaken where the Stage 2 Route Corridor Options are compared against the Do-Minimum Option. This informs the Stage 2 Appraisal process. As part of the Economy and Safety Appraisal, and the CBA, the outputs from the Traffic Model are used by TII’s software packages; Transport Users Benefit Appraisal (TUBA) and Cost and Benefits to Accidents – Light Touch (COBA-LT), to estimate the economic and safety benefits for each Stage 2 Route Corridor Option when compared against the Do-Minimum Option/Scenario.

In relation to the traffic model for this proposed scheme, the sections below outline the key activities and outputs which were undertaken in the scoping and collecting of data for the model, constructing, calibrating and validating the base model, and finally the estimating of the future year traffic flows for the Do-Minimum Option/Scenario and the Stage 2 Route Corridor Options.

4.2.1 Review of Existing Traffic Data and Models

In advance of defining the traffic modelling area and identifying the scheme specific traffic surveys, as outlined in the sections further below, a review of existing available traffic data and models was undertaken.

The existing data was collated from many sources such as TII’s Traffic Monitoring Units (TMU) permanent counter data, NTA’s National Traffic Count Database (NTCD), local authority data collected by Monaghan and Louth County Councils and data collected from prior studies in the Study Area such as Monaghan Land Use and Transport Strategies (LUTS) 2017/2018 and the A5 Western Transport Corridor (WTC) traffic study.

The existing data comprised of long-term Automatic Traffic Counts (ATC), Junction Turning Counts (JTC), Road Side Interviews (RSI), and Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) data. TII’s PAG Unit 5.2 – Data Collection (October 2016) recommends using only recent data up to five years old and therefore only data collected from 2015 onwards was considered appropriate for use in the scheme model.

88

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

In addition, census data, in the form of Irish census 2016 results at Electoral Division (ED) level and Northern Ireland (NI) data from census 2011 results at Super Output Area (SOA) were reviewed. This data provides details on population, employment and households with car ownership, which was used in the development of the N2 Traffic Model.

In terms of existing traffic models, the following models were reviewed and subsequently used to inform the N2 Traffic Model: • TII National Transport Model (NTpM) • TII National Traffic Model (NTM) • National Transport Authority (NTA) East Regional Model (ERM) • A5 Western Transport Corridor (WTC) Model • Previous N2 Clontibret to Border Road Scheme Model • Monaghan Land Use and Transport Strategies (LUTS) Model

A brief description of these models is provided in the sections below.

4.2.1.1 TII National Transport Model (NTpM)

TII’s NTpM is a multi-modal strategic Variable Demand Model (VDM) that covers the entire Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland and is used by TII to assess the impact of infrastructure or policy changes at national, regional and local levels. It incorporates national, regional and some important local roads and has recently been recalibrated using 2016 census data and Place of Work, School or College, Census Anonymised Records (POWSCAR) data. Within the NTpM, there are four modules with three assignment modules (NTM, NRM, and NBM) that are used to assign travel demand matrices to the network, generating travel costs e.g. time, distance, tolls, fares for each mode. The role of the VDM is to assess, if required, the impact of a change in the transport network or change in the cost of travel (e.g. fuel costs, fares) upon the demand for travel (mode switching, induced demand etc.). The four modules are: • National Traffic Model (NTM) • National Rail Model (NRM) • National Bus Model (NBM) • Variable Demand Model (VDM)

The N2 Traffic Model was dependent on NTpM 2016 since it’s the main donor model for the prior matrices of Light vehicles and Heavy vehicles. The NTpM which has two peak periods of average AM peak hour (07:00-09:00) and average Inter peak hour (12:00-14:00), is the only component of the NTpM that has been used for the N2 Traffic Model.

4.2.1.2 TII National Traffic Model (NTM)

The NTM is a strategic (macroscopic) traffic model developed using the transportation modelling software VISUM and forms the road traffic element of the NTpM as outlined above. The model covers the entire national and network and is used by TII as a tool in the appraisal of potential road schemes, land use and policy changes. The NTpM provides demand for Light Vehicles (Car and Light Goods Vehicles) and Heavy Vehicles (Other Goods Vehicle 1, Other Goods Vehicle 2 and Buses/Coaches) for the following time periods. • Average AM peak hour (average hour between 07: 00 - 09: 00) • Average interpeak hour (average hour between 12: 00 - 14:00)

4.2.1.3 National Transport Authority (NTA) East Regional Model (ERM)

The NTA’s ERM covers a large extent of area in the East of the country and includes the entire N2 Study Area. The ERM is created in SATURN software and hence presented an opportunity to use network coding in the Study Area region. A number of the model parameters and standard coding values applied to the N2 Traffic Model were adopted from the ERM.

89

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

4.2.1.4 A5 Western Transport Corridor (WTC) Model

This model relates to the ongoing A5 Western Transport Corridor (A5WTC) road scheme, which is a Northern Ireland Executive led scheme, consisting of a proposed 85 km upgrade of the existing A5 from south of Derry at New Buildings to the Northern Ireland Border at Aughnacloy, where it meets the N2 at the River Blackwater Bridge. The model is a SATURN based model. This model was also used as a source of network coding in the cross-border region of the N2 Traffic Model.

4.2.1.5 Previous N2 Clontibret to Border Road Scheme Model

With reference to Section 1.3 (Scheme Development to Date) above, this model relates to the previous option selection process undertaken on the N2 Clontibret to Border Road Scheme, which was subsequently suspended in 2012. As part of the previous option selection process for this scheme, a SATURN Model was developed.

4.2.1.6 Monaghan Land Use and Transport Strategies (LUTS) Model

This model was completed in 2017 and was developed using Paramics microsimulation software. The study area for this model is limited to Monaghan Town and its environs. The model has two peak time-periods of morning (AM) and evening (PM) with 08:15 – 09:15 and 17:00-18:00 hours.

A full description of the review of the existing traffic data and models is outlined in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Traffic Modelling Report, which is provided in Part A of Volume 6 (Engineering Appendices).

4.2.2 Traffic Modelling Study Area and Agreed Scope

In order to define the extents of the traffic modelling study area and agree the scope of the traffic modelling exercise, a Traffic Modelling Plan (TMP) was prepared in accordance with TII’s PAGs, and in consultation with TII. The TMP set-out the proposed traffic modelling study area extents (covered below in this section), the traffic survey data collection, matrix and network development, model calibration and validation and future year traffic projections (covered in the subsequent sections below).

Due to the proximity of the N2 Clontibret to Border Road Scheme relative to the N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme, and as both proposed schemes are being simultaneously progressed through TII PMG Phases 1 to 4, the N2 Traffic Model and its associated traffic modelling study area caters for both schemes.

The traffic modelling study area encompasses the area in which traffic flows may change due to constructing either the proposed N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme or the other proposed N2 Clontibret to Border Road Scheme. As such, the traffic modelling study area encompasses most of County Monaghan, most of County Louth and parts of Northern Ireland, because it was considered that some traffic may transfer from the largely parallel A28. Parts of County Cavan and also lie within the traffic modelling study area. The road network within the study area was also carefully selected to facilitate the modelling requirements of both the schemes, and includes all relevant and applicable national, regional and local roads around the N2 corridor.

In defining the extents of the N2 Traffic Model, or also referred to as the N2 Local Area Model (LAM), reference was made to: • The study area from prior studies; • An assessment of the preliminary impact of the scheme on the regional network, as tested in the National Transport Authority’s (NTA’s) Eastern Regional Model (ERM); • The zone structure and granularity of the NTA’s ERM and Transport Infrastructure Ireland’s (TII’s) National Transport Model (NTpM); • The area covering all reasonable alternative routes; and • The Environmental Study Area.

The extents of the traffic modelling study area adopted for the both the N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme and N2 Clontibret to Border Road Scheme is shown in Figure 4.1 below.

90

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Figure 4.1: Traffic Modelling Study Area Boundary for both the N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme and the N2 Clontibret to Border Road Scheme

91

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

4.2.3 Traffic Survey Data Collection

Following a review of the existing traffic survey (as outlined in Section 4.2.1), a gap analysis was undertaken to identify additional traffic survey data within the traffic modelling study area, which would appropriately inform the development, calibration and validation of the N2 Traffic Model / LAM. Thereafter, traffic surveys were undertaken in April, May and September 2019. Three categories of traffic survey data were collected during the site surveys. These can be broadly defined as data to establish travel patterns (Origin-Destination data), data to determine levels of traffic flow (Volumetric /Count data) and journey time data. A summary of the data collected under these three categories, along with the type of survey method, is provided in Tables 4.1 to 4.3 below.

Survey Type/Method Description RSI surveys were undertaken in May and September 201917 at three sites on the existing N2 in the townlands of Drumgeeny (Co. Monaghan), Aghavilla (Co. Road Side Interview (RSI) Monaghan) and Mullacloe (Co. Louth). In addition, a fourth RSI Survey was undertaken on the A28 Gosford Road in County Armagh in Northern Ireland in May 2019. ANPR cameras were erected at 18 sites on 30th April 2019 recording vehicle Automatic Number Plate registration plates between 07:00 and 19:00. The ANPR cameras were located on Recognition (ANPR) several roads around both Carrickmacross and Ardee and were used to determine travel patterns through these settlements. Table 4.1: Summary of Origin – Destination Data Collected

With respect to Table 4.1 above, existing travel patterns were determined from two types of survey: Road Side Interview (RSI) surveys and Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) surveys. A 24-hour Automatic Traffic Counter (ATC) was installed at each RSI site to determine the interviewed sample rate and provide suitable expansion factors.

Survey Type/Method Description Automatic Traffic Counts ATCs were installed at 32 sites for a two-week period between 29th April 2019 and (ATC) 26th May 2019. In addition, ATCs were installed at the four RSI survey sites. Junction Turning Counts JTC surveys were undertaken at 87 sites for a 24-hour period on either 8th May (JTC) 2019 or 23rd May 2019 Table 4.2: Summary of Volumetric / Count Data Collected

With reference to Table 4.2 above, volumetric traffic data was obtained from a combination of ATCs and Junction Turning Counts (JTCs). This obtained data was combined with existing data from TII’s existing Traffic Monitoring Units (TMUs) within the study area.

Survey Type/Method Description Automatic Number Plate ANPR cameras were erected at 18 sites on 30th April 2019 recording vehicle Recognition (ANPR) registration plates between 07:00 and 19:00. The ANPR cameras were located on several roads around both Carrickmacross and Ardee and were used to determine typical travel times between pairs of cameras based on vehicle registration matching. Application Programming Journey time data was collected along 13 key routes, which cover the N2, N53, Interface (API) R180, R162 and A28. This was collected between 9th May 2019 and 12th June 2019. Data from Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays was used to produce average journey times on a typical weekday. Table 4.3: Journey Time Data Collected

17 The surveys undertaken on the N2 in May 2019 were repeated in September 2019 to capture a greater number of interviews and thus a higher sample size. September was the first month suitable for repeating these surveys, since guidance recommends avoiding the summer peak.

92

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

With reference to Table 4.3 above, the ANPR data used to collect origin destination travel patterns also provided journey times between camera locations. Journey time data was collected using the Google Directions Application Programming Interface (API). The Google API was primarily used for the development of the model, with the ANPR data used for validation of this data and matrix augmentation.

Following the receipt of the data, quality assurance and data checks were undertaken.

A full description of the data collection is outlined in Chapter 2 of the Traffic Modelling Report, which is provided in Part A of Volume 6 (Engineering Appendices).

4.2.4 Base Year Model Development

The N2 Traffic Model / LAM has been developed using Simulation and Assignment of Traffic in Urban Road Networks (SATURN) software. The Base Year for the model is 2019.

The following sections provide a summary of the Network Development, Zoning System, and Base Year Matrix Development. A full description of the model development is provided in Chapter 3 of the Traffic Modelling Report, where the Assignment Model is also described.

4.2.4.1 Network Development

The starting point for coding the road network in the N2 Traffic Model/LAM was coding from the different prior models with modifications and additions to suit the current model’s requirements. Remaining gaps and other network inclusions (model expansion) were coded separately into the model. The initial starting point was the previous N2 Clontibret to Border Road Scheme SATURN model that covered large areas in County Monaghan. These were extended outwards by including ERM buffer level coding which was later converted to more detailed simulation coding.

The road network included all national, regional, important local roads, sub-urban and urban roads throughout the traffic modelling study area. The network covered Aughnacloy in the North to Navan in the South and from Armagh/Newry in the East to Clonee/Kingscourt in the West. Satellite and streetview imagery was the primary source of junction geometry, banned turns and traffic management restrictions such as speed limits.

The N2 Traffic Model/LAM is a highway only model and doesn’t include Public Transport modelling, except for fixed flows that constitute trips arising from bus routes and schedule. The bus routes and associated fixed flows have been coded using Remix data with General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) embedded in the bus route shapefiles.

Significant additional network was coded to cater to all requirements and make the model suitable for several scheme evaluation procedures. The 2019 Base Year model network is shown in Figure 4.2 below, with the existing N2 sections, which relate to the two proposed schemes, shown in red.

93

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Figure 4.2: 2019 Base Year Model Network. The existing N2 sections which relate to the N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme and N2 Clontibret to Border Road Scheme are shown in red.

4.2.4.2 Zoning System Zones represent geographic areas between which traffic travels. The zones in the traffic model were developed based on TII’s NTpM, the NTA’s ERM, and other existing local models. There are 47 NTpM zones within the traffic modelling study area. Each of these zones are built up from several Electoral Divisions (EDs), as used for reporting Census data. These larger zones are appropriate for a national model, but for a local area model, there is a need to have a larger number of smaller zones. Each of these NTpM zones was therefore split with reference to the ERM zones, which are based on a combination of EDs and aggregations of Census Small Areas. This resulted in the local area model having 175 internal geographic zones. 94

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

In addition, there are 66 locations where traffic enters and exits from the traffic modelling study area, which means that the local area model has a total of 241 model zones between which traffic travels. Figure 4.3 shows the 241 model zones within the traffic modelling study area.

Figure 4.3: Traffic Model Zone Structure for both the N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme and the N2 Clontibret to Border Road Scheme

95

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

4.2.4.3 Base Year Matrix Development

There are two key stages in the development of the base year matrix. The first is the creation of a prior matrix, which is then adjusted using a process known as matrix estimation to allow the base model to better reflect observed volumetric traffic data. This adjustment to the prior matrix is part of the model calibration and validation stage, which is discussed further in Section 4.2.5 below.

The prior matrix was constructed with reference to two data sources. The first of these was the RSI surveys at the locations highlighted in Table 4.1 above. The four survey sites were carefully selected to capture both local and wider strategic traffic movements. Due to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) requirements, the addresses given in each interview were anonymised to the Electoral District (ED) level for addresses in Ireland and to street level coordinates for those addresses outside of Ireland. These surveys provided an estimate of zone to zone movements for journeys that are made on the N2 or the A28 through the survey sites for both modelled user classes (LV and HV) in each time period (AM peak, Inter-peak and PM peak).

The estimate of traffic between model zones that do not use the N2, were derived from the National Transport Model (NTpM). The NTpM is a nationwide multi-modal strategic model that was developed to help assess strategic road schemes. The most recent version of the model has a 2016 base and incorporates data from the 2016 census. This model has two user classes (LV and HV) and two time periods (AM and Inter-peak). The NTpM was cordoned to match the study area shown in Figure 4.1, with the disaggregation of trips in the NTpM between the smaller zones in the LAM being based on 2016 census data on population, car ownership and employment at ED level. The LV trips were split into constituent LAM zones based on the proportion of car ownership and distributed on the basis of proportion of employment. The HV trips were split into LAM zones based on employment numbers in each ED.

The distribution of NTpM trips between LAM zones required the generation of split factors as set out in Tables 4.4 and 4.5 below. The origin and destination factors for each pair of LAM zones were multiplied to derive an overall ‘split factor’ that was used to disaggregate NTpM zonal demand to LAM zonal demand.

Trip Type (NTpM Zones) Origin LAM Zone Factor Destination LAM Zone Factor (LAM Household cars) / (NTpM (LAM Employment) / Internal to Internal Household cars) (NTpM Employment)

(LAM Household cars) / (NTpM Internal to External No Splitting (factor = 1) household cars)

(LAM Employment) / External to Internal No Splitting (Factor = 1) (NTpM Employment)

External to External No Splitting (Factor = 1) No Splitting (Factor =1) Table 4.4: NTpM to LAM Trips Splitting Factors for Light Vehicles

96

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Trip Type (NTpM Zones) Origin LAM Zone Factor Destination LAM Zone Factor

Internal to Internal (LAM Employment) / (NTpM (LAM Employment) / Employment) (NTpM Employment)

(LAM Employment) / (NTpM Internal to External No Splitting (Factor = 1) Employment)

(LAM Employment) / External to Internal No Splitting (Factor = 1) (NTpM Employment)

External to External No Splitting (Factor = 1) No Splitting (Factor = 1) Table 4.5: NTpM to LAM Trip Splitting Factors for Heavy Vehicles

The factors were calculated based on census data for population, car ownership, and employment from the Republic of Ireland (ED level) and census data on number of households and total employment for Northern Ireland (Super Output Area level). The cases, where more than one LAM zone was contained within a single ED, the number of households and employment were assumed to be evenly split between the local zones. The same factors were used for the AM and the IP matrices. PM matrices were generated by transposing the AM matrices.

The resultant 2016 matrices were then factored to 2019 using the TII zone-based growth factors that were applied to the trip ends and then adjusted using the Furness method. Finally, the demand disaggregation and 2019 projection of the NTpM matrices were combined with the expanded origin destination matrices created from the RSI data to create the prior matrices for the traffic model.

4.2.5 Model Calibration and Validation

The initial base year development, as discussed in Sections 4.2.4 above, was followed by model calibration. The purpose of model calibration is to ensure that the model adequately reflects existing traffic conditions. It is an iterative process, whereby the base model is subject to continual revisions and the results compared against observed data at each iteration to improve how well the base year traffic model replicates these observed conditions.

As per TII’s PAG Unit 5.1: Construction of Transport Models (October 2016), calibration is a process of estimation of the parameters of a chosen model by fitting to observations. It involves the estimation and subsequent adjustment of the parameters used within a model to fit the observations. TII’s PAG Unit 5.1 provides the criteria and associated acceptability guidelines to be used in model calibration. It also suggests how calibration should relate to the magnitude of the values being compared.

Validation is very similar to calibration, but the comparison is made against an independent dataset that was not used in the matrix estimation process, which was used to adjust the prior matrices, the development of which was discussed in Sections 4.2.4 above.

Table 4.6 presents the acceptable calibration criteria where results are expected to be presented for each user class and time period. The standard method used to compare modelled values against observed values on a link involves the calculation of the Geoff E Havers (GEH) statistic. The GEH statistic is a measure of comparability that takes account of not only the difference between the observed and model flows, but also the significance of this difference with respect to the size of the observed flow. The target is for this statistic to be less than five for at least 85% of comparisons.

97

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Criteria and Measures Acceptability Guideline

Assigned Hourly flows compared to observed flows

Individual flows within 100 v/h for flows less than 700 v/h

Individual flows within 15% for flows between 700 and 2,700 v/h More than 85% of cases

Individual flows within 400 v/h for flows greater than 2,700 v/h

GEH statistic: Individual flows – GEH < 5 More than 85% of cases

Modelled journey times compared with observed times

Times within 15% or 1 minute if higher More than 85% of cases Table 4.6: Model Calibration and Validation Criteria

Matrix Estimation (ME) is the process in which the number of trips assigned via a link on which observed count data is available, is adjusted in the prior matrices to better match the observed flows on the same link and others through which the trip would travel. This process is undertaken in SATURN using modules known as SATME2 and SATPIJA where a set of traffic counts are embedded in the input files. This process is iterative and repeated until the best adjusted matrices are produced. These matrices are then checked for the Coincidence Ratio (CR), with a desirable level of between 0.7 and 1.0 for any user class and time period matrix and all user class and time period matrices lie in this range.

An additional check on the quality of trip matrices is undertaken by comparing the modelled and observed flows across screen-lines by vehicle type and time period. There are ten screen-lines spread across the study area that were used in the N2 LAM model calibration. Finally, the distribution of trip lengths before and after the ME process were checked.

The calibration and validation checks undertaken indicate that the model is appropriate for the route selection stage and that it provides an appropriate platform whereby all route options can be assessed in a robust and on a consistent basis.

The headline link calibration statistics are presented in Table 4.7 below, which shows that the acceptability criteria are met for more than 85% of links for each time period and user class, except for light vehicles in the PM time period, where the GEH value of 83% is only slightly less than the target. This is not considered to have any impact on the robustness of the model, as at least 94% of links satisfy either criteria in each time period.

98

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Links Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of Links meeting Time User Total satisfying Links Links satisfying Links meeting Links satisfying either Flow or Period Class Links Flow satisfying GEH criteria either Flow or GEH criteria GEH criteria criteria Flow criteria GEH Criteria

Light 205 191 93% 176 86% 192 94% Vehicles AM Heavy 205 205 100% 197 96% 205 100% Vehicles

Light 205 197 96% 182 89% 198 97% Vehicles IP Heavy 205 205 100% 197 96% 205 100% Vehicles

Light 205 191 93% 170 83% 192 94% Vehicles PM Heavy 205 203 99% 197 96% 203 99% Vehicles Table 4.7: Calibration Results on Links by User Class and Time Period

At the screen-line level, the target is for the total modelled flow across a screen-line to be within five percent of the observed value and the GEH statistic being less than four, with the second of these criteria being considered the more important. The screen-line figures are presented for each time period in Table 4.8. The GEH is less than four for all but four screen-lines in the AM peak. In two of these instances, the GEH is between four and five, which means that 90% of screen-lines have a GEH less than or equal to five, which is the acceptance criteria for links. There are however two instances where the GEH value is high enough to warrant further investigation: Screenline-3 westbound and Screenline-8 eastbound. Screenline-8 is situated to the west of Monaghan and there is a relatively large zone representing the suburban areas to both the south and west of Monaghan. The placement of the connector for this relatively large zone means that a proportion of local movements within Monaghan town are not represented in the model. This results in the model under-representing the volume of traffic travelling from the southwest of Monaghan into the town centre in the morning peak. However, the omission of this traffic will have no material impact on the representation of traffic that is expected to use the N2 to the east of Monaghan.

Percentage of Screen- Time Total Screen- Screen-lines with total Screen-lines with GEH < Percentage of Screen- lines with total flow Period lines flow within 5% 4 lines with GEH < 4 within 5%

AM 20 13 65% 16 80%

IP 20 14 70% 17 85%

PM 20 13 65% 16 80% Table 4.8: Calibration Results across Screen-lines by Time Period

Screenline-3 lies to the east of the N2 to the east of Monaghan, and the traffic model underestimates the volume of traffic crossing this screen-line. Part of this can be explained by the inclusion in the model of a local road to the south of the N12, which carries a small volume of east to west traffic across Screenline-3, but this local road is not included in the screen-line comparison because there is no observed data on this local road. If this local road was not represented in the traffic model, the traffic using this minor road would assign via the N12 and better match the observed count data. Although the model under represents the observed traffic on the N12, which is the principal road crossing Screenline-3, select link analysis on the N12 shows that most of the traffic that uses the N12 continues west towards Monaghan and only a small proportion of this traffic may be anticipated to use the N2.

Consequently, the high GEH values for both these screen-lines are unlikely to have any impact on the appraisal of schemes to upgrade the N2.

99

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

The IP model meets the GEH criteria set out in the PAG with 85 percent of links having a GEH of less than four and all screen-line GEH values are less than five. As with the AM model, the screen-lines with the highest GEH values are generally the ones with the largest percentage flow difference and the maximum difference across a screen-line is 15 percent.

As with the AM peak, the GEH criteria is less than four for all but four screen-lines in the PM peak. Three of those have a GEH value less than six. However, as with the AM peak, Screenline-8 westbound has a larger GEH value. The reason for this is the same as in the AM peak, where the placement of the zone connector for the residential areas to the south and west of Monaghan means that the model under-represents the volume of traffic travelling from the centre of Monaghan to the south and west. As with the AM period, this is not anticipated to materially impact on the robustness of the traffic model for the route selection or appraisal of improvement schemes on the N2.

Against the GEH criteria, the IP model fully complies with the PAG criteria. In the peak periods the largest GEH values relate to Screenline-3 westbound and Screenline-8 eastbound in the AM peak and Screenline-8 westbound in the PM peak. As has been highlighted earlier, neither of these are anticipated to have any material impact on the route selection or appraisal of schemes on the N2 because the principal road on Screenline-3 is the N12, which primarily carries east west traffic into Monaghan and the comparison of traffic flows at Screenline-9 indicates that the traffic model is under representing local traffic in the southwest of Monaghan town, which is travelling inbound towards the centre of Monaghan town in the AM peak and outbound again in the PM peak. Apart from these two screen-lines, there are no other screen-lines with GEH values greater than six, with the maximum values being 5.0 in the AM, 4.4 in the IP and 5.7 in the PM.

The proportion of screen-lines where the percentage difference between the observed and modelled flows is greater than five percent is higher than desirable in all three time periods, but this is largely a consequence of the relatively low traffic flows across most screen-lines. In most instances the traffic flows on each link are relatively low and the absolute differences between the modelled flows and the observed flows are also relatively low, even in aggregate. The most significant percentage differences correspond to the screen-lines with a high GEH value, which as highlighted previously are unlikely to have a material impact on the appraisal of schemes on the N2.

It should also be noted that although there are higher than desirable GEH figures in the two peak periods for the reasons stated above, the interpeak model fully meets the PAG requirements for GEH and traffic flows in the interpeak model account for the majority of the estimated Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) flow and the majority of the hours input to the Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA). As such, the robustness of the interpeak model is the most important in terms of appraisal. The headline validation statistics are presented in Table 4.9. Validation is a check on how accurately a model represents observed traffic data that was not used in the development of the traffic model. Both user classes satisfy the relevant flow criteria in all three time periods. Heavy vehicles meet the GEH criteria in all three time periods and Light vehicles meet the GEH criteria in the interpeak model, which as indicated previously is the most important of the three time period models. Light vehicles fall short of the GEH guidelines in both the AM and PM time periods, although in the PM time period 82% of links meet the GEH criteria, which is close to the target of 85%. In the AM time period, 71% of links meet the criteria of the GEH value being less than five in the AM time period. Further examination of the numbers shows that the majority of those greater than five have a GEH value between five and six. In all periods at least 89% of links have a GEH value for light vehicles that is less than six and therefore this is considered close enough to have no material impact on scheme appraisal. Table 4.9 also shows that the proportion of links satisfying either of the two elements for both user classes in all peak periods is at least 96% and as such the model is considered to validate to an acceptable standard.

100

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of Links Links Links meeting Time User Total Links Links Links meeting satisfying Flow satisfying GEH either Flow or Period Class Links satisfying Flow satisfying GEH either Flow or criteria criteria GEH Criteria criteria criteria GEH Criteria

Light 98 96 98% 70 71% 96 98% Vehicles AM Heavy 98 98 100% 97 99% 98 100% Vehicles

Light 98 96 98% 86 88% 96 98% Vehicles IP Heavy 98 98 100% 98 100% 98 100% Vehicles

Light 98 94 96% 80 82% 94 96% Vehicles PM Heavy 98 98 100% 98 100% 98 100% Vehicles Table 4.9: Validation Results by User Class and Time Period

The headline journey time validation statistics are presented in Table 4.10 below for the 12 journey time routes in the Republic of Ireland obtained using the Google API data, with each direction being validated separately. The Google API data was collected for 34 days but an average from only 14 neutral days (Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday) was used in the journey time validation.

Table 4.10 indicates that the modelled journey time lies within 15 percent of the observed time on 21 of the 24 journey time routes in the AM time period, which meets the PAG criteria. Of the three instances where the difference between modelled and observed is greater than 15 percent, in one instance the model appears to overstate the average delay, while in the other two instances the model understates the observed delay.

Table 4.10 indicates that the modelled journey time lies within 15 percent of the observed time on 16 of the 24 journey time routes in the IP time period. All journey time routes on the N2 meet the PAG criteria. For each of the routes where the difference between modelled and observed is greater than 15 percent, the model understates the observed delay. The routes that do not meet the PAG criteria in the IP time period have modelled journey times that are between 15.2% and 22.8% less than observed. Although the IP model does not meet the journey time validation criteria set out in the PAG, all of the journey time routes on the N2 meet the criteria and the routes that do not are generally regional roads or distant from the proposed schemes: R162 northbound from Ballybay to Monaghan; N53 in both directions from Dundalk to Castleblayney; R178 westbound from Carrickmacross to Shercock; A28 in both directions between Armagh and Newry; and the R183 in both directions from Castleblayney to Ballybay.

Similarly, Table 4.10 indicates that the modelled journey time lies within 15 percent of the observed time on 19 of the 24 journey time routes in the PM peak. All journey time routes on the N2 meet the PAG criteria. For each of the routes where the difference between modelled and observed is greater than 15 percent, the model understates the observed delay. The routes that do not meet the PAG criteria in the PM peak have journey times that are between 15.2% and 21.8% less than observed. Although the PM model does not meet the journey time validation criteria set out in the PAG, all of the journey time routes on the N2 meet the criteria and the routes that do not are generally regional roads or distant from the proposed schemes: R162 in both directions from Ballybay to Monaghan; N53 eastbound from Castleblayney to Dundalk; R178 westbound from Carrickmacross to Shercock; A28 eastbound between Armagh and Newry; and the R183 westbound from Ballybay to Castleblayney.

101

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

The AM model meets the journey time validation criteria. Although neither the IP or PM models meet the journey time validation criteria set out in the PAG, the traffic model meets the journey time validation criteria on the N2 and appears to under represent existing levels of delay on the other routes, such as the N53 and the R167, which means that the traffic model has the potential to underestimate the benefits of upgrading the N2. As such, the lesser compliance with the PAG criteria in these time periods is not considered to be an issue or have an impact on the Option Selection Process.

Number of Routes Meeting % of Routes Meeting Time Period Number of Routes Acceptability Criteria Acceptability Criteria

24 21 88% AM 24 16 67% IP 24 19 79% PM Table 4.10: Journey Time Validation by Time Period

Further details of the calibration and validation of the traffic model is provided in Chapter 4 of Traffic Modelling Report in Volume 6 (Engineering Appendices).

4.2.6 Future Year Traffic Projections

The base year traffic model represents traffic conditions in 2019. However, for the purposes of appraisal, it is necessary to present traffic flow projections in several future years in accordance with TII’s PAG Unit 5.3– Travel Demand Projections (May 2019). The future year traffic models for the N2 represent the following years: • 2027 – Scheme Opening Year • 2042 – Scheme Design Year (15 Years after Opening); and • 2057 – Horizon Year (30 Years after Opening)

With respect to the Opening Year of 2027, and for the purposes of the Phase 2 Option Selection Process, including the Phase 2 traffic assessment, the following indicative timeline was assumed:

• Obtain the necessary statutory approvals in late 2022; • Phase 5 (Enabling & Procurement) – Late 2022 to mid-2024 (Approximately 1.5 years); • Phase 6 (Construction and Implementation): An approximate 3 years construction period from mid-2024 to mid-2027, with an estimated mid-construction date of early 2026, and the completion of the works (Opening Year) in mid-2027. Thereafter, Phase 7 (Close-Out and Review) would be undertaken.

As part of Phase 3 (Design and Environmental Evaluation), the overall programme of the proposed scheme, along with the associated parameters of Opening Year, Design Year, and Horizon Year will be reviewed again, and updated, if required. In relation to the NTpM, this model has a base year of 2016 and future forecast years of 2030, 2040 and 2050. These provide forecast annual growth rates on an origin to destination basis for both LV and HV for the periods 2016 to 2030, from 2030 to 2040 and from 2040 to 2050. The NTpM has three growth scenarios - Low, Central and High. TII PAG Unit 5.3 – Travel Demand Projections (May 2019) sets out that the Central growth scenario is based on the “50:50 City” Scenario in the report ’Prospects for Irish Regions and Counties: Scenarios and Implications (January 2018)’, published by the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI). This is considered to represent the best forecast that is currently possible of transport activity on the National Roads Network in 2030, 2040 and 2050. The Low and High growth sensitivities within the NTpM are derived from alternative assumptions about migration and fertility rates as set out the Central Statistics Office (CSO) Population and Labour Force Projections 2017 – 2051.

102

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Central growth rates have been used for the purposes of comparing the Route Corridor Options for the N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme as this is considered the most likely future scenario. The Central growth rates were applied from the 2019 Base Year Traffic Model/LAM to derive the future year forecasts for the purposes of appraisal. No traffic growth has been assumed beyond 2050 as per the guidance in Section 6.1 of PAG Unit 5.3 – Travel Demand Projections (May 2019).

Further details of the future year projections of the traffic model is provided in Chapter 5 of Traffic Modelling Report in Volume 6.

4.3 Traffic Assessment of Route Corridor Options As stated in Section 4.1 above, the traffic assessment informs the Economy, Safety, and Environment Appraisals of the Phase 2 Stage 2 Project Appraisal Matrix, and Cost Benefit Analysis, where the Stage 2 Route Corridor Options (Do-Something Option/Scenario) is compared against the Do-Minimum Option/Scenario.

Following completion of the Base Year Model, calibration and validation of this model, and identification of the future year projections, the Do-Minimum Option/Scenario, and the Stage 2 Route Corridor Options were coded into the N2 Traffic Model/LAM. The Do-Minimum Option/Scenario for the Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme is defined and assessed in detail within Chapter 3 (Consideration of Alternatives and Options) of this Report. As per PAG Unit 4.0, the Do-Minimum includes the existing road network (i.e. Do-Nothing Option) with the addition of ‘Committed’ schemes as opposed to ‘Planned’ Schemes. As outlined in Chapter 4, the Do-Minimum Option, which was included in the N2 Traffic Model/LAM in late-2019/early 2020, includes the following committed schemes:

• N52 Ardee Bypass Scheme • N2 Ardee to Aclint Minor Improvements Scheme

In addition, as the N2 Traffic Model includes the N2 Clontibret to Border Road Scheme, the following committed schemes of the N2 Clontibret to Border Road Scheme, were incorporated: • N54 Tullybryan to Annaghervey Improvement Scheme • N2 Blackwater Bridge Replacement, Monaghan Town • N2 Monaghan to Emyvale Road Improvement Schemes – Phase 3 (Corracrin / Gortmoney / Emyvale) • Monaghan County Speed Limit Revisions

Each of these improvements have been completed or are anticipated to be taken forward in the near future.

In relation to the Stage 2 Route Corridor Options, as outlined in Section 8.8 of Chapter 8 (Stage 1 – Preliminary Options Assessment) of this Report, following completion of the Stage 1 Assessment, the following six Route Corridor Options were identified for progression to the Stage 2 Project Appraisal Matrix: 1) Option A (Yellow) 2) Option B (Yellow+Blue) 3) Option C (Green) 4) Option D (Orange) 5) Option E [Orange+Link 1 (Grey)+Green] 6) Option F [Orange+Link 2 (Pink)+Green]

A layout plan of these Route Corridor Options is provided in Figure 8.2 of Section 8.8 of this Report, whilst a formal drawing containing the same information is provided in Part A of Volume 2 (Drawings).

As stated above, the Route Corridor Options above were coded into the N2 Traffic model/LAM, along with an initial cross-section type of a Type 2 Dual Carriageway (See Section 4.4 below), and indicative junction types, as identified following completion of the outline junction design approach (See Section 4.5 below).

103

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

A full description of the coding of the Do-Minimum Option/Scenario and of the Stage 2 Route Corridor Options, is outlined in Chapter 5 of the Traffic Modelling Report in Volume 6 (Engineering Appendices).

4.3.1 Route Corridor Options Assessment Results

A summary of the comparison between the Do-Minimum Option/Scenario and the Stage 2 Route Corridor Options for the Design Year (2042) in terms of Journey Time (See Section 4.3.1.2) and Forecast Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) & % HGV (See Section 4.3.1.3) are provided in the Sections below. A full description of these results is provided in Chapter 5 and the associated appendices of the Traffic Modelling Report in Volume 6 (Engineering Appendices).

4.3.1.1 Journey Time Comparison

A journey time comparison was made between the Do-Minimum Option/Scenario and the Stage 2 Route Corridor Options and this suggests that all route options would improve journey times across the peak time periods in the Design year (2042). The quickest option is Option F[Orange+Link2(Pink)+Green] and the slowest is Option B (Yellow+Blue). Table 4.14 below presents a summary of the journey time comparison.

Scenario Total Length (km) Journey Time (mins) Journey Time (mins) Journey Time (mins) AM IP PM Do-Minimum 31.150 25.86 22.70 22.56 Option-A 31.287 22.18 21.08 21.18 Option-B 31.244 22.30 21.18 21.31 Option-C 29.756 20.78 20.11 20.23 Option-D 30.395 20.58 20.03 20.11 Option-E 30.050 20.75 20.15 20.28 Option-F 30.485 20.35 19.76 19.85 Table 4.14: Journey Time Comparison – Design Year (2042)

4.3.1.2 Forecast AADT & % HGV

The forecast Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) and % of Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV) in the Design Year of 2042 is presented for the Do-Minimum Option/Scenario in Figure 4.4 below and for the six Stage 2 Route Corridor Options in Figures 4.5 to 4.10.

104

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Figure 4.4: 2042 Modelled future AADT and percentage HGV- Do Minimum Alternative/Scenario

105

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Figure 4.5: 2042 Modelled future AADT and percentage HGV- Option A (Yellow)

106

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Figure 4.6: 2042 Modelled future AADT and percentage HGV- Option B (Yellow+Blue)

107

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Figure 4.7: 2042 Modelled future AADT and percentage HGV- Option C (Green)

108

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Figure 4.8: 2042 Modelled future AADT and percentage HGV- Option D (Orange)

109

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Figure 4.9: 2042 Modelled future AADT and percentage HGV- Option E [Orange+Link1(Grey)+Green]

110

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Figure 4.10: 2042 Modelled future AADT and percentage HGV- Option F [Orange+Link2(Pink)+Green]

111

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

4.4 Initial Selection of Road Type

In order to inform the Phase 2 Option Selection Process, and as outlined in Chapters 7 to 9 of this Report, an indicative draft working road alignment was developed within the 400m wide Route Corridor Options. In addition, an initial road type / cross-section was selected to further inform the comparative assessment of the Route Corridor Options, and in particular the Stage 2 Economy, Safety, and Environment Appraisals, Cost Benefit Analysis, and the traffic assessment.

As outlined in Section 3.2.2 (Do-Nothing Option – Traffic Capacity and Composition) of Chapter 3 (Consideration of Alternatives and Options), the existing AADT levels are approximately 10,500 AADT on the existing N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney. With respect to Table 4.15 below, the existing section of N2, which aligns with a Type 1 Single Carriageway, is currently nearing the AADT capacity for a Level of Service (LOS) D, which is 11,600 AADT for a Type 1 Single Carriageway, as per TII Design Standard DN-GEO-03031 - Rural Road Link Design (2017).

Year AADT - LOS D Type 3 Single Carriageway (6.0m) 5,000 Type 2 Single Carriageway (7.0m) 8,600 Type 1 Single Carriageway (7.3m) 11,600 Type 3 Dual (7.0m + 3.5m) 14,000 Type 2 Dual (7.0m x 2) 20,000 Type 1 Dual (7.0m x 2 with hard shoulder) 42,000 Table 4.15: Road Type and Traffic Capacity for Level of Service (LOS) D

In relation to projected traffic flows, and with reference to Section 4.3.1.3 (Forecast AADTs & %HGV), and Figures 4.4 to 4.10, the Do-Minimum Option/Scenario, and Route Corridor Options A (Yellow), B (Yellow+Blue), and Option C (Green) have estimated maximum flows of approximately 15,000 – 16,000 AADT for the Design Year (2042). With reference to Table 4.15 above, all of these options exceed the LOS D capacity of 11,600 AADT for a Type 1 Single Carriageway and 14,000 AADT for a Type 3 Dual Carriageway, and rest within a range where a Type 2 Dual Carriageway would be suitable.

In the case of Options D (Orange), E [Orange+Link1(Grey)+Green] and F [Orange+Link2 (Pink)+Green], these predominately offline Route Corridor Options have estimated maximum flows of approximately 12,500 – 13,800 AADT for the Design Year (2042). With reference to Table 4.15 above, although these flows are within a range where a Type 3 Dual Carriageway maybe suitable (i.e. less than 14,000), they are very close to the prescribed threshold. Furthermore, it is noted as per TII Design Standard DN-GEO-03031 – Rural Link Design (June 2017), that Type 3 Dual Carriageways are to be used ‘for online upgrading of existing single carriageway roads (or retrofit projects)’. As stated, Options D, E and F are predominately offline options, and are not considered online upgrade or retrofit projects. Therefore, in terms of future design flows, it is deemed that most appropriate cross-section type for Route Corridor Options D, E & F is a Type 2 Dual Carriageway.

In summary, in terms of projected traffic flows, a Type 2 Dual Carriageway is assessed as being the most suitable cross-section type at this stage of the scheme development.

Separately, regarding existing safety and operational issues, which are identified in Section 2.3 (Project Specific Need) of this Report, and development policy objectives, which are outlined in Section 2.2 (Development Policy). it is considered that a Type 2 Dual Carriageway would address these issues and meet these objectives. The existing section of the N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney suffers from a lack of safe overtaking opportunities, with existing journey times being considerable lower than the National Planning Framework’s (NPF) target of 90 kph for Inter- Urban Roads, and coupled with a traffic composition, where the percentage of Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) being considerably higher than the national average. These issues combined with other identified safety issues (i.e. high number of existing accesses, etc.) lead to an underperforming road, which is unable to continue serving the growing traffic demand in an efficient and safe manner.

112

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

As well as maintaining and enhancing the strategic capacity of this section of the N2, a Type 2 Dual Carriageway will provide consistent and safe overtaking opportunities throughout the entire length of the scheme and improve existing journey times and journey time reliability. It is considered that this road type and it associated improvements align with NPF’s Strategic Outcome 2 (Enhanced Regional Accessibility) of enhancing the overall connectivity between Dublin and North-West with a high-quality road network on the N2/A5 corridor. This in turn also supports the TEN-T objectives of enhancing cross-border connections and promoting a high-quality network on its Comprehensive Network, which the N2/A5 corridor forms part of.

In addition, in terms of overall road type consistency on the N2/A5 corridor, a similar dual carriageway type has been proposed for the majority of 85km of the A5 Western Transport Corridor (WTC) project, with expected long- term aspiration that any remaining sections (outside of the A5WTC and the two proposed N2 schemes) would be potentially upgraded to a similar road type at some stage in the future. Therefore, it is considered that a Type 2 Dual Carriageway is the most appropriate road type to align with overall route consistency on the N2/A5 corridor going into the future.

In conclusion, it has been deemed that a Type 2 Dual Carriageway is most the appropriate road type to meet the project traffic flows, the development policy objectives and address the existing safety and operational issues. However, it is highlighted that this is an initially identified road cross-section type, and further identification and confirmation of the road type will be undertaken in the subsequent TII Phases as the design is further developed and appraised. An illustration of the typical cross-section of a Type 2 Dual Carriageway TII Design Standard DN- GEO-03036 – Cross-Sections and Headroom (May 2019), shown in Figure 4.11 below.

Figure 4.11: Typical Cross section of Type 2 Dual Carriageway

With reference to Figure 4.11 above, the Type 2 Dual Carriageway has two lanes in each direction, where it has no hard shoulder and has a narrow central reserve. In terms of proposed pedestrian and cycle facilities, and as outlined in further detail in Section 9.9 (Physical Activity Appraisal) further detail, and in accordance with clause 4.17.1 of DN-GEO-03036, ‘Cycle/Pedestrian Facilities shall be provided as part of all Type 2 and Type 3 Single Carriageway and Type 2 and Type 3 Dual Carriageway national road schemes has been provided for within the standard type 2 & 3 single and dual cross sections’. However, as per the below and in accordance with DN-GEO-03036, it is noted that a number of options are available in delivering this provision on a proposed scheme: 1. ‘As a Cycleway remote from the road designed in accordance with DN-GEO-03047. This may include the use of suitable disused railways, declassified national roads, canal tow paths or forest trails where appropriate. 2. Within the maintenance strip or verge of the national road in accordance with the design details outlined in this document. 3. Using a suitable existing alternative route incorporating appropriate signage. This option shall require a Departure from Standard which shall outline the justification for the use of this option.’

As outlined in Section 9.9 further below, it is highlighted that specific pedestrian and cycle provision will be determined in the subsequent TII Phases as the design is further developed and appraised.

113

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

4.5 Consideration of Indicative Junction Design Approach Similar to the initial selection of the road type, an initial indicative junction design approach was identified for each of the Stage 2 Route Corridor Options in order to inform the Stage 2 Project Appraisal Matrix, Cost Benefit Analysis and the traffic assessment.

This indicative junction design approach was undertaken in accordance with TII Design Standard DN-GEO-03060 – Geometric Design of Junctions (June 2017), along with other applicable TII Design Standards. As per the TII Design Standards, the following permitted junction types for a Type 2 Dual Carriageway were selected:

• At Grade • Compact Grade Separated Junctions • Left-In/Left-Out

An ‘At Grade Roundabout’ or ‘Compact Grade Separate Junction’ is a ‘Full Movement Junction’ where movement and access would be provided to both sides of the new N2 road. A ‘Left-In/Left-Out Junction’ is a ’Restricted Junction’, as movements are restricted to side of the road where the junction would be located, and it will not facilitate crossing of the new N2, which would have a central barrier as part of a dual carriageway. As identified in Section 2.3 (Project Specific Need) of this Report, the existing N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney has a significant number of existing direct accesses onto the N2, which presents conflict points, and has been identified as a safety issue. In order to address this issue, and to comply with the current TII Design Standards for new road infrastructure, the number of accesses need to be limited to a reduced number of strategically located junctions (Roundabouts, Grade Separated Junctions, and Left-in /Left Junctions), which offer safer accessibility to the new road. In order to maintain local connectivity across and onto the new N2, and limit community severance impacts, new service roads, bridges, and diversion of existing roads will be required to connect and divert local traffic to these strategically located junctions and bridges along the proposed route of the N2. As part of the development of the proposed scheme in the next Phase (i.e. Phase 3), the N2 Project Team will seek to minimise the level of additional travel time on the local network to new strategic junctions, whilst ensuring that an overall safer N2 route is provided.

In identifying the types and locations of junctions, consideration and initial assessment was given to, including but not limited to the following: • Potential Community Severance Impacts • Potential Landtake & Property Impacts • Environmental Constraints (Incl. Ecology, Cultural Heritage, etc.) • Other Non-environmental Constraints (Incl. existing Utilities) • Safety (Incl. Introduction of conflict points, geometric considerations, etc.) • Consistency with other Junction Types (Incl. spacing) • Traffic Flows • Interface with the existing road network (incl. Tie-in locations, existing accesses, etc.) • Economics

Similar to the cross-section type, it is highlighted that the junction types and locations were identified to inform the Stage 2 comparative assessment only, are indicative, and will be subject to change and refinement during the preliminary design of the new N2 carriageway of the Preferred Option as part of the subsequent TII PMG Phases 3 (Design and Environmental Evaluation) and 4 (Statutory Processes). As per the requirements of TII PMG Phase 3, a Junction Strategy Report will be prepared for the proposed scheme.

In addition, it is noted that as the project develops and the refinement of the Preferred Option is undertaken, connections and associated junctions between the new proposed N2 carriageway and the existing road network may extend outside of the 400m wide corridor.

114

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

With reference to Chapter 10 (Stage 3 – Preferred Option), it is noted that details on the type and location of indicative junctions for the Preferred Route Corridor Option are provided on the Scheme Drawings, which are provided in Part A (Corridor Drawings) in Volume 2 (Drawings).

115

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

5. Constraints Study

5.1 Introduction The first key activities of the Option Selection Process are the definition of the Study Area and the identification of existing constraints within the Study Area. The existing constraints are to be documented and mapped as part of Constraints Study such that the options/alternatives under consideration, as per Chapter 3 (Consideration of Alternatives and Options) of this Report, can be assessed and developed taking cognisance of such constraints, and where feasible and practical, avoid these constraints.

A detailed description of the definition of the Study Area and the identification of the existing constraints is outlined in the Constraints Study Report, which is provided in Volume 3, along with the associated Constraints Drawings which are provided in Part B of Volume 2 (Drawings).

A summary of the definition of the Study Area and the identification of the existing constraints is provided in the sections below.

5.2 Definition of the Study Area As per the TII‘s PMM, the Study Area is to ‘cover an area which will enable appropriate options to be developed and examined.’ Furthermore, the PMM states, ‘the term “study area” relates to the area under consideration for the physical location of options and may be different to the macroscopic and microscopic study areas identified in the Project Appraisal Plan for use in transport modelling.’ As is the case for the traffic modelling plan study area, the environmental study area may be different / larger in order to capture and consider the zones of influence of particular sensitive areas/ecosystems/species, which may be considerable distances from the physical location of options but could be potentially impacted by the options.

In defining the Study Area for the N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme, the initial Study Area as identified in during TII PMG Phases 0 and 1 was reviewed and further refined. The updated Phase 2 Study Area is shown in Figure 5.1 below. With reference to this figure, the primary defining factors identified for the boundaries of the updated Phase 2 Study Area are as follows:

• Northern and Southern Boundaries: The overarching start and end points of Ardee and Castleblayney as identified in the Phases 0 and 1 were maintained. In the case of Ardee, the environs of the urban area of the town and the presence of Ardee and Coole Bogs restricted the Southern extents. The South-Eastern end of the boundary was extended to include the interface between the N2 and the N33. Similarly, in the case of Castleblayney, the environs of the urban area of the town and the presence of Muckno Lake restricted the Northern extents, whilst the North-Western end of the boundary was extended to include the interface between the existing N2 section between Ardee and Castleblayney and the N2 Castleblayney Bypass. • Western Boundary: The significant natural barriers of the Garra and Lagan Rivers and of a series of loughs (Ballyhoe, Rahans, Derry, and Descart), which are in close proximity to each other, restricted the boundary in a Southern direction. Whilst the significant natural barrier of Lough Egish restricted the boundary in a Northern direction. • Eastern Boundary: The relatively large settlements of Tallanstown, Louth Village and Inniskeen and their associated environs, along with the jurisdiction boundary of Northern Ireland restricted the boundary to the East. • Carrickmacross Town and Its Environs: The settlement of Carrickmacross Town and its urban environs were excluded from the Study Area as its centre and environs are relatively densely populated and create a significant built-environment barrier.

116

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

: Figure 5.1: Study Area of N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme

117

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

5.3 Existing Constraints As stated in Section 1.1 above, a detailed description of existing constraints is outlined in the Constraints Study Report, which is provided in Volume 3, along with the associated Constraints Drawings which are provided in Part B of Volume 2 (Drawings). A summary of the identified constraints is provided in the sections below.

As per TII’s PMM, the constraints were divided into three principal categories: • ‘Natural Constraints (naturally occurring landscapes and features, including underground features); • Artificial Constraints (forming part of the built environment including underground features, e.g. disused landfills); and • External Parameters (design standards, policy, procedural, financial, and legal issues).’

In line with the PMM requirements, the Constraints Study was primarily a desktop study, supplemented by windshield or walkover surveys where deemed necessary and appropriate, along with feedback from the public and stakeholders as part of the non-statutory public consultation process (See Chapter 6 and Volume 7).

5.3.1 Summary of Natural Constraints

The following is a summary of the key Natural Constraints that were identified during the Constraints Study. Further information on these constraints are contained in Volume 3 (Constraints Study Report). Data sources for the constraints are described in detail in the Constraints Study Report

5.3.1.1 Ecology There are 51 designated areas for nature conservation located within 15km of the Study Area:

• Three Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) – the nearest is Dundalk, 10km from the Study Area; • Two Special Protection Areas (SPAs) – the nearest is Stabannan-Braganstown SPA, 3km from the Study Area; • 33 proposed Natural Heritage Areas (NHAs); and • 13 Areas of Special Scientific Interest (ASSIs).

There are no Natural Heritage Areas (NHAs) within 15km of the Study Area. There are no European sites located within the Study Area. However, there are:

• Nine pNHAs located within or partially within the Study Area; • Three European sites downstream of the Study Area, i.e.: Dundalk Bay SAC, Dundalk Bay SPA and Stabannan- Braganstown SPA (the former two via the River Fane river catchment and the latter via the Glyde River catchment).

The most significant ecological receptors within the Study Area are those ecological sites which contain habitats that may correspond to priority Annex I habitat types, followed by those which contain habitats that may correspond to non-priority Annex I habitats, and proposed Natural Heritage Areas.

Additionally, the ecological sites identified, in particular those comprising of wetland complex with a suite of habitat types, are likely to support populations of a range of these ecological receptors.

5.3.1.2 Soils and Geology Key constraints within the Study Area in relation to Geology and Soils include:

• The Study Area largely consists of economic potential Crushed Rock reserves, economic Sand and Gravel deposits and mapped peat deposits and Karst Landforms; • There are a number of disused mines recorded within the study area and there are active exploration licences of mineral deposits;

118

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

• Interaction with mapped karst landforms, and potential loss of valuable geological features; • Very slight potential interaction with geological heritage sites; • Potential loss of economic deposits (crushed rock, and sand and gravel).

5.3.1.3 Hydrogeology Key constraints within the Study Area in relation to Hydrogeology include:

• The Study Area consists of areas of Extreme or High groundwater vulnerability and areas of Vulnerable and Regionally Important Aquifer; • The greatest potential impact occurs in the middle part of the route corridor, between approximately Ballymackney and Drumharriff, where there is a large area of Regionally Important (karstified) bedrock aquifer and another area of Regionally Important (karstified) aquifer between Lurganboys and Lisnafinelly; • Other areas of the study area have aquifers classified as Locally Important (moderately productive in local zones). • Potential interactions with areas of vulnerable aquifer. There are a number of small areas of highly or extremely vulnerable aquifer within the study area; • Removal of material during construction to give rises to an increase in aquifer vulnerability.

5.3.1.4 Hydrology Key constraints within the Study Area in relation to Hydrology include:

• The River Glyde is the largest watercourse in the study area. Other watercourses are the Lagan River, Bawn, Dee and Fane. The vast majority of the study area drains to Dundalk Bay through these watercourses. • The Glyde has a known history of flooding characterised by reaches with large and extensive floodplains. Where it is crossed by the proposed routes, the Glyde channel is typically 10m wide with its floodplains being up to 290m wide. • The Proules River is also crossed by the proposed route options and is a tributary of the Glyde. Where it is crossed by the proposed routes, the Proules River channel is typically 10m wide with its floodplains being up to 100m wide. • The other named watercourse that are crossed by the proposed route options include Rossdreenagh Stream and the Fane River. These have channel widths in range of 5m to 10m.

5.3.1.5 Landscape and Visual The Landscape Character Areas in the study area include:

• Drumlin and Upland Farmland of South Monaghan; • Carrickmacross Drumlin & Lowland Farmland; • Louth Drumlin & Lake Areas; and • Muirhevna Plain.

There are a number of significant landscape and visual receptors within the Study Area ranging from national, regional and local importance: • Historic demesnes (e.g. Knockabbey Castle and demesne, Monalty House and demesne, etc.); • Areas of Secondary Amenity Value Lough Naglack and SA15 – Lisanisk Lake and Natural Heritage Areas; • Designated Scenic Routes and Views (View of Slieve Gullion at Taplagh and Distant views of Lough Muckno & Slieve Gullion); • Settlements (Castleblayney, Carrickmacross and Ardee, Reaghstown and Broomfield) and other visual and tourist receptors (e.g. Nuremore Hotel & Country Club); • Recreational Trails (e.g. Monaghan Way)

119

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

5.3.2 Summary of Artificial Constraints

The following is a summary of the key Artificial Constraints that were identified during the Constraints Study. Further information on these constraints are contained in Volume 3 (Constraints Study Report).

5.3.2.1 Archaeological, Architectural and Cultural Heritage The key constraints in relation to Archaeological, Architectural and Cultural Heritage are:

• The overall Study Area contains 517 known archaeological heritage assets, all of which are listed on the Record of Monuments and Places and/ or Sites and Monuments Record; • There is one (1) National Monument within the Study Area – Mannan Castle in Donaghmoyne; • The Study Area contains a very high concentration of ringfort (rath) sites, numbering over 280; • The landscape within the Study Area also contains megalithic tombs, Neolithic houses, Bronze Age burial sites, an Iron Age enclosure and promontory fort, ecclesiastical sites, Anglo-Norman castle ruins and fortified houses, reflecting extensive and continual occupation of the location over thousands of years; • There are 145 identified architectural assets within the Study Area, comprising buildings/ structures on the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage and structures listed on the Record of Protected Structures (RPS; • These structures date from the seventeenth to mid-twentieth century; and vary from vernacular houses to religious buildings and graveyards, to country houses and gate lodges, and include historical places of industry and commerce such as mills and forges, as well as education such as schools and seminaries; • Potential impacts townland and county boundaries requiring the removal of roadside features including enclosing elements of fields such as drystone walls and gates; • Visual intrusion and obstruction on individual assets which will be assessed in more detail following the selection of a Preferred Route Corridor Option; include assessing the potential impact on views to and from archaeological sites, architectural heritage assets and demesne features along the Preferred Route Corridor Option; and • Potential impacts on currently unidentified or unrecorded archaeological remains, sites and architectural heritage assets and features.

5.3.2.2 Material Assets – Agriculture

The key constraints in relation to Agriculture are: • The land within the Study Area is primarily in agricultural use; • Tillage is the prevalent land use in north Co. Louth towards the border of Co. Monaghan; • Long term grassland pastures account for practically all of the land within the Study Area and land use is almost entirely grassland based. Farming practices are predominantly beef and or sheep related with some dairy farms located within the Study Area; and • The majority of farmers within the Study Area are involved in mixed livestock farming. Some equine farms are located within the Study Area.

5.3.2.3 Material Assets – Non-Agricultural

The key constraints in relation to Material Assets – Non-Agricultural are: • The Study Area is mainly rural in nature and the largest key communities include Ardee, the third largest town in County Louth, Carrickmacross and Castleblayney, the second and third largest towns in County Monaghan. • There are smaller settlements within the Study Area which include Reaghstown, Edmondstown, Essexford, Killanny, Donaghmoyne, Derryilan, Broomfield, Lisdoonan, and Annalittin.

120

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

• There are a number of constraints in terms of community assets in terms of schools, churches, local sports clubs, community centres and businesses within the study which would be sensitive to changes as a result of the proposed scheme. However careful routing should ensure that significant impacts are avoided and / or modifications can be included to mitigate impacts. • Key receptors include Castleross Nursing Home; Nuremore Hotel and Country Club, and St Patricks National School and Church in Broomfield.

5.3.2.4 Air Quality and Climate The key constraints in relation to Air Quality are:

• The major source of air pollution within the study area is road traffic, predominantly that from the existing N2. • There are four IPPC/IED licences issued by the EPA for facilities with emissions to the atmosphere; • The study area is categorised as Zone D (rural areas and towns with a population of less than 15,000) and is general of a good air quality standard; • The majority of air quality and climate impacts would be experienced during the operational phase. • The key constraint in relation to Air Quality and Climate are is resultant increases in the Overall Exposure to pollutants of sensitive receptors; residential properties within the 50m of the proposed alignment and ecologically sensitive sites within 200m from the proposed alignment. • There is potential to decrease pollution from traffic sources at low traffic speeds and during congestion with the improvement of the road infrastructure which should improve traffic flow.

5.3.2.5 Noise and Vibration The key constraints identified in relation to Noise and Vibration are:

• The baseline noise environment in the vicinity of existing noise sensitive locations adjacent to the existing N2 road which are largely dominated by road traffic movements along the existing N2. • Noise levels are measured in decibel levels measured over the day/evening/night and described in dB Lden. EPA noise maps indicate that road traffic noise levels are typically greater than 60dB Lden. within 50m from the edge of existing section of the N2. • Noise sensitive locations away from the existing N2 are currently influenced by distant traffic along the N2, local traffic movements, agricultural activity, and other noise sources typical of rural and semi-rural areas. • If the scheme proceeds, the majority of noise and vibration impacts would be experienced during the operational phase. Any impacts during construction phase would be temporary and localised. • The key constraint in relation to noise and vibration is combined noise levels above the design goal of 60dB Lden requiring mitigation. The level and type of mitigation that would be required varies depending on the route corridor.

5.3.2.6 Waste Any large infrastructure project has the potential to generate waste of different types. There will be a requirement to remove, dispose, process, and store waste material as part of the proposed scheme. Management of waste will need to be undertaken in accordance with the relevant European, national, regional and local legislation and guidelines. A full list and description of the relevant waste legislation and guidelines is provided in the Constraints Study Report in Volume 3.

Waste material will be primarily generated from two main sources:

• Surplus excavated materials resulting from earthwork excavations and general site clearance (including potential demolition works). Where excavated material is deemed unacceptable for re-use, it will be necessary to remove off-site for disposal or for processing, where a waste permit / certificate of registration from the applicable authority will be required.

121

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

• Wastes generated from general construction activities including waste oils from plant and machinery, general waste from site office accommodation, etc.

In terms of constraints and available existing waste facilities within the Study Area, Table 5.1 below shows the current EPA Authorised waste management facilities within County Monaghan and County Louth. Further background on these facilities and other background information on the constraint of Waste is provided in the Constraints Study Report in Volume 5.

Facility Name Licence Number Operational Local Authority Status Scotch corner landfill W0020-02 Active Monaghan County Council Mulleady’s Ltd W0169-01 Active Louth County Council Oxigen Environmental Limited W0144-01 Active Louth County Council Table 5.1: EPA Authorised Facilities within County Monaghan and County Louth

5.3.2.7 Engineering – Topography & Landscape The key constraints in relation to Topography and Landscape are:

• To the South, the Study Area commences just within the Louth Landscape Character Area (LCA) defined as the “Muirhevna Plain”. This area is predominantly flat with softly undulating feature. As the Study Area moves northwards this area quickly transitions to the Louth LCA of “Louth Drumlins and Lakes Area” - lowlands drumlins features are especially dominant to the western boundary of the Study Area. • To the east of the Study Area within this section, emerging drumlin formations are evident but are not as dominant a feature as it is to the West. The Glyde River which partially follows the Louth/Monaghan county border before crossing the Eastern section of this LCA, is the dominant river feature draining West to East. • Moving further North and across the county border of Louth and Monaghan, the Study Area enters the Monaghan LCA of “Carrickmacross Drumlin and Lowland Farmland”. This area extends from the county border to approximately 5kms North of Carrickmacross. As with the LCA directly South, the Western side of this section of Study Area is dominated by drumlin features ranging in height of approximately 20m -30m. • Moving northward, the Study Area enters the Monaghan LCA of “Drumlin and Upland Farmland of South Monaghan”. Within the Study Area this section extends from approximately 5km North of Carrickmacross to the townland of Castleblayney. This section of the Study Area is dominated by drumlin formations ranging in heights of approximately 20m-40m. Further information is contained in Volume 3 (Constraints Study Report).

5.3.2.8 Roads, Railways, Public Transport, Ports, Airports The key constraints in relation to Roads, Railways, Public Transport, Ports, Airports are:

• Within the Study Area, the national primary route of the N2 provides the strategic North-South connection which ultimately links Dublin to Northern Ireland and the North-West of the Country. The significance of the N2 is supported by the fact that the N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney forms part of the Trans-European Network (TEN-T) corridor. Further information on the Existing Road Network is contained under that heading below and also in Sections 1 to 3 of this Report and Volume 3 (Constraints Study Report). • There is no existing operational rail network within the Study Area, resulting in a sole reliance on road transport for private, commercial, public and freight vehicles. • There are no airports or ports within the Study Area. • There are currently a number of national public bus services, local community-based initiatives and private operators going through and operating within the Study Area, providing both strategic and local links. Further information on this is contained in Section 3.4 (Do-Something Alternative – Public Transport) of this Report.

122

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

• In terms of pedestrian and cycle facilities, in the urban centres, general pedestrian facilities can be found alongside most carriageways, however, in the rural areas, dedicated pedestrian facilities are focused around local amenities and housing estates. The existing N2 cross-section between Ardee and Castleblayney does not have formal dedicated facilities for pedestrians and cyclists. • There are a number of existing formal walking and cycling infrastructure and facilities within or close proximity to the Study Area which are listed in Volume 3 (Constraints Study Report) and also outlined in Section 9.9 (Physical Activity) of this Report.

5.3.2.9 Existing Road Network The key constraints in relation to the Existing Road Network are:

• The section of N2 within the Study Area is approximately 32km in length connecting the main urban centres of Ardee, Carrickmacross (bypass) and Castleblayney (bypass). The cross section is predominantly of a Type 1 single with a consistent speed limit of 100kph. • The existing operational and safety issues, which have been described in detail in Section 3.2 (Do-Nothing Option), and are summarised below:

a) Existing Road Layout – When compared with current design standards, there are a high number of direct accesses along the route, combined with inconsistent and/or deficient infrastructural provision of junction controls (i.e. no-dedicated right-turn lanes at some locations, some junctions having sight visibility splays that do not conform with current standards, etc.). Coupled with the high number of accesses, there are a number of existing bends on the existing N2, which are below desirable minimum standard. b) Traffic Capacity and Composition – In terms of the existing cross-section of the N2 and based on existing and future forecasted traffic flows, the current N2 is nearing capacity and is likely to fall below the required Level of Service for a national road in the future. In addition, the percentage of Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) using the existing road is considerably higher than typical averages on the National and National Secondary Road Network. c) Overtaking Opportunities – The existing N2 is below current design standards with respect to overtaking opportunities. A lack of safe overtaking opportunities on a single carriageway is likely to lead to driver frustration and may lead to unsafe overtaking manoeuvres d) Vulnerable Road Users – The existing N2 does not have formal dedicated facilities for pedestrian and cyclists, where formal separation distances with the live trafficked carriageway and formal crossing facilities with accesses/junctions are not provided. e) Collision Occurrence – The percentage of fatal collisions is particularly high when compared with the national average. There are a number of clusters of collisions which are generally in the vicinity of junctions or straight sections, with the full length of the route collectively experiencing a high frequency of collisions. The existing N2 route contains a number of sections which are vulnerable to being ‘Above the TII Expected Collision Rate’ and ‘Twice Above the TII Expected Collision Rate’. f) Journey Times and Journey Reliability – The average existing journey times for the entire section of the N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney, yield an average speed of 80.5 Kph, which is considerably less than the National Planning Framework’s (NPF’s) 2040 target of 90kph for Inter-Urban Roads. With the under-performance of journey times, journey reliability is also considered to be negatively affected on this existing section of the N2. g) Excessive Traffic Speeds on the Existing Road Infrastructure – Separate from the operational issue of journey times and reliability, observed excessive speeds have been recorded at particular locations on the existing N2 section. Measured 85th percentile speeds at these sites were above the posted speed limit. High and excessive speeds with the existing issues identified above (i.e. high number of accesses, lack of overtaking opportunities, growing traffic demand, etc.) presents a safety issue.

• Taking account of the various characteristics of the existing N2 within the Study Area detailed above, individually, and more importantly combined, it can be seen that the standard provided by this section of the N2 corridor is deficient to meet the expected future demands in a safe and efficient manner.

123

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

• With the estimated increase in traffic levels for future years, it is expected that the Level of Service (LOS) will breach the minimum standard of D stipulated by TII for the current Type 1 single cross section. This combined with the already high and expected increase in the HGV composition of the traffic flow, the occurrence of slow moving agricultural vehicles in a rural setting ,the lack of an adequate number and combined overtaking opportunities, the high levels of permeability in relation to direct accesses, the allowance of unrestricted right turn movements and the identified deficiencies in existing highway geometry, will lead to an increased risk to road users. This increase in traffic will ultimately exacerbate these already identified safety issues along this section of the N2 and will consequently lead to an increased risk of collisions. • These issues, if left unaddressed, will continue to form a constraint on the economic, social and culture potential of the immediate area and areas further to the North West. This will continue to constrain the aspirations for the region as detailed in the National Strategic Outcomes and the National Policy Objectives of the National Planning Framework 2040. Consequently, this constraint will negatively impact the relevant land-use and transport objectives within the Regional Spatial and Economic Strategy for the East and Midland Region (Louth), Regional Spatial and Economic Strategy for the Northern and Western Region (Monaghan), and the relevant County Development Plans. Further details of the policy context can be obtained in Section 2.2 of this Report.

5.3.2.10 Utilities

The key constraints in relation to Utilities are: • Utility information within the Study Area is presented in Figures 10.3 to 10.6 contained in Volume 2 Part B (Constraints & Environmental Drawings). • In relation to the ESB network, there is a local ESB Network transmission substation located just North of Louth Village. Due to the substations proximity to the Study Area boundary there are numerous high voltage (HV) and Medium voltage (MV) overhead line routes (OHL) converging/diverging from this location. • In relation to Gas Networks Ireland there is very little distribution and transmission gas mains with the vast majority confined to the urban areas of Ardee, Carrickmacross and Castleblayney. There are however two medium pressure transmission gas mains to the West of the Study Area. These transmission mains would be considered a constraint due to their strategic nature coupled together with the significant cost and lead in time required to carry out any modifications deemed necessary. • Irish Water potable and sewer water together with various group water schemes are shown on Figure 10.3 contained in Volume 2 Part B (Constraints & Environmental Drawings). Within the Louth County Council area of the Study Area the potable distribution water mains are largely managed by Irish Water. Due to the dispersed nature of the development patterns within this section of the Study Area the coverage by potable water mains is extensive and follows the road network closely. As the Study Area enters Monaghan and due to the rural nature of this location, the potable water supply is dominated by various group water schemes (GWS). The GWS located within the Study Area are listed in Volume 3 – Constraints Study Report. In addition, within the Study Area there are two potable water treatment plants also listed in the Constraints Study Report. Regarding waste water collection systems these are generally confined to the urban areas of Ardee, Carrickmacross and Castleblayney. One waste water treatment plant is located within the Study Area namely Coolreagh Waste Water Treatment Plant which services a small number of local rural housing. To the east of Carrickmacross at the R179/N2 overbridge an existing pumped waster main cross the N2. • The various telecommunication fibre networks within the Study Area are shown on Figure 10.5 contained in Volume 2 Part B. To the south of the Study Area within the Louth County Council area there is one Open Eir Line running from Ardee to Edmondstown. Also, a small section of Virgin fibre line is running locally outside Ardee. Further north at the centre of the Study Area an Open Eir line runs in an east-west direction from Dundalk to Carrickmacross and then onwards to the west to Baillibourgh. Also, at Carrickmacross a second Open Eir line runs north to Castleblayney.

124

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Lastly, an ESB telecom fibre cable is combined on the existing 110 kV lines which run east approximately 2km north of Carrickmacross. Within the Study Area boundary there are several telecommunication masts used by telecommunication companies such as mobile phones service providers. Comreg, the Irish communication regulator, provides access to mapped data of mast locations throughout the country. In total, there are 16 identified mast structures within the Study Area. The majority are located adjacent to the existing N2 corridor.

5.3.3 Summary of External Parameters

The following is a summary of the key External Parameters Constraints that were identified during the Constraints Study. Further information on these constraints are contained in Volume 3 (Constraints Study Report).

5.3.3.1 Funding and Scope • In terms of funding, it has been assumed at this initial stage that the Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme will be 100% Irish Exchequer funded. EU grants or developer contributions have not been identified at this stage. • The exact location of the start and end points of the proposed N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme will be determined during the later stages of the planning and design of the Scheme. For the purposes of the option comparative assessment, a starting point of approximately 600m north of the Carrickmacross Road Roundabout (N2/N233/R171) on the existing N2 in the Townlands of Mullanstown and Glebe was selected. This is the location of the connection point between the existing N2 and the proposed N52 Ardee Bypass Scheme (current design location). The existing N2/N53 roundabout at the Southern end of the Castleblayney Bypass was chosen for the end point. • The proposed scheme is not dependent on the delivery of any other scheme. It is intended that the delivery of the scheme will be such that its implementation can be carried out without dependency on any other scheme.

5.3.3.2 Construction Phasing • The proposed N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme is being delivered in accordance to TII’s PMGs and PAGs. TII PMGs provide a framework for a phased approach to the management, development and delivery of National Road and Public Transport Capital Projects in Ireland. The PMG’s divide the evolution and progression of a Project into an eight-phase process (Phase 0 to Phase 7 inclusive)

• The proposed scheme is currently at TII PMG Phase 2 (Option Selection). With reference to Section 4.2.6 (Future Year Projections) of this Report and in terms of immediate subsequent TII PMG Phases (i.e. Phase 3 – Design and Environmental Evaluation and Phase 4 – Statutory Processes), and subject to necessary approvals, it is currently envisaged as part of Phase 4 that the planning submission and Statutory Orders for the proposed scheme would be submitted in 2022. In terms of the latter construction and implementation phases (TII PMG Phases 5 – 7), the programme for these phases are subject to necessary approvals and are yet to be fully determined. For purposes of the traffic modelling assessment, the Phase 2 cost estimation and scheme appraisal, a mid-construction date of 2026 and Opening Year of 2027 has been initially identified. As part of TII PMG Phase 3 (Design and Environmental Evaluation), the overall programme of the proposed scheme, along with the dates of mid-construction and the Opening Year will be reviewed again, and updated, if required.

125

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

• In relation to phasing and methodology of the construction works, potential implementation measures will be identified and assessed as part of TII PMG Phase 3 (Design and Evaluation), where potential environmental impacts will be further assessed, and mitigation requirements identified. The exact phasing and methodology of the construction will be identified and developed by the Contractor in accordance with statutory requirements in the latter construction and implementation phases. At this initial stage of the scheme development, and in the context of the Preferred Route Corridor Option, it is envisaged that elements of the construction works will interface with existing live traffic, requiring temporary traffic management (including temporary road diversions) and temporary road works.

5.3.3.3 Required Levels of Service • As outlined in Section 3.2 (Do-Nothing Option) of this Report, many parts of the existing N2 Ardee to Castleblayney traffic volumes are approaching the limit advised by TII in their design standard Rural Road Link Design (DN-GEO-03031) for a minimum Level of Service “D”. The Traffic Model developed for the assessment of the N2 Castleblayney to Ardee as outlined in Chapter 4 (Traffic Assessment and Option Cross-Section) of this Report indicates that in Do Minimum Design Year scenario 2042, this Level of service D will be breached. This will lead to increased and unreliable journey times through increased congestions. It will also lead to a greater risk to road users leading to increased collisions and collision severity. Such a scenario would not meet a number of the Scheme Objectives, namely the Safety, Accessibility & Social Inclusion, and the Integration Scheme Objectives (See Section 1. 5 of this Report). • Therefore, as outlined in TII’s standard for Rural Road Link Design (DN-GEO-03031) the minimum acceptable LOS expected on the National Road network is “D” and shall be the minimum aim for the proposed scheme within the forecasted Design Year of 2042.

5.3.3.4 Technical Standards • The proposed scheme will be developed in accordance with the TII Standards and Publications, which typically provide design standards for all road and ancillary design elements. The proposed scheme will follow the process as set down by TII in its Project Management Guidelines (PE-PMG-02041) and Project Manager's Manual for Major National Road Projects (PE-PMG-02042) together with the latest TII Project Appraisal Guidelines. The design will be in accordance with the requirements of the TII Design Standards and the Manual of Contract Documents for Road Works (TII MCDRW). • Consultation will also be undertaken with the relevant local authorities to ensure any specific criteria in relation to their requirements are also considered particularly in the context of side roads, local access and signage requirements.

5.3.3.5 Access Control

Under Section 28 of the Planning and Development Act 2000-2010 the Department of Environment Community and Local Government published Guidelines on the Spatial Planning and National Road 2012. One of key principals stated in the above document is;

“Proper planning is central to ensuring road safety: The creation of new accesses to and intensification of existing accesses to national roads gives rise to the generation of additional turning movements that introduce additional safety risks to road users. Therefore, from a road safety perspective, planning authorities, the NRA, road authorities and the Road Safety Authority must guard against a proliferation of roadside developments accessing national roads to which speed limits greater than 50-60 kmh apply as part of the overall effort to reduce road fatalities and injuries”

As identified in Section 5.3.2.9 above, the existing N2 carriageway has a significant number of potential conflict areas associated with the high number of existing private and commercial accesses and side road junctions, which interface with the existing N2 carriageway.

126

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

5.3.3.6 Policy Documents

The European, national, regional and local policy documents relevant to the N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme have been identified and outlined in Section 2.2 (Development Policy) of this Report. The scheme has been identified as being compatible with the identified documents.

5.3.3.7 Procedural & Legal Requirements There is a significant amount of Irish and EU legislation that must be complied with when planning and developing new road schemes. These must be considered at the inception of a project and continually referred to throughout the project lifetime to ensure that the relevant procedural and legal constraints are addressed at the appropriate time by the appropriate means. Such legislation includes, but not limited to, the following:

• Planning and Development Act 2000 as amended • Roads Traffic Act, 2016 • Roads Regulations, 1994. • Housing Act, 1966 (as amended) • Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 • Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Construction Regulations 2013 (SI No 291 of 2013) • Section 50 of the 1945 Arterial Drainage Act In addition to the above, relevant environment legislation is listed within in Chapter 2 (Environmental Legislative Constraints) of Volume 3 (Constraints Study Report).

Guidance on the procedural and phased approached in relation to the appraisal, planning and design development of the proposed scheme is outlined in the TII’s Project Management Guidelines (PE-PMG-02041), the Project Appraisal Guidelines for National Roads and the Project Manager's Manual for Major National Road Projects (PE- PMG-02042).

127

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

6. Non-Statutory Public Consultations

6.1 Introduction As outlined in Section 1. 4 (Purpose of the Option Selection Report), Non-Statutory Public Consultation forms a key part of TII’s Phase 2 (Option Selection) process, where a number of consultations are undertaken to generate awareness and initiate participation of the public and key stakeholders, and to obtain feedback for consideration by the Project Team.

In the case of the N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme, three Non-Statutory Public Consultations were undertaken during the Phase 2 process. A brief summary of these three consultations is provided in the Sections below, whilst a detailed description of the process and feedback received is provided in three separate Post- Consultation Reports, which are provided in Volume 7 (Non-Statutory Post Consultation Reports).

In addition to summaries of the three public consultations, this chapter provides a general overview of the public consultation process to date and into the future, while a summary list of the Statutory Bodies who were contacted as part of this process is provided at the end of the Chapter.

6.2 General Overview

In line with the Aarhus Convention and TII’s PMM, and with reference to Figure 6.1 below, a Public Consultation Roadmap was prepared at the start of the project, which set out the three stages of non-statutory public consultation, key activities (‘Studies & Research’) and deliverables (‘Publications & Milestones’) during the TII Phase 2 Option Selection Process, against a general timeline. In addition, it covers the key aspects of TII Phases 3 (Design and Evaluation) and 4 (Statutory Process).

Figure 6.1: Public Consultation Roadmap for N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme

128

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

As per Figure 6.1 above, and with reference to the ‘Public Participation’ Column, it is noted that the following Non- Statutory Public Consultations were undertaken; • Public Consultation 1 – Study Area & Constraints – June & July 2019 • Public Consultation 2 – Route Corridor Options (i.e. Options Progressing to Stage 2) – November & December 2019 • Public Consultation 3 – Emerging Preferred Corridor Option –August – October 2020

A brief summary of these consultations is provided in the sections below.

It is noted that the Public Consultation Roadmap formed a key feature of each public consultation, where it was included in the consultation documentation (including Brochures) and displayed at each of the public consultation events.

6.3 Non-Statutory Public Consultation 1 – Study Area & Constraints (June & July 2019)

In order to generate awareness and initiate the participation of the public and key stakeholders at an early stage in the Options Selection Process, a non-statutory public consultation was held in June and July 2019 in advance of the identification, development and assessment of the options/alternatives. Outside of the objective of generating general awareness of the proposed scheme, and of the Option Selection Process, the purpose of the consultation was to inform the public and key stakeholders of the Study Area and provide an opportunity to give feedback on the Study Area and existing constraints within this area.

A number of information and promotional channels were used to provide information on the proposed scheme, promote the public consultation events and facilitate feedback from the public. These channels are listed below and described in further detail in the Post-Consultation Report for Public Consultation (PC) 1 in Part A of Volume 7;

• Public Consultation Events:

Recorded Location Date Attendance Castleblayney (The Glencarn Hotel) 25th June 2019 74 Carrickmacross (The Nuremore Hotel) 26th June 2019 93 Ardee (Ardee Parish Centre) 27th June 2019 42 Total: 209 Table 6.1: Public Consultation 1 Events • Project Website (www.N2monaghanlouth.ie); • Facilitation of one-to-one meetings with the Project Team at the N2 Project Office in Monaghan Town. • Information Brochures – Made available at the events, the N2 Project Office, County Council/Civic Offices, and digital copies on the N2 Project Website. • Maps - Displayed at events, A3 sized copy of the Study Area included in the Information Brochure, and all maps/drawings made available on the Project Website. • Feedback Forms – Made available at the events and the N2 Project Office, and on the Project Website. • Dedicated Project Phoneline and e-mail to receive feedback and answer queries. • Promotional tools included newspaper adverts, local flyers, press releases, radio announcements, various online and social media channels, and road signage.

With reference to the list above, and in order to actively encourage feedback, a predefined feedback form was made available to the public and key stakeholders. The feedback, as well as requesting contact details, posed three questions: • Do you live in the Study Area? • If you live/ have property in the Study Area is it farm/agricultural land, residential, commercial or other?

129

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

• If you have any information in relation to the Study Area and Key constraints that you want the project team to be aware of when investigating route options, please let us know.

The consultation period ran for a six-week period from 11th June 2019 until 25th July 2019. A total of 28 formal submissions were received during the public consultation period. Following receipt of the submissions, and as part of the preparation of the associated Post-Consultation Report, the Project Team reviewed the submissions and categorised the feedback under a number of themes. A list of the themes is provided below, and a further description of these along with relevant statistics are provided in the PC1 Post-Consultation Report: • Local Issues • Environment Impact • Commercial Premises/Property and Land Impacts/CPOs • Planning • Project Need • Other

The feedback received from this first public consultation process was used by the N2 Project Team to further define the constraints and consequently inform the identification and development of the Stage 1 options/alternatives.

6.4 Non-Statutory Public Consultation 2 – Route Corridor Options (November & December 2019)

With reference to Chapter 7 (Stage 1 – Preliminary Options Assessment) of this Report and following the identification of the Route Corridor Options to progress to Stage 2 (Project Appraisal Matrix) of the Option Selection Process, a Non-Statutory Public Consultation was undertaken. The purpose of this consultation was to obtain feedback from the public and key stakeholders on these Stage 2 Route Corridor Options, for consideration by the Project Team, in advance of undertaking the Stage 2 Appraisal Process.

As per Public Consultation (PC) 1, the same information and promotional channels were used to provide information on the proposed scheme, promote the public consultation events and facilitate feedback from the public. Table 6.2 provides details of the public consultation events and the recorded attendance.

Recorded Location Date Attendance Castleblayney (The Glencarn Hotel) 6th November 2019 120 Carrickmacross (The Nuremore Hotel) 5th November 2019 157 Ardee (Ardee Parish Centre) 7th November 2019 193 Total: 470 Table 6.2: Public Consultation 2 Events

As per PC1, the Project Team also facilitated one-to-one meetings with the public and key stakeholders, where approximately 73 individual meetings where held at the N2 Project Office during the consultation period.

Similar to PC1, and in order to actively encourage feedback, a predefined feedback form was made available to the public and key stakeholders. The feedback form, as well as requesting contact details, posed three questions: • Do you live or have property/land on or adjacent to one of the proposed Route Corridor Options? • In your opinion, how important in relation to this project are the following aspects? Rank 1 – 10 in order of importance with 1 being most important and 10 being the least important. Thereafter, ten items were provided for selection, ranging from ‘Safety improvements’ to ‘Impact on land and property’ • If you have specific information or opinion relating to the proposed Route Corridor Options, or if you would like to make any other comments about the proposed scheme, please let us know.

130

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

The consultation period ran for a six-week period from 5th November 2019 until 19th December 2019. A total of 934 formal submissions were received during the public consultation period. Following receipt of the submissions, and as part of the preparation of the associated Post-Consultation Report, the Project Team reviewed the submissions and categorised the feedback under a number of themes. A list of the themes is provided below; • Local Issues • Suggested Improvements to the Existing N2 • Environment • Connectivity and Engineering Aspects • Safety • Quality of Life • Planning & Project Need • Consultation Process

Further details and analysis of the themes listed above are provided in the PC2 Post-Consultation Report, along with relevant statistics, and feedback from the N2 Project Team against each of these themes.

The feedback received from this second public consultation process, including information on existing constraints (ecology sites, etc.), was considered by the N2 Project Team in further developing the Stage 2 Route Corridor Options and in advance of undertaking the Stage 2 Appraisal process.

6.5 Non-Statutory Public Consultation 3 – Route Corridor Options (August to October 2020)

With reference to Chapter 10 (Stage 3 – Preferred Option) of this Report and following the identification of an Emerging Preferred Route Corridor (Option A: Yellow), a Non-Statutory Public Consultation was undertaken. The purpose of this consultation was to obtain feedback from the public and key stakeholders on the Emerging Preferred Route Corridor, in advance of finalising the Emerging Preferred Route Corridor (Option A: Yellow) as the Preferred Route Corridor (‘Preferred Option’). In response to COVID-19 restrictions at the time of the consultation (25th August 2020 to 5th October 2020), an Online Pubic Consultation Experience was made available on the Project Website (www.N2MonaghanLouth.ie), to allow stakeholders and the general public to view maps and project information, and to submit their feedback in a safe and accessible environment. A screenshot of the virtual room as part of the Online Public Consultation Experience is shown in Figure 6.2 below.

131

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Fig 6.2: Online Public Consultation Experience - One aspect view within the virtual room showing the information boards labeled by number and navigational buttons to move around the room.

In addition, whilst recognising that online information could not be accessed by everyone, a range of other options were also made available to allow people to speak directly with the Project Team. These included the facilitation of one to one meetings in a COVID-19 compliant environment at venues in Monaghan Town and Carrickmacross, along with the facilitation of one to one meetings via telephone and video conferencing technologies (such as Microsoft Teams). Statistics on the number of one to one meetings which were undertaken during the six week consultation period (25th August 2020 to 5th October 2020) is provided in Table 6.3 below.

Type of One to One Date Venue Number of Meetings Meeting Phone Call/ Video 24th August to 11th Phone line or Microsoft Teams 94 Call Meeting September 2020 Face-to-Face 14th to 23rd The Four Seasons Hotel, Monaghan 29 Meeting September 2020 Face-to-Face 24th September to 2nd The Nuremore Hotel, Carrickmacross 132 Meeting October 2020 Total: 255 Table 6.3: Public Consultation 3 – Number of One to One Meetings

As per Table 6.3 above, a total of 255 one to one meetings were undertaken during the consultation period for the N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme, when including both face-to-face meetings at the hotel venues, and telephone/video conferencing meetings.

In addition to the information and promotional channels used on the previous two Non-Statutory Public Consultations, a number of additional methods were used for Public Consultation 3. A tailored information pack for each landowner located within the 400m corridor of the Emerging Preferred Route Corridor was posted to the owner. Each landowner information pack contained hard copies of the public consultation documentation, including the brochure, a general location map, feedback form and specific layout plans for each landowner.

132

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

The same information was available to download from the Project Website. Over 600 information packs were delivered to registered landowners within the Emerging Preferred Route Corridor in advance of the public consultation. In addition to the tailored information packs, hard copies of separate project information flyers were delivered to approximately 2,500 properties resting within all of the previously identified corridors.

Similar to previous two public consultations, and in order to actively encourage feedback, a predefined feedback form was made available to the public and key stakeholders. The feedback, as well as requesting contact details, posed two questions:

• ‘Do you own, rent or occupy property on or adjacent to the Emerging Preferred Route Corridor? Yes/No’ • ‘If you have specific information or opinion relating to the Emerging Preferred Route Corridor, or if you would like to make any other comments about the proposed scheme, please let us know’

As previously stated, the consultation period ran for a six-week period from 25th August 2020 to 5th October 2020. A total of 169 formal submissions were received during the consultation period. Following receipt of the submissions, and as part of the preparation of the associated Post-Consultation Report, the Project Team reviewed the submissions and categorised the feedback under a number of themes. A list of the themes is provided below; • Future Scheme Development and Design Considerations • Environmental Impacts • Land and Property Impacts • Project Need • Population & Economy • Project Planning • Public Consultation Process

Further details and analysis of the themes listed above are provided in the PC3 Post-Consultation Report, along with relevant statistics, and feedback from the N2 Project Team against each of these themes.

The feedback received from this third public consultation process was considered by the N2 Project Team in advance of finalising the Emerging Preferred Route Corridor (Option A: Yellow), as the Preferred Route Corridor (‘Preferred Option’). Further details on identification of the Emerging Preferred Route Corridor, and the recommendation of the Preferred Option is provided in Chapter 10 (Stage 3 – Preferred Option) of this Report.

133

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

6.6 Consultation with Statutory Bodies

In addition to non-statutory stakeholders, the N2 Project Team contacted and provided advance notification and information pertaining to the non-statutory public consultation events to the Prescribed Bodies listed in Table 6.4.

Separately, it is noted that pre-consultation briefings were undertaken with the Elected Representatives in Counties Monaghan and Louth in advance of all three public consultation events.

Prescribed Bodies Prescribed Bodies Office of Public Works Monaghan County Council Louth County Council Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government Minister for Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht – Heritage Council Development Applications Unit (DAU- Built Heritage and Natural Heritage) An Taisce Bord Fáilte Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII) National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) Irish Water Department for Infrastructure (DFI) - Planning Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Northern Ireland Environment Agency - Planning Affairs Response Team Department for Communities - Historic Environment Armagh, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council Division Fermanagh District Council Mid-Ulster District Council Public Health Agency Department for Infrastructure - Rivers Agency Department for Infrastructure (Roads) - Craigavon & PSNI Omagh offices Table 6.4: Non-Exhaustive List of Prescribed Bodies for the N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme

134

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

7. General Overview of the Three Stage Option Selection Process

7.1 General Overview

As outlined in Section 1.4 (Purpose of Option Selection Report), following the identification of existing constraints within the Study Area (as documented in Chapter 5), and consideration of alternatives and options (as documented in Chapter 3), the Do-Something Option– Feasible Route Corridor Option was identified for progression to the three stage Option Selection Process.

As per TII’s PMGs, PMM, and PAG Unit 4.0 – Consideration of Alternatives and Options (October 2016), the Option Selection Process is split into three distinct stages, as shown in Figure 7.1 below, with each stage requiring a more detailed level of assessment through this structured and systematic appraisal approach.

Figure 7.1: Stages of TII’s Phase 2 Option Selection Process (Excerpt from TII PAG Unit 4.0)

With reference to Section 1.4 and Chapter 6 (Non-Statutory Public Consultations) of this Report, Non-Statutory Public Consultation forms a key part of TII’s Phase 2 (Option Selection) process, where a number of consultations are undertaken to generate awareness / participation, and to obtain feedback to inform the three stage process above.

A summary of the main activities and the deliverables for each stage is provided below;

• Stage 1 – Preliminary Options Assessment: Develop a number of Feasible Route Corridor Options. Undertake a comparative assessment of the potential impacts of the options in achieving the Scheme Objectives against the three Stage 1 Main Criteria of: - Engineering, - Environment - Economy. This comparative assessment is to be undertaken in accordance with the Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) approach as outlined in TII’s PAG Unit 7.0: Multi Criteria Analysis (October 2016). This will result in a reduced number of options (‘Minimum of 4, ‘Do-Nothing or Do-Minimum, and at least three Do-Something Options’) being taken forward to Stage 2 (Project Appraisal Matrix). As described in Chapter 6, for this proposed scheme, following completion of a non-statutory public consultation on the Study Area and Constraints in advance of Stage 1, a subsequent non-statutory public consultation was undertaken on the shortlisted options to seek feedback from the public and stakeholders prior to proceeding to Stage 2 (Project Appraisal Matrix).

135

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

• Stage 2 – Project Appraisal Matrix: The options selected for progression from Stage 1 are to be further developed and evaluated by undertaking a full Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) and MCA of the potential impacts of these options in achieving the Scheme Objectives against the six Stage 2 Main Criteria of: • Economy • Safety • Environment, • Accessibility & Social Inclusion • Integration • Physical Activity

Following completion of the Stage 2 Appraisal, an Emerging Preferred Option is identified.

As described in Chapter 6, for this proposed scheme, a non-statutory public consultation was undertaken on the emerging preferred option to seek feedback from the public and stakeholders prior to completing Stage 3 (Project Appraisal Matrix).

• Stage 3 – Preferred Option: Following identification of the Emerging Preferred Option, a Project Appraisal Balance Sheet (PABs) is undertaken to summarise the benefits and impacts associated with this option. The rationale for the selection of the Preferred Option is outlined within the Option Selection Report. Upon publication of the Option Selection Report, a Public Display is undertaken to inform the public and stakeholders of the Preferred Option.

All economic assessments throughout the three stages listed above will be undertaken in accordance with TII’s Cost Management Manual (May 2010) and the PAGs. It is noted that the TII PMG Phase 2 appraisal process aligns with the requirements of the DTTaS’ Common Appraisal Framework (CAF, March 2016).

7.2 General Options Development and Appraisal Methodology The description of the specific development of the Route Corridor Options, appraisal methodology and results for each of the three Stages is outlined in the subsequent Chapters 8 to 10 of this Report. The general overarching description of the option development and appraisal methodology applied to the three stage process is provided in the sections below.

7.2.1 General Options Development In considering, developing and assessing the options/alternatives, the following principles of TII’s PAG Unit: 4.0, as summarised in the TII’s PMM were applied to N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme:

1) ‘Options shall respond to the Project objectives. 2) Options shall be significantly different, insofar as possible. 3) Options shall be designed with environmental considerations in mind from the start. 4) An incremental approach to the development of options is to be adopted. 5) Management options shall be examined as part of the assessment of alternatives. 6) Packages of measures shall be examined as part of the assessment of options.’

As stated in Section 7.1 above and documented in Chapter 4 (Consideration of Alternatives and Options), the Do- Nothing Option, Do-Minimum Option, Do-Something Alternative – Public Transport and Do-Something Option– Traffic Management were defined and assessed.

136

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

As part of the Stage 1 Assessment, and as documented in the Phase 2 Stage 1 Assessment Working Paper Report (Volume 3), it was determined that all of these options/alternatives, whether in combination or alone, did not meet the Scheme Objectives, and were discounted as solutions. Notwithstanding this, these options/alternatives were further reviewed as part of the Stage 2 appraisal process, with the same conclusion arrived at, as outlined in Chapter 3 (Consideration of Alternatives and Options) of this Report. For the sole purposes of comparative analysis of the Stage 2 options against a base case, the Do-Nothing Option and/or Do-Minimum Option was brought forward to Stage 2.

As previously stated, a description of the specific development of the Route Corridor Options for Stage 1 and Stage 2 is provided in Chapters 8 and 9 respectively. In general terms, a number of Feasible Route Corridor Options were identified and developed within the Study Area taking cognisance of the Scheme Objectives, TII Design Standards (including geometric), and the existing constraints (Natural, Artificial and External), which were identified through the Constraints Study.

The corridors, which were developed are typically 400m in width. Route corridors do not represent the actual width of a proposed road scheme or the lands to be acquired. The corridors give an indication of the area within which it is intended to develop a road alignment. As part of the lifecycle of the development of a proposed scheme, an indicative draft working road alignment was created for each option to inform the appraisal process. It is highlighted that this alignment was developed for these purposes alone and is subject to change. The proposed alignment will be further developed and confirmed as part of subsequent TII’s Phase 3 (Design and Environmental Evaluation) and Phase 4 (Statutory Processes). In relation to the start and end points of the proposed N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme, as stated in Section 1.2 (Project Description), the exact locations are still to be determined and confirmed. The exact locations will be identified as part of TII’s Phases 3 and 4. For the purpose of the Option Selection Process, and to allow a consistent comparison of the Route Corridor Options, it was necessary to identify common start and ends for all of the Route Corridor Options. Therefore, a starting point of approximately 600m north of the Carrickmacross Road Roundabout (N2/N233/R171) on the existing N2 in the Townlands of Mullanstown and Glebe was selected. This is the location of the connection point between the existing N2 and the proposed N52 Ardee Bypass Scheme (current design location). The existing N2/N53 roundabout at the Southern end of the N2 Castleblayney Bypass was chosen for the Northern tie-in point.

Further details on the start and end points, and the N52 Ardee Bypass is outlined in Section 8.2 of Chapter 8 (Stage 1 Preliminary Options Assessment) further below.

7.2.2 General Appraisal Methodology Following the development of the Stage 1 Route Corridor Options, and with reference to TII’s PMM, these options were assessed in accordance with TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 – Multi Criteria Analysis PE-PAG-02031 (October 2016).

Using the defined TII Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) approach, the impacts of the Stage 1 Route Corridor Options were qualitatively and/or quantitively assessed against a set of a ‘Headline’ or Main Criteria (Engineering, Environment, and Economy). Equal weighting was given to each of the three Main Criteria.

Below each of these Main Criteria, and as per TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 and the PMM, a list of Sub-Criteria was defined for each of the Main Criteria, in order to provide a more detailed basis for the assessment. In the case of Engineering; an example of a Stage 1 Sub-Criterion is ‘Traffic Assessment’. Further information on the Stages 1 and 2 Sub-Criteria is provided in Chapters 8 and 9, respectively.

As part of the MCA approach, a performance matrix is used as a tool to determine and show how each option performs against the set of Main Criteria and Sub-Criteria. As part of the performance matrix and with reference to Table 7.1 below, an Impact Scoring System is established to assign an impact level (‘Highly Positive’ to ‘Highly Negative’) to a particular option against the defined Sub-Criteria, following the completion of a quantitative or qualitative assessment of these Sub-Criteria.

137

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

As per TII PAG Unit 7.0, and Table 7.1 below, each impact level is then assigned a Performance Score based on a seven-point scale (i.e. ‘Highly Positive’ Impact = Performance Score of 7, ‘‘Highly Negative’ Impact = Performance Score of 1). The appropriateness of adopting a quantitative or qualitative assessment for a particular Criteria or Sub- Criteria is dependent on the level of data and investigation available, and design undertaken for that particular Criteria or Sub-Criteria at the time of the assessment.

In addition, it is noted that the Route Corridor Options were generally assessed on a 400m wide corridor basis. However, in some cases, where the indicative working alignment was deemed to better inform the impact against a particular criterion (i.e. Earthworks), the indicative working alignment formed the basis of the assessment.

Performance Impact Level Score Major or highly positive 7 Moderately positive 6 Minor or slightly positive 5 Not significant or neutral 4 Minor or slightly negative 3 Moderately negative 2 Major or highly negative. 1 Table 7.1: TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 – Impact Scoring System

As per TII’s PAG Unit 7.0, upon allocation of the Performance Scores for each individual Sub-Criteria, , the Performance Scores of these Sub-Criteria for each option were added together to provide a total score for each of Main Criteria (Engineering, Environment, Economics, in the case of Stage 1). Thereafter, the total score of each of the Main Criteria (expressed as marks out of 100) was added together to provide an overall/total Performance Score for each option (expressed as marks out of 300, in the case of Stage 1). Following which, the options were ranked based on their overall/total Performance Scores, and hence their overall impact and benefit.

Upon completion of the ranking, the Options which had the highest Performance Scores, and hence the highest overall benefit and lowest overall impact, were recommended for progression to the Stage 2 appraisal process. Whilst the options which had lower Performance Scores, and hence least benefit and highest impact, were not assessed further and removed from the Option Selection Process in advance of Stage 2. Further details on the ranking of the Stage 1 Options are provided in Chapter 8 of this Report.

For Stage 2, the same overarching MCA approach as defined in TII PAG Unit 7.0 was employed. However, a more detailed evaluation of the impacts of the Route Corridor Options was undertaken against a different set of defined Main Criteria (i.e. Economy, Safety, Environment, Accessibility & Social Inclusion, Integration, Physical Activity) and Sub-Criteria. Further details on the Stage 2 Main Criteria and Sub-Criteria is provided in Chapter 9 (Project Appraisal Matrix) of this Report.

As per the Stage 1 assessment, the six Stage 2 Main Criteria were allocated equal weighting. Also, similar to the Stage 1 assessment, an overall/total Performance Score for each option against each of the Main Criteria was expressed as marks out of 100. Thereafter, the overall/total Performance Scores against each of the six Main Criteria were added together to provide an overall/total Performance Score for each option, expressed as marks out of 600. Following which, the options were ranked based on their overall/total Performance Scores, and hence their overall benefit and impact.

138

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Upon completion of the ranking, the option with the highest Performance Score, and hence the highest overall benefit and lowest overall impact, was identified as the Emerging Preferred Route Corridor Option. Further details on the ranking of the Stage 2 Options is provided in Chapter 9 of this Report.

In relation to Stage 3 (Preferred Option), and as stated in Section 7.1 above, following the identification of the Emerging Preferred Route Corridor Option, a Project Appraisal Balance Sheet (PABs), was prepared to assess and summarise the benefits and impacts of this option in accordance with TII PAG Unit 7.1 – Project Appraisal Balance Sheet (October 2016). The PABS is a standardised Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, which is applicable to all proposed National Road Schemes in Ireland, where the impacts of Preferred Option against the headings of Economy, Safety, Environment, Accessibility & Social Inclusion, Integration, Physical Activity are entered, and Overall Scale of Impact is calculated by the spreadsheet and presented along with its benefits in a summary sheet. Further details on the Stage 3 process and the PABs is provided in Chapter 10 (Stage 3 – Preferred Option) of this Report.

139

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

8. Stage 1 – Preliminary Options Assessment

8.1 Introduction A full description of the Stage 1 Assessment (Preliminary Options Assessment), including supporting information, is outlined in the Phase 2 Stage 1 Assessment Working Paper Report, which is provided in Volume 4. A summary description of the development of the Stage 1 Route Corridor Options, the Stage 1 Assessment methodology, criteria, results and recommendations/conclusion is provided in the sections below.

8.2 Description & Development of the Stage 1 Route Corridor Options As stated in Section 7.2.1 (General Options Development) above, the Stage 1 Feasible Route Corridor Options were identified and developed within the Study Area taking cognisance of the Scheme Objectives, TII Design Standards (including geometric), and the existing constraints (Natural, Artificial and External), which were identified as part of the Constraints Study. The corridors which were developed are 400m in width.

As per the TII’s PMM, the Route Corridor Options were ‘developed to an appropriate level of detail to facilitate a systematic assessment of the potential impacts upon the findings of the constraints study.’ In order to facilitate the development of the corridors, and to inform Stage 1 assessment criteria in certain instances (i.e. potential earthworks), an indicative draft working road alignment was created for each option in accordance with TII Design Standards. It is highlighted that this alignment was developed for these purposes alone. With reference to Figure 8.1 and Table 8.1 below, a total of 17 Stage 1 Feasible Route Corridors Options were developed for the N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Scheme. Of the 17 Route Corridor Options, 6 options (Brown, Cyan, Yellow, Green, Purple, and Orange) were full-length coloured route options (or ‘root’ options as described in TII’s PMM). The remaining 11 options are ‘amalgamated’ options (as described in the TII’s PMM), which were combinations of particular sections of the full-length coloured options joined by links in most cases. The locations of start and end points of the links and/or points where the sections were joined were identified with Nodes (A – R). With respect to Figure 8.1 below. It is noted that a formal drawing of the same (See Drawing Ref. N2-JAC-HWG- A2C-DR-OS-0002), along with separate layout plan drawings of the amalgamated options (See Drawing Ref. Nos. N2-JAC-HWG-A2C-DR-OS-0003 to 0004) are provided in Part A of Volume 2 (Drawings).

As stated in Section 7.2.1 (General Options Development) in Chapter 7 of this Report, the exact start and end points of the proposed scheme will be confirmed in the subsequent TII Phases 3 and 4. For the purpose of the Option Selection Process, and to allow a consistent comparison of the Route Corridor Options, it was necessary to identify common start and end points for all of the Route Corridor Options. Therefore, a starting point of approximately 600m North of the Carrickmacross Road Roundabout (N2/N233/R171) on the existing N2 in the Townlands of Mullanstown and Glebe was selected. This is the location of the connection point between the existing N2 and the proposed N52 Ardee Bypass Scheme (current design location). The existing N2/N53 roundabout at the Southern end of the N2 Castleblayney Bypass was chosen for the Northern tie-in point.

Regarding the start point and its interface with the proposed N52 Ardee Bypass Scheme, it is noted that Louth County Council are currently undertaking further environmental and engineering studies, and a detailed review of the existing design (including junctions). A Non-Statutory Public Consultation on the Emerging Preferred Junction Option was recently undertaken between October and November 2020. Thereafter, it is expected that the design of the scheme will be further refined, in advance of submitting an updated planning application. Therefore, the proposed interface of the N52 Ardee Bypass Scheme with the existing N2 is still to be fully confirmed at this stage. Consequently, for current display purposes and for future design considerations of the N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme, an extended corridor length of approximately 600m has been applied at this location. This area is highlighted with grey hatching in Figure 8.1 below and in the associated drawings in Volume 2 (Drawings).

It is noted that the order in which the full-length coloured options/root options are listed in the Table 8.1 below, and throughout this Report, is based on reading from left to right (in the vicinity of the Start Point) on the associated Figure 8.1 below. A full description of the townlands, which each option traverses through, is provided in the Phase 2 Stage 1 Assessment Working Paper Report in Volume 4.

140

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Figure 8.1: Layout Plan of Stage 1 Route Corridor Options for N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme

141

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Approximate Ref. Route Corridor Option Corridor Type / Short Description Corridor No. Name Length (km) 1 Brown Full Length Coloured Route Option / Root Option 35.380 2 Cyan 32.660 3 Yellow 31.160 4 Green 29.755 5 Purple 31.620 6 Orange 30.290 7 Yellow+Blue Yellow to Node N + Blue till End 31.150 8 Cyan+Yellow+Blue Cyan (Start to Node C) + Yellow (Node C to N) + Blue till End 31.975 9 Yellow+Purple Yellow till Node F + Purple till End 30.985 10 Purple+Yellow+Blue Purple till Node F + Yellow (Node F to N) + Blue till End 31.790 Yellow till Node J + Link J-K + Cyan (K to O) + Link O-P + 11 Yellow+Cyan+Green 31.020 Green (P to End) Yellow till Node F + Purple (Node F to Q) + Link Q-R + Green 12 Yellow+Purple+Green 31.085 (R to End) 13 Brown+Purple Brown (Start to Node G) + Link G-H + Purple (Node H to End) 35.760 Cyan (Start to Node C) + Yellow (Node C to F) + Purple (F to 14 Cyan+Yellow+Purple 31.805 End) 15 Green+Cyan Green (Start to Node D) + Link D-E + Cyan (Node E to End) 31.185 Orange (Start to Node A) + Link A-B + Green (Node B till 16 Orange+Green1 30.055 End) 17 Orange+Green 2 Orange (Start to Node L) + Link L-M + Green (M till End) 30.430 Table 8.1: List of Stage 1 Route Corridor Options for N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme

8.3 Stage 1 Methodology & Criteria

As stated in Section 7.2.2 (General Appraisal Methodology) in Chapter 7 of this Report, the impacts of the Stage 1 Route Corridor Options were comparatively assessed in accordance with the Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) approach as per TII’s PG Unit 7.0 and TII’s PMM. The seven-point scale contained in Table 7.1 and defined in TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 (i.e. ‘Highly Positive’ Impact = Performance Score of 7, ‘‘Highly Negative’ Impact = Performance Score of 1) was used as the basis in scoring the impacts for each option.

Using the defined TII Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) approach, the impacts of the Stage 1 Feasible Route Corridor Options were qualitatively and/or quantitively assessed against the three ‘Headline’ or Main Criteria (Engineering, Environment, and Economy) and associated Sub-Criteria. Equal weighting was given to each of the three Main Criteria. The appropriateness of adopting a quantitative or qualitative assessment for a particular Criteria or Sub- Criteria was dependent on the level of data and investigation available, and design undertaken for that particular Criteria or Sub-Criteria at the time of the assessment.

A list of Sub-Criteria was identified for the proposed scheme, which follows TII’s PMM and PAG Unit 7.0 suggested outline of Sub-Criteria to be considered in the Stage 1 Assessment. This list is presented in Table 8.2 below.

142

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

It is noted that all of TII’s PMM and PAG Unit 7.0 suggested Sub-Criteria were considered and initially assessed. However, in some instances, the Sub-Criteria were determined to be equivalent, or have a negligible difference, across all options for this initial stage of the Option Selection Process. In these instances, the rationale and justification were outlined in the Phase 2 Stage 1 Assessment Working Paper Report (See Volume 4), and the Sub- Criteria were noted as non-applicable (N/A) in the performance matrix and didn’t contribute to the overall/total Performance Scores.

In addition to the defined Sub-Criteria, a further level of criteria (i.e. sub-sub-criteria or ‘Sub-Criterion Elements’) were identified and selected to appropriately inform the impact level and the associated Performance Score of the defined Sub-Criteria. For example, ‘Travel Times’ and ‘Proximity to an Urban Centre’ were identified as Sub-Criterion Elements of the Sub-Criterion of ‘Traffic Assessment’, which in turn is a Sub-Criterion of Main Stage 1 Criterion of Engineering. As was the case for the scoring of Sub-Criteria, a seven-point scoring scale was adopted in assessing the impact of these Sub-Criterion Elements. The number of specific Sub-Criterion Elements used for each of the defined Sub-Criteria is also presented in Table 8.2 below.

It is noted that the Route Corridor Options were generally assessed on a 400m wide corridor basis. However, in certain circumstances, the indicative working alignment was deemed to better inform the impact assessment of a particular criterion (i.e. Earthworks), and in these cases, the indicative working alignment of the option was used to provide the basis for the assessment.

In terms of the basis of the comparative assessment of the Route Corridor Options, for the Main Criterion of Environment, all options were comparatively assessed against the Do-Nothing Option i.e. using the existing environment as the baseline. In the case of the Main Criteria of Engineering and Economy, all Route Corridor Options, with the exception of the Sub-Criteria of Traffic Assessment and Geology, were comparatively assessed against each other in terms of determining their impact and performance scores. Traffic Assessment was compared to the Do- Minimum Option, and Geology, similar to the environmental Sub-Criteria was assessed against the existing baseline conditions (i.e. Do-Nothing Option). Further description of the basis of the comparative assessment for the engineering sub-criteria is provided in Section 8.4 below.

As stated above, each of the three Stage 1 Main Criteria were given equal weighting, and with reference to Section 7.2.2 (General Appraisal Methodology), a total Performance Score for each option against each of the Main Criteria was expressed as marks out of 100. Following which, an overall Performance Score for each Route Corridor Option across the three Main Criteria was expressed as marks out of 300.

143

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Stage 1 Main Stage 1 Sub-Criteria Stage 1 Sub-Criterion Elements (where applicable) Criteria Traffic Assessment Journey Times & Proximity to an Urban Centre Technical Standards* Junction Strategy Existing Road Network Interface Structures Structures over Watercourse and Road Crossings Geology Superficial Geology, Solid Geology, Other Geological Features Groundwater* Engineering Earthworks Comparative Earthworks Balance Road Safety Impact Various Road Safety Sub-Criterion Elements Assessment Drainage Flood Vulnerability Areas Construction Online/Offline construction Service Conflicts Electricity – High Voltage Land and Property Land Acquisition, Residential Property Acquisition Ecology European & Nationally designated Sites, Habitats of County Importance, Habitats of Biodiversity Value, Watercourse Crossings, Proximity to waterbodies & Species of Conservation Concern Soils & Geology Peat, Mines & Quarries, Economic Deposits, Contaminated Land, Karst Landforms, Geological Heritage Sites Hydrogeology Vulnerable & Regionally Important Aquifers, Sand & Gravel Aquifers, Groundwater Vulnerability, Public Water Supply Protection Areas Hydrology Water Quality (Waterbody Crossings) Areas of ‘Very High Landscape’, Historic Designated Landscapes, Landscape & Visual Designated Scenic Routes /Views (CDP), Amenity / Recreational & heritage views, Towns & Villages Environment Archaeological, Archaeological (RMP/ SMR/National Monuments), Architectural (RPS Architectural, & / NIAH / Demesne) Cultural Heritage Material Assets Agricultural Land, Existing Farm Facilities, Existing Sensitive Farms (Agricultural) Material Assets (Non- Community Assets - Existing Properties, Community Assets – Existing Agricultural) Greenways Air Quality & Climate Sensitive Receptors, Nitrogen Sensitive Habitats Noise & Vibration Sensitive Receptors Human Beings, Waste, Interactions and Cumulative Effects* Options Comparison Economy Estimate Table 8.2: List of Stage 1 Main Criteria, Sub-Criteria and Sub-Criterion Elements for N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme (* = These Sub-Criteria were considered and initially assessed. They were determined to be equivalent or have negligible difference across all options for this initial stage of the Option Selection process, were noted as non-applicable, and hence didn’t contribute to the overall/total performance scores)

144

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

A summary of the Stage 1 Assessment results for each of the three Main Criteria of Engineering, Environment and Economy is provided in the sections below. A more detailed description of the results is provided in the Phase 2 Stage 1 Assessment Working Paper Report in Volume 4.

8.4 Engineering Assessment As per Section 8.3 (Stage 2 Appraisal Methodology & Criteria) above, the impacts of all 17 Route Corridor Options were comparatively assessed, either quantitively or qualitatively, using the Engineering Sub-Criteria and Sub- Criterion Elements, as listed in Table 8.2 above and applying TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 seven point scale (i.e. Highly Positive’ Impact = Performance Score of 7, ‘‘Highly Negative’ Impact = Performance Score of 1), as per Table 7.1.

Upon allocation of Performance Scores for each individual Sub-Criteria, the Performance Scores of these Sub- Criteria for each option were added together to provide a total performance score for Engineering. Thereafter, the total performance score for Engineering was expressed as marks out of 100 for each option. A further description of this methodology is provided in the Engineering Assessment in the Phase 2 Stage 1 Assessment Working Paper Report in Volume 4.

Table 8.3 below shows the Performance Scores for each option under the Main Criterion of Engineering, in the order of highest Performance Score, and hence least impact, and greatest benefit.

For the Stage 1 Engineering Assessment, all Route Corridor Options, with the exception of the Sub-Criteria of Traffic Assessment and Geology, were comparatively assessed against each other in terms of determining their impact and performance scores. In relation to the Sub-Criterion of Traffic Assessment, all Route Corridor Options were comparatively assessed against the Do-Minimum Option (See Chapter 5), as this forms the Base Case for traffic comparative purposes. The other Stage 1 Sub-Criteria could not be reasonably compared to the Do-Minimum Option due to the particular nature/aspect of these Sub-Criteria and/or due to the level of scheme development at this initial stage (i.e. a 400m wide corridor). Taking the example of Sub-Criterion of Earthworks, in terms of its nature, the estimated cut and fill volumes from the proposed options cannot be reasonably compared against a Do- Minimum Option.

Regarding the Engineering Sub-Criterion of Geology, similar to the assessment methodology of the Environmental Sub-Criteria (See Section 8.5), it was considered that all options would have a neutral to highly negative impact in terms of Geology when compared to the Do-Nothing Option i.e. using the existing environment as the baseline.

145

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Route Corridor Option Performance Score (Expressed as Marks Ref. No. Ranking Description out of 100) 1 Orange 86 1 2 Green 70 2 3 Orange+Green 1 69 3 4 Purple 67 4 5 Yellow+Purple 67 4 6 Orange+Green 2 67 4 7 Yellow+Cyan+Green 66 7 8 Green+Cyan 66 7 9 Purple+Yellow+Blue 64 9 10 Cyan+Yellow+Blue 64 9 11 Brown 64 9 12 Cyan+Yellow+Purple 61 12 13 Yellow+Purple+Green 61 12 14 Yellow+Blue 59 14 15 Cyan 59 14 16 Yellow 54 16 17 Brown + Purple 50 17 Table 8.3: Engineering – Ranking of Options in terms of Total Performance Scores

146

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

8.5 Environment Assessment

Similar to the Engineering assessment, and as per Section 8.3 (Stage Appraisal Methodology & Criteria) above, the impacts of all 17 Route Corridor Options were comparatively assessed either qualitatively or quantitively using the Environment Sub-Criteria and Sub-Criterion Elements, as listed in Table 8.1 above and applying the TII PAG Unit 7.0 seven point scale (i.e. Highly Positive’ Impact = Performance Score of 7, ‘‘Highly Negative’ Impact = Performance Score of 1).

Upon allocation of Performance Score for each individual Sub-Criteria, the Performance Scores of these Sub-Criteria for each option were added together to provide a total performance score for Environment. Thereafter, the total performance score for Environment was expressed as marks out of 100 for each option. Table 8.4 below shows the performance scores for each option under the Main Criterion of Environment, in order of highest Performance Score, and hence least impact.

In terms of the environmental comparative assessment of the Route Corridor Options, it is noted that all options were comparatively assessed against the Do-Nothing Option i.e. using the existing environment as the baseline.

In the case of Environment, although the full PAG Unit 7.0 seven-point scale was available for the purposes of this assessment, it was determined that all impacts associated with the environmental Sub-Criteria lay within the Neutral (Performance Score of 4) to Highly Negative (Performance Score of 1) band, when compared with the existing (Do- Nothing/Baseline) situation. Hence, the total Performance Scores for Environment are lower when compared with the total Performances Scores for Engineering (Section 8.4 above) and Economy (Section 8.6 below). However, it is highlighted that differentiation was determined between the options as part of the environmental assessment, which is reflected in the varying Performance Scores across the options, and hence this aligns with the overarching purpose/principle of the comparative assessment.

Performance Score (Expressed as Ref. No. Route Corridor Option Description Ranking Marks out of 100) 1 Orange + Green 1 34 1 2 Orange + Green 2 34 1 3 Yellow 33 3 4 Green 33 3 5 Yellow + Purple 31 5 6 Orange 31 5 7 Green + Cyan 31 5 8 Yellow + Blue 30 8 9 Yellow + Cyan +Green 30 8 10 Purple 30 8 11 Yellow + Purple + Green 29 11 12 Brown 29 11 13 Brown + Purple 27 13 14 Cyan 27 13 15 Cyan + Yellow + Purple 27 13 16 Cyan + Yellow + Blue 24 16 17 Purple + Yellow + Blue 24 16 Table 8.4: Environment – Ranking of Options in terms of Total Performance Scores

147

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

8.6 Economy Assessment

The economic impacts of all 17 Route Corridor Options were comparatively assessed in quantitative terms using the Economy Sub-Criterion of Option Comparison Estimate (OCE), as listed in Table 8.2 above. TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 seven- point scale (i.e. Highly Positive’ Impact = Performance Score of 7, ‘‘Highly Negative’ Impact = Performance Score of 1) was applied based on the OCE for each Route Corridor Option. The OCE for each Route Corridor Option was undertaken in accordance with the TII Cost Management Manual (CMM, 2010) and as per the Level 2 Cost Estimate Template. The OCE comprised of the following items as per TII’s CMM with project specific risk contingency applied: 1) Main Contract Construction 2) Main Contract Supervision 3) Archaeology 4) Advance Works and Other Contracts 5) Walking/Cycling/Asset Renewal (Residual Network) 6) Land and Property 7) Planning and Design

A more detailed description of the OCE items and assumptions are provided in the Phase 2 Stage 1 Assessment Working Paper Report in Volume 4. It is highlighted that the calculation of the OCE is for the sole purpose of comparative purposes, is reflective of the level of design work undertaken at the time of the estimation (which is at an initial stage during TII’s PMG Phase 2), based on rates at the time, and is subject to refinement, change and further accuracy throughout TII’s project delivery phases (i.e. TII PMG Phases 3 to 7).

Upon allocation of a Performance Score based on the Sub-Criterion of OCE for each option, the total Performance Score for Economy was expressed as marks out of 100 for each option. Table 8.5 below shows the Performance Scores for each Route Corridor Option under the Main Criterion of Economy, in the order of highest Performance Score, and hence least impact, greatest benefit.

Performance Score Ref. No. Route Corridor Option Description Ranking (Expressed as Marks out of 100) 1 Orange 100 1 2 Yellow 86 2 3 Orange+Green 1 86 2 4 Orange+Green 2 86 2 5 Yellow + Blue 86 2 6 Green 71 6 7 Purple + Yellow+Blue 71 6 8 Cyan+Yellow+Blue 71 6 9 Green+Cyan 57 9 10 Purple 57 9 11 Yellow + Purple 57 9 12 Cyan+Yellow+Purple 57 9 13 Yellow+Cyan+Green 57 9 14 Cyan 43 14 15 Yellow+Purple+Green 43 14 16 Brown 29 16 17 Brown+Purple 14 17 Table 8.5: Economy – Ranking of Options in terms of Total Performance Scores

148

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

8.7 Overall Stage 1 Assessment Matrix Upon completion of the assessment for each of the three Main Criteria of Engineering, Environment and Economy, the associated total Performance Scores for each of these Main Criteria were added together to provide an overall Performance Score for each option. As stated, each of the Main Criteria of Engineering, Environment and Economy were given an equal weighting with marks out of 100. Therefore, the Overall Performance Score for each option was expressed as marks out of 300. Following which, the Route Corridor Options could then be ranked based on their overall scores, and hence their overall impact and benefit. Table 8.6 below shows the overall ranking of the Stage 1 Route Corridor Options.

Performance Score of Main Criteria (Expressed as Overall Marks out of 100) Performance Ref. Score Option Description Ranking No. (Expressed Engineering Environment Economy as Marks out of 300) 1 Orange 86 31 100 217 1 2 Orange + Green 1 69 34 86 189 2 3 Orange + Green 2 67 34 86 187 3 4 Yellow + Blue 59 30 86 175 4 5 Green 70 33 71 174 5 6 Yellow 54 33 86 173 6 7 Cyan + Yellow + Blue 64 24 71 159 7 8 Purple + Yellow + 64 24 71 159 7 Blue 9 Yellow + Purple 67 31 57 155 9 10 Green + Cyan 66 31 57 154 10 11 Purple 67 30 57 154 10 12 Yellow + Cyan 66 30 57 153 12 +Green 13 Cyan + Yellow + 61 27 57 145 13 Purple 14 Yellow + Purple + 61 29 43 133 14 Green 15 Cyan 59 27 43 129 15 16 Brown 64 29 29 122 16 17 Brown + Purple 50 27 14 91 17 Table 8.6: Stage 1 Assessment Matrix – Overall Performance Scores and Ranking for each Route Corridor Option

With reference to Table 8.6 above, it is noted that the Orange Option is ranked highest in the Stage 1 assessment with the highest overall Performance Score of 217 out of 300, and hence had the lowest impact / greatest benefit. Whilst, the Brown+Purple was the lowest ranked with an overall Performance Score of 91, and hence had the greatest impact / lowest benefit. Thereby, there was a difference of 126 marks between the highest and lowest ranked options. It is noted that there is a relatively significant separation distance of 14 marks between the 6th ranked option (Yellow), with a score of 173 marks and the joint 7th ranked options (Cyan+Yellow+Blue & Purple +Yellow+Blue), with scores of 159 marks.

149

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Discussions on the options recommended to progress to Stage 2 (Project Appraisal Matrix) are outlined in Section 8.8 below.

8.8 Recommendation of Options to be taken forward to Stage 2 (Project Appraisal Matrix) It is noted that TII’s PAG Unit 4.0 advises that a minimum of three Route Corridor Options are to be taken forward to Stage 2. It does not prescribe a maximum number. However, it is noted that TII’s 2010 PMG provides guidance in this regard: ‘…carry out a Preliminary Options Assessment using a Framework Matrix (comprising the assessment criteria of Engineering, Environment and Economy). This will result in the number of route options being refined to a maximum of 3 – 5’

Considering the PAG Guidance of a minimum of three options, in the case of the N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme, two of the three top-ranked options (i.e. Orange + Green 1 and Orange and Green 2), were both combinations of the Green and Orange Options. Therefore, in order to broaden the assessment for Stage 2, it was considered prudent to expand past the minimum threshold of three options.

With reference to Section 8.7 (Overall Stage 1 Assessment Matrix) above, as there was a relatively significant separation distance in terms of the Performance Scores between the 6th ranked option (Yellow) and the 7th ranked options (Cyan+Yellow+Blue & Purple +Yellow+Blue), it was recommended to progress the top 6 ranked options, as opposed to 5, to the Stage 2 Assessment (Project Appraisal Matrix).

With reference to Table 8.6 above, the top 6 ranked options, with the overall lowest impact and greatest benefit, recommended for progression to Stage 2 (Project Appraisal Matrix) were:

1) Orange 2) Orange+Green 1 3) Orange+Green 2 4) Yellow+Blue 5) Green 6) Yellow

Following completion of the Stage 1 Assessment in September 2019, and the identification of the six Stage 1 Route Corridor Options for progression to Stage 2, minor naming and colour convention changes, which are listed in Table 8.7 below, were applied to these options for ease of presentation to the public at Public Consultation 2 (Route Corridor Options).

As outlined in Chapter 6 (Non-Statutory Public Consultations) above, the formal consultation period for Public Consultation 2 was undertaken between 5th November 2019 and 19th December 2019. Figure 8.2 below shows the 6 options progressing to Stage 2, as displayed at the Public Consultation 2. In addition, Figure 8.2 is provided in a formal drawing (Ref. No. Ref. N2-JAC-HWG-A2C-DR-OS-0005), along with separate layout plans of the individual options (See Drawing Ref. Nos. N2-JAC-HWG-A2C-DR-OS-0006 to 0011), which are provided in Part A of Volume 2 (Drawings). It is noted that the order in which the options are listed in the Table 8.7 is based on reading from left to right (in the vicinity of the Start Point) on the associated Figure 8.2 below.

150

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Ref. Naming /Colouring Convention for Public Stage 1 Assessment Naming / Colouring Convention No. Consultation 2 and Stage 2 Assessment 1 Yellow Option A (Yellow) 2 Yellow+Blue Option B (Yellow + Blue) 3 Green Option C (Green) 4 Orange Option D (Orange) 5 Orange + Green 1 [Orange+Link A-B(Grey)+Green] Option E [Orange + Link 1 (Grey) + Green] 6 Orange + Green 2 [Orange+Link L-M(Grey)+Green] Option F [Orange + Link 2 (Pink) + Green] Table 8.7: Naming and Colour Changes of Route Corridor Options between the Stage 1 Assessment (September 2019) and Public Consultation 2 (November/December 2019)

151

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Figure 8.2: Layout Plan of Stage 1 Options Progressing to Stage 2 as displayed at Public Consultation 2

152

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

9. Stage 2 – Project Appraisal Matrix

9.1 Introduction A full description of the TII PMG Phase 2 Stage 2 assessment (Project Appraisal Matrix) of the proposed scheme is provided in the sections below, with the exception of the Environment Appraisal.

A summary of the Environment Appraisal is provided in Section 9.6 (Environment Appraisal), whilst a full description of the appraisal is provided in the Phase 2 Stage 2 Environmental Appraisal Report in Volume 5, with supporting environmental drawings provided in Part B (Constraints Drawings) in Volume 2 (Drawings).

The sections below provide a full description of the Route Corridor Options selected for progression to Stage 2, and outline the development, assessment methodology, criteria, results and recommendations/conclusion of the TII Phase 2 Stage 2 process for the N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme.

9.2 Description & Development of the Stage 2 Route Corridor Options With reference to Section 8.8 (Recommendation of Options to be taken forward to Stage 2), and Figure 8.2 above, the following six short-listed options, which were identified as having the lowest overall impact and greatest benefit from the Stage 1 assessment, were selected for progression to Stage 2 of the Option Selection Process:

1) Option A (Yellow) 2) Option B (Yellow+Blue) 3) Option C (Green) 4) Option D (Orange) 5) Option E [Orange+Link 1 (Grey)+Green] 6) Option F [Orange+Link 2 (Pink)+Green]

A full description of the six 400m wide Route Corridor Options is provided in Table 9.1 below. With respect to the illustrations of the individual Route Corridor Options shown in Table 9.1 below, it is noted that formal drawings (See Drawing Ref. Nos. N2-JAC-HWG-A2C-DR-OS-0006 to 0011), showing the same are provided in Part A (Route Corridor Drawings) of Volume 2 (Drawings).

In terms of the start and end points, the same common start and end points identified for the Stage 1 Route Corridor Options, were applied to the Stage 2 Route Corridor Options. As stated in Section 7.2.1 (General Options Development) above, the exact start and end point points of the proposed scheme will be confirmed in the subsequent TII Phases 3 and 4. For the purpose of the Option Selection Process, and to allow a consistent comparison of the Route Corridor Options, it was necessary to identify common start and end points for all of the Route Corridor Options. Therefore, a starting point of approximately 600m north of the Carrickmacross Road Roundabout (N2/N233/R171) on the existing N2 in the Townlands of Mullanstown and Glebe was selected. This is the location of the connection point between the existing N2 and the proposed N52 Ardee Bypass Scheme (current design location). The existing N2/N53 roundabout at the Southern end of the N2 Castleblayney Bypass was chosen for the Northern tie-in point.

As previously outlined in Section 8.2 (Description & Development of Stage 1 Route Corridor Options) above, an extended grey hatched area of approximately 600m at the Southern end of the proposed scheme is shown in the illustrations in Table 9.1 below, for current display purposes and future design considerations (only), as the exact tie-in location of the proposed N52 Ardee Bypass Scheme is yet to be fully confirmed.

153

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Option Name Route Corridor Option Description Map Option A Option A (Yellow) is approximately 31.3Km in length. (Yellow) The Option starts approximately 600m north of the Carrickmacross Road Roundabout (N2/N233/R171) on the existing N2 in the Townlands of Mullanstown and Glebe in County Louth. Following departure from the said starting point, the 400m wide corridor predominately follows the existing N2 route for the entirety of its length. Approximately 28% (8.8km length) of the corridor lies within County Louth, whilst the remaining 72% (22.5km length) of corridor lies within County Monaghan. Upon leaving the townlands of Mullanstown and Glebe, the corridor continues north passing through the townlands of Rahanna, Harristown, Cookstown, Knocklore, Tattyboys, Rathory, Reaghstown, Edmondstown, where it crosses the County boundary of Louth into County Monaghan at Aclint Bridge, and traverses the River Lagan (Glyde) in the townlands of Aclint and Drumgeeny. From the townland of Drumgeeny, the corridor follows the general route of Carrickmacross Bypass (2005), passing through the following townlands south, east and north of Carrickmacross Town; Leeg, Annamarran, Drumturk, Lisnashannagh, Shanmullagh, Monaltybane, Monaltyduff, Drummond Otra, Lisanisk, Cloghvalley Upper and Cloghvalley Lower, Monanny and Creevy. From the townland of Creevy, the corridor generally follows the existing straight section of N2 up to Castleross Retirement Village in Tullyvaragh Lower passing through the townlands of Aghavilla, Lisgall, Donaghmoyne, Annahaia, Lisnagunnion, and Tullyvaragh Upper. From Tullyvaragh, the corridor continues up to Broomfield, passing through the townlands of Corlygorm, Drumhariff, Garranroe/Cornamucklagh, Taplagh, Derryilan, Brackagh, and Drumganus Upper and Lower. After Broomfield, the corridor continues North to Clonavogy, passing Annalittin to the West, and going through the townlands of Aghadreenan, Monygorbet and Mullaghnee. From Clonavogy, the corridor passes through the townlands of Carrickagarvan and Drumcrew and terminates at the existing N2/N53 roundabout at the Southern end of the N2 Castleblayney Bypass in the townland of Tullyvin.

154

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Option Name Route Corridor Option Description Map Option B This Route Corridor Option is 31.2km in length. (Yellow + Blue) Option B follows the same path as Option A (Yellow) from the starting point in the townlands of Mullanstown and Glebe up to the Townland of Garranroe/Cornamucklagh (South of Broomfield). At this point, it deviates from the existing N2 route, turning west, bypassing Broomfield, and passing through the townlands of Taplagh, Brackagh, Lisaquil, Cornahawla, Drumganus Lower, Aghadreenan, Mullaghanee, and Annalittin. In the townlands of Mullaghanee and Annalittin, Option B returns to the existing N2, and follows the existing N2 similar to Option A (Yellow) to terminate at the existing N2/N53 roundabout at the Southern end of the N2 Castleblayney Bypass in the townland of Tullyvin.

Option C This Route Corridor Option is 29.8 km in length. (Green) Starting at the commencement point in the townlands of Mullanstown and Glebe, Option C follows the existing N2 route up to Cookstown. Deviating from the existing N2 route in a north westerly direction, this option continues towards Arthurstown and to the East of Reaghstown / Edmondstown. At this point it follows a north easterly direction and crosses the River Glyde and enters County Monaghan. Continuing adjacent to the River Proules, it traverses the townland of Tullygowan and to the East of Killanny. To the West of Essexford, it crosses the R178 Dundalk Road and the R179 (Cullavile Road), passing through the townlands of Cordrummans to the East of Donaghmoyne. From this point, it veers in a more westerly direction to cross the existing N2 at the townlands of Garranroe and Cornamucklagh. Running in a more northerly direction and running parallel to the existing N2, Option C passes through the townlands of Clonavogy, Brackagh and Cornahawla to the West of Broomfield. Option C continues northwards where it re-joins the existing N2 in the townlands of Clonavogy and Carrickgarvan and terminates at the existing N2/N53 roundabout at the Southern end of the N2 Castleblayney Bypass in the townland of Tullyvin.

155

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Option Name Route Corridor Option Description Map Option D This Route Corridor Option is 30.4 km in length and is (Orange) the most easterly of the Route Corridors Options.

Starting at the commencement point in the townlands of Mullanstown and Glebe, Option D, deviates from the existing N2 route from the start, where it runs parallel to the R171 Dundalk Road. Following a northerly direction, it passes to the West of Pepperstown and to the East of Charlestown, crossing to the East of Arthurstown Crossroads. From here it runs to the West of Thomastown and Philipstown where it crosses the River Glyde. Continuing in a northerly direction, Option D passes through the townlands of Tully and Drumgowna and to the East of the Red Bog where it crosses the R178 Dundalk Road. Following a more north westerly direction, the option passes through the townlands of Drumgristin Upper, Kiltybegs and Drumneil where it crosses the R179. Further North, it traverses the townlands of Feegavla, Lisnamoyle, Drumaconvern, Knockreagh Lower and Drumganus Upper where it passes to the West of Annalittin. From this point the Orange Option re-joins the N2 online at Clonavogy and terminates at the existing N2/N53 roundabout at the Southern end of the N2 Castleblayney Bypass in the townland of Tullyvin.

Option E This Route Corridor Option is 30.1 km in length. [Orange+Link1 (Grey)+ Green] Starting at the commencement point in the townlands of Mullanstown and Glebe, this option follows Option D (Orange) before transferring to Link 1 (Grey) and passing through the townlands of Thomastown, Nicholastown where it then merges into Option C (Green) in the townlands of Tully and Tullygowan. Thereafter, it follows Option C (Green) for the remainder of the route and terminates at the existing N2/N53 roundabout at the Southern end of the N2 Castleblayney Bypass in the townland of Tullyvin.

156

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Option Name Route Corridor Option Description Map Option F This Route Corridor Option is 30.5 km in length. [Orange+Link2 (Pink) + Starting at the commencement point in the townlands Green] of Mullanstown and Glebe, this option follows the Option D (Orange) before transferring to Link 2 Pink) and passing through the townlands of Mullanavannog, Lisnamoyle Etra, and Coolcair, where it then merges into Option C (Green) in the townlands of Drumillard and Drumhariff, east of the existing N2. Thereafter, it follows Option C (Green) for the remainder of the route and terminates at the existing N2/N53 roundabout at the Southern end of the N2 Castleblayney Bypass in the townland of Tullyvin.

Table 9.1: Description of Stage 2 Route Corridor Options

In terms of the development of the Route Corridor Options, as stated in Section 8.2 (Development of Stage 1 Route Corridor Options) above, indicative draft working alignments had been developed for all Stage 1 Route Corridor Options in order to inform the Stage 1 assessment criteria. At the beginning of Stage 2, the indicative alignments of the short-listed options were further refined in order to inform the traffic modelling process (See Chapter 4), the Stage 2 Cost Benefit Analysis, and Stage 2 assessment criteria.

The indicative alignments were developed and refined in order to limit, as much as was reasonably practicable, the impacts to the identified existing constraints (Natural, Artificial and External). It is noted that further refinement of the indicative alignment, in terms of impacts to existing constraints will be undertaken during the subsequent TII PMG Phase 3 (Design and Environmental Evaluation).

As outlined in Section 4.4 of Chapter 4 (Traffic Assessment and Option Cross-Section), an initial carriageway cross- section of a Type 2 Dual Carriageway in accordance with TII Design Standard DN-GEO-03036 – Cross-Sections and Headroom (May 2019) was selected for the indicative Stage 2 alignments. It is highlighted that this is an initially identified road cross-section type, and further analysis and confirmation will be undertaken in the subsequent project phases as the design is further developed and appraised.

An illustration of the typical cross-section of a Type 2 Dual Carriageway, as provided in Chapter 4, and repeated again, is shown in Figure 9.1 below.

157

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Figure 9.1: Typical Cross-section of Type 2 Dual Carriageway

With reference to Figure 9.1 above, the Type 2 Dual Carriageway has two lanes in each direction, has no hard shoulder and has a narrow central reserve. In terms of vulnerable road users, pedestrian and cycle facilities are to be provided for proposed schemes containing Type 2 Dual Carriageways, where a number of options are available in delivering this requirement, including the provision of the facilities within the proposed verge, as shown in Figure 9.1. As outlined in Section 9.9 (Physical Activity) of this Report, it is highlighted that the specific pedestrian and cycle provision for the proposed scheme will be determined in the subsequent project phases, as the design is further developed and appraised.

Similar to the cross-section type, and as outlined in further detail in Chapter 4 of this Report, an initial indicative junction design approach was undertaken as part of the further refinement of the short-listed options. This indicative junction design approach was undertaken in accordance with TII Design Standard DN-GEO-03060 – Geometric Design of Junctions (June 2017), along with other applicable TII Design Standards. As per the TII Design Standards, the following permitted junction types for a Type 2 Dual Carriageway were selected:

• At Grade Roundabouts • Compact Grade Separated Junctions • Left-In/Left-Out

In terms of Design Speed, as the proposed scheme is an upgrade to the National Road Network and the TEN-T Comprehensive Road Network, and in order to target the National Policy objective of an average journey inter-urban speed of 90 km/h (See Section 2.2.3.1 – Project Ireland 2040), and the Scheme Objectives (i.e. improve journey times – See Section 1.5), an initial Design Speed of 100 km/h was selected.

The indicative alignments were developed in accordance with TII Design Standard DN-GEO-03031 – Rural Link Road Design (June 2017) using this initial design speed.

158

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

9.3 Stage 2 Appraisal Methodology & Criteria As stated in Section 7.2.2 (General Methodology) of this Report, the Stage 2 Appraisal is a more detailed evaluation than the Stage 1 assessment, where the impacts of the short-listed options are examined against a different set of defined Main Criteria and Sub-Criteria.

As outlined in Section 7.2.1 (General Options Development), in advance of undertaking the Stage 2 Appraisal, the viability of the Do-Nothing Option, Do-Minimum Option, and other Do-Something Options/Alternatives (Public Transport and Traffic Management) were considered and assessed again. As documented in Chapter 3 (Consideration of Alternatives and Options), it was determined that all of these options/alternatives, whether in combination or alone, did not meet the Scheme Objectives and were discounted as solutions.

As per the Stage 1 assessment, the short-listed Route Corridor Options were comparatively assessed in accordance with the Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) approach as per TII’s PAG Unit 7.0. Using the defined TII MCA approach, the impacts of the short-listed options were qualitatively and/or quantitively assessed against a set of the six Main Criteria (Economy, Safety, Environment, Accessibility & Social Inclusion, Integration, and Physical Activity) and associated Sub-Criteria. Equal weighting was given to each of the six Main Criteria. The appropriateness of adopting a quantitative or qualitative assessment for a particular Criteria or Sub-Criteria was dependent on the level of data and investigation available, and design undertaken for that particular Criteria or Sub-criteria at the time of the assessment.

A list of Sub-Criteria was identified for the proposed scheme, which align with the defined Sub-Criteria in TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 and is presented in Table 9.2 below. It is noted that an additional Safety Sub-Criterion of ‘Road Safety Audit (RSA) Stage F Part 1’ was included to align with the Safety Appraisal requirements in TII’s PMM, where the specific element of Road Safety is identified to inform the Stage 2 process.

In addition to the defined Sub-Criteria, and similar to the Stage 1 assessment process, a further level of criteria (i.e. sub-sub-criteria or ‘Sub-Criterion Elements’) were identified and selected to appropriately inform the impact level and the associated Performance Score of the defined Sub-Criteria. The number of specific Sub-Criterion Elements used for each defined Sub-Criteria is also presented in Table 9.2 below.

As stated above, each of the six Stage 2 Main Criteria were given equal weighting, and similar to the Stage 1 assessment, a total performance score for each option against each of the Main Criteria (named ‘Overall Economy/Safety/... Appraisal Performance Score’) was expressed as marks out of 100. Following which, an overall performance score for each option across the six Main Criteria was expressed as Marks out of 600 (named ‘Overall Option Appraisal Performance Score’).

It is noted that the Route Corridor Options were generally assessed on a 400m wide corridor basis. Though, in certain circumstances, where the indicative working alignment was deemed to better inform the assessment of the impact against a particular criterion (i.e. Safety – RSA Stage F – Part 1, etc.), the indicative alignment of the option provided the basis.

In terms of the comparative assessment of the Route Corridor Options, it is noted that all options were comparatively assessed against the Do-Minimum Option and/or Do-Nothing Option (i.e. existing conditions), where applicable.

Similar to the Stage 1 Assessment, in the case of the Environment Appraisal, although the full PAG Unit 7.0 seven- point scale was available for the purposes of this appraisal, it was determined that all impacts associated with the environmental sub-criteria lay within the Neutral (Performance Score of 4) to Highly Negative (Performance Score of 1) band, when compared with the existing (Do-Nothing/Baseline) situation. Hence, the Overall Appraisal Performance Scores for Environment are lower when compared with the Overall Appraisal Performances Scores for the other five Main Criteria. However, it is highlighted that differentiation was determined between the options as part of the environmental appraisal, which is reflected in the varying Performance Scores across the options, and hence, this aligns with the overarching purpose/principle of the comparative assessment.

159

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Stage 2 Stage 2 Sub-Criterion Elements (where Stage 2 Sub-Criteria Main Criteria applicable) Transport Efficiency & Effectiveness Competition in the Market, Agglomeration, Economy Wider Economic Impacts Inward Investment, Labour Supply, & Urban (Section 9.4) Regeneration Transport Quality Funding Impacts Collision Reduction (Benefits) Safety Security of Road Users Vehicle Users, & Vulnerable Road Users (Section 9.5) Road Safety Audit Stage F - Part 1 Various Road Safety Parameters – See Section 9.5 and RSA Stage F Part 1 Report in Volume 6 Air Quality & Climate Noise

Landscape and Visual

Biodiversity – Flora & Fauna (Ecology)

Waste Refer to the Phase 2 Stage 2 Environmental Environment Soils & Geology Appraisal Report in Volume 5 and the (Section 9.6 associated Environmental Appraisal Drawings in & Volume 5) Hydrogeology Part B of Volume 2 Hydrology Cultural Heritage (Archaeological & Architectural) Material Assets (Non-Agricultural Properties) Agriculture Accessibility Deprived Geographical Areas & Social Inclusion Vulnerable Groups (Section 9.7) Connectivity of the Strategic Road Network, Connectivity between Transport Modes, Transport Integration Support for Sustainable Transport Modes, and Access to Other Infrastructure (Airports & Ports) Support for Local Development, Strategic Land Use Integration Connectivity for Long Distance Trips, and Mitigate Risks of Urban Sprawl Project Ireland 2040 (Connectivity within Integration Geographical Integration (See Section Ireland), and TEN-T (Connectivity to Europe) 9.8) Regional Balance (Other Government Policy) Urban Centres within Peripheral Regions, Links between Urban Centres, and Improve Access to Ports & Airports

160

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Stage 2 Stage 2 Sub-Criterion Elements (where Stage 2 Sub-Criteria Main Criteria applicable) Physical Health Benefits Activity Absenteeism Benefits (See Section Journey Ambience Benefits 9.9) Changes in the Number of Incidents/Collisions Changes in Journey Time for Pedestrians & Cyclists Table 9.2: List of Stage 2 Main Criteria, Sub-Criteria and Sub-Criterion Elements for N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme

With the exception of the Environment Appraisal, a detailed description of the specific methodology and results of each of the remaining five Main Criteria is provided in Sections 9.4, 9.5, and 9.7 to 9.9 below. In the case of the Environment Appraisal (Section 9.6), as stated in the introduction of this Chapter, a summary of the appraisal is provided in Section 9.6 below, whilst a detailed description of the Environment Appraisal is provided in the Phase 2 Stage 2 Environmental Appraisal Report in Volume 5, with associated Environmental Appraisal Drawings provided in Part B of Volume 2 (Drawings).

The summary of the combined overall Performance Score for each Option (or ‘Overall Option Appraisal Performance Score’) and the Stage 2 Project Appraisal Matrix is provided in the final part of this Chapter in Section 9.10 below.

161

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

9.4 Economy Appraisal

9.4.1 Introduction

The Economy Appraisal was undertaken in accordance with TII’s PAG Unit 6.0: Cost Benefit Analysis Overview, PAG Unit 6.1: Guidance on Conducting CBA, PAG Unit 6.2: Preparation of Scheme Costs, PAG Unit 6.3 Guidance on Using TUBA, PAG Unit 6.4: Guidance on Using COBALT, PAG Unit 6.9 Wider Impacts, PAG unit 6.10 Reliability and Quality, PAG Unit 6.11 National Parameters Values Sheet and PAG Unit 7.0: Multi-Criteria Analysis. The purpose of this appraisal is to comparatively assess the impact of each Route Corridor Option against the Do-Minimum Option in terms of how each option performs against the Main Criterion of Economy.

The following four Sub-Criteria were applied to the Economy Appraisal: 1) Sub-Criterion 1 – Transport Efficiency and Effectiveness; 2) Sub-Criterion 2 – Wider Economic Impacts; 3) Sub-Criterion 3 – Transport Quality and Reliability; 4) Sub-Criterion 4 – Funding Impacts.

As illustrated in Table 9.2 above, TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 further prescribes a number of specific Sub-Criterion Elements to be considered and assessed for Sub-Criterion 2 (Wider Economic Impacts). The identification and assessment of Sub-Criterion Elements for the other three Sub-Criteria was not required and/or applicable.

Similar to the other Main Criteria, and as outlined in Chapter 7 above, TII’s PAG unit 7.0’s seven-point Impact Scoring System was adopted for this appraisal, where an impact level (‘Highly Positive’ to ‘Highly Negative’) was determined for each Route Corridor Option against the defined Sub-Criteria and Sub-Criterion Elements. Then, each impact level was assigned a Performance Score based on the defined seven-point scale (i.e. ‘Highly Positive’ Impact = Performance Score of 7, ‘Highly Negative’ Impact = Performance Score of 1).

In the case of the Sub-Criterion of ‘Wider Economic Impacts’, which has a number of Sub-Criterion Elements, upon the determination of individual Performance Scores for each of the Sub-Criterion Elements, each of these scores were combined to provide a Sub-Criterion Element Total (Sum of Individual Performance Scores) for each Route Corridor Option. Thereafter, a single overall Performance Score was derived for ‘Wider Economic Impacts’ based on the average of the associated Sub-Criterion Element Total.

Upon the determination of a single overall performance score for each of the four Sub-Criteria, an overall Economy Appraisal Performance Score was calculated for each of the Route Corridor Options. Further details are provided in the Summary of Results Section below.

In the case of the Economy Appraisal, with the exception of the Sub-Criterion of ‘Transport Efficiency and Effectiveness’, which was quantitively assessed, the other remaining three Sub-Criteria were qualitatively assessed, as it was not reasonably practicable to quantitively assess the impacts owing to their subject matter (i.e. policy oriented, etc.).

The sections below outline the Economy Appraisal under the four separate Sub-Criteria.

9.4.2 Sub- Criterion 1 – Transport Efficiency and Effectiveness

As per TII’s PAG Unit 7.0, ‘Economic Efficiency and Effectiveness is measured by the willingness-to-pay of the consumer, the financial impact on transport providers and the effects on government finance. These factors are captured through Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA). CBA analyses how projects could increase overall welfare, after allowing for economic costs’.

The key parameter for the measurement of Transport Efficiency and Effectiveness is the Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR). The BCR compares the Present Value of Benefits (PVB), which captures the monetised benefits relating to the economy, safety and environmental impacts of the proposed scheme or associated option, against the Present Value of Costs (PVC). 162

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

A brief outline of the PVB, PVC and ultimately the BCR values, which informed impact level and associated Performance Scores for this Sub-Criterion is provided in the section below. A detailed description of the CBA is provided in the CBA Report for the proposed scheme which is included in Part D of Volume 6 (Engineering Appendices).

9.4.2.1 Present Value of Costs (PVC)

In relation to costs, the PVC consists of Capital Costs and Maintenance Costs. In order to inform the PVC Capital Cost, and similar to the Stage 1 Economy Criterion (See Section 8.6 above), an updated Option Comparison Estimate (OCE) was undertaken on the refined Stage 2 Route Corridor Options. The OCE for all Stage 2 Options was prepared in accordance with TII’s Cost Management Manual (CMM) (2010), using the Level 2 Cost Estimate Template and OCE Budget Template.

The OCE comprised of the following items as per TII’s CMM; 1) Main Contract Construction 2) Main Contract Supervision 3) Archaeology 4) Advance Works and Other Contracts 5) Walking/Cycling/Asset Renewal (Residual Network) 6) Land and Property 7) Planning and Design

The OCE is applicable to estimates undertaken in February 2020. As part of the preparation of the OCE, the following assumptions were adopted following consultation with TII: • Current Year: 2020 • Possible Mid-Construction Year: 2026 (See Section 4.2.6 - Future Year Projections of this Report). • Total Inflation Allowance (Construction and Land & Property): 3% per annum • TII Programme Risk: 5% per annum • Project Specific Risk Contingency to the 7 No. items listed above: 15%

A summary of the OCEs for each Route Corridor Option is shown in Table 9.3 below. Further details on the OCE are provided in the CBA Report in Volume 6.

Option Option B Option Option E Option F Option D Description A (Yellow+ C (Orange+ (Orange+ (Orange) (Yellow) Blue) (Green) Link1+Green) Link2+Green) OCE (€M incl. VAT) €288.5 €292.6 €306.1 €296.8 €306.7 €313.1 Table 9.3: Economy Appraisal– Sub-Criterion 1: Transport Efficiency & Effectiveness – Option Comparison Estimate (OCE)

With respect to the OCE figures listed in Table 9.3 above, the calculation of the OCE is solely for comparative purposes and is reflective of the level of design undertaken at the time of the estimation (which is at an initial stage during TII’s PMG Phase 2), is based on the rates at the time, and is subject to refinement, change and further accuracy throughout TII’s project delivery phases (i.e. TII PMG Phases 3 to 7).

For the Economy Appraisal, as set out in TII’s PAG Unit 6.11, all costs and benefits need to be in the same unit of account. As per PAG Unit 6.11, all costs and benefits are expressed in 2011 Market Prices and are discounted to 2011 to account for social time cost preferences. Using the OCE figures stated above, the Value Added Tax is removed, and these costs are deflated to 2011 values using the change in the Consumer Price Index between 2011 and 2020. Shadow price and relative price adjustments are also made such that 2011 Factor Costs are input to TII’s specialist appraisal software for road infrastructural projects; Transport User Benefit Appraisal (TUBA).

163

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

In addition to capital costs, the Economic Appraisal accounts for future maintenance costs. PAG Unit 6.11 includes typical maintenance costs for different standards of road in 2011 Factor Costs. From this rate, the annual maintenance costs were then calculated, and these annual maintenance costs were then multiplied by 60 years before input to TUBA software, along with an assumed spend profiles for both the capital and maintenance costs.

TUBA converts Factor Costs to Market Prices using the indirect tax correction factor and discounts the expenditure to 2011 to produce the PVC. A summary of the PVC for each Route Corridor Option is shown in Table 9.4 below. Further details on the methodology and calculation of the PVC are provided in the CBA Report in Volume 6.

Option Option B Option Option E Option F Option D Description A (Yellow+ C (Orange+ (Orange+ (Orange) (Yellow) Blue) (Green) Link1+Green) Link2+Green) PVC (€M) €196 €200 €215 €210 €216 €221 Table 9.4: Economy Appraisal– Sub-Criterion 1: Transport Efficiency & Effectiveness - PVC

9.4.2.2 Present Value of Benefits (PVB)

The principal monetised benefits of each Route Corridor Option comprise of travel time savings, changes in vehicle operating costs, greenhouse gas emissions, indirect taxation impacts and a reduction in the cost of collisions on the road network. An explanation of these items, with reference to the relevant TII PAGs, is provided in the CBA Report in Volume 6.

Travel time savings, changes in vehicle operating costs, greenhouse gas emissions and indirect taxation impacts are calculated by the TUBA software using vehicle demand, time, distance and cost Outputs from the traffic model and standard assumptions relating to values of time, vehicle occupancy and characteristics of the road vehicle fleet. As noted in Chapter 4 (Traffic Assessment & Option Cross-section), the TII National Transport Model (NTpM) Central Growth scenario was adopted when deriving the benefits.

The reduction in the cost of collisions on the road network are calculated using a separate software package known as Cost and Benefits to Accidents – Light Touch (COBA-LT), which uses estimated Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) flows derived from the traffic model and national default accident rates by carriageway type and speed limit to determine the likely changes in collision risks.

Each of these benefits is expressed in 2011 Market Prices and are discounted to 2011 to take account of social time cost preference. The total PVB calculated for each Route Corridor Option is shown in Table 9.5 below. Further details on the methodology and derivation of the PVB and its make-up are provided in the CBA Report in Volume 6.

Option Option B Option Option E Option F Option D Description A (Yellow+ C (Orange+ (Orange+ (Orange) (Yellow) Blue) (Green) Link1+Green) Link2+Green) PVB (€M incl. VAT) €212 €223 €310 €264 €289 €308 Table 9.5: Economy Appraisal– Sub-Criterion 1: Transport Efficiency & Effectiveness – PVB

9.4.2.3 Benefit Cost Ratio & Transport Efficiency and Effectiveness – Summary and Results

As stated above, the Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) for an option, is the ratio of the Present Value of Benefits (PVB) relative to the Present Value of Costs (PVC). The BCR is derived by dividing the PVB by the PVC.

Table 9.6 shows the BCR for each Route Corridor Option. In addition, the Net Present Value (NPV) is provided, which is the difference between the PVB and PVC.

164

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Option Option B Option Option E Option F Option D Description A (Yellow+ C (Orange+ (Orange+ (Orange) (Yellow) Blue) (Green) Link1+Green) Link2+Green) PVB (€M incl. VAT) €212 €223 €310 €264 €289 €308 PVC (€M) €196 €200 €215 €210 €216 €221 NPV (€M) €16 €23 €95 €54 €73 €87 BCR 1.1 1.1 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.4 Table 9.6: Economy Appraisal– Sub-Criterion 1: Transport Efficiency & Effectiveness - BCR

As outlined in Section 9.3 above, the seven-point Impact Scoring System set out in TII’s PAG unit 7.0 was adopted for the appraisal assessment, where a level of impact (‘Highly Positive’ to ‘Highly Negative’) was determined for Route Corridor Option against the defined Sub-Criterion. Route Corridor Options, which had a BCR of 1 or less, where the costs outweigh the benefits were scored negatively, whilst options which had a BCR greater than 1, where the benefits outweigh the costs, were proportionally graded from ‘Not Significant/Neutral’ to ‘Highly Positive’. Table 9.7 presents application of TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 seven-point scale to the BCRs for this scheme.

Level of Impact Performance Score Benefit Cost Ratio Major or Highly Positive 7 2.5 or more Moderately Positive 6 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 or 2.4 Minor or Slightly Positive 5 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9 or 2.0 Not Significant or Neutral 4 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 or 1.5 Minor or Slightly Negative 3 0.8, 0.9 or 1.0 Moderately Negative 2 0.4, 0.5, 0.6 or 0.7 Major or Highly Negative 1 0.0, 0.1, 0.2 or 0.3 Table 9.7: Economy Appraisal – Sub-Criterion 1: Transport Efficiency & Effectiveness – TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 Seven- Point Scale applied to the Benefit to Cost Ratio

Using the scale above, Table 9.8 below presents the level of impact and associated Performance Score for each option.

Option B Option E Option F Option A Option C Option D Description (Yellow+ (Orange+ (Orange+ (Yellow) (Green) (Orange) Blue) Link1+Green) Link2+Green) Not Not Not Not Not Not Level of Impact Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant / Significant / / Neutral / Neutral / Neutral / Neutral Neutral Neutral Performance Score 4 4 4 4 4 4 Table 9.8: Performance Scores for Transport Efficiency & Effectiveness (Economy Appraisal – Sub-Criterion 1)

165

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

9.4.3 Sub-Criterion 2 – Wider Economic Impacts

The transport user benefits, which are estimated as part of Cost Benefit Analysis, do not necessarily capture all of the potential economic benefits of a project. Therefore, within the Economy Appraisal, the Sub-Criterion of ‘Wider Economic Impacts’ is intended to capture other potential economic benefits. Under this Sub-Criterion, the Route Corridor Options have been comparatively assessed against the following Sub-Criterion Elements, which are identified in TII’s PAG Unit 7.0: 1) Wider Economic Impacts Sub-Criterion Element 1 - Competition in the Market 2) Wider Economic Impacts Sub-Criterion Element 2 - Agglomeration Benefits 3) Wider Economic Impacts Sub-Criterion Element 3 - Inward Investment 4) Wider Economic Impacts Sub-Criterion Element 4 - Labour Supply 5) Wider Economic Impacts Sub-Criterion Element 5 - Urban Regeneration

9.4.3.1 Wider Economic Impacts Sub-Criterion Element 1 – Competition in the Market

Transport improvements can sometimes affect the competitiveness of a market by linking two geographic markets that were previously separate and thereby reducing the cost of accessing a wider market. This would increase competition within the enlarged market, as consumers would have a wider choice of suppliers. This would in turn increase efficiency and consumer welfare. As highlighted in TII’s PAG Unit 7.0, most road projects are deemed to score neutral in this regard. While the N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme seeks to improve connectivity, it does not connect previously separate goods markets. Therefore, all Route Corridor Options for the purpose of this comparative assessment, are determined not to have a discernible impact in terms of changes to competition in the market and have been qualitatively assessed as having a ‘Neutral’ impact. With reference to TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 seven- point scale, all Route Corridor Options are allocated a Performance Score of 4. A summary of the results is provided in Table 9.9 below.

Option B Option E Option F Option A Option C Option D Description (Yellow+ (Orange+ (Orange+ (Yellow) (Green) (Orange) Blue) Link1+Green) Link2+Green) Not Not Not Not Not Not Level of Impact Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant / Significant / / Neutral / Neutral / Neutral / Neutral Neutral Neutral Performance Score 4 4 4 4 4 4 Table 9.9: Performance Scores for Wider Funding Impacts – Sub-Criterion Element 1: Competition in the Market

9.4.3.2 Wider Economic Impacts Sub-Criterion Element 2 - Agglomeration Benefits

Agglomeration benefits can arise when markets or firms are able to derive additional productivity from being closer together. These benefits would arise where a reduced travel time between two production centres would result in an improvement in supply and contracting arrangements. TII PAG unit 6.9 states that ‘Agglomeration impacts should only be assessed if the road scheme impacts on an urban area with, at its core, a working population of 60,000 and a minimum of seven jobs per hectare. For rural inter-urban road schemes, agglomeration impacts are not expected to be a significant contributor to economic benefits’. The N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme is a rural inter-urban road scheme, which does not impact on a dense urban area and therefore all Route Corridor Options have been qualitatively assessed as having a ‘Neutral’ impact in terms of agglomeration.

With reference to TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 seven-point scale, all Route Corridor Options are allocated a Performance Score of 4. A summary of the results is provided in Table 9.10 below.

166

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Option B Option E Option F Option A Option C Option D Description (Yellow+ (Orange+ (Orange+ (Yellow) (Green) (Orange) Blue) Link1+Green) Link2+Green) Not Not Not Not Not Not Level of Impact Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant / Significant / / Neutral / Neutral / Neutral / Neutral Neutral Neutral Performance Score 4 4 4 4 4 4 Table 9.10: Performance Scores for Wider Funding Impacts – Sub-Criterion Element 2: Agglomeration Benefits

9.4.3.3 Wider Economic Impacts Sub-Criterion Element 3 - Inward Investment

TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 states that the potential of the proposed project in attracting sustainable inward investment should be considered. If a road scheme is being progressed at the request of an inward investor, then that scheme should be evaluated as having a positive impact on inward investment. Conversely, TII’s PAG Unit states that projects which could harm investment opportunities should be assessed as having a negative impact.

As the proposed scheme seeks to improve strategic and regional connectivity, it is considered unlikely to harm inward investment opportunities. However, taking account of PAG Unit 7.0’s guidance in terms of positive impacts, the proposed scheme is not being progressed as a request of a specific inward investor. Therefore, the proposed scheme, and all of its Route Corridor Options, have been qualitatively assessed as having a ‘Neutral’ impact in terms of this Sub-Criterion Element. With reference to TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 seven-point scale, all Route Corridor Options are allocated a Performance Score of 4. A summary of the results is provided in Table 9.11 below.

Option B Option E Option F Option A Option C Option D Description (Yellow+ (Orange+ (Orange+ (Yellow) (Green) (Orange) Blue) Link1+Green) Link2+Green) Not Not Not Not Not Not Level of Impact Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant / Significant / / Neutral / Neutral / Neutral / Neutral Neutral Neutral Performance Score 4 4 4 4 4 4 Table 9.11: Performance Scores for Wider Funding Impacts – Sub-Criterion Element 3: Inward Investment

9.4.3.4 Wider Economic Impacts Sub-Criterion Element 4 - Labour Supply TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 highlights that ‘better transport links may increase a market’s employment catchment’, providing firms with a larger pool of potential employees, which may reduce difficulties in recruiting the right candidate for a job vacancy. TII’s PAG Unit 6.9 highlights that providing the increase in the supply of labour arises from ‘taking workers out of unemployment, rather than through increased immigration (or the return of expatriate workers)’, would have a wider positive impact. However, TII’s PAG Unit 6.9 highlights that ‘the impacts of a transport improvement on employment is in the main re-distributional’ and that the anticipated benefit ‘is likely to be small (as transport schemes do not generally have a large impact on employment at the national level).’

TII’s PAG Unit 6.9 also highlights that ‘the required analysis to estimate at the Ireland level the gain in employment and the proportion of that arising to workers previously unemployed is non-trivial’ and that ‘the level of resources required to estimate employment benefits from increased labour supply is therefore not proportionate to the resulting improvement in the robustness of the appraisal’. The N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme does not connect previously separate labour markets and as such any benefits arising from changes in the labour supply would be small and therefore all Route Corridor Options have been qualitatively assessed as having a ‘Neutral’ impact in terms of changes to labour supply. With reference to TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 seven-point scale, all Route Corridor Options are allocated a Performance Score of 4. A summary of the results is provided in Table 9.12 below.

167

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Option B Option E Option F Option A Option C Option D Description (Yellow+ (Orange+ (Orange+ (Yellow) (Green) (Orange) Blue) Link1+Green) Link2+Green) Not Not Not Not Not Not Level of Impact Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant / Significant / / Neutral / Neutral / Neutral / Neutral Neutral Neutral Performance Score 4 4 4 4 4 4 Table 9.12: Performance Scores for Wider Funding Impacts – Sub-Criterion Element 4: Labour Supply

9.4.3.5 Wider Economic Impacts Sub-Criterion Element 5 - Urban Regeneration

Although a large proportion of road network investment can offer indirect urban regeneration benefits, TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 indicates that most road schemes should be assessed as having a neutral impact; ‘[Only] in exceptional circumstances, where a project addresses specific regeneration issues should the project be assessed as Highly/Moderately positive’. The N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme is a rural inter-urban road scheme, and in the context of PAG Unit 7.0’s guidance does not specifically support urban regeneration. For the purposes of this assessment, all Route Corridor Options have been qualitatively assessed as having a ‘Neutral’ impact in terms of urban regeneration. With reference to TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 seven-point scale, all Route Corridor Options are allocated a Performance Score of 4. A summary of the results is provided in Table 9.13 below.

Option B Option E Option F Option A Option C Option D Description (Yellow+ (Orange+ (Orange+ (Yellow) (Green) (Orange) Blue) Link1+Green) Link2+Green) Not Not Not Not Not Not Level of Impact Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant / Significant / / Neutral / Neutral / Neutral / Neutral Neutral Neutral Performance Score 4 4 4 4 4 4 Table 9.13: Performance Scores for Wider Funding Impacts – Sub-Criterion Element 5: Urban Regeneration

9.4.3.6 Wider Economic Impacts Summary and Results

As stated in Section 9.4.1 above, and shown in Table 9.14 below, upon the determination of the individual Performance Scores for each of the Sub-Criterion Elements, each of these scores were combined to provide a Sub- Criterion Element Total (or Sum of Individual Performance Scores) for each Route Corridor Option. Thereafter, a single overall performance score was derived for Wider Economic Impacts based on average of the associated Sum of Individual Performance Scores. Table 9.14 presents the results below.

Option Option B Option E Option F Option C Option D Description A (Yellow+ (Orange+ (Orange+ (Green) (Orange) (Yellow) Blue) Link1+Green) Link2+Green) Competition in the Market 4 4 4 4 4 4 Agglomeration 4 4 4 4 4 4 Inward Investment 4 4 4 4 4 4 Labour Supply 4 4 4 4 4 4 Urban Regeneration 4 4 4 4 4 4 Sum of Individual 20 20 20 20 20 20 Performance Scores Average Score 4 4 4 4 4 4 Overall Performance Score 4 4 4 4 4 4 for Wider Economic Impacts Table 9.14: Performance Scores for Wider Economic Impacts (Economy Appraisal – Sub-Criterion 2)

168

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

9.4.4 Sub-Criterion 3 – Transport Quality & Reliability Reliability is a measure of variation in journey times that transport users are unable to predict, as opposed to the type of variation that might arise between peak and off-peak times or due to seasonal impacts. Unreliable journey times are most likely to be experienced due to congestion, which will occur when the ratio of traffic volume to capacity is highest. High volume to capacity ratios are normally associated with peak travel times. TII’s PAG Unit 6.10 – Reliability and Quality (October 2016) suggests identifying links with the highest volume to capacity ratios in the peak period and ascertaining whether any of these exceed a 70% threshold in the Design Year. There are locations in the existing N2 corridor where the volume to capacity ratio of the Do-Minimum network is anticipated to exceed 70% in the Design Year (2042). Construction of all options would reduce the likelihood of congestion at these locations in the future.

TII’s PAG unit 6.10 indicates that despite the inherent difference between reliability and journey quality, it is essentially the traffic volume to capacity ratio, which is likely to drive any variation in perceived quality. As such these measures are not assessed separately.

All Route Corridor Options for the N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme would improve transport quality and reliability however, there is no discernible difference between the Route Corridor Options in relation to this positive impact and so for the purposes of this assessment all Route Corridor Options have been qualitatively assessed as having a ‘Slight Positive’ impact in terms of changes to transport quality and reliability. With reference to TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 seven-point scale, all Route Corridor Options are allocated a Performance Score of 5. A summary of the results is provided in Table 9.15 below.

Option Option B Option Option E Option F Option D Description A (Yellow+ C (Orange+ (Orange+ (Orange) (Yellow) Blue) (Green) Link1+Green) Link2+Green) Minor/ Minor/ Minor/ Minor/ Minor/ Minor/ Level of Impact Slightly Slightly Slightly Slightly Slightly Slightly Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Performance Score 5 5 5 5 5 5 Table 9.15: Performance Scores for Transport Quality (Economy Appraisal – Sub-Criterion 3)

9.4.5 Sub-Criterion 4 – Funding Impacts

On schemes, where non-exchequer funding is available, this is considered in the MCA process under the Sub- Criterion of ‘Funding Impacts’. The proposed scheme currently does not have any committed non-exchequer funding and at this stage for purposes of the Option Selection Process, it is assumed that all options would be 100% Irish exchequer funded.

Funding through the European Union or other funding sources may be subsequently secured as the scheme progresses. However, it is likely that any potential non-exchequer funding would apply to all options, and hence no differentiation between the options can be made on that basis. In accordance with PAG unit 7.0, schemes without non-exchequer funding are ranked as ‘Neutral’. With reference to TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 seven-point scale, all Route Corridor Options are allocated a Performance Score of 4. A summary of the results is provided in Table 9.16 below.

169

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Option B Option E Option F Option A Option C Option D Description (Yellow+ (Orange+ (Orange+ (Yellow) (Green) (Orange) Blue) Link1+Green) Link2+Green) Not Not Not Not Not Not Level of Impact Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant / Significant / / Neutral / Neutral / Neutral / Neutral Neutral Neutral Performance Score 4 4 4 4 4 4 Table 9.16: Performance Scores for Funding Impacts (Economy Appraisal – Sub-Criterion 4)

9.4.6 Economy Appraisal – Summary of Results

As stated in Section 9.4.1 above, upon the determination of a single overall performance score (1 -7) for each of the four Sub-Criteria (Transport Efficiency & Effectiveness, Wider Economic Impacts, Quality and Reliability, and Funding Impacts), each of these scores was added together to provide an Overall Economy Appraisal Performance Score (out of a maximum of 28) for each of the Route Corridor Options . Subsequently, the score was then expressed as marks out of 100 to align with marking system of the other five Main Criteria of the Stage 2 Appraisal. The results of the Economy Appraisal are shown in Table 9.17 below.

Sub- Sub-Criterion Option Option B Option Option D Option E Option F Criterion Description A (Yellow+ C (Orange) (Orange+ (Orange+ Ref. No. (Yellow) Blue) (Green) Link1+Green) Link2+Green) Transport Efficiency 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 & Effectiveness Wider Economic 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 Impacts Quality and 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 Reliability

4 Funding Impacts 4 4 4 4 4 4 Overall Economy Appraisal 17 17 17 17 17 17 Performance Score (Out of 28) Overall Economy Appraisal Performance Score (Expressed 61 61 61 61 61 61 as Marks out of 100) Table 9.17: Economy Appraisal – Performance Scores Summary Table

170

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

9.5 Safety Appraisal

9.5.1 Introduction

The Safety Appraisal was undertaken in accordance with TII’s PMM and TII’s PAG Unit 7.0: Multi-Criteria Analysis. The purpose of this appraisal is to comparatively assess the impact of each Route Corridor Option against the Do- Nothing and/or Do-Minimum Options in terms of how each option performs against the Main Criterion of Safety.

The following three Sub-Criteria were applied for the Safety Appraisal: 1) Sub-Criterion 1 – Collision Reduction Benefits 2) Sub-Criterion 2 – Security of Road Users 3) Sub-Criterion 3 – Road Safety Audit Stage F Part 1

In addition to the above, a number of Sub-Criterion Elements were identified and assessed for Sub-Criteria of ‘Security of Road Users’ and ‘Road Safety Stage F Part 1’. These Elements are outlined in further detail in the Sections below. The identification and assessment of Sub-Criterion Elements for the Sub-Criterion of ‘Collision Reduction Benefits’ was not required and/or applicable.

Similar to the other Main Criteria, TII’s PAG unit 7.0’s seven-point Impact Scoring System was adopted for this appraisal, where an impact level (‘Highly Positive’ to ‘Highly Negative’) was determined for each Route Corridor Option against the defined Sub-Criterion Element. Then, each impact level was assigned a Performance Score based on the defined seven-point scale (i.e. ‘Highly Positive’ Impact = Performance Score of 7, ‘Highly Negative’ Impact = Performance Score of 1).

Upon the determination of individual Performance Scores for each of the Sub-Criterion Elements related to the Sub- Criteria of ‘Security of Road Users’ and ‘RSA Stage F Part 1’, each of these scores were combined to provide a Sub- Criterion Element Total (or Sum of Individual Performance Scores) for each Route Corridor Option. Thereafter, a single overall Performance Score was derived for each of these two Sub-Criteria based on an average of their associated Sum of Individual Performance Scores.

After a single overall Performance Score was assigned to each of the three Sub-Criteria, an overall Safety Appraisal Performance Score was calculated for each of the Route Corridor Options. Further details are provided in the Summary of Results Section below.

For the Safety Appraisal, in the case of the Sub-Criterion of ‘Collision Reduction Benefits’ and a number of the RSA Stage F Sub-Criterion Elements, a quantitative analysis was undertaken. Elsewhere, due to the initial stage of design at this point or due to the nature of subject matter (i.e. Security of Road Users), it was not reasonably practicable to undertake a quantitative assessment, and therefore a qualitative assessment was carried out in these cases.

The sections below outline the Safety Appraisal under the three separate Sub-Criteria.

9.5.2 Sub-Criterion 1 – Collision Reduction Benefits

In relation to the Sub-Criterion of Collision Reduction Benefits, it has been determined from the Cost Benefit Analysis that each Route Corridor Option of the N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme would reduce the number of collisions and the number of casualties and would therefore provide benefits that can be monetised.

The reduction in the cost of collisions on the road network is calculated using a software package known as Cost and Benefits to Accidents – Light Touch (COBA-LT), which uses estimated Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) flows derived from the traffic model and national default accident rates by carriageway type and speed limit to determine changes in collision risks. Further details on the derivation of the Collision Reduction Benefits are provided in the CBA Report in Volume 6.

A summary of the COBA-LT results for the prescribed PAG 30 Year Appraisal Period, from the assumed Opening Year (2027 to 2056) is provided in Table 9.18 below. 171

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Option Option B Option Option E Option F Option D Description A (Yellow+ C (Orange+ (Orange+ (Orange) (Yellow) Blue) (Green) Link1+Green) Link2+Green) Estimated Collisions Saved 313 292 260 206 229 218 Estimated Fatal Casualties 17 17 13 10 11 11 Saved Estimated Serious Injuries 39 37 30 24 27 26 Saved Estimated Slight Injuries Saved 508 477 414 326 364 351

Collision Reduction Benefits €30.3M €29.0M €23.0M €17.8M €20.3M €20.3M Table 9.18: Safety Appraisal – Sub-Criterion 1: Collision Reduction Benefits – Collision Reduction Benefits

As outlined in Section 9.3 above, the seven-point Impact Scoring System set out in TII’s PAG unit 7.0’s was adopted for the appraisal assessment, where a level of impact (‘Highly Positive’ to ‘Highly Negative’) was determined for each Route Corridor Option against the defined Sub-Criterion. Any Route Corridor Option which has a Collision Reduction Benefit close to zero (+/- €10M) was designated ‘Not Significant/Neutral’, with larger negative and positive Collision Reduction Benefits graded proportionally either of this ‘Not Significant/Neutral’ axis. Table 9.19 below presents the application of TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 seven-point scale to the Collision Reduction Benefits for this scheme.

172

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Level of Impact Performance Score Collision Reduction Benefits Major or Highly Positive 7 > +€30 M Moderately Positive 6 +€20 M to +€30 M Minor or Slightly Positive 5 +€10 M to +€20 M Not Significant or Neutral 4 -€10 M to +€10 M Minor or Slightly Negative 3 -€20 M to -€10 M Moderately Negative 2 -€30 M to -€20 M Major or Highly Negative 1 < -€30 M Table 9.19: Safety Appraisal – Sub-Criterion 1: Collision Reduction Benefits - TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 Seven-Point Scale applied to the Collision Reduction Benefits

Using the scale above, Table 9.20 below presents the level of impact and associated performance for each option.

Option Option B Option E Option F Option C Option D Description A (Yellow+ (Orange+ (Orange+ (Green) (Orange) (Yellow) Blue) Link1+Green) Link2+Green) Major / Moderately Moderately Minor / Moderately Moderately Level of Impact Highly Positive Positive Slightly Positive Positive Positive Positive Performance Score 7 6 6 5 6 6 Table 9.20: Performance Scores for Collision Reduction Benefits (Safety Appraisal – Sub-Criterion 1)

9.5.3 Sub-Criterion 2 – Security of Road Users

With reference to TII’s PAG Unit 7.0, this Sub-Criterion covers the objective of ‘improving personal security of travellers and their property’ in the context of road safety along the Route Corridors Options. This PAG Sub-Criterion does not cover or relate to general security impacts to the surrounding or adjacent community (i.e. house security, etc.).

As per TII’s PAG Unit 7.0, this Sub-Criterion relates to the impact to vulnerable road users (including pedestrians and cyclists), as well as vehicle users. Therefore, under this Sub-Criterion, the Route Corridor Options have been comparatively assessed against the following Sub-Criterion Elements: 1) Security of Road Users – Sub-Criterion Element 1 – Vehicle Users 2) Security of Road Users – Sub-Criterion Element 2 – Vulnerable Road Users

9.5.3.1 Security of Road Users – Sub-Criterion Element 1 – Vehicle Users

In relation to this Sub-Criterion Element, it is considered that all Route Corridor Options will have a positive impact to vehicle users in terms of personal security and the security of their vehicles. It is deemed that all Route Corridor Options will provide a safer, more secure and improved road carriageway, which will meet all of the Scheme Safety Objectives as outlined in Section 1.5 of this Report, be designed to current applicable design standards, and will reduce the potential of vehicle collisions.

In terms of differentiation of the options, at this early stage of the design process and for the purposes of this particular assessment, it is considered that impact of all options is similar. Therefore, in conclusion, all Route Corridor Options have been qualitatively assessed as having a ‘Major or Highly Positive’ impact in terms of Security of Vehicle Users. With reference to TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 seven-point scale, all Route Corridor Options are allocated a Performance Score of 7. A summary of the results is provided in Table 9.21 below.

173

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Option Option B Option Option E Option F Option D Description A (Yellow+ C (Orange+ (Orange+ (Orange) (Yellow) Blue) (Green) Link1+Green) Link2+Green) Major / Major / Major / Major / Major / Major / Level of Impact Highly Highly Highly Highly Highly Highly Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Performance Score 7 7 7 7 7 7 Table 9.21: Performance Scores for Security of Road Users – Sub-Criterion Element 1: Vehicle Users

9.5.3.2 Security of Road Users Sub-Criterion Element 2 – Vulnerable Road Users

In relation to the personal security of vulnerable road users, TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 states the following:

‘Security should also take into account the security of vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and cyclists. For example, schemes providing segregated infrastructure to cater for the needs of pedestrians and cyclists should be ranked highly.’

In terms of assessing the impact to the personal security and safety of vulnerable road users, it is noted that the safety of pedestrians and cyclists has also been considered as part of the Physical Activity Appraisal [Including Sub- Criterions 3 (Journey Ambience Benefits) & 4 (Changes in Numbers of Collisions/Incidents) – See Section 9.9 of this Report] and as part of Road Safety Audit Stage F – Part 1 (See Sub-Criterion 3 – Impact on Non-Motorised Users – See Section 9.5.4 of this Report)].

As identified in the Physical Activity Appraisal, the existing N2 currently does not provide formalised segregated provision for vulnerable road users. All Route Corridor Options will provide segregated infrastructure to cater for pedestrians and cyclists along the entirety of their routes. The provision of formal separation distance and dedicated shared cycle and pedestrian tracks, which will be designed in accordance with the applicable standards, will provide increased safety and personal security to vulnerable road users. Therefore, it is considered that all Route Corridor Options will have a positive impact.

In terms of determining the degree of the positive impact, and differentiating between the options, as per the Physical Activity Appraisal Sub-Criterion 4 (Changes in Numbers of Collisions/Incidents), it is envisaged at this stage that the new pedestrian and cycle facilities applicable to the predominately offline routes (Options C to F), will be provided on the existing N2 carriageway. With the provision of the new walking/cycling facility running adjacent to the existing deregulated N2 under the predominately offline scenario (Options C to F), this will present a higher number of crossing points of existing side roads/direct accesses (i.e. conflict points) when compared with predominately online routes (Options A and B). This is due to the fact that with the predominately online routes (Options A and B), there will be greater opportunity to reduce and rationalise the number of junctions on the new road infrastructure, and thus reduce the number of potential conflict points for cyclists and pedestrians.

In counterbalancing the reduced number of conflict points for cyclists and pedestrians on the online routes, as per the Physical Activity Appraisal Sub-Criterion 3 (Journey Ambience Benefits), it is recognised that there will be a significantly larger volume of traffic adjacent to the mainline and entering/exiting junctions on the online routes. In the case of the offline routes, where a significant portion of the segregated pedestrian and cycle facilities will be on the deregulated N2, there will be a reduced level of traffic flow adjacent to the facilities. Although, recognising that all pedestrian and cycle facilities on all Route Corridor Options will be designed in accordance with the required design safety standards, it is considered that pedestrians and cyclists would have increased levels of danger perception on the online routes (Options A and B).

Therefore, considering the qualitatively assessed benefits and disbenefits in terms of changes in the numbers of collision/incidents, and danger perception, it is deemed that the level of impact in terms of personal security of vulnerable road users is balanced across all options in this regard.

174

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

In conclusion, it is considered that that all Route Corridor Options will have a positive impact, as enhanced segregated facilities will be provided for vulnerable road users on all options. In terms of differentiation, it is assessed that the benefits and disbenefits counterbalance each other for both the online and offline routes. Therefore, it is qualitatively assessed that all options will have a ‘Minor or Slightly Positive’ Impact. With reference to TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 seven-point scale, and Table 9.22 below, all Route Corridor Options are allocated a Performance Score of 5.

Option Option B Option Option E Option F Option D Description A (Yellow+ C (Orange+ (Orange+ (Orange) (Yellow) Blue) (Green) Link1+Green) Link2+Green) Minor/ Minor/ Minor/ Minor/ Minor/ Minor/ Level of Impact Slightly Slightly Slightly Slightly Slightly Slightly Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Performance Score 5 5 5 5 5 5 Table 9.22: Performance Scores for Security of Road Users – Sub-Criterion Element 2: Vulnerable Road Users

9.5.3.3 Security of Road Users – Summary and Conclusion

As outlined in Section 9.5.1 (Introduction) above, and shown in Table 9.23 below, upon the determination of the individual performance scores for each of the Sub-Criterion Elements related to Security of Road Users, each of these scores were combined to provide a Sub-Criterion Element Total (Sum of Individual Performance Scores) for each Route Corridor Option. Thereafter, a single overall performance score was derived for the Sub-Criterion of Security of Road Users based on the average of their associated Sum of Individual Performance Scores.

Option Option B Option Option E Option F Option D Description A (Yellow+ C (Orange+ (Orange+ (Orange) (Yellow) Blue) (Green) Link1+Green) Link2+Green) Vehicle Users 7 7 7 7 7 7 Vulnerable Road Users 5 5 5 5 5 5 Sum of Individual Performance 12 12 12 12 12 12 Scores Average Score 6 6 6 6 6 6 Overall Performance Score for 6 6 6 6 6 6 Security of Road Users Table 9.23: Performance Scores for Security of Road Users (Safety Appraisal – Sub-Criterion 1)

175

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

9.5.4 Sub-Criterion 3 – Road Safety Audit Stage F Part 1

A separate Road Safety Audit (RSA) Stage F Part 1 Report is provided in Part C of Volume 6 (Engineering Appendices). The sections below provide a summary of comparative analysis of the Route Corridor Options, in terms of the RSA Stage F Part 1.

The following Sub-Criterion Elements, as per the RSA Stage F Part 1 Report, were used for the basis of comparative analysis of the Route Corridor Options: 1) RSA Stage F – Sub-Criterion Element 1 – Number of Junctions 2) RSA Stage F – Sub-Criterion Element 2 – Collision Risk 3) RSA Stage F – Sub-Criterion Element 3 – Forgiving Road Sides 4) RSA Stage F – Sub-Criterion Element 4 – Geometric Standards – Driver Discomfort – Vertical Gradient 5) RSA Stage F – Sub-Criterion Element 5 – Geometric Standards – Driver Discomfort – Departures / Relaxations 6) RSA Stage F – Sub-Criterion Element 6 – Impact on Vulnerable Users 7) RSA Stage F – Sub-Criterion Element 7 – Effects on Surrounding Local Network 8) RSA Stage F – Sub-Criterion Element 8 – Tie-in Locations 9) RSA Stage F – Sub-Criterion Element 9 – Safe Parking Areas

In general, the impact of each Route Corridor Option was comparatively assessed against the Do-Nothing and/or Do-Minimum Option in terms of how each option performed against the Sub-Criterion Elements listed above. In the case of the final two sub-criterion elements (‘Tie-in-Locations’ and ‘Safe Parking Areas’), these were determined to be ‘Neutral’ and ‘Non-Applicable’, and due to aspect of Sub-Criterion Element and the stage of the design, they could not have been reasonably compared to the Do-Nothing and/or Do-Minimum Option . Further details on the assessment of these two sub-criterion elements is provided in the sections below.

9.5.4.1 RSA Stage F Part 1 – Sub-Criterion Element 1 – Number of Junctions

As part of the scheme development, all proposed junctions will be designed in accordance with TII’s design standards to ensure that they meet the necessary capacity, safety and geometric design requirements. Notwithstanding this, each junction represents a conflict point for traffic movements and/or vulnerable road users, and the number of junctions proposed on a scheme / option provides a broad indication of the degree of potential safety issues on a proposed scheme/option. Equally, it is recognised that all of the proposed Route Corridor Options will provide a significant reduction in the number of junctions/accesses when compared against the existing N2, and therefore all options are deemed to provide a positive impact in that regard.

With reference to Chapter 4 (Traffic Assessment and Option Cross-Section), the RSA Audit Team referred to the indicative junction design approach for this Sub-Criterion Element. In identifying the number and type of Junctions, it was recognised that the design of the proposed alignment of the Route Corridor Options is at a relatively early stage and is potentially subject to a number of significant changes in the future. Therefore, recognising the high- fluidity of the design at this stage, the major junctions (roundabouts and compact grade separated junctions), which have been initially identified, formed the sole basis of this assessment, as they were deemed to represent the lowest probability of change, when compared to the more minor junctions (Left-in / Left-out Junctions). Equally, the type of major junctions was not differentiated for the assessment, as it was considered that there is a high probability that these will change as part of the future development of the scheme.

Table 9.24 lists the number of junctions for each Route Corridor Option.

Option Option B Option Option E Option F Option D Description A (Yellow+ C (Orange+ (Orange+ (Orange) (Yellow) Blue) (Green) Link1+Green) Link2+Green) Number of Junctions 11 10 8 7 7 7 Table 9.24: RSA Stage F Part 1 – Sub-Criterion Element 1 – Number of Major Junctions - Count

176

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

As stated above, when compared to the existing carriageway, it is considered that all Route Corridor Options will have a positive impact. In terms of determining the level of positive impact for each option, the distribution of the number of major junctions between all of the Route Corridor Options was considered and the following banding was applied:

• At or Greater than 10 No. Junctions = ‘Minor Slightly Positive Impact’ / Performance Score of 5; • 9 to 8 No. Junctions = ‘Moderately Positive Impact’ / ‘Performance Score of 6, • Less than 8 No. Junctions = ‘Major or Highly Positive Impact’ / Performance Score of 7

Applying the bands stated above, the following levels of positive impact and associated Performance Scores were determined and are shown in Table 9.25 below.

Option Option B Option E Option F Option C Option D Description A (Yellow+ (Orange+ (Orange+ (Green) (Orange) (Yellow) Blue) Link1+Green) Link2+Green) Minor/ Minor/ Moderately Major/ Major/ Highly Major/ Highly Level of Impact Slightly Slightly Positive Highly Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Performance Scores 5 5 6 7 7 7 Table 9.25: RSA Stage F Part 1 – Sub-Criterion Element 1 – Number of Major Junctions – Performance Scores

9.5.4.2 RSA Stage F Part 1 – Sub-Criterion Element 2 – Collision Risk

A rudimentary collision risk rate is typically derived by a calculation based on multiplying a number of parameters (Days in the Year, scheme length, estimated Design Year traffic flow, and a standardised constant collision factor). For this assessment and considering the specific Study Area and Route Corridor Options, it was deemed that this method would not provide the required level of accuracy and appropriate differentiation between the options. This was deduced as it was considered that the generic-based constant collision factors could not be reasonably applied to the particular future site-specific conditions of each Route Corridor Option (i.e. for offline routes, a site specific factor would be required for the associated residual network of the N2, as well as the new offline carriageway, etc.).

Therefore, for this particular Sub-Criterion Element, it was deemed that the estimated future collision risk reduction, expressed in monetary value in terms of benefits, would be a more accurate representation of the performance of each option. These monetary value figures are estimated using TII COBA-LT software package, which is based on the Study Area and option specific traffic flows derived from the scheme specific traffic model. In addition, unlike the rudimentary collision rate calculation, it is noted that the COBA-LT derived benefits are compared against the Do- Minimum Option for a 30-year appraisal period from the assumed Opening Year (2027) to the Horizon Year (2057). Reference is to be made to Section 9.4.2 above, and the CBA Report in Volume 6 for further details on COBA-LT.

The estimated collision reduction benefits calculated by COBA-LT expressed in millions of euros for the 30-year appraisal period are provided in Table 9.26 below.

Option Option B Option Option E Option F Option D Description A (Yellow+ C (Orange+ (Orange+ (Orange) (Yellow) Blue) (Green) Link1+Green) Link2+Green) Collision Reduction Benefits €30.3 €29.0 €23.0 €17.8 €20.3 €20.3 (€M) Table 9.26: RSA Stage F Part 1 – Sub-Criterion Element 2 – Collision Risk - Collision Reduction Benefits

177

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

As stated above, the figures are compared against the Do-Minimum Option (or the existing N2 in the context of this particular assessment). In terms of determining the level of positive impact for each option, the distribution of the Collision Reduction Benefits values between all of the Route Corridor Options were considered and the following banding was applied:

• Greater than €30M = ‘Major or Highly Impact’ / Performance Score of 7 • Between €20M and €30M = ‘Moderately Positive Impact’ / Performance Score of 6; • Between €10M and €20M = ‘Minor or Slightly Positive Impact’ / Performance Score of 5.

Applying the bands stated above, the following levels of impact and associated performance scores were determined and are shown in Table 9.27 below.

Option Option B Option E Option F Option C Option D Description A (Yellow+ (Orange+ (Orange+ (Green) (Orange) (Yellow) Blue) Link1+Green) Link2+Green) Major/ Minor / Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Level of Impact Highly Slightly Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Performance Scores 7 6 6 5 6 6 Table 9.27: RSA Stage F Part 1 – Sub-Criterion Element 2 – Collision Risk – Performance Scores

9.5.4.3 RSA Stage F Part 1 – Sub-Criterion Element 3 – Forgiving Roadsides The ‘Forgiving Road Side Approach’ as defined in the TII Standards is based on removing hazards from the ‘clearzone’ area of the proposed carriageway to reduce the risk of collisions to any vehicles leaving the road. The clearzone is a specified offset distance from the outside running lane of the carriageway. Hazards as defined by the TII standards range from existing street furniture (including boundary walls, telephone poles, etc.) to potential hazards created as part of proposed works (including earthworks slopes and safety barriers themselves).

In general, the proposed scheme and all of the Route Corridor Options will adopt the ‘Forgiving Roadside Approach’, and all options will present less hazards within the clearzone area when compared with the existing N2 Carriageway. Therefore, it is considered that all options will have a positive impact.

In terms of differentiating the options, it is recognised that the design of the proposed carriageway for all options is at an early stage and is subject to a significant number of design changes in the future. It is also recognised that the majority of hazards can be potentially removed on all options through the application of the appropriate design standards and landtake. Therefore, for the purposes of this assessment, it was deemed that significant structures such as bridges, which present challenges in terms of the forgiving road side approach (with parapets, and associated steepened slopes, etc.), were considered as the basis for this Sub-Criterion Element. In addition to their relationship with the forgiving roadside approach, it was deemed that the ‘number of bridges’ parameter represented the lowest probability of significant change, when compared to other design aspects such as earthworks slopes, etc.

Table 9.28 lists the number of proposed bridges for each Route Corridor Option based on their associated indicative working alignment. It is noted that summation is based on both over and under bridges facilitating local and regional crossings of proposed mainline only. It does not include potential accommodation works underpasses and overbridges, as it is considered that these works will be subject to a higher degree of change as the scheme develops.

178

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Description Option Option B Option Option D Option E Option F A (Yellow+ C (Orange) (Orange+ (Orange+ (Yellow) Blue) (Green) Link1+Green) Link2+Green) Number of Hazards (Bridges) 17 17 9 15 9 15 Table 9.28: RSA Stage F Part 1 – Sub-Criterion Element 3 –Forgiving Roadsides – Number of Hazards (Bridges) - Count

As stated above, when compared to the existing carriageway, it is considered that all Route Corridor Options will have a positive impact in terms of Forgiving Roadsides. In terms of determining the level of positive impact for each option, the distribution of the number of bridges was considered and the following banding was applied:

• At or Greater than 15 No. of Bridges = ‘Minor or Slightly Positive Impact’ / Performance Score of 5; • 14 to 10 No. of Bridges = ‘Moderately Positive Impact’ / Performance Score of 6; • Less than 10 No. of Bridges = ‘Major or Highly Positive Impact’ / Performance Score of 7.

Applying the bands stated above, the following levels of positive impact and associated Performance Scores were determined and are shown in Table 9.29 below.

Option Option B Option Option E Option F Option D Description A (Yellow+ C (Orange+ (Orange+ (Orange) (Yellow) Blue) (Green) Link1+Green) Link2+Green) Minor/ Minor/ Major/ Minor/ Major/ Highly Minor/ Level of Impact Slightly Slightly Highly Slightly Positive Slightly Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Performance Scores 5 5 7 5 7 5 Table 9.29: RSA Stage F Part 1 – Sub-Criterion Element 3 – Forgiving Roadsides – Performance Scores

9.5.4.4 RSA Stage F Part 1 – Sub-Criterion Element 4 – Geometry – Potential Geometric Standards Impacting Driver Comfort – Vertical Gradient For this Sub-Criterion Element, the indicative mainline vertical alignment for each option was reviewed from a RSA perspective to identify vertical gradients, which although acceptable to employ from a TII Standard perspective, may result in a lesser degree of driving comfort for road users.

It is noted at this stage of the design that all Route Corridor Options offer improved and more desirable vertical gradients when compared to the existing N2 carriageway. Therefore, it is deemed that all options will have a positive impact.

In terms of differentiating the options, as part of the review, and with reference to TII Design Standard Rural Road Link Design - Standard DN-GEO-03031 (2017), the following parameters were identified and estimated for each option:

• Application of Vertical Gradients at Desirable (4%) and >4% (1 Step Relaxation) – Number of Instances & Combined Length

The results of the review are provided in Table 9.30 below.

179

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Option Option B Option Option E Option F Option D Description A (Yellow + C (Orange+Link1 (Orange+Link2 (Orange) (Yellow) Blue) (Green) +Green) +Green) Number of Instances 3 3 6 3 5 2

Combined length of use of 4% gradient or greater 356.5 553 1251 730 1252 472 (metres)

Table 9.30: RSA Stage F Part 1 – Sub-Criterion Element 4 – Vertical Geometric Standards – Vertical Gradient

As stated above, when compared to the existing carriageway, it is considered that all Route Corridor Options will have a positive impact in terms of Driver Comfort (Vertical). In terms of determining the level of positive impact for each option, the parameter of ‘Combined Length’ was used as opposed to number of instances as it was deemed to be more comprehensive. The following banding was selected following consideration of the distribution of the combined lengths across the options:

• Greater than 1200m = ‘Minor or Slightly Positive Impact’ / Performance Score of 5; • 1200 to 500m = ‘Moderately Positive Impact’/Performance Score of 6; • Less than 500m =’Major or Highly Positive Impact’ / Performance Score of 7,

Applying the bands stated above, the following levels of positive impact and associated Performance Scores were determined and are shown in Table 9.31 below.

Option F Option B Option E Option A Option C Option D (Orange+ Description (Yellow + (Orange+Link1 (Yellow) (Green) (Orange) Link2 Blue) +Green) +Green) Major or Minor or Minor or Major or Moderately Moderately Level of Impact Highly Slightly Slightly Highly Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive

Performance Score 7 6 5 6 5 7

Table 9.31: RSA Stage F Part 1 – Sub-Criterion Element 4 – Vertical Geometric Standards – Performance Scores

9.5.4.5 RSA Stage F Part 1 – Sub-Criterion Element 5 – Geometry – Potential Geometric Standards Impacting Driver Comfort – Departures / Relaxations Departures describe elements of the design that do not meet the TII Desirable Minimum Design Standards. Departures are typically employed for reasons such as existing constraints that cannot reasonably be avoided or mitigated against. All of the indicative alignments developed to this point have been designed in accordance to TII’s Design Standards and no Departures to Standard have been identified at this early stage of the design.

Relaxations describe elements of the design that do not meet the TII Desirable Minimum Design Standard but are permitted by TII in limited circumstances without being considered a Departure. A number of potential relaxations have been identified at this point of the scheme development.

Similar to Sub-criterion Element 4, these relaxations (both in the vertical and horizontal) of the indicative alignments were reviewed from an RSA perspective, which although acceptable to employ from a TII Design Standard perspective, may result in a lesser degree of driving comfort for road users.

180

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

As per Sub-Criterion Element 4, it is noted at this stage of the design that all Route Corridor Options offer greater compliance with the current Design Standards and a reduction in the level of Departures from Standard/Relaxations when compared to the existing N2 carriageway. Therefore, it is deemed that all options will have a positive impact.

The number of instances of relaxations (either in the vertical or horizontal) and the associated combined length is provided in Table 9.32 below.

Option Option B Option E Option F Option C Option D Description A (Yellow + (Orange+Link1 (Orange+Link2 (Green) (Orange) (Yellow) Blue) +Green) +Green) Number of Instances of 0 0 1 1 2 2 Relaxations

Combined Length of Relaxations (Horizontal & 0 0 432 302 726 879 Vertical) - Metres

Table 9.32: RSA Stage F Part 1 – Sub-Criterion Element 5 – Relaxations/Departures - Relaxations

As stated above, when compared to the existing carriageway, it is considered that all Route Corridor Options will have a positive impact in terms of Driver Comfort (Relaxations). In terms of determining the level of positive impact for each option, the parameter of ‘Combined Length’ was used as opposed to number of instances as it was deemed to be more comprehensive. The following banding was selected following consideration of the distribution of the combined lengths across the options:

• Greater than 500m = ‘Minor or Slightly Positive Impact’ / Performance Score of 5; • 500 to 250m = ‘Moderately Positive Impact’ / Performance Score of 6; • Less than 250m = ‘Major or Highly Positive Impact’ /Performance Score of 7

Applying the bands stated above, the following levels of positive impact and associated Performance Scores were determined and are shown in Table 9.33 below.

Option E Option B Option F Option A Option C Option D (Orange+ Description (Yellow + (Orange+Link2 (Yellow) (Green) (Orange) Link1 Blue) +Green) +Green) Major or Major or Minor or Minor or Moderately Moderately Level of Impact Highly Highly Slightly Slightly Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive

Performance Score 7 7 6 6 5 5

Table 9.33: RSA Stage F Part 1 – Sub-Criterion Element 5 – Relaxations/Departures – Performance Scores

181

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

9.5.4.6 RSA Stage F Part 1 – Sub-Criterion Element 6 – Impact on Vulnerable Road Users (Safety)

Similar to the assessment in Physical Activity Appraisal (See Section 9.9), the RSA Stage F assessed the impact of the route corridor options in terms of impact to Vulnerable Road Users.

It is noted that all Route Corridor Options will provide segregated infrastructure to cater for pedestrians and cyclists along the entirety of their routes. The provision of formal separation distance and dedicated shared pedestrian and cycle facilities, which will be designed in accordance with the applicable standards, will provide increased safety and personal security to vulnerable road users. Therefore, it is considered that all Route Corridor Options will have a positive impact.

In terms of determining the degree of the positive impact, and differentiating between the options, as per the Physical Activity Sub-Criterion 4 (Changes in Numbers of Collisions/Incidents), it is envisaged at this stage that the new pedestrian and cycle facilities applicable to the predominately offline routes (Options C to F), will be provided on the existing N2 carriageway. With the provision of the new walking/cycling facility running adjacent to the existing N2 under the predominately offline scenario (Options C to F), this will present a higher number of crossing points of existing side roads/direct accesses (i.e. conflict points) when compared with predominately online routes (Options A and B). This is due to the fact that with the predominately online routes (Options A and B), there will be greater opportunity to reduce and rationalise the number of junctions on the new road infrastructure, and thus reduce the number of potential conflict points for cyclists and pedestrians.

In counterbalancing the reduced number of conflict points for cyclists and pedestrians on the online routes, as per the Physical Activity Appraisal Sub-Criterion 3 (Journey Ambience Benefits), it is recognised that there will be a significantly larger volume of traffic adjacent to the mainline and entering/exiting junctions on the online routes. In the case of the offline routes, where a significant portion of the segregated pedestrian and cycle facilities will be on the deregulated N2, there will be a reduced level of traffic flow adjacent to the facilities. Although, recognising that all pedestrian and cycle facilities on all Route Corridor Options will be designed in accordance with the required design safety standards, it is considered that pedestrians and cyclists would have increased levels of danger perception on the online routes (Options A and B).

Therefore, considering the qualitatively assessed benefits and disbenefits in terms of changes in numbers of collision/incidents, and danger perception, it is deemed that the level of impact in terms of personal security of vulnerable road users is balanced across all options in this regard.

In conclusion, it is considered that all Route Corridor Options will have a positive impact, as enhanced segregated facilities will be provided for vulnerable road users on all options. In terms of differentiation, it is assessed that the benefits and disbenefits counterbalance each other for both the online and offline routes. Therefore, it is qualitatively assessed that all options will have a ‘Minor or Slightly Positive’ Impact. With reference to TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 seven-point scale, and Table 9.34 below, all Route Corridor Options are allocated a Performance Score of 5.

Option B Option E Option F Option A Option C Option D Description (Yellow + (Orange+Link1 (Orange+Link2 (Yellow) (Green) (Orange) Blue) +Green) +Green) Minor or Minor or Minor or Minor or Minor or Minor or Level of Impact Slightly Slightly Slightly Slightly Slightly Slightly Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive

Performance Score 5 5 5 5 5 5

Table 9.34: RSA Stage F Part 1 – Sub-Criterion Element 6 – Vulnerable Road Users – Performance Scores

182

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

9.5.4.7 RSA Stage F Part 1 – Sub-Criterion Element 7 – Effects on Surrounding Local Network

As all proposed junctions will be fully designed in accordance with TII’s current Design Standards, all Route Corridor Options will provide safer connectivity from the existing local network when compared with the existing N2 carriageway. The number of existing junctions (conflict points) with the N2 will be reduced and all national road junctions will be designed to ensure compliant sight visibility, turning radii, junction widths, signposting, merging/diverging facilities, etc. Also, geometric improvements to the existing local network will comply with current design standards. Therefore, it is deemed that all Route Corridor Options will have a positive impact on the surrounding network in terms of road safety.

In terms of determining the level of positive impact, and differentiating between the options, it is recognised that the predominately online options (Options A and B) present potentially greater challenges in terms of connectivity to the local network. It is noted that greater densities of existing development, and consequently greater densities of associated local road networks, which interface with the existing N2, are more prevalent along the predominately online options. This presents more challenges in terms of re-aligning the local road network and existing accesses in a safe and adequate manner. Predominately offline options (Options C to F) offer greater potential to reduce the interface between the proposed N2 carriageway and the local road network, making it easier to avoid conflicts. The proportion of online for each Route Corridor Option, based on their respective indicative working alignments, and expressed as a percentage, is provided in Table 9.35 below:

Option B Option E Option F Option A Option C Option D Description (Yellow + (Orange+Link1 (Orange+Link2 (Yellow) (Green) (Orange) Blue) +Green) +Green) Proportion Online 87% 71% 10% 7% 3% 3%

Table 9.35: RSA Stage F Part 1 – Sub-Criterion 7 – Effects on Surrounding Local Network - Proportion Online As stated above, when compared to the existing carriageway, it is considered that all Route Corridor Options will have a positive impact in terms of ‘Effects on the Surrounding Local Network’. In terms of determining the level of positive impact for each option, the distribution of the proportion which is online was considered, and the following banding was applied:

• Online Proportion: 0-25% = ‘Major or Highly Positive Impact’ / Performance Score of 7; • Online Proportion: 25-75% = ‘Moderately Positive Impact’/Performance Score of 6; • Online Proportion: 75-100% = ‘Minor or Slightly Positive Impact’ / Performance Score of 5.

Applying the bands stated above, the following levels of positive impact and associated Performance Scores were determined and are shown in Table 9.36 below.

Option B Option E Option F Option A Option C Option D Description (Yellow + (Orange+Link1 (Orange+Link2 (Yellow) (Green) (Orange) Blue) +Green) +Green) Minor or Major or Major or Moderately Major or Major or Slightly Highly Highly Level of Impact Positive Highly Positive Highly Positive Positive Positive Positive

Performance Score 5 6 7 7 7 7 Table 9.36: RSA Stage F Part 1 – Sub-Criterion 7 – Effects on Surrounding Local Network – Performance Scores

183

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

9.5.4.8 RSA Stage F Part 1 – Sub-Criterion Element 8 – Tie-In locations

This Sub-Criterion Element relates to the consideration of the tie-in locations of the Route Corridor Options, and their associated indicative working alignment, at the start and end points only. As previously outlined, for the purpose of the Option Selection Process, and to allow a consistent comparison of the Route Corridor Options, it was necessary to identify common start and end points for all of the Route Corridor Options. Therefore, a starting point of approximately 600m north of the Carrickmacross Road Roundabout (N2/N233/R171) on the existing N2 in the Townlands of Mullanstown and Glebe was selected. This is the location of the connection point between the existing N2 and the proposed N52 Ardee Bypass Scheme (current design location). The existing N2/N53 roundabout at the Southern end of the N2 Castleblayney Bypass was chosen for the Northern tie-in point.

As part of this Sub-Criterion Element, the RSA Auditor reviewed the proposed alignment approach and outline junction design at the start and end points, from a road safety perspective. The RSA Auditor qualitatively assessed that all options provide similar tie-in arrangements in terms of location, approach and junction type. Therefore, the RSA Auditor concluded that due to the lack of differentiation between options, it was deemed that all Route Corridor Options had a ‘Not significant or Neutral’ Impact. With reference to TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 seven-point scale, all Route Corridor Options were allocated a Performance Score of 4. A summary of the results is provided in Table 9.37 below. In addition, further details of the qualitative assessment are provided in the RSA Stage F Part 1 Report, which is provided in Part C of Volume 6 (Engineering Appendices).

Option B Option E Option F Option A Option C Option D Description (Yellow + (Orange+Link1 (Orange+Link2 (Yellow) (Green) (Orange) Blue) +Green) +Green) Not Not Not Not Not Significant Not Significant Level of Impact Significant Significant Significant Significant or Neutral or Neutral or Neutral or Neutral or Neutral or Neutral

Performance Score 4 4 4 4 4 4

Table 9.37: RSA Stage F Part 1 – Sub-Criterion Element 8 – Tie-Locations – Performance Scores

9.5.4.9 RSA Stage F Part 1 – Sub-Criterion Element 9 – Safe Parking Areas As part of Road Safety Audits, safe parking and rest areas are typically considered and reviewed. Schemes with safe parking areas and places of relative safety in the event of a breakdown / incident are preferred and considered safer. As part of the RSA Stage F Part 1, it was noted that safe parking and rest areas did not form part of the indicative working alignments of the Route Corridor Options at this point. Notwithstanding this, the Auditor recognised that the design of the proposed options is at a relatively early stage, and that provision of these areas would be considered at a later stage of the design development. Therefore, for the purposes of this particular audit, this Sub- Criterion Element was deemed to be non-applicable (N/A) at this stage.

184

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

9.5.4.10 RSA Stage F Part 1 – Summary and Results As outlined in Section 9.5.1 (Introduction) above, and shown in Table 9.38 below, upon the determination of the individual Performance Scores for each of the Sub-Criterion Elements related to the RSA Stage F Part 1, each of these scores were combined to provide a Sub-Criterion Element Total (Sum of Individual Performance Scores) for each Route Corridor Option. Thereafter, a single overall Performance Score was derived for the Sub-Criterion of RSA Stage F Part 1 based on the average of their associated Sum of Individual Performance Scores.

Option E Option F Option B Ref. Option A Option C Option D (Orange+ (Orange+ Description (Yellow + No. (Yellow) (Green) (Orange) Link1 Link2 Blue) +Green) +Green) 1 Number of Junctions 5 5 6 7 7 7

2 Collision Risk 7 6 6 5 6 6

3 Forgiving Road Sides 5 5 7 5 7 5

Geometric Standards – 4 Driver Discomfort – 7 6 5 6 5 7 Vertical

Geometric Standards – 5 Driver Discomfort – 7 7 6 6 5 5 Relaxations

Impact on Vulnerable 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 Users

Effects on Surrounding 7 5 6 7 7 7 7 Local Network

8 Tie-in Locations 4 4 4 4 4 4

9 Safe Parking Areas N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Sum of Individual Performance 45 44 46 45 46 46 Scores

Average Score 5.625 5.500 5.750 5.625 5.750 5.750

Overall Performance Score for 6 6 6 6 6 6 RSA Stage F Part 1

Table 9.38: Performance Scores for RSA Stage F Part 1 (Safety Appraisal Sub-Criterion 3)

185

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

9.5.5 Safety Appraisal – Summary of Results

As outlined in Section 9.5.1 above, upon the determination of a single overall Performance Score ( 1- 7) for each of the three Sub-Criteria (Collision Reduction Benefits, Security of Road Users, and Road Safety Audit Stage F Part 1), each of these scores was added together to provide an Overall Safety Appraisal Performance Score (Out of a maximum of 21) for each of the Route Corridor Options. Subsequently, the score was then expressed as marks out of 100 to align with marking system of the other five Main Criteria of the Stage 2 Appraisal. The results of the Safety Appraisal are shown in Table 9.39 below.

Sub- Option Option B Option Option E Option F Sub-Criterion Option D Criterion A (Yellow+ C (Orange+ (Orange+ Description (Orange) Ref. No. (Yellow) Blue) (Green) Link1+Green) Link2+Green) Collision 1 7 6 6 5 6 6 Reduction Benefits Security of Road 2 6 6 6 6 6 6 Users

Road Safety Audit 6 6 6 6 6 6 3 Stage F Part 1 Overall Safety Appraisal 19 18 18 17 18 18 Performance Score (Out of 21) Overall Safety Appraisal Performance Score 90 86 86 81 86 86 (Expressed as Marks out of 100) Table 9.39: Safety Appraisal – Performance Scores Summary Table

186

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

9.6 Environment Appraisal

9.6.1 Introduction As stated in Section 9.1, a summary of the Environment Appraisal is provided in the sections below, whilst a detailed description of the appraisal is provided in the Stage 2 Environmental Appraisal Report in Volume 5 (Stage 2 Environmental Appraisal Report), with supporting environmental drawings provided in Part B (Constraints & Environmental Drawings) in Volume 2 (Drawings).

The Environment Appraisal has been undertaken in accordance with TII’s PMM, TII’s PAG Unit 7.0: Multi-Criteria Analysis, TII’s Environmental Planning Guidelines, and other relevant national and international guidance. The purpose of this appraisal is to comparatively assess the impact of each Route Corridor Option against the existing baseline conditions in terms of how each option performs against the Main Criterion of Environment.

The following Sub-Criteria were applied to the Environment Appraisal: 1) Sub-Criterion 1 – Air Quality & Climate 2) Sub-Criterion 2 – Noise & Vibration 3) Sub-Criterion 3 – Landscape and Visual 4) Sub-Criterion 4 – Biodiversity – Flora & Fauna (Ecology) 5) Sub-Criterion 5 – Waste 6) Sub-Criterion 6 – Soils & Geology 7) Sub-Criterion 7 – Hydrogeology 8) Sub-Criterion 8 – Hydrology 9) Sub-Criterion 9 – Cultural Heritage (Archaeological & Architectural) 10) Sub-Criterion 10 – Material Assets (Non-Agricultural Properties) 11) Sub-Criterion 11 – Agriculture

Similar to the other Main Criteria, and as outlined in Section 9.3, TII’s PAG Unit 7.0’s seven-point Impact Scoring System was adopted for this appraisal, where an impact level (‘Highly Positive’ to ‘Highly Negative’) was determined for each Route Corridor Option against the defined Sub-Criteria above. Then, each impact level was assigned a Performance Score based on the defined seven-point scale (i.e. ‘Highly Positive’ Impact = Performance Score of 7, ‘Highly Negative’ Impact = Performance Score of 1).

Upon the determination of a single overall Performance Score for each of the eleven Sub-Criteria, an Overall Environment Appraisal Performance Score was calculated for each of the Route Corridor Options. Further details are provided in the Summary of Results Section below.

As outlined in Section 9.3 (Stage 2 Appraisal Methodology & Criteria), and similar to the Stage 1 Assessment, in the case of the Environment Appraisal, although the full PAG Unit 7.0 seven-point scale was available for the purposes of this appraisal, it was determined that all impacts associated with the environmental Sub-Criteria lay within the Neutral (Performance Score of 4) to Highly Negative (Performance Score of 1) band, when compared with the existing (Do-Nothing/Baseline) situation. Hence, the Overall Appraisal Performance Scores for Environment are lower when compared with the Overall Appraisal Performances Scores for the other five Main Criteria. However, it is highlighted that differentiation was determined between the options as part of the Environment Appraisal, which is reflected in the varying Performance Scores across the options, and hence this aligns with the overarching purpose/principle of the comparative assessment.

A summary of the appraisal of environmental Sub-Criteria, along with a summary of the Overall Environment Appraisal Performance Scores is provided in the sections below. As stated, a full description is provided in Phase 2 Stage 2 Environmental Appraisal Report in Volume 5.

Separately, it is noted that the topic of ‘Sustainability’ is not a prescribed environmental Sub-Criterion in accordance with TII’s PAG Unit 7.0. However, this wide-ranging topic and its associated elements have been considered as part of the Stage 2 appraisal process under a number of the six Stage 2 Main Criteria, including Environment [i.e. ‘Use of Materials’, within Chapter 6 (Waste) of Volume 5].

187

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Further details on the topic of ‘Sustainability’ and the associated United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, are provided in Chapter 1 (Introduction) of Volume 5 (Stage 2 Environmental appraisal Report).

9.6.2 Sub-Criterion 1 – Air Quality & Climate

The calculation of the Index of Overall Change in Exposure to Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) and Particulates (PM10) allows a comparison of the overall air quality impact on people from each route option to be carried out. The Index is based on identifying the number of sensitive receptor locations (e.g. residential properties) within 50m of the indicative working alignment of all Route Corridor Options that would experience a significant change in traffic for each of the options.

Traffic data obtained for the Opening Year of 2027and Design Year of 2042 were used in the model as per the TII Guidelines (2011). The assessment presented in this Chapter 2 (Air Quality and Climate) of Volume 5 has completed a reasonable worst-case assessment based on the maximum AADT.

In the assessment, the number of residential properties and non-residential properties (schools, hospitals and care homes) within 50m of the indicative carriageway of each Route Corridor Option were identified, as required by TII Guidelines18 referenced above. There is one such non-residential property identified - the Castleross Retirement Village in the townland of Tullyvaragh Upper, adjacent to the existing N2.

Certain types of ecosystems can be affected by changes in air quality, particularly changes in Nitrogen levels. In line with TII Guidance, sensitive ecosystems within 200m of the Route Corridor Options have been identified. For this scheme, Lough Naglack pNHA is the only identified ecosystem sensitive to air quality. It is located at 24 m from the centreline of Option A (Yellow) and Option B (Yellow+Blue). The pNHA is likely already experiencing elevated levels of NOx from the existing N2 alignment. Comparing the impact of Option A (Yellow) and Option B (Yellow+Blue) with the existing Do-Minimum scenario the impact is not considered to be significant.

It is predicted that receptors along the new alignments have the potential to experience a minor negative impact on the local air quality. This is due to the existing good standard of air quality in the area and the relative levels of traffic. For Air Quality & Climate, it was concluded that all Route Corridor Options had a ‘Minor Negative’ Impact. With reference to TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 seven-point scale, all options are allocated a Performance Score of 3. A summary of the results is provided in Table 9.40 below.

Description Option A Option B Option C Option D Option E Option F (Yellow) (Yellow+ (Green) (Orange) (Orange+ (Orange+ Blue) Link1+Green) Link2+Green) Minor or Minor or Minor or Minor or Minor or Minor or Level of Impact Slightly Slightly Slightly Slightly Slightly Slightly Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Performance 3 3 3 3 3 3 Score Table 9.40: Performance Scores for Air Quality and Climate (Environment Appraisal Sub-Criterion 1)

18 This is calculated as 8m – 58m from the centreline in-line with TII guidelines. Please see Section 2.3, page 10, final paragraph on page. 188

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

9.6.3 Sub-Criterion 2 – Noise

The noise assessment demonstrates the range of values for each of the six Route Corridor Options under assessment. The six Route Corridor Options have been assessed with reference to their Potential Impact Ratings (PIR) based on property counts of Noise Sensitive Receptors between 0 and 300m from the centreline of the Route Corridor Option, as per the 2014 TII Guidelines. These counts have included Residential Properties, Sports Clubs; Retirement Homes; Community Centre; Youth Services; Places of Worship; and, Schools / Colleges19.

Based on a count of properties within distance bands of up to 300m of the centreline of each option, the assessment has determined that Option F (Orange + Link 2 + Green) has the lowest Potential Impact Rating (PIR) value but is noted to be broadly similar to Option D (Orange) and Option E (Orange+Link1+Green). Option A (Yellow) has the highest PIR score with Option B (Yellow+Blue) at a similarly high value. However, it is noted that a high proportion of receivers along these route corridors are in the vicinity of the existing N2 alignment and are already subject to noise from the existing road.

Taking account of indicative noise levels associated with the future traffic flows along each option, the number of properties that have the potential to require noise mitigation in accordance with the criteria set out in the TII guidelines for national road schemes has been calculated. Option E (Orange + Link 1 +Green) and Option F (Orange + Link 2 +Green) have the least number of properties requiring mitigation (84 no. and 97 no. respectively), followed by Option A (Yellow) (105 no.), Option D (Orange) (110 no.), and Option B (Yellow+Blue) (117 no.). Option C (Green) has the highest number of properties requiring mitigation (138 no.).

All options have been determined to have a Moderately Negative impact except for Option C (Green) which has a Major/Highly Negative impact. In conclusion, and with respect to the above, and the impacts identified for each option, a Performance Score in accordance with TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 seven-point scale, was allocated to each option and are presented in Table 9.41 below.

Option B Option E Option F Option A Option C Option D Description (Yellow+ (Orange+ (Orange+ (Yellow) (Green) (Orange) Blue) Link1+Green) Link2+Green) Major or Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Level of Impact Highly Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Performance 2 2 1 2 2 2 Score Table 9.41: Performance Scores for Noise (Environment Appraisal Sub-Criterion 2)

9.6.4 Sub-Criterion 3 – Landscape & Visual

This section of the Option Selection Report identifies the existing landscape character of the Study Area, landscape elements and sensitive visual receptors and has been completed by MacroWorks Limited. The likely sensitivity of each have been assessed along with the predicted likely magnitude of effect of the proposed scheme resulting in judgements regarding likely significance of effects.

Option A (Yellow) has been assessed to have a Minor Negative level of impact, largely because landscape character and visual amenity is already strongly influenced by the existing N2 corridor. This is also the case for Option B (Yellow+Blue) - Minor Negative. The remaining options have an increased landscape and visual effects (Moderately Negative) primary due to their offline nature and are located further away from the existing N2. Options D - F have impacts on the Monaghan Way walking trail and to the tourist and recreational receptors at Knockabbey Castle demesne. Consequently, it was assessed that Options C to F have a Moderately Negative Impact.

19 NB Different types of properties are included for air and noise assessments. This is because of their sensitivities to the two different types of impacts. 189

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

In conclusion, and with respect to the above, and the impacts identified for each option, a Performance Score in accordance with TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 seven-point scale, was allocated to each option and are presented in Table 9.42 below.

Option B Option E Option F Option A Option C Option D Description (Yellow+ (Orange+ (Orange+ (Yellow) (Green) (Orange) Blue) Link1+Green) Link2+Green) Minor or Minor or Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Level of Impact Slightly Slightly Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Performance 3 3 2 2 2 2 Score Table 9.42: Performance Scores for Landscape & Visual (Environment Appraisal Sub-Criterion 3)

9.6.5 Sub-Criterion 4 – Biodiversity – Flora & Fauna (Ecology)

An assessment of the likely or potential impacts of each corridor on ecological receptors was carried out so that an informed comparison of the corridors could be made with the knowledge of the potential ecological consequences. Ecological sites were identified based on collation of available existing information, aerial photography and surveys from publicly accessible land. Values were assigned based on national guidance and focussed on the potential ecological value for the habitats present.

All Annex I habitats that lie outside of European sites, are valued as being of national importance, given that these habitats are of high conservation concern. However, priority Annex I habitat types are valued as being of international importance given that they are of the highest conservation concern at a European level (i.e. natural habitat types in danger of disappearance). Each Route Corridor Option was assessed based on the potential impacts likely to occur on the identified ecological sites. Potential impacts on ecological sites have been discounted where the risk of significant impacts occurring is considered unlikely due to the implementation of standard mitigation and best practice during construction. It should be noted that the 400m corridor has been defined for this Phase 2 design stage only and the actual road alignment will be narrower for the Preferred Route Corridor Option, which will be progressed during the Phase 3 design process when the initial draft alignment is refined, and the land take required to deliver the project is defined. Some of the Route Corridor Options could have reduced levels of significance with careful routing at the next Phase of the design process, as the proposed alignment width will ultimately be much narrower than the assessed 400m wide corridor.

The basis for the Phase 2 biodiversity assessment has been that if a Route Corridor Option impacts directly on one or more ecological site valued as having international or national importance, this Route Corridor Option is assessed as having a ‘Major/Highly Negative’ impact.

All of the assessed 400m wide corridors will result in a Major/Highly Negative Impact on biodiversity as a result of direct impacts on ecological sites valued at international importance. Option E (Orange + Link1 + Green) is likely to result in the least significant negative impact on biodiversity. This is because it directly impacts the smallest number of ecological sites (i.e. ten in total), the smallest number of ecological sites valued as being of international importance (i.e. five in total) and the smallest total area of ecological sites valued as being of international importance (i.e. c. 4ha).

Option A (Yellow) and B (Yellow+Blue) are very similar in terms of the total number of ecological sites that may be directly impacted (i.e. 33 and 34 respectively), the total number of ecological sites valued as being of international importance that may be directly impacted (i.e.14 for each). Both of these route options will directly impact on Lough Naglack pNHA as the site is adjacent to the existing N2, which the route options follow. Routing at the next phase of the project could avoid any direct impacts to this designated site. The level of significance for these two options could potentially be reduced to Moderately Negative, however that will require further surveys and assessment at the next phase of the project.

190

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Options F (Orange + Link2 + Green) and D (Orange) directly impact 13 and 14 sites respectively, eight of which are valued as being of international importance. Option C (Green) will impact directly on a total of 17 ecological sites, eight of which are valued as being of international importance. The nature of these sites relative to the route corridor means that is will be unlikely to avoid these sites through routing.

In conclusion, and as stated above, all options have been determined to have a ‘Major/Highly Negative’ Impact. With reference to TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 seven-point scale, all Route Corridor Options have been allocated a Performance Score of 1. A summary of the results is provided in Table 9.43 below.

Option B Option E Option F Option A Option C Option D Description (Yellow+ (Orange+ (Orange+ (Yellow) (Green) (Orange) Blue) Link1+Green) Link2+Green) Major or Major or Major or Major or Major or Major or Level of Highly Highly Highly Highly Highly Highly Impact Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Performance 1 1 1 1 1 1 Score Table 9.43: Performance Scores for Ecology (Environment Appraisal Sub-Criterion 4)

At the next Phase of the project, and as stated at the start of this section, further assessment, in line with TII and CIEEM guidance, will be undertaken on the Preferred Route Corridor Option to help to minimise the effects as far as possible. Surveys will be undertaken of the affected ecological site to clarify their ecological value, and routing and mitigation, where feasible, will be used to minimise the effects as far as possible. Further measures such as habitat compensation will also be considered. Therefore, as previously stated, there is the likely potential that the Stage 2 Impacts of ‘Major/Highly Negative’, presented in Table 9.43, may reduce in Phase 3. Although, it does not inform the Stage 2 Project Appraisal Matrix, a further examination of the potential reduction in effects is provided in Chapter 5 (Biodiversity – Flora & Fauna) within Volume 5 (Stage 2 Environmental Appraisal Report).

9.6.6 Sub-Criterion 5 – Waste

The potential for impacts on waste associated with the proposed scheme was assessed based on national and international guidance. Any large infrastructure project has the potential to generate waste of different types. The proposed scheme is within both the Connacht Ulster Waste Region and the Eastern and Midlands Waste region. The EPA identifies three current waste management facilities and current capacities within County Monaghan and County Louth that could take waste from the proposed scheme (subject to clarification at the time of construction). Volumes of waste, the level of associated traffic and the routes it would take will be set out at the next phase of the project when the design is developed further.

Indicative routes within the Route Corridor Options have been assessed to see what the likely earthworks would be in terms of cutting and fill. Following consideration of two different scenarios based on the re-use of material, it was determined that Option D (Orange) may have a minor negative effect. The remaining route options have increasing levels of material for disposal and therefore may have an increased impact. For Waste, it was concluded that Route Corridor Option D (Orange) had a Minor Negative Impact, Option A (Yellow) had a Moderately Negative Impact, with the remaining options being assessed as having a Major/Highly Negative Impact. Following which, a Performance Score in accordance with TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 seven-point scale, was allocated to each option and is presented in Table 9.44 below.

191

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Description Option A Option B Option C Option D Option E Option F (Yellow) (Yellow+ (Green) (Orange) (Orange+ (Orange+ Blue) Link1+Green) Link2+Green) Major or Major or Minor or Major or Major or Moderately Level of Impact Highly Highly Slightly Highly Highly Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Performance 2 1 1 3 1 1 Score Table 9.44: Performance Scores for Waste (Environment Appraisal Sub-Criterion 5)

9.6.7 Sub-Criterion 6 – Soils & Geology

The soils and geology effects of the six proposed Route Corridor Options have been assessed in accordance with the TII Guidelines on Procedures for Assessment and Treatment of Geology, Hydrology and Hydrogeology for National Road Schemes.

In terms of soils and geology, differentiation between corridors can be limited because of the large-scale geological conditions in the study area. All six of the Route Corridor Options have similar effects on peat deposits, potential crushed rock and aggregates deposits and disused mines. None of the Route Corridors will impact quarries or known contaminated land. There are numerous karst landforms (134 features, comprising caves, enclosed depressions, springs, swallow holes and turloughs) mapped in the central part of the Study Area. Options A (Yellow) and B (Yellow+Blue) will impact a larger number of karst landforms compared to the other corridors.

All six of the Route Corridor Options are assessed to have a Moderately Negative effect due to the potential impacts from karst effects and/or the impacts to potential crush rock deposits. In conclusion, and with respect to the above, and the impacts identified for each option, a Performance Score in accordance with TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 seven-point scale, was allocated to each option and are presented in Table 9.45 below.

Option B Option E Option F Option A Option C Option D Description (Yellow+ (Orange+ (Orange+ (Yellow) (Green) (Orange) Blue) Link1+Green) Link2+Green) Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Level of Impact Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Performance 2 2 2 2 2 2 Score Table 9.45: Performance Scores for Soils & Geology (Environment Appraisal Sub-Criterion 6)

9.6.8 Sub-Criterion 7 – Hydrogeology

The hydrogeology effects of the six proposed Route Corridor Options have been assessed in accordance with TII Guidelines on Procedures for Assessment and Treatment of Geology, Hydrology and Hydrogeology for National Road Schemes.

All of the Route Corridor Options are assessed to be moderate or major negative. However, Option A (Yellow) and Option B (Yellow + Blue) have three Public Supply abstraction sources within their 400m corridors. These features relate to groundwater abstractions for public water supply and are considered to be of high sensitivity. Option C (Green) and Option D (Orange) generate potential Major/Highly Negative impacts due to significant interaction with areas of higher groundwater vulnerability.

It should be noted that the differences between Route Corridor Options are relatively small and are not be considered significant compared to other factors.

192

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

In conclusion, and with respect to the above, and the impacts identified for each option, a Performance Score in accordance with TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 seven-point scale, was allocated to each Route Corridor Option and are presented in Table 9.46 below.

Option B Option E Option F Option A Option C Option D Description (Yellow+ (Orange+ (Orange+ (Yellow) (Green) (Orange) Blue) Link1+Green) Link2+Green) Major or Major or Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Level of Impact Highly Highly Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Performance 2 2 1 1 2 2 Score Table 9.46: Performance Scores for Hydrogeology (Environment Appraisal Sub-Criterion 7)

9.6.9 Sub-Criterion 8 – Hydrology

This section discusses the potential impact of each of the proposed Route Corridor Options on the hydrology in the project Study Area and has been completed by Jacobs. Road schemes have the potential to significantly affect surface water bodies such as rivers, lakes/ponds, estuaries and reservoirs. The hydrology assessment considers the impacts on the following: • Surface Water Quality; and • Flood Risk

Please note that groundwater is assessed as part of the Sub-Criterion of Hydrogeology in Section 9.6.8 above.

All Route Corridor Options have been determined to have minor negative impact on surface water quality. There are some differences between the Route Corridor Options, as significance of impacts is determined by considering sensitivity of the receptor and magnitude of impacts. Therefore, the higher the sensitivity of a watercourse the more significant the impact could be. In terms of magnitude of impacts, the options assessment considered the number of different watercourse crossings on any particular route and also, if any watercourses were to be crossed more than once; the more crossings there are present, the increased risk of a pollution incident; and the more crossings on a single water body, the greater the risk of cumulative impacts leading to a significant impact on the status of the water body. Although there is a range in the number of crossings of water bodies on each route, it is not considered that this range is wide enough to determine that one route would result in a higher magnitude of impact than another; particularly with construction best practices, controls and mitigation measures in place and being adhered.

All Route Corridor Options have been determined to have minor negative impact on flood risk. There are some differences between the Route Corridors, as the significance of impacts is determined by considering the nature and magnitude of flood risk impacts arising from a route. Specifically, the crossing of broad areas of floodplain that would be identified as Flood Zone A or B has the potential for a more significant impact on flood risk compared to minor drains. The options assessment considered the number and nature of floodplain and the potential impact on flood risk. There is a range in the number and nature of crossings of flood risk areas made by each route however, this is not sufficient to determine that any one Route Corridor Option would result in a more significant impact than another. In conclusion, and with respect to the above, and the impacts identified for each option, a Performance Score in accordance with TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 seven-point scale, was allocated to each option and is presented in Table 9.47 below.

193

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Option B Option E Option F Option A Option C Option D Description (Yellow+ (Orange+ (Orange+ (Yellow) (Green) (Orange) Blue) Link1+Green) Link2+Green) Minor or Minor or Minor or Minor or Minor or Minor or Level of Impact Slightly Slightly Slightly Slightly Slightly Slightly Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Performance 3 3 3 3 3 3 Score Table 9.47: Performance Scores for Hydrology (Environment Appraisal Sub-Criterion 8)

9.6.10 Sub-Criterion 9 – Cultural Heritage (Archaeological & Architectural)

During the identification of the Route Corridor Options, every effort was made to avoid known archaeological and architectural heritage sites wherever possible. However, all Route Corridor Options are likely to have an adverse effect on Cultural Heritage, including known and currently unidentified archaeological remains and architectural heritage assets. In addition, all Route Corridors have the potential to encounter currently unrecorded archaeological sites and other cultural heritage features. The actual likely impact of the Preferred Route Corridor Option will be assessed in more detail during later phases of the design process.

Options A (Yellow) and B (Yellow+Blue), compared to the other four Route Corridors are mostly on-line on the existing N2, which reduces the overall risk of encountering previously unrecorded archaeology, although, as stated above, all options have the potential to encounter previously unrecorded archaeological sites. Previous archaeological excavations on the N2 have illustrated the potential for this to occur, with significant archaeological sites (particularly in the townlands of Monanny and Cloghvalley Upper) being identified and recorded during construction of the N2 Carrickmacross Bypass. Widening of the existing N2 could impact on un-excavated portions of sites preserved in-situ following these excavations and could impact one or two Protected Structures (Cookstown House and/or Charlestown Rectory) towards their southern limits.

No direct impacts on any Recorded Monuments are predicted for Option A (Yellow), however there is an indirect Potentially Significant negative impact on archaeology associated with two Recorded Monuments (raths). Option B (Yellow+Blue) could have a Significant Negative direct impact on one Recorded Monument (rath) and St Patrick’s Church, and could have a Potentially Significant direct impact on the site of two other raths. Option C (Green) could have a Significant Negative impact on five Recorded Monuments (four ringforts and one enclosure). Option D (Orange) mainly traverses open fields and farmland, and crosses the area designated ‘Kavanagh Country’ although no cultural heritage assets associated with the Kavanagh Trail would be impacted. The assessment found that Option D (Orange) could have a Significant Negative impact on five Recorded Monuments (four ringforts and a souterrain). Option E (Orange + Link1 + Green) could have a Significant Negative impact on five Recorded Monuments (four ringforts, and one souterrain which would be removed within the 25m route corridor). Option F (Orange + Link 2 + Green) could have Significant Negative impacts on nine Recorded Monuments (six raths, one souterrain, two enclosures and a burial ground). Option F (Orange + Link2 + Green) could potentially encounter significant subsurface archaeological remains associated with these sites. In conclusion, and with respect to the above, and the impacts identified for each option, a Performance Score in accordance with TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 seven-point scale, was allocated to each option and is presented in Table 9.48 below.

194

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Option B Option E Option F Option A Option C Option D Description (Yellow+ (Orange+ (Orange+ (Yellow) (Green) (Orange) Blue) Link1+Green) Link2+Green) Minor or Major or Major or Major or Major or Moderately Level of Impact Slightly Highly Highly Highly Highly Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Performance 3 2 1 1 1 1 Score Table 9.48: Performance Scores for Cultural Heritage (Environment Appraisal Sub-Criterion 9)

9.6.11 Sub-Criterion 10 – Material Assets (Non-Agricultural Properties)

With reference to Chapter 10 (Non-Agricultural Properties) in Volume 5 (Stage 2 Environmental Appraisal Report), this Stage 2 assessment was limited to existing community properties/amenities (such as schools, public parks, etc.) and commercial properties within the 400m wide corridor of each option, plus an additional 300m wide buffer either side (i.e. total corridor width of 1km). The impact to the existing road infrastructure and local connectivity across and onto the new N2 was considered as part of Indicative Junction Design Approach (See Section 4.5 of this Report), with the consideration of active travel forming part of the Physical Activity Appraisal in Section 9.9 of this Report. Further details on the scope of the Material Assets (Non-Agricultural Properties) is provided in Chapter 10 of Volume 5.

Option B (Yellow+Blue) is the only Route Corridor Option, which has been predicted to have Moderate Impact in relation to Material Assets (Non-Agricultural). Option A (Yellow) and Option D (Orange) have been assessed as having a Minor Impact, and the remainder of routes, Option C (Green), Option E (Orange + Link 1 + Green) and Option F (Orange+ Link 2 +Green), have been assessed as having a Neutral Impact.

Option A (Yellow) and Option B (Yellow+Blue) are similar with the exception of a diversion of Broomfield on the Option B (Yellow+Blue) route option. Both options impact a high number of non-agricultural properties due to being majority online routes and therefore having large numbers of properties in close proximity. The key differentiator between Option B (Yellow+Blue) (moderate) and Option A (Yellow) (minor) is that the Option B (Yellow+Blue) route has a greater magnitude of impact (medium magnitude) on two Highly Sensitive Receptors, St Patricks National School and the Church in Broomfield; where the Blue section of the route deviates from the existing N2 route. The remaining four options interact with far fewer properties. In addition, the largely rural nature of these routes provides more opportunity during the design stage to avoid receptors within the wider corridor. In conclusion, and with respect to the above, and the impacts identified for each option, a Performance Score in accordance with TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 seven-point scale, was allocated to each option and is presented in Table 9.49 below.

Option B Option E Option F Option A Option C Option D Description (Yellow+ (Orange+ (Orange+ (Yellow) (Green) (Orange) Blue) Link1+Green) Link2+Green) Minor or Not Not Not Moderately Minor Level of Impact Slightly Significant Significant or Significant or Negative Negative Negative or Neutral Neutral Neutral Performance 3 2 4 3 4 4 Score Table 9.49: Performance Scores for Material Assets-Non-Agricultural Properties (Environment Appraisal Sub- Criterion 10)

195

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

9.6.12 Sub-Criterion 11 – Agriculture

The assessment of potential impacts indicates that there will be some level of differentiation between the Route Corridor Options regarding the level of impacts or risks associated. A comprehensive desktop review collated with information from the visual survey, undertaken from roads and publicly assessable lands, confirmed that all of the Route Corridor Options will impact on key enterprises and that all of the Route Corridor Options will impact on good quality land.

The main influences on the impact allocated to each of the Route Corridor Options are the number of land holdings impacted, land use and level of significant severance. Option D (Orange) has been assessed to have a major negative effect, as it impacts on a high number of land holdings and results in a high level of significant severance along the route. Some of the holdings classified as being significantly severed are dairy enterprises. For the sub-criterion of Material Assets (Agricultural), it was concluded that all Route Corridor Options with the exception of Option D (Orange) had a Moderately Negative Impact, with Option D having a Major/Highly Negative Impact. Following which, a Performance Score in accordance with TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 seven-point scale, was allocated to each option and is presented in Table 9.50 below.

Option B Option E Option F Option A Option C Option D Description (Yellow+ (Orange+ (Orange+ (Yellow) (Green) (Orange) Blue) Link1+Green) Link2+Green) Major or Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Level of Impact Highly Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Performance 2 2 2 1 2 2 Score Table 9.50: Performance Scores for Agriculture (Environment Appraisal Sub-Criterion 11)

196

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

9.6.13 Environment Appraisal – Summary of Results

As stated in Section 9.6.1 above, after a Performance Score (1-7) was assigned to each of the 11 Sub-Criteria, each of these scores was added together to provide an Overall Environment Appraisal Performance Score (out of a maximum of 77) for each of the Route Corridor Options. Subsequently, the Performance Score was then expressed as marks out of 100 to align with marking system of the other five Main Criteria of the Stage 2 Appraisal. The results of the Environment Appraisal are shown in Table 9.51 below.

Sub- Option B Option Option E Option F Sub-Criterion Option A Option D Criterion (Yellow+ C (Orange+ (Orange+ Description (Yellow) (Orange) Ref. No. Blue) (Green) Link1+Green) Link2+Green) Air Quality and 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 Climate 2 Noise 2 2 1 2 2 2 Landscape & 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 Visual 4 Biodiversity 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 Waste 2 1 1 3 1 1 6 Soils & Geology 2 2 2 2 2 2 7 Hydrogeology 2 2 1 1 2 2 8 Hydrology 3 3 3 3 3 3 Cultural Heritage 9 (Archaeological & 3 2 1 1 1 1 Architectural) Material Assets – 10 Non-Agricultural 3 2 4 3 4 4 Properties

11 Agriculture 2 2 2 1 2 2

Overall Environment Appraisal Performance Score 26 23 21 22 23 23 (Out of 77) Overall Environment Appraisal Performance Score 34 30 27 29 30 30 (Expressed as Marks out of 100) Table 9.51: Environment Appraisal – Performance Scores Summary Table

197

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

9.7 Accessibility and Social Inclusion Appraisal

9.7.1 Introduction

The Accessibility and Social Inclusion Appraisal has been undertaken in accordance with the Multi-Criteria Analysis approach, as defined in TII’s PAG Unit 7.0. The Government objectives for reducing social exclusion is set out in the Roadmap for Social Inclusion 2020 – 2025: Summary of Ambition, Goals and Commitments (January 2020) and other national policy documentation. Recognising the broad nature and aspects of Accessibility and Social Inclusion, TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 limits the Accessibility and Social Inclusion Appraisal for transport projects to the following two Sub-Criteria: 1) Sub-Criterion 1 – Deprived Geographical Areas 2) Sub-Criterion 2 – Vulnerable Groups

With reference to Table 9.2 in this Chapter, it is noted that the identification and assessment of Sub-Criterion Elements for these two Sub-Criteria was not required and/or applicable.

Similar to the other Main Criteria, and as outlined in Section 9.3, TII’s PAG Unit 7.0’s seven-point Impact Scoring System was adopted for this appraisal, where an impact level (‘Highly Positive’ to ‘Highly Negative’) was determined for each route corridor option against the defined Sub-Criteria. Then, each impact level was assigned a Performance Score based on the defined seven-point scale (i.e. ‘Highly Positive’ Impact = Performance Score of 7, ‘Highly Negative’ Impact = Performance Score of 1).

Upon the determination of a Performance Score for each of the two Sub-Criteria, and overall Accessibility and Social Inclusion Appraisal Performance Score was calculated for each Route Corridor Option. Further details of overall results are provided in the Summary of Results Section below.

In the case of the Accessibility and Social Inclusion Appraisal, due to the nature of the subject matter, it was not reasonably practicable to quantitively assess the impacts. Therefore, the impact level and Performance Score for each Route Corridor Option was qualitatively assessed against each of the two Sub-Criteria.

The sections below outline the Accessibility and Social Inclusion Appraisal under the two separate Sub-Criteria.

9.7.2 Sub-Criterion 1 – Deprived Geographical Areas

9.7.2.1 Introduction It is recognised that transport investment can play an important role in improving access from socially deprived and excluded geographic areas to employment, education, essential services and amenities. The analysis under this Sub- Criterion aims to establish the level of impact which the proposed scheme and each Route Corridor Option will have in terms of accessibility to and from deprived geographical areas.

As a means of identifying deprived geographical areas within the Study Area, the 2016 Pobal HP Deprivation Index was analysed, along with a study of existing accessibility and social inclusion policy, initiatives and programmes, including the Rural Social Scheme and Area Based Childhood Programme, as identified in TII’s PAG Unit 7.0. An outline of the analysis and study is provided in the sections below.

9.7.2.2 Pobal HP Deprivation Index The index provides a method of measuring the relative affluence or disadvantage of a particular geographical area using data compiled from various censuses. It is a key resource to enable a targeted approach towards tackling disadvantage, by providing local analysis of the most disadvantaged areas throughout the state. Percentage data for the area is provided under a range of categories such as unemployment, educational attainment and population change. The index focuses on the previous three censuses, enabling an easy comparison of data between 2006, 2011 and 2016.

198

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

With reference to Figure 9.2 and the corresponding Table 9.52 below, an analysis of the ‘By Small Area’ dataset in the 2016 Pobal HP Deprivation GIS mapping20 shows that the Stage 2 Route Corridor Options fall within the category of ‘marginally below average’, ‘marginally above average’, with a small proportion of the options falling within the category of ‘disadvantaged’.

Figure 9.2: 2016 Pobal HP Deprivation Index Categories (‘By Small Area’) within the N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme Study Area

20 Source: https://maps.pobal.ie/WebApps/DeprivationIndices/index.html 199

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Options Pobal HP Deprivation Index Category Totals ‘Marginally Above ‘Marginally Below ‘Disadvantaged’ Average’ Average’

Area (m2) % of Area (m2) % of Area (m2) % of Area (m2) % of Corridor Corridor Corridor Corridor Area Area Area Area Option A (Yellow) 4,772,365 38 6,794,346 54 1,023,540 8 11,566,711 100 Option B 4,828,364 38 6,734,072 54 1,023,540 8 11,562,436 100 (Yellow+Blue) Option C (Green) 3,469,645 29 8,439,407 70 119,008 1 11,909,052 100 Option D (Orange) 3,955,221 32 8,287,397 68 0 0 12,242,618 100 Option E (Orange 3,415,771 28 8,612,447 71 119,008 1 12,028,218 100 +Link1+ Green) Option F (Orange + 3,919,803 32 8,378,630 68 0 0 12,298,433 100 Pink + Green) Table 9.52: Percentage Breakdown of 2016 Pobal HP Deprivation Index Categories (By Small Area) within each Route Corridor within Pobal HP Deprivation Index (2016 – By Small Area)

With reference to Table 9.52 above, it is noted that there is a degree of variance between the options in terms of the sub-categories of ‘Marginally Above Average’, ‘Marginally Below Average’ and ‘Disadvantaged’. However, it is considered that the general study area, which all the options lie in, is broadly similar and predominately sits within the ‘Marginally Below Average’ category.

9.7.2.3 Existing Accessibility and Social Inclusion Policies, Initiatives and Programmes

A study of the existing accessibility and social inclusion policies, initiatives and programmes within the Study Area was undertaken to gain a further understanding of the deprived geographical areas within the Study Area and to assess the compatibility of the proposed scheme, and associated options, with these policies, initiatives and programmes.

9.7.2.3.1 Policies

Project Ireland 2040 – National Planning Framework 2040

With reference to Section 2.2.3 (National Policy) of this Report, the goal of the National Strategic Outcome (NSO) 3 (Strengthen Rural Economics and Communities) is to support the sustainable development of rural areas by encouraging growth and arresting decline in areas that have experienced low population growths or decline in recent decades. NSO 3 is structured under the heading of ‘Rural Development’, where the following objective is noted: • ‘Invest in maintaining regional and local roads and strategic road improvement projects in rural areas to ensure access to critical services such as education, healthcare and employment.’

With reference to the above, it is considered that the proposed Scheme Objectives align with this NPF objective, where the proposed Scheme and all of its associated options seeks to provide improved strategic road infrastructure in a predominately rural Study Area, and aims to reduce social exclusion by enhancing accessibility by providing safer and enhanced accessibility to the road network, and consequently to services from designated rural zones within the Study Area (See Accessibility & Social Inclusion Scheme Objective within Section 1.5 of this Report).

200

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Roadmap for Social Inclusion 2020 – 2025: Summary of Ambition, Goals and Commitments

The roadmap sets out the Government’s ambition for Ireland to become one of the most socially inclusive States in the EU and defines a number of specific targets to be achieved and details a number of key commitments to deliver on this ambition and these targets. The Roadmap aims to reduce the number of people in consistent poverty in Ireland to 2% or less, and to make Ireland one of the most socially inclusive states in the EU. Although it does not specifically reference the role of transport in addressing social inclusion, as part of its ‘High-Level Goals’ and ‘Commitments’, it recognises the importance of extending employment opportunities to all who can work, and the protection of all-Ireland schemes and services post-Brexit. To this end, it is considered that the provision of high quality road infrastructure, providing enhanced accessibility within the region, and between the Greater Dublin Area and the North-West, will support economic/employment growth, and will contribute to the protection of existing support services, initiatives, and programmes within the Study Area.

Realising our Rural Potential: The Action Plan for Rural Development (January 2017) One of the key overarching documents that has been developed at national level in terms of Accessibility and Social Inclusion is the rural development plan document; Realising our Rural Potential: The Action Plan for Rural Development (January 2017). The objective of the Action Plan for Rural Development is to unlock the potential of rural Ireland through a framework of supports at national and local level, which will help ensure that people who live in rural areas have increased opportunities for employment locally, and access to public services and social networks that support a high quality of life.

The Plan contains 276 actions across five key pillars, all of which aim to improve both the economic and social fabric of rural Ireland. The five pillars are:

1) Pillar 1 – Supporting Sustainable Communities 2) Pillar 2 – Supporting Enterprise and Employment 3) Pillar 3 – Maximising our Rural Tourism and Recreation Potential 4) Pillar 4 – Fostering Culture and Creativity in Rural Communities 5) Pillar 5 – Improving Rural Infrastructure and Connectivity

In relation to Pillar 5 (Improving Rural Infrastructure and Connectivity), the Action Plan, under the heading of ‘Rural Transport’ recognises the importance of improved transport infrastructure in terms of Accessibility and Social Inclusion by stating: ‘The provision of a high quality, inter-connected system of transport in rural Ireland is key to the realisation of the inherent social and economic potential which exists in rural areas’ and noting ‘Improving transport links to and from rural areas will have positive impacts for rural communities and rural businesses, particularly by reducing travel time and business costs’. To support this Pillar, it outlines a number of Rural Transport Actions / Objectives, including:

Action 248:

• ‘Progress the major roads projects detailed in the 7- year transport element of the Capital Investment Plan which will help deliver economic and business benefits across rural areas and regions.’

It is noted that at the time of preparation of this policy document, the Capital Investment Plan 2016 – 2021 was current, this has subsequently been replaced by the National Development Plan (NDP) 2018 – 2027, which supports the National Planning Framework 2040 and Project Ireland 2040. As per Section 2.2.3 (National Policy) of this Report, the N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme has been identified as a major road project for prioritisation in the NDP. Furthermore, it is considered that the proposed Scheme objectives align with Pillar 5 of this Action Plan, where the proposed Scheme seeks to provide a strategic high-quality road improvement in a predominately rural Study Area, and aims to reduce social exclusion by providing safer and enhanced accessibility to the road network, and consequently to services from designated rural zones within the Study Area, along with supporting road based public transport by improving journey times and journey time reliability (See Accessibility & Social Inclusion Scheme Objective within Section 1.5 of this Report).

201

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Outside of Pillar 5, the key objectives of Pillar 1 (Supporting Sustainable Communities) of the Action Plan, is closely linked to improved accessibility and social inclusion through the role out and support of a suite of initiatives and programmes designed to improve local areas, both urban and rural, as places to live, work, invest in and visit.

The Key Objectives are to;

• Make rural Ireland a better place in which to live and work by revitalising our town and village centres through the implementation of initiatives such as the Town and Village Renewal Scheme, the CLÁR and RAPID Programmes and measures to support people to live in town centres. • Empower Local Communities, including through the development and support of the Public Participation Network and Local Community Development Committees, to ensure that a diversity of voices is heard and included in local decision-making processes and that communities continue to identify their own needs and solutions. • Enhance local services in the community through the provision of support for rural GPs, through ongoing development of the primary care sector to deliver better care close to home in communities, through support for the rural post office network to adapt to a changing business environment, and through continued access to schools for children in rural Ireland. • Build better communities through ongoing investment in the LEADER Programme and supporting vulnerable rural communities through initiatives such as the Rural Social Scheme, and through a range of measures to improve the security and safety of rural dwellers.

A review of these initiatives and programmes in the context of the proposed scheme and the Study Area is described in Section 9.7.2.3.2 (Initiatives and Programmes) further below.

Local Economic and Community Plans

Under the Local Government Act 2014, each Local Authority is obliged to develop a Local Economic and Community Plan (LECP). The LECP provides a road map for collective action in an integrated approach in relation to local economic and community development. The LECP provides a focus for the shared vision of a better quality of life for communities and opportunities to address issues affecting all citizens. Within each LECP, a number of economic and community related goals and actions are outlined.

In relation to the proposed scheme and its Study Area, Monaghan and Louth County Councils have developed LECPs for their respective counties for a current six-year lifespan; the Monaghan Local Economic and Community Plan 2015 – 2021, and the County Louth Local Economic and Community Plan 2016 – 2022.

Within the Monaghan LECP 2015 – 2021, Item 3.1 of Section 7.3 (High Level Goal 3; Support the Key Economic Infrastructure), identifies the following action:

• ‘Lobby for progress on the development of the A5-N2 bypass’

The proposed scheme aligns with this action as it seeks to improve an existing section of the A5/N2 route.

In relation to the Louth LECP 2016 – 2022, it is noted there are five adopted sub-plans under the main Plan, which are as follows:

• Healthy Ireland for Louth Plan 2018 – 2022 • Louth Age Friendly County Plan 2017 -2022 • Louth – Realising Our Rural Potential 2017 – 2022 • Louth Disability Inclusion Plan 2017 – 2022 • Louth – Reducing Harm, Supporting Recover 2017 - 2022

The importance of transport infrastructure in supporting the local economy and communities is identified within the main Plan, where Section 8.6.8 (Roads and Cycling Networks: Promoting Alternatives) states:

202

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

‘Louth has benefited from very significant investment which has taken place in Ireland’s national road network. Regional and local roads form the lifelines of transportation needs across the County. It is via these roads that the vast majority of smaller towns, villages and dispersed rural communities and services are accessed.’

Sections 8.6.8 and 8.6.9 (Rural Transport: Achieving more connectivity) further highlight the importance of the provision of pedestrian and cycle facilities and the improvement of public transport services (including local bus services) within County Louth.

It is considered that the proposed scheme aligns with the Louth LECP as it seeks to provide new high-quality road infrastructure, which will improve strategic, regional and local connectivity, and will support the growth of public transportation. With improved connectivity, this will support communities and economic growth within the Study Area. In addition, as outlined in Section 9.2 (Description & Development of the Stage 2 Route Corridor Options), it is noted that the proposed scheme will provide for new pedestrian and cycle facilities along the entire length of the scheme.

9.7.2.3.2 Initiatives and Programmes The Government and associated government agencies provide support to communities and local agencies towards achieving social inclusion. This is done by providing management and support services to circa 25 programmes in the areas of Social Inclusion and Equality, Inclusive Employment and Enterprise, and Early Years and Young People.

Through the Local Community and Development Committees (LCDCs), and the adoption of the Local Community and Economic Plans by the elected members, a framework is in place within each Local Authority area to deliver a suite of initiatives designed to improve local areas, both urban and rural, as places to live, work, invest in and visit. The LCDCs comprise of elected members, representatives of the community and voluntary sector, and nominees from development organisations and State Agencies.

A non-exhaustive list of the initiatives and programmes, which have been identified within the Study Area, to help support accessibility and social inclusion, are listed below: 1) Rural Social Scheme 2) Area Based Childhood Programme 3) CLÁR Programme 4) The Social Inclusion and Community Activation Programme (SICAP) 2018 – 2022 5) The Revitalising Areas by Planning, Investment and Development Programme 6) The LEADER Programme 7) Children and Young People’s Services Committees (CYPSC) 8) The Public Participation Network (PPN)

A brief description of the initiatives and programmes listed above, is provided below.

Rural Social Scheme

The Rural Social Scheme (RSS) is sponsored by the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection. The aims of the scheme are to provide: • Services to rural communities that use the skills and talents available among low-income farmers and fishing communities • Income support to low-income farmers and fishing communities who are in receipt of specified social- welfare payments.

Area Based Childhood Programme

The Area Based Childhood (ABC) Programme is a prevention and early intervention programme that seeks to invest in effective services that improve outcomes for children and families living in areas of disadvantage. It has a particular emphasis on improving health, educational and social outcomes for children and young people, and on improving the effectiveness of existing services for them.

203

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Through ABC, funding and support are given to a collaboration of services in areas selected by Government as meeting ABC objectives. These local consortia co-ordinate the planning and delivery of services in their area, with the principal areas of focus under the Programme being: • Child Health & Development • Children’s Learning • Parenting • Integrated Service Delivery

CLÁR Programme

The CLÁR programme (Ceantair Laga Árd-Riachtanais) provides funding for small-scale infrastructural projects in rural areas.

CLÁR aims to support sustainable development in identified areas by attracting people to live and work there. The CLÁR programme seeks to halt the rural depopulation by supporting and sustaining rural communities and maintaining a ‘rural way of life’. The funding works in conjunction with local funding and on the basis of locally identified priorities. The CLÁR programme is funded by the Department of Rural and Community Development. It is delivered by local authorities in consultation with groups in local communities.

Excerpts of the CLÁR Programme Maps within the Study Area for the Counties of Monaghan and Louth are shown in Figures 9.3 and 9.4, below, respectively.

Figure 9.3: Excerpt of CLÁR Programme Map within the Study Area for County Monaghan (NIRSA, November 2018)

204

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Figure 9.4 Excerpt of CLÁR Programme Map within the Study Area for County Monaghan (NIRSA, November 2018)

With respect to the Figures 9.3 and County Monaghan, it can be seen that there are areas designated as ‘Extended CLÁR’, North of Carrickmacross, where all Route Corridor Options traverse through. Whilst with reference to Figure 9.4, there are no designated CLÁR areas, within the Study Area of the proposed scheme. In concluding, it is considered that no discernible differentiation can be made between the Route Corridor Options based on the existing CLÁR areas. Social Inclusion and Community Activation Programme (SICAP) 2018 – 2022

SICAP 2018 – 2022 provides funding to tackle poverty and social exclusion through local engagement and partnerships between disadvantaged individuals, community organisations and public sector agencies.

Administered by Pobal and funded by the Irish Government through the Department of Rural and Community Development, it also receives funding from the European Social Fund under the Programme for Employability, Inclusion and Learning (PEIL) 2014-2020.

SICAP addresses high and persistent levels of deprivation through targeted and innovative, locally led approaches. It supports disadvantaged communities and individuals including unemployed people, people living in deprived areas, people with disabilities, single parent families, people on a low income, members of the Traveller and Roma community and other disadvantaged groups.

The programme is managed at a local level by 33 Local Community Development Committees (LCDCs), with support from local authorities, and actions are delivered by Programme Implementers (PIs). PIs work with marginalised communities and service providers using a community development approach to improve people’s lives.

For the purposes of this assessment it is considered that the proposed Route Corridor Options will not impact the SICAP and there is no discernible difference between the Route Corridor Options in how they interact with the SICAP.

Revitalising Areas by Planning, Investment and Development (RAPID) Programme The RAPID (Revitalising Areas by Planning, Investment and Development) Programme is focused on supporting projects that would improve the quality of life for residents in disadvantaged urban areas, providing tangible supports. The Programme is being administered by the Local Community Development Committee (LCDC).

205

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

The Programme takes a national approach whereby each LA/LCDC is given a funding allocation to invest in areas most in need, as per its assessment. This approach will remove the need to designate any specific areas as RAPID areas. The physical environment is an area of expertise for LAs and LCDCs, both of whom are ideally placed to identify needs and wants of local residents in disadvantaged urban areas. The over-arching objective of the Programme is to facilitate a more integrated approach to funding and supports in disadvantaged areas in order to enhance urban communities and provincial towns, address disadvantage and improve social cohesion.

For the purposes of this assessment it is considered that the proposed Route Corridor Options will not impact the RAPID programme and there is no discernible difference between the Route Corridor Options in how they interact with the RAPID programme.

LEADER PROGRAMME 2014 – 2020 LEADER, an acronym in French, translated to ‘Links between actions for the development of the rural economy’ is a European Union initiative, which is administered by the LCDC. The LCDC has primary responsibility for co-ordinating, planning and overseeing local community development funding. LEADER aims to develop sustainable rural communities throughout the county, by promoting social inclusion, economic development and stimulating Enterprise, Tourism, and Community Services while protecting the natural and built heritage of the county. The funding is awarded based on a Local Development Strategy (LDS) for the county which sets out the priority areas for the programme. The priorities for the Local Development Strategy are set out under the following headings & sub-themes;

• Economic Development, Enterprise Development and Job Creation. This includes the sub-themes; Rural Tourism, Enterprise Development, Rural Towns and Broadband • Social Inclusion. This includes the sub-themes; Basic services targeted at hard to reach communities and Rural youth. • Rural Environment. This includes sub-themes; Protection and sustainable use of water resources, Protection and improvement of local biodiversity and Development of Renewable Energy.

For the purposes of this assessment it is considered that the proposed Route Corridor Options will not impact the LEADER programme and there is no discernible difference between the Route Corridor Options in how they interact with the LEADER programme.

Children and Young People’s Services Committees (CYPSC) CYPSCs are a key body identified by Government to plan and co-ordinate services for children and young people in every county in Ireland. The overall purpose is to improve outcomes for children and young people through local and national interagency working.

CYPSCs are county-level committees that bring together the main statutory, community and voluntary providers of services to children and young people. They provide a forum for joint planning and co-ordination of activities to ensure that children, young people and their families receive improved and accessible services. Their role is to enhance interagency co-operation and to realise the national outcomes set out in Better Outcomes, Brighter Futures: The National Policy Framework for Children and Young People 2014 - 2020. The ultimate goal is to improve outcomes for all children and young people in Ireland.

For the purposes of this assessment it is considered that the proposed Route Corridor Options will not impact the CYPSC and there is no discernible difference between the Route Corridor Options in how they interact with the CYPSC.

206

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

The Public Participation Network (PPN) The Local Government Reform Act 2014 inserted a new section 127 into the 2001 Local Government Act, which enabled Local Authorities to take all appropriate steps to consult with and promote effective participation of local communities in local government. One of the principal implementing provisions was the adoption by each Local Authority of a framework for public participation in local government, which aimed to set out the mechanisms by which citizens and communities are encouraged and supported to participate in the decision-making processes of local authorities.

A Public Participation Network (PPN) has been developed in each Local Authority area to enable the public to take an active formal role in relevant policy making and oversight committees of the Local Authority.

The aim of the PPN is to facilitate and enable the public and the organisations to articulate a diverse range of views and interests within the local government system. The PPN facilitates input by the public into local government through a structure that ensures public participation and representation on decision-making committees and bodies within local government.

For the purpose of this structured public participation within local government, individuals may join an existing group or organisation, or they can establish an interest group or organisation and register it with the PPN.

For the purposes of this assessment, it is considered that the proposed Route Corridor Options will not impact the PPN and there is no discernible difference between the Route Corridor Options in how they interact with the PPN.

9.7.2.4 Deprived Geographical Areas – Summary & Conclusion

With reference to the 2016 HP Deprivation Index and the review of the existing accessibility and social inclusion initiatives and programmes above, it is noted that there are a number of deprived geographical areas within the Study Area. It is recognised that transport investment can play a key role in improving access from socially deprived and excluded geographic areas to employment, education, essential services and amenities. It is considered that the proposed scheme and all of the associated options, which align with key national and local policies in relation to Accessibility and Social Inclusion (Project Ireland 2040, Roadmap for Social Inclusion 2020 – 2025, Realising our Rural Potential: The Action Plan for Rural Development, and Local and Economic Community Plans), will have a positive impact on deprived geographical areas.

The proposed scheme and all associated options seek to provide improved strategic road infrastructure in a predominately rural Study Area and aims to reduce social exclusion by providing safer and enhanced accessibility to road network, and consequently to services from designated rural zones within the Study Area, along with supporting road based public transport by improving journey times and journey time reliability.

In terms of differentiation between the Route Corridor Options, it is considered at this stage that the level of positive impact is similar between all six options. In conclusion, in relation to the Sub-Criterion of Deprived Geographical Areas, it is deemed that all options will have a ‘Minor or Slightly Positive’ Impact, and with reference to TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 seven-point scale, all options are allocated a Performance Score of 5. A summary of the results is provided in Table 9.53 below.

Option Option B Option Option E Option F Option D Sub-Criterion Description A (Yellow+ C (Orange+ (Orange+ (Orange) (Yellow) Blue) (Green) Link1+Green) Link2+Green) Minor or Minor or Minor or Minor or Minor or Minor or Level of Impact Slightly Slightly Slightly Slightly Slightly Slightly Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Performance Score 5 5 5 5 5 5 Table 9.53: Performance Scores for Deprived Geographical Areas (Accessibility & Social Inclusion Sub- Criterion 1)

207

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

9.7.3 Sub-Criterion 2 – Vulnerable Groups

As well as assessing the impacts to Deprived Geographical Areas, as per TII’s PAG Unit 7.0, impacts to identified Vulnerable Groups are to be considered and assessed. TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 notes that ’the term Vulnerable Groups can include; vulnerable women, children, young people, older people, people with disabilities, ethnic minorities, and lower income socio-economic groups’. Similar to Deprived Geographical Areas, it is recognised that transport investment can play an important role in improving access for Vulnerable Groups to employment, education, essential services and amenities. Also, similar to Deprived Geographical Areas, it is noted that the same policies, initiatives and programmes outlined in Section 9.7.2.3 above are applicable to Vulnerable Groups in terms of providing support for access to employment and key services.

In addition to the policies, initiatives and programmes outlined in Section 9.7.2.3 above, the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was adopted in 2006 and came into force from April 2018. The purpose of the Convention is to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote respect for their inherent dignity. It applies established human rights principles from the UN Declaration on Human Rights to the situation of people with disabilities. It covers civil and political rights to equal treatment and freedom from discrimination, and social and economic rights in areas like education, health care, employment and transport.

There are a range of national strategies and programmes in place to advance the implementation of the Convention’s provisions, including the empowerment of persons with disabilities to live self-directed lives of their own choosing. Basic civil and political rights for all are guaranteed under the Constitution. Ireland’s extensive suite of equality legislation outlaws discrimination, and successive iterations of the National Disability Strategy have set out an approach of progressive realisation of the aims of the Convention, working to resolve many social and economic issues. Other national policies and strategies include the Comprehensive Employment Strategy, the Transforming Lives Programme, and the National Housing Strategy for Persons with Disabilities.

With reference to Section 9.7.2.3.1 (Policies) above, and the policy document Realising our Rural Potential: The Action Plan for Rural Development, this Action plan also aims to combat rural isolation by improving connectivity and enhancing supports for older people, including significant investment in the Senior Alert scheme. The objective of the Senior Alert Scheme is to encourage community support for vulnerable older people in our communities through the provision of personal monitored alarms to enable older persons, of limited means, to continue to live securely in their homes with confidence, independence and peace of mind.

Other initiatives such as the LocalLink manages the ‘Rural Transport Programme’ within the Study Area. The programme delivers services in rural areas, providing transport services in areas where public transport is not readily available.

Pillar 5 (Improving Rural Infrastructure and Connectivity) of the Action Plan for Rural Development recognises the importance of improved road infrastructure to support social and economic potential and reduce social inclusion for rural communities, which also includes Vulnerable Groups.

Similar to the conclusion of the Deprived Geographical Areas, it is considered that the proposed scheme, and all of the Route Corridor Options, which align with key accessibility and social inclusion national policies (Project Ireland 2040, Roadmap for Social Inclusion 2020 – 2025, Realising our Rural Potential: The Action Plan for Rural Development), will have a positive impact on Vulnerable Groups. The scheme and all associated options seek to provide improved strategic road infrastructure, which aims to reduce social exclusion by providing safer and enhanced accessibility to the road network, and consequently to services from designated rural zones within the Study Area, along with supporting road based public transport by improving journey times and journey time reliability. This has the potential to allow for more efficient and safer accessibility for Vulnerable Groups to the urban centres within the Study Area and outside the Study Area, where higher concentrations of employment opportunities, and essential services (medical, education, commercial, etc.) can be accessed.

208

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

In terms of differentiation between the options, at this stage, it is considered that the level of positive impact is broadly similar across all six options. In conclusion, in relation to the Sub-Criterion of Vulnerable Groups, it is deemed that all options will have a ‘Minor or Slightly Positive’ Impact, and with reference to TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 seven- point scale, all options are allocated a Performance Score of 5. A summary of the results is provided in Table 9.54 below.

Option B Option E Option F Sub-Criterion Option A Option C Option D (Yellow+ (Orange+ (Orange+ Description (Yellow) (Green) (Orange) Blue) Link1+Green) Link2+Green) Minor or Minor or Minor or Minor or Level of Minor or Slightly Minor or Slightly Slightly Slightly Slightly Slightly Impact Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Performance 5 5 5 5 5 5 Score Table 9.54: Performance Scores for Vulnerable Road Groups (Accessibility & Social Inclusion Appraisal – Sub- Criterion 2)

209

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

9.7.4 Accessibility & Social Inclusion Appraisal – Summary of Results With references to Sections 9.7.1 and 9.7.2, the Performance Scores for each of the two Sub-Criteria (Deprived Geographical & Vulnerable Groups) was added together to provide an Overall Performance Score (out of a maximum of 14) for each of the Route Corridor Options. Subsequently, the score was then expressed as marks out of 100 to align with marking system of the other five Main Criteria of the Stage 2 Appraisal. The results of the Accessibility and Social Inclusion Appraisal is shown in Table 9.55 below.

Sub- Option B Option Option E Option F Sub-Criterion Option A Option D Criterion (Yellow+ C (Orange+ (Orange+ Description (Yellow) (Orange) Ref. No. Blue) (Green) Link1+Green) Link2+Green) Deprived 1 Geographical 5 5 5 5 5 5 Areas Vulnerable 2 5 5 5 5 5 5 Groups

Overall Accessibility & Social Inclusion Performance Score 10 10 10 10 10 10 (Out of 14) Overall Accessibility & Social Inclusion Performance Score 71 71 71 71 71 71 (Expressed as Marks out of 100) Table 9.55: Accessibility & Social Inclusion Appraisal – Performance Scores Summary Table

210

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

9.8 Integration Appraisal

9.8.1 Introduction The Integration Appraisal has been undertaken in accordance with TII’s PAG Unit 7.0: Multi-Criteria Analysis. The purpose of this appraisal was to comparatively assess the impact of each Route Corridor Option against the Do- Nothing and/or Do-Minimum Option in terms of how each option meets and integrates with transport and planning policy. This covers existing European, national, regional, and local policy. TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 prescribes the following four Sub-Criteria under the Main Criterion of Integration:

1) Sub-Criterion 1 – Transport Integration; 2) Sub-Criterion 2 – Land-Use Integration; 3) Sub-Criterion 3 – Geographical Integration; 4) Sub-Criterion 4 – Regional Balance (Other Government Policy)

As outlined in Table 9.2 of this Chapter, TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 further prescribes a number of specific Sub-Criterion Elements to be considered and assessed for the four Sub-Criteria listed above. For example, in the case of Sub- Criterion 1 (Transport Integration), these elements include ‘Connectivity of Strategic Road Network’, ‘Connectivity between Existing Transport Modes’, etc. For the purposes of this Report and the assessment, these elements were identified as ‘Sub-Criterion Elements’

Similar to the other Main Criteria, and as outlined in Section 9.3 of this Report, TII’s PAG unit 7.0’s seven-point Impact Scoring System was adopted for this appraisal, where an impact level (‘Highly Positive’ to ‘Highly Negative’) was determined for each Route Corridor Option against the defined Sub-Criteria and Sub-Criterion Elements. Then, each impact level was assigned a performance score based on the defined seven-point scale (i.e. ‘Highly Positive’ Impact = Performance Score of 7, ‘Highly Negative’ Impact = Performance Score of 1).

Upon the determination of individual Performance Scores for each of the Sub-Criterion Elements, each of these scores were combined to provide a Sub-Criterion Element Total (Sum of Individual Performance Scores) for each Route Corridor Option. Thereafter, a single overall Performance Score was derived for each of the four main Sub- Criteria based on the average of their associated Sub-Criterion Element Total.

After a single overall Performance Score was assigned to each of the four Sub-Criteria, an Overall Integration Appraisal Performance Score was calculated for each of the Route Corridor Options. Further details are provided in the Summary of Results Section below.

In the case of the Integration Appraisal, due to the nature of the subject matter (i.e. policy and strategy orientated), it was not reasonably practicable to quantitively assess the impacts. Therefore, the impact level/Performance Score for each Route Corridor Option was qualitatively assessed against each of the four Sub-Criteria.

The sections below outline the Integration Appraisal under the four separate Sub-Criteria.

9.8.2 Sub-Criterion 1 – Transport Integration

As part of this Sub-Criterion, the Route Corridor Options were comparatively assessed in terms of addressing ‘gaps in the existing network and improving opportunities for interchange between modes’ (TII’s PAG Unit 7.0). It is noted that the integration of transport services as well as infrastructure forms part of this assessment. In accordance with TII’s PAG Unit 7.0, the following Sub-Criterion Elements are to be considered and assessed: 1) Transport Integration Sub-Criterion Element 1 – Connectivity of the Strategic Network; 2) Transport Integration Sub-Criterion Element 2 – Connectivity between Transport Modes; 3) Transport Integration Sub-Criterion Element 3 – Support for Sustainable Transport Modes; 4) Transport Integration Sub-Criterion Element 4 – Access to Other Transport Infrastructure (Ports & Airports).

The consideration and assessment of these Sub-Criterion Elements is outlined in the sections below.

211

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

9.8.2.1 Transport Integration Sub-Criterion Element 1 – Connectivity of the Strategic Road Network

This Sub-Criterion Element is specifically focussed on the National Road Network, where the aim of the scheme / option should be to create a strong link to the existing national strategic road network and add value to it. TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 further clarifies by stating that options ‘which improve connectivity of the National Road network or satisfy an identified gap in the network should be ranked positively. Similarly, those projects (options) which have little or no connectivity to the existing network should be negatively ranked’. As outlined in Section 2.2 (Development Policy) of this Report, it is considered that the N2 Ardee and Castleblayney Road Scheme and its Scheme Objectives align with current EU, national, regional and local policies in terms of improving accessibility between the North-West and the Greater Dublin Area, whilst also in terms of increasing connectivity between the main urban and economic centres along the N2/A5 route.

Under Project Ireland 2040, the National Development Plan (NDP), which supports the National Planning Framework (NPF) 2040 and its National Strategic Outcomes, states in the context of linkages between Dublin and the North-West (which the N2 forms part of);

‘Under the National Development Plan, the objective is to complete those linkages so that every region and all major urban areas, particularly those in the North-West, which have been comparatively neglected until recently, are linked to Dublin by a high-quality road network’.

To this end, the N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme is specifically identified in the NDP for prioritisation as per the following excerpt from the NDP:

‘The following sections of the national road network will be progressed through pre-appraisal and early planning during 2018 to prioritise projects which are proceeding to construction in the National Development Plan.

• N2 Clontibret to the Border • N2 Ardee to south of Castleblayney’

In terms of the specific assessment of the Route Corridor Options, it is considered that all options will equally improve connectivity of the National Road Network, and that all options will equally satisfy a specific gap identified by Project Ireland 2040 for improvement of the existing national strategic road network. In conclusion, it is deemed that all options have a ‘Major or Highly Positive’ impact’ in terms of the Sub-Criterion Element of ‘Connectivity of the Strategic Network’, and with reference to TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 seven-point scale, all options are allocated a Performance Score of 7. A summary of the results is provided in Table 9.56 below.

Option Option B Option Option E Option F Option D Description A (Yellow+ C (Orange+ (Orange+ (Orange) (Yellow) Blue) (Green) Link1+Green) Link2+Green) Major or Major or Major or Major or Major or Major or Level of Impact Highly Highly Highly Highly Highly Highly Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Performance Score 7 7 7 7 7 7 Table 9.56: Performance Scores for Transport Integration – Sub-Criterion Element 1 – Connectivity of the Strategic Network

212

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

9.8.2.2 Transport Integration Sub-Criterion Element 2 – Connectivity between Transport Modes

This Sub-Criterion Element is centred on the integration of the road scheme and its options with the public transport network (rail and bus network). TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 states ‘Improving integration between transport modes and the delivery of more seamless transport connectivity is an important Government objective. TII projects support this objective by improving integration between the road network and other modes. Through the appraisal process, Projects (Options) which present new opportunities for public transport nodes or corridors should be positively ranked. Similarly, projects which could result in isolation of public transport services or infrastructure should be negatively ranked.’

With reference to Section 2.2 (Development Policy), it is noted that the integration of sustainable public transport modes with the existing and proposed road network is a key component of the National Planning Framework (NPF) 2040. The NPF 2040 outlines the importance of sustainable public transport in a number of its ten National Strategic Outcomes (NSOs), including; NSO4 (Sustainable Mobility) and NSO2 (Enhanced Regional Accessibility). Under the heading of ‘Public Transport’ within NSO2, the NPF states the objective; • ‘To strengthen public transport connectivity between cities and large growth towns in Ireland and Northern Ireland with improved services and reliable journey times’

Regarding existing and proposed rail and bus infrastructure and services within the Study Area of the proposed scheme, it is noted these modes were separately assessed in terms of alternatives to a road scheme within Chapter 3 (Consideration of Alternatives and Options) of the Report. The sections below assess the compatibility of the proposed scheme and Route Corridor Options with TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 Sub-Criterion Element of ‘Connectivity between Transport Modes’.

Rail Infrastructure and Services: In relation to rail infrastructure and services, and with reference to Section 3.4.2 (Public Transport Alternative – Rail & Air), it is identified that there are no existing operating rail services within the Study Area. The nearest operating train stations to the Study Area are Drogheda and Dundalk on the Dublin to Belfast line, which are approximately 12km and 19.5km (to the nearest point of the Study Area boundary), respectively.

Historically, there was a passenger and freight line which operated within the Study Area as part of the Great Northern Railway; the Dundalk-Enniskillen Line, which passed through Inniskeen, Castleblayney, Ballybay, Newbliss and Clones, with branches to Carrickmacross, Cootehill and the Armagh-Castleblayney line. This rail network ceased in 1959. In the intervening period, the majority of the railway line was removed, with land on certain sections of the line being sold to adjacent landowners and other sections of land being retained by Irish Rail. In addition to the historical Dundalk-Enniskillen line, a passenger and freight line existed between Navan in Co. Meath and Kingscourt, in Co. Cavan. The line was withdrawn to passengers in 1963, following which it was used for the transport of gypsum up to 2001 when it was closed. The closed Kingscourt Railway Station is approximately 4.5km to the nearest point of the Study Area boundary. There are currently no immediate proposals by Irish Rail to re-open this line.

In terms of future development plans of rail infrastructure and services, the Government and Irish Rail have not outlined any specific objectives for the provision of new rail infrastructure within the Study Area. As per Section 3.4.2 of this Report, the NPF 2040, the NDP 2018 – 2028, the RSESs’ emphasis is to further develop the existing Dublin to Belfast Rail Line as part of the identified ‘Dublin-Belfast Economic Corridor’ by ‘Examining the feasibility of a high- speed rail connection between Belfast and Dublin and Cork’, with potential rail connectivity to the ‘North-West City Region’ being provided via. the existing Dublin to Sligo line. The 2030 Rail Network Strategy Review (2011), which outlines Irish Rail’s future development requirements, makes no reference to any new rail routes within or within close proximity to the Study Area.

Therefore, regarding rail infrastructure and services, as there are no existing or proposed plans for a rail network in the Study Area, it is concluded that the proposed N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme doesn’t have a positive or negative impact on modal change from road to rail. Hence, for this particular Sub-Criterion Element, the scheme and all options are considered to have a ‘Not significant or Neutral’ impact (Performance Score of 4).

213

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Bus Infrastructure and Services: In relation to bus infrastructure and services, and with reference to Section 3.4.1 (Public Transport Alternative – Bus), it has been identified that there are a number of existing national bus services, local community-based initiatives and private operators operating through and within the Study Area. They support both strategic bus links between Dublin, Northern Ireland and the North-West, as well as local bus links from Ardee, Carrickmacross, and Castleblayney to the surrounding villages and rural areas within the Study Area. As per Section 3.4.1, Bus Éireann and groups of private operators (including Collins Coaches, McConnan Travel and John McGinley Coach Travel) provide intercity services with stops serving Ardee, Carrickmacross and Castleblayney. In terms of local links, along with Bus Éireann providing services, Cavan Monaghan LocalLink and Louth, Meath and Fingal Locallink manage the provision of public transportation services within the rural areas of Monaghan and Louth. As identified in Section 3.4.1, the centres of Ardee, Carrickmacross, and Castleblayney are the key transport hubs supporting strategic and local bus links within the Study Area.

In terms of future services, the NPF 2040, NDP 2018 -2027 and RSESs recognise public transport (including Bus Services) will need to be further prioritised into the future with increased investment, which will lead to potentially greater coverage, accessibility, and frequency of bus services and stops. Notwithstanding this, and as identified in Section 3.4.1 and in the RSESs, the region within the Study Area ‘has a particularly dispersed settlement pattern and lacks critical mass as evident in other parts of the island’. In order to meet this challenge, and as per the RSES for the North West Region, it is considered that investment is required in both roads and bus transportation. It is considered that bus transportation cannot solely meet the challenge of the dispersed settlement pattern in the Study Area and the expected increased transport demands into the future. Furthermore, it is noted that bus transportation cannot reasonably serve the transportation needs of the strategic transfer of freight and large goods.

Regarding the N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme, all Route Corridor Options are deemed to have a positive impact to the existing strategic bus routes operating on the N2 by improving journey times, journey time reliability and providing safer connectivity along the N2 Corridor. In terms of local links on regional and local roads, it is also considered that all options will have a positive impact by providing safer connectivity to the N2 corridor, whilst maintaining connectivity across the corridor.

In terms of differentiation between the Route Corridor Options, as stated above, Ardee, Carrickmacross and Castleblayney are the key transport hubs supporting strategic and local bus links within the Study Area. As all options start and end at Ardee and Castleblayney, there is no differentiation between the options in this regard. Therefore, the integration of the proposed options with the existing transport hub of Carrickmacross is considered the primary differentiator between the Route Corridor Options. The options which are further isolated in terms of distance from Carrickmacross (Options C, D, E & F) are considered to offer less bus service integration with Carrickmacross versus the options which are closer to Carrickmacross, and which broadly follow the existing N2 corridor (Options A and B).

Hence for this qualitative assessment, whilst accounting for the fact that all options will have a positive impact to the existing bus network, Options C, D, E and F are deemed as having a ‘Moderately Positive’ Impact (Performance Score of 6), with Options A and B, adjacent to Carrickmacross as having a ‘Major or Highly Positive Impact’ (Performance Score of 7).

Taking the Performance Scores for the Rail integration, and Bus Integration, an overall Performance Score for Sub- Criterion Element 2 (Connectivity between Transport Modes), based the average of the Rail and Bus scores, is presented in Table 9.57 below.

214

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Sub- Option E Option B Option F Criterion Option A Option C Option D (Orange+ Description (Yellow + (Orange+ Element (Yellow) (Green) (Orange) Link1 Blue) Link2 +Green) Ref. No. +Green) Connectivity between 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 Transport Modes – Rail

Connectivity between 7 7 6 6 6 6 2 Transport Modes – Bus

Sum of Individual 11 11 10 10 10 10 Performance Scores

Average Score 5.5 5.5 5 5 5 5

Overall Performance Score 6 6 5 5 5 5 for Connectivity between Transport Modes Table 9.57: Performance Scores for Transport Integration – Sub-Criterion Element 2 – Connectivity between Transport Modes

9.8.2.3 Transport Integration Sub-Criterion Element 3 – Support for Sustainable Transport Modes

This Sub-Criterion Element is focused on the integration of the road scheme and its provision of walking and cycling infrastructure or ‘Non-mechanised modes’ as termed by TII PAG Unit 7.0. In defining ‘Support for Sustainable Transport Modes’, PAG Unit 7.0 states:

‘Planning for road network infrastructure needs to incorporate the needs of non-mechanised modes such as walking and cycling. Projects (Options) which improve the connectivity of existing sustainable transport networks should be highly ranked while the possibility of a scheme (Option) hindering the development of pedestrian and cycling networks should also be taken into account’.

With reference to Section 1.5 (Scheme Objectives), it is highlighted that a key objective of the N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme is to support the integration of walking and cycling with the proposed road scheme. Under the heading of Physical Activity, the following Scheme Objectives are outlined: • ‘Provide opportunities for vulnerable road users (including pedestrians and cyclists) to pursue more active travel options between Ardee and Castleblayney as part of this scheme; • To support the National Planning Framework’s National Strategic Outcome 4 (Sustainable Mobility) and other relevant active travel policies by providing safe and accessible routes for vulnerable road users’

The importance of prioritising walking and cycling accessibility to both existing and proposed developments, including roads, is identified in the NPF 2040 under National Policy Objective 27 within the People, Homes and Communities Section:

‘Ensure the integration of safe and convenient alternatives to Car into the design of our communities, by prioritising walking and cycling accessibility to both existing and proposed developments...’

As part of NPF’s National Strategic Outcome 4 (Sustainable Mobility), under the heading of Public Transport, it outlines the objective to:

215

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

‘Expand attractive public transport alternatives to car transport to reduce congestion and emissions and enable the transport sector to cater for the demands associated with longer term population and employment growth in a sustainable manner through the following measures:’, where it lists the following measure in terms of cycling:

• ‘Develop a comprehensive network of safe cycling routes in metropolitan areas to address travel needs and to provide similar facilities in towns and villages where appropriate.’

In addition, the improvement of accessibility to sustainable transport modes in terms of walking and cycling is identified in a number of national, regional and local policy documents, including but not limited to the list in Table 9.58 below:

National/Regional Policy Documents Local Policy Documents Smarter Travel – A sustainable Transport Future: Monaghan County Development Plan 2019 – 2025 A New Transport Policy for Ireland 2009 – 2020 Louth County Development Plan 2015 – 2021 (incl. National Cycle Policy Framework 2009 – 2020 associated Local Area Plan) Sustainable Mobility Policy – Currently being Healthy Ireland for Monaghan Plan 2019 – 2022 & prepared Healthy Ireland Plan 2018 - 20222 Walking and Cycling Strategy for County Monaghan (2017 Pluto 2040 – Currently being prepared – Draft)

Monaghan Sports Partnership Strategic Plan 2019 – 2023 National Physical Activity Plan for Ireland (2016) & Louth Sports Partnership Strategic Plan 2018 - 2022 – Healthy Ireland Get Ireland Walking Strategy & Action Plan 2017 Monaghan Active Travel Town Plans – Walking and – 2020 Cycling Strategies – Castleblayney (2012) and Carrickmacross (2017) Outdoor Recreation Plan for Public Lands and Louth Age Friendly County Plan 2017 -2022 Waters in Ireland in Ireland 2017 – 2021 Monaghan County Council Tourism Strategy 2015 – 2020 Strategy for the future Development of National & Tourism Statement of Strategy and Work Programme and Regional Greenways (2018) 2017 – 2022 RSES for the North and West Region (2020), and County Louth Tourism & Heritage Action Plan 2016 – for the Eastern and Midland Region 2019 - 2031 2021

Climate Action Plan 2019 Table 9.58: National, Regional, and Local Policy documents in the context of Sustainable Transport (Cycling & Walking)

In terms of the existing pedestrian and cycle facilities on the existing N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney, and as identified in Section 3.2 (Do-Nothing Option) of this Report, it is noted that there are no formalised dedicated pedestrian and cycle facilities along the existing section of the N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney. As outlined in Section 9.2 of this Chapter, and in further detail in the Physical Appraisal in Section 9.9, the proposed Scheme and all of the Route Corridor Options will provide formalised pedestrian and cycle facilities. Therefore, it is considered that all Route Corridor Options will have a positive impact, as the provision of formalised pedestrian and cycle facilities, with segregation from vehicle traffic via. formalised separation distances will provide a safer and enhanced environment for pedestrians and cyclists.

216

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

In relation to the specific point of interest for this Transport Integration Sub-Criterion Element, the impact of the proposed scheme/options on the accessibility to the existing sustainable transport modes of walking and cycling is to be considered. As outlined and illustrated in Section 9.9 (Physical Activity Appraisal), the existing pedestrian and cycle facilities which could interface with the proposed scheme were identified. In addition, a review of cycling and running activity within the Study Area via. GPS data was undertaken (See Section 9.9.2.3). Following which, it was concluded that the urban areas and environs of Ardee, Carrickmacross and Castleblayney contained the highest concentrations of walking and cycling.

At this initial stage of the design, which is at 400m corridor level, it is considered that all options will not sever or isolate existing walking and cycling routes. With the provision of enhanced pedestrian and cycle facilities on all Route Corridor Options, it is assessed that each option will present opportunities to enhance the overall connectivity between the existing routes and communities, and therefore will have a strong positive impact.

In terms of differentiating between the Route Corridor Options and recognising that the highest concentrations of walking and cycling are within Ardee, Carrickmacross and Castleblayney, it is noted that Carrickmacross is the key differentiator, as all Route Corridor Options start and end at Ardee, and Castleblayney, respectively. Therefore, it is considered that the predominately online options (Options A and B) will provided increased opportunity for connectivity to Carrickmacross, as these new options will need to upgrade the existing road infrastructure (including Junctions) directly adjacent to Carrickmacross, which will also include improved access arrangements for pedestrians and cyclists via. the upgraded junctions (Including the existing compact grade separated junctions).

Regarding other potential future pedestrian and cycle facilities in the Study Area, although they do not form part of this specific criterion, they have been reviewed as part of the Physical Activity Appraisal (See Section 9.9). The accessibility to future cycleways/walkways and their interface with the proposed scheme will be considered as part of the future development of the scheme in the subsequent design phase (I.e. Phase 3), with consultation being undertaken with the applicable key stakeholders.

In conclusion, it is assessed that all options will greatly improve the existing pedestrian and cycle facilities within the Study Area. In terms of the specific PAG Unit 7.0 criterion, it is considered that all options will not sever or isolate the existing walking/cycling routes within the Study Area. In terms of specific connectivity improvement to existing facilities, as stated above, it is assessed that all options will present opportunities, though it is considered that the predominately online options (Options A and B) will provide a slightly increased opportunity for connectivity to Carrickmacross. Therefore, the predominately online Route Corridor Options (Options A and B) have been qualitatively assessed as having a ‘Major or Highly Positive’ Impact (Performance Score of 7), whilst the predominantly offline Route Corridor Options (Options C, D, E & F), have been slightly downgraded to a ‘Moderately Positive’ Impact (Performance Score of 6). A summary of the results is provided in Table 9.59 below.

Option B Option E Option F Option A Option C Option D Description (Yellow + (Orange+Link1 (Orange+Link2 (Yellow) (Green) (Orange) Blue) +Green) +Green)

Major or Major or Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Level of Impact Highly Highly Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Performance 7 7 6 6 6 6 Score Table 9.59: Performance Scores for Transport Integration – Sub-Criterion Element 3 – Support for Sustainable Transport Modes

217

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

9.8.2.4 Transport Integration Sub-Criterion Element 4 – Access to Other Transport Infrastructure (Ports & Airports)

This Sub-Criterion Element is specifically centred on the integration of the road scheme and its options with existing maritime ports and airports. In defining ‘Access to Other Transport Infrastructure – Ports and Airports’, PAG Unit 7.0 states the following:

‘Access to international ports and airports is of national economic importance and should be reflected in the appraisal of major road schemes. Although many schemes will rank as neutral in this regard, the potential of projects to impact on the capacity of routes serving these nodes should be accounted for in the MCA.’

The enhancement of connectivity to maritime ports and airports is of key importance to Ireland in terms of the Island’s economy. At a national policy level, this aspect is covered under the National Planning Framework (NPF) 2040 National Strategic Objective 6 (High-Quality International Connectivity) where it states below, with specific relevance to the proposed Scheme in terms of improved connectivity to the North-West and the central border areas, which this proposed scheme will facilitate:

‘As an island, the effectiveness of our airport and port connections to our nearest neighbours in the UK, the EU and the wider global context is vital to our survival, our competitiveness and our future prospects. Co-operation and joint development of cross-border areas such as the Dublin-Belfast corridor, North West, and central border areas are key to open up the potential of the island economy, post Brexit.’

At a European policy level, and with reference to Section 2.2.2 (European Policy) of this Report, the EU, through the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) policy aims to provide and support an effective transport infrastructure network across all member states. The TEN-T policy addresses the implementation and development of a Europe- wide network of railway lines, roads, inland waterways, maritime shipping routes, ports, airports and railroad terminals. The ultimate objective of the policy is to close gaps, ‘address bottlenecks’, ‘enhance cross-border connections’, as well as strengthening social, economic and territorial cohesion in the EU. As outlined in Section 2.2.2, the existing N2 and A5 routes in their entirety from Dublin to Derry, including the connections of N13, N14 and N15 to Donegal and the North-West, all form part of the TEN-T Comprehensive Network. The N2 and A5 are strategic cross-border routes, which offer transport connectivity between the North-West, the main urban and economic centres along their routes, other parts of the Ten-T Network (Including Dublin and Belfast), and the following relevant TEN-T Maritime ports and airports: • TEN-T Airports: Dublin Airport, Donegal Airport (Carrikfinn), City of Derry Airport, Belfast International Airport, Belfast City Airport; • TEN-T Maritime Ports: Dublin Port, Belfast Port, Larne Port, Foyle Port (Derry), and Warren Point (Newry).

Figure 9.5 below shows N2/A5 Comprehensive Road Network in the context of its connectivity with TEN-T Maritime ports and airports.

218

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Existing N2/A5

Figure 9.5: N2/A5 Comprehensive Road Network in the context of its connectivity with the TEN-T Maritime Ports and Airports

As outlined in Section 2.2.2, and with reference to Section 1.5 (Scheme Objectives), the key objectives of the proposed Scheme, includes improving connectivity and transport links between the Greater Dublin Area (and by association Dublin Airport and Dublin Port) and the North-West Region (and by association City of Derry Airport, Donegal Airport, and Foyle Airport), by providing a high-quality safer road, with improved journey times and journey reliability.

Therefore, it is considered that the scheme will have a positive impact on the access to key maritime ports and airports. For the purposes of this assessment, it is considered that all Route Corridor Options will provide the same level of impact in terms of all-island strategic connectivity. In determining the level of positivity of the impact, as the proposed scheme / options are not in the immediate vicinity of maritime and port facilities, the impact has been slightly downgraded to a ‘Moderately Positive’ impact. With reference to TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 seven-point scale, all Route Corridor Options are allocated a Performance Score of 6. A summary of the results is provided in Table 9.60 below.

Option B Option E Option F Option A Option C Option D Description (Yellow + (Orange+Link1 (Orange+Link2 (Yellow) (Green) (Orange) Blue) +Green) +Green)

Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Level of Impact Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Performance Score 6 6 6 6 6 6 Table 9.60: Performance Scores for Transport Integration – Sub-Criterion Element 4 – Access to Other Transport Infrastructure

219

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

9.8.2.5 Transport Integration – Summary and Conclusion

As outlined in Section 9.8.1 (Introduction) above, and shown in Table 9.61 below, upon the determination of individual Performance Scores (1 – 7) for each of the four Sub-Criterion Elements related to Transport Integration, each of these scores were combined to provide a Sub-Criterion Element Total (Sum of Individual Performance Scores – out of a maximum of 28) for each Route Corridor Option. Thereafter, a single overall Performance Score was derived for the Sub-Criterion of Transport Integration based on an average of their associated Sum of Individual Performance Scores.

Sub- Option Option B Option Option D Option E Option F Criterion Sub-Criterion Element A (Yellow + C (Orange) (Orange+ (Orange+ Element Description (Yellow) Blue) (Green) Link1 Link2 Ref. No. +Green) +Green) Connectivity of the 7 7 7 7 7 7 1 Strategic Network Connectivity between 6 6 5 5 5 5 2 Transport Modes Support for Sustainable 7 7 6 6 6 6 3 Transport Modes Access to Other 6 6 6 6 6 6 4 Infrastructure (Ports & Airports) Sum of Individual Performance 26 26 24 24 24 24 Scores (Out of 28) Average Score 6.5 6.5 6 6 6 6 Overall Transportation Integration 7 7 6 6 6 6 Performance Score Table 9.61: Transport Integration - Performance Scores Summary Table

220

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

9.8.3 Sub-Criterion 2 – Land-Use Integration

As part of this Sub-Criterion, the Route Corridor Options were comparatively assessed in terms of their performance in relation to their compatibility with adopted land use objectives.

In accordance with TII’s PAG Unit 7.0, the following Sub-Criterion Elements are to be considered and assessed: 1) Land Use Integration Sub-Criterion Element 1 – Support for Local Development 2) Land Use Integration Sub-Criterion Element 2 – Strategic Connectivity for Long Distance Trips 3) Land Use Integration Sub-Criterion Element 3 – Mitigate Risks of Urban Sprawl

The consideration and assessment of these Sub-Criterion Elements is outlined in the sections below.

9.8.3.1 Land Use Integration Sub-Criterion Element 1 – Support for Local Development

This Sub-Criterion Element is specifically focussed on the compatibility of the proposed scheme and the Route Corridor Options with the aims and objectives of the local County Development Plan(s). TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 states:

‘The project (Options) should be compatible with the aims and objectives of local development planning frameworks. Schemes ranking positively in this regard should form part of the development aspiration for the local area and have already been integrated into a sustainable framework for future development’

In the case of the N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme, as the proposed scheme spans across both the counties of Monaghan and Louth, the local County Development Plans which are applicable: • Monaghan County Development Plan 2019 – 2025; • Louth County Development Plan 2015 – 2021 • Draft Louth County Development Plan 2021 – 2027

Regarding the Louth County Development Plans (CDPs), and with reference to Section 2.2.5.3 of the Report, at the time of writing, the Louth CDP 2015 – 2021 was still in place, and the CDP 2021 – 2027 was at draft status and was yet to be adopted. Therefore, for the purposes of this particular assessment, it has been limited to the CDP which was in place at the time of the assessment (i.e. the Louth CDP 2015 – 2021). However, as per Section 2.2.5.2 of the Report, it has been assessed that the proposed Scheme has strong compatibility with the Draft Louth CDP 2021 – 2027.

Monaghan County Development Plan 2019 - 2025

As outlined in detail in Section 2.2.5.1 of this Report, the proposed N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme and its Scheme Objectives have been determined to align and be compatible with the land-use and transportation objectives of the Monaghan CDP 2019 – 2025. Both the land-use and transportation objectives are intrinsically interlinked with each other within the Monaghan CDP.

As stated above, a detailed assessment of the compatibility of the proposed Scheme and its objectives with the Monaghan CDP 2019 -2025 is provided in Section 2.2.5.1 of this Report. For the purposes of this specific Sub- Criterion Element, the key sections of the CDP which highlight the compatibility of the proposed Scheme with this Plan in terms of land use and transportation policy are provided below: Chapter 7 – Transport and Infrastructure – Section 7.8.1 (National Roads Policy) This section of the CDP outlines 7 No. National Road Policies. Policies which are considered particularly relevant to the N2, are listed below:

• NRP1 – ‘To protect the traffic carrying capacity of national roads, the level of service they deliver and the period over which they continue to perform efficiently, by avoiding the creation of new access points or the generation of increased traffic from existing accesses onto the N-2, N-53, N-54, and N-12 outside the 60 km/h speed limit, in accordance with the DoECLG’s publication Spatial Planning and National Roads - Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2012).

221

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

• NRP5 – ‘To seek to progress and ensure the upgrade of the N2 in co-operation with Transport Infrastructure Ireland and the relevant adjoining local authorities.’

• NRP7 – ‘To protect the selected route of the N2 upgrade road scheme between Ardee and Castleblayney and the selected route between Clontibret and the border with Northern Ireland, and to prohibit development that could prejudice their future delivery’

Chapter 7 – Transport and Infrastructure – Section 7.6 (Transport Policy):

• TP4 – ‘To plan for future traffic and transportation needs in County Monaghan and to ensure that new development does not prejudice the expansion of road and cycling corridors in the County. Proposed road routes, road realignment schemes and future cycle route corridors shall be kept free from free development that would compromise their future delivery.’

Outside of specific objectives, the CDP identifies the importance of delivering the strategic infrastructure in its mainbody text in various locations in the CDP. These are provided below: Chapter 2 – Core Strategy – Section 2.3.2 (Monaghan Town): ‘The draft Regional Spatial and Economic Strategy (RSES) recognises its importance as an economic driver in the Central Border Region and how it is crucial that it continues to expand seamless cross border links, aided by, for example the upgrade of the N2 / A5.’

Chapter 7 – Transport and Infrastructure – Section 7.1 (National & Regional Transport Policy Context): ‘The National Planning Framework 2040 specifically references the N2/A5 (Clontibret to Tyrone/NI border) roads project. It is considered that this route should be prioritised given its strategic importance and the lack of any direct rail infrastructure serving significant urban areas in the northwest along the route of the N2/A5.’

Chapter 7 – Transport and Infrastructure – Section 7.8 (National Roads): ‘The N2 is part of the Trans-European transport Network (TEN-T). This is a network which comprises roads, railway lines, inland waterways, inland and maritime ports, airports and rail-road terminals throughout the 28 Member States. The characteristic is a key factor for the network’s efficient, safe and secure operation, using seamless transport chains for passengers and freight.

The N2 is categorised as being part of the ‘comprehensive network’, a multi-modal network of relatively high density which provides all European regions (including peripheral regions) with an accessibility that supports their further economic, social and territorial development as well as the mobility of their citizens.’

With reference to Table 7.2 in Section 7.8, which lists the strategic national road proposals for the county, where the ‘N2 Clontibret – NI Border’ and ‘Ardee -Castleblayney Road Upgrade’ are specifically listed, it states that ‘these national road projects that form key routes and linkages with other development centres, sea-ports and airports will be advanced in partnership with Transport Infrastructure Ireland.’

Louth County Development Plan 2015 – 2021

As outlined in detailed in Section 2.2.5.2 of this Report, the proposed N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme and its objectives have been determined to align and be compatible with the land-use and transportation objectives of the Louth CDP 2015 – 2021. As is the case with the Monaghan CDP, both the land-use and transportation objectives are intrinsically interlinked with each other within the Louth CDP.

As stated, a detailed assessment of the compatibility of the proposed Scheme and its objectives with the Louth CDP 2015 - 2021 is provided in Section 2.2.5.2. For the purposes of this specific Sub-Criterion Element, the key sections of the CDP which highlight the compatibility of the proposed Scheme with this plan in terms of land-use and transportation policy is provided below:

222

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Chapter 7 – Transport and Infrastructure – Section 7.3.10 (Roads Improvement Programme 2015 – 2021) The CDP includes the following Transport Policy Objective TC20A:

• ‘To protect the selected route of the N2 upgrade road scheme between Ardee and Castleblayney and to prohibit development that could prejudice its future delivery’

The ‘N2 upgrade road scheme between Ardee and Castleblayney’ being the proposed N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme.

Transport Policy Objective TC20 states:

• ‘To secure the implementation of the Councils Road Improvement Programme 2015 – 2021 as detailed in Tables 7.7, 7.8 and 7.9 in consultation and agreement with the Department of Transport and National Roads Authority (now TII) subject to available funding and to keep from development all lands identified for the construction and improvement of national, regional and local roads within the County…’

Table 7.7 makes specific reference to the ‘N2 Ardee-Castleblayney Road Upgrade’.

Chapter 7 – Transport and Infrastructure – Section 7.3.4 (Regional and Local Roads)

The CDP includes the following Transport Policy Objective TC7: “To provide and maintain a road hierarchy based on motorway, national routes, regional routes and local roads and to maintain the carrying capacity and lifespan of the road network and ensure high standards of safety for road users….”

Outside of specific objectives, the CDP identifies the importance of delivering the strategic infrastructure in its mainbody text in various locations in the CDP. These are provided below: In Section 7.3.3 (National Routes), the CDP states:

‘The NRA (now TII) advocates that the strategic role of this road network in catering for the safe and efficient movement of major inter urban and inter regional traffic be safeguarded to allow for the effective delivery of these investments. Table 7.1 outlines the national routes that run through County Louth’.

In Table 7.1, ‘N2 Dublin – Derry’ is listed which contains the existing section of the N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney, which forms part of the proposed N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme.

Section 7.3.3 continues by stating: ‘Louth County Council will continue to implement measures to safeguard the capacity and safety of national routes so that they can continue to perform their strategic role and maintain their importance to the future development of the County.’

With respect to the above, it is considered that there is a very strong compatibility of the proposed scheme with both the Monaghan and Louth CDPs in terms of land-use and transportation policy and objectives. Hence, it is deemed that the proposed scheme and all of its Route Corridor Options will have a positive impact. In terms of differentiation between options, it is deemed that all options will provide the same level of positive impact, as it is considered that all options equally align with the objectives of the Monaghan and Louth CDPs. In determining the level of positivity of the impact, it is considered that all options have a very strong compatibility, and therefore it is qualitatively assessed that a ‘Major or Highly Positive’ Impact is appropriate. With reference to TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 seven-point scale, all Route Corridor Options are allocated a Performance Score of 7. A summary of the results is provided in Table 9.62 below.

223

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Option B Option E Option F Option A Option C Option D Description (Yellow + (Orange+Link1 (Orange+Link2 (Yellow) (Green) (Orange) Blue) +Green) +Green)

Major or Major or Major or Major or Major or Major or Level of Impact Highly Highly Highly Highly Highly Positive Highly Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive

Performance Score 7 7 7 7 7 7

Table 9.62: Performance Scores for Land Use Integration – Sub-Criterion Element 1 – Support for Local Development Plan

9.8.3.2 Land Use Integration Sub-Criterion Element 2 – Strategic Connectivity for Long Distance Trips

This Sub-Criterion Element is centred on the compatibility of the proposed scheme and the Route Corridor Options with the general objective of a National Road to cater for long-distance strategic traffic trips as opposed to localised trips. TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 states:

‘Strategic connectivity for long distance trips: Development on the national road network primarily aims to cater for strategic long-distance trips. This ensures investment is likely to present greater benefits regionally and nationally. It is preferable therefore that future development of the network responds to regional and national rather than local demand. The impact of the proposed scheme in catering for this demand should be reflected in the MCA. For example, projects (Options) which are expected to cater for a high proportion of local traffic should be rated negatively and the reverse for regional and national traffic’

In the context of the proposed scheme, and as outlined in the previous Transport Integration Sections, and with reference to the Scheme Objective of Integration (See Section 1.5), strategic connectivity relates to long-distance national connectivity between the Greater Dublin Area and the North-West Region. In addition, for the purposes of clarifying the basis of this particular assessment, regional connectivity is considered to represent trips within the broader regional area which the Study Area forms part of (i.e. the Central Boarder Region & the North Leinster Area). Local connectivity, in the context of the proposed Scheme, is deemed to represent trips between urban areas (Ardee, Carrickmacross, and Castleblayney), villages, and rural settlements which rest solely within the Study Area.

As outlined in Section 2.2 (Development Policy), and with reference to Section 1.5 (Project objectives), the key objectives of the proposed Scheme, which align with objectives of the NPF 2040 and TEN-T, is to improve the strategic connectivity between the Greater Dublin Area and the North-West Region by providing a high-quality safer road, with improved journey times and journey reliability. Therefore, at a high-level, it is considered that the proposed Scheme and all of its Route Corridor Options will have a positive impact in relation to this Sub-Criterion Element.

In terms of differentiating the level of positivity between the options, TII’s PAG Unit’s 7.0 stated guidance has been applied: ‘projects (Options) which are expected to cater for a high proportion of local traffic should be rated negatively and the reverse for regional and national traffic’.

In order to determine which Route Corridor Options, cater for higher proportions of local traffic, reference was made to the modelled Design Year 2042 AADT Flows of the Do-Minimum Option and Do-Something Route Corridor Options which are summarised in Chapter 4 (Traffic Assessment and Option Cross-section) of this Report, and covered in further detail in the Traffic Modelling Report in Volume 6 – Part A. From a review of the Design Year 2042 Traffic Flows, the following observations were made:

224

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

• All Route Corridor Options have typically the same Design Year Flows at the start and end points. At the start point (North of Ardee), the values are typically between 15,000 and 16,000 AADT. At the end point (South of Castleblayney), the values are typically between 12,000 and 13,500 AADT. At the locations where the pre-dominantly offline options (Options C – F) depart from the existing N2, a significant portion of traffic (7,000 – 9,000 AADT) departs from the proposed road and transfers to the current N2 for onward travel to Carrickmacross and the surrounding local settlements. Conversely, where the proposed offline routes return to the existing N2, traffic from Carrickmacross and surrounding local settlements join the proposed road. • In relation to the predominately online options (Options A & B), the transfer of local traffic does not occur as the relatively high proportion of local trips remains on these route options. The relatively large portion of local trips is generated from back and forth localised movements between the centres of Castleblayney, Carrickmacross and Ardee.

From the observations above, it is concluded that the predominately online routes (Options A & B) contain a higher proportion of local traffic when compared against the offline routes (Options C – F). Therefore, in accordance with the PAG guidance, it is considered that the level of positivity of Options A & B is slightly downgraded relative to Options C – F, whilst still recognising that all options will have a positive impact in terms of enhancing the long- distance strategic connectivity. Therefore, it has been qualitatively assessed that Options C- F have a ‘Major or Highly Positive Impact’, whilst Options A and B have a ‘Moderately Positive’ Impact. With reference to TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 seven-point scale, the Route Corridor Options have been allocated their representative Performance Scores, with a summary of results provided in Table 9.63 below.

Option B Option E Option F Option A Option C Option D Description (Yellow + (Orange+Link1 (Orange+Link2 (Yellow) (Green) (Orange) Blue) +Green) +Green)

Major or Major or Moderately Moderately Major or Highly Major or Highly Level of Impact Highly Highly Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive

Performance Score 6 6 7 7 7 7

Table 9.63: Performance Scores for Land Use Integration Sub-Criterion Element 2 – Strategic Connectivity for Long Distance Trips

9.8.3.3 Land Use Integration Sub-Criterion Element 3 – Mitigate Risks of Urban Sprawl

This Sub-Criterion Element is focussed on the compatibility of the proposed scheme and the Route Corridor Options with the general objective of mitigating the risk of urban sprawl, which may be caused by a proposed road scheme and which in itself may also adversely affect the efficiency of the road network in the future. TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 states:

‘Urban sprawl is the unplanned and uneven pattern of land use development which can be driven by multitude of processes, including transport …

Urban sprawl and the low-density development can put the road network under immense pressure if unchecked.

It is important therefore that planning of upgrades and new links (i.e. the Proposed Scheme/Route Corridor Options) to the road network mitigate the potential for development (i.e. other non-road infrastructure development) which is likely to adversely impact on the road network.

Because it is difficult to ascertain the future implication of road development in relation to urban sprawl, most projects (Options) will rank as Neutral.

However, in consideration of existing land uses, and the type and location of the proposed scheme, the Appraisal Team may have reason to rank a project negatively in this regard.’ 225

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

At a national level, the NPF 2040 recognises the risks and impacts of urban sprawl. As an overarching mitigation measure, it identifies Compact Growth (National Strategic Outcome 1), where it targets ‘a greater proportion (40%) of future housing development to be within and close to the existing footprint of built-up areas’. The NPF also states:

‘A major new policy emphasis on renewing and developing existing settlements will be required, rather than continual expansion and sprawl of cities and towns out into the countryside, at the expense of town centres and smaller villages. ‘

At a local level, the County Development Plans (CDPs) also promote the mitigation measure of compact growth. The Monaghan CDP 2019 – 2025 outlines Objective SSO 9, as part of its Strategic Objectives for Settlements within County Monaghan, which states:

‘To designate development limits around the urban areas in order to manage development in a sustainable manner and restrict urban sprawl and the merging of distinctive areas.’

To this end, both the Monaghan and Louth CDPs contain county and town development maps which define the boundaries of permitted developments types within urban settlements and across the Counties.

Ribbon development is a key contributor to urban sprawl, and the Monaghan and Louth CDPs have policies in place to actively prevent the creation and extension of this type of development within the Study Area.

In terms of the interface between compact growth and transportation policies, it is recognised that sustainable transport measures can support compact growth and potentially mitigate against urban sprawl, as identified in the Monaghan CDP:

‘Land use planning which promotes compact building forms and restricts urban sprawl while making provision for good public transport connections and safe routes for walking and cycling will be encouraged. ‘

As identified and assessed in Section 9.8.2.2 (Transport Integration – Connectivity between Transport Modes) and Section 9.8.2.3 (Transport Integration – Support for Sustainable Modes) of this Report, all Route Corridor Options are deemed to have a positive impact on the integration of bus, walking and cycling within the Study Area. Therefore, it is considered that all Route Corridor Options have the potential to have a positive impact in terms of the mitigation of urban sprawl. In terms of differentiation between the options, as Options A and B have previously been deemed to provide a greater level of bus transport integration, these options could potentially offer a more positive impact when compared to Options C to F. In addition, Options A and B generally follow the route of the existing N2, which is more densely populated than the more rural hinterland to the East. Also, they run adjacent to the urban centre of Carrickmacross. Therefore, it could be considered that these options could promote greater compact growth.

In terms of ribbon development along the proposed options, and the creation of further urban sprawl, it is noted that all Route Corridor Options as part of their compatibility with Safety Scheme Objectives will aim to limit the number of direct accesses onto the proposed N2, with no direct individual private accesses being permitted. Therefore, it could be considered that all options could have a potential positive impact in this regard.

Notwithstanding the analysis above, where potential positive impacts have been identified, it is noted as per TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 Guidance, that it is difficult to ascertain with certainty the potential future implications and impacts of a proposed road development in relation to urban sprawl due to its complexity. Therefore, at this stage, and for the purposes of this assessment, all options have been qualitatively assessed as having a ‘Neutral’ Impact. With reference to TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 seven-point scale, all Route Corridor Options are allocated a Performance Score of 6. A summary of the results is provided in Table 9.64 below.

226

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Option B Option E Option F Option A Option C Option D Description (Yellow + (Orange+Link1 (Orange+Link2 (Yellow) (Green) (Orange) Blue) +Green) +Green)

Not Not Not Not Not Significant Not Significant Level of Impact Significant Significant Significant Significant or Neutral or Neutral or Neutral or Neutral or Neutral or Neutral

Performance Score 4 4 4 4 4 4

Table 9.64: Performance Scores for Land Use Integration – Sub-Criterion Element 3 – Mitigate Risks of Urban Sprawl

9.8.3.4 Land Use Integration – Summary and Conclusion

As outlined in Section 9.8.1 (Introduction) above, and shown in Table 9.65 below, upon the determination of individual Performance Scores (1 – 7) for each of the three Sub-Criterion Elements related to Land Use Integration, each of these scores were combined to provide a Sub-Criterion Element Total (Sum of Individual Performance Scores – out of a maximum of 21) for each Route Corridor Option. Thereafter, a single overall Performance Score was derived for the Sub-Criterion of Land Use Integration based on an average of their associated Sum of Individual Performance Scores.

Sub- Option Option Option Option D Option E Option F Criterion Sub-Criterion A B C (Orange) (Orange+Link1 (Orange+Link2 Element Element Description (Yellow) (Yellow (Green) +Green) +Green) Ref. No. + Blue) Support for Local 7 7 7 7 7 7 1 Development Plan Strategic 6 6 7 7 7 7 2 Connectivity for Long Distance Trips Mitigate Risks of 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 Urban Sprawl Sum of Individual Performance 17 17 18 18 18 18 Scores (out of 21)

Average Score 5.67 5.67 6 6 6 6

Overall Land Use Integration 6 6 6 6 6 6 Performance Score

Table 9.65: Land Use Integration - Performance Scores Summary Table

227

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

9.8.4 Sub-Criterion 3 – Geographical Integration

As part of this Sub-Criterion, the Route Corridor Options were comparatively assessed in terms of their performance with improving connectivity within Ireland and to Europe and other parts of the world.

In relation to the European and international context, TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 outlines that the proposed scheme and its options are to be assessed against the Trans-European Transport (TEN-T) Network.

Regarding the national context, the current TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 (October 2016) was published in advance of the formal publication and adoption of the National Planning Framework (NPF) 2040 and the supporting National Development Plan (NDP) 2018 – 2027. Therefore, the PAG document primarily refers to the National Spatial Strategy (NSS) 2002 -2020, which has now been superseded in its entirety by the NPF 2040. Hence, for the purposes of this assessment and in relation to national policy, the NPF 2040 and NDP 2018 – 2027, under the umbrella of Project Ireland 2040, are deemed the most appropriate policy to compare the proposed scheme and its Route Corridor Options against.

Further to the above, the following Sub-Criterion Elements were considered and assessed: 1) Geographical Integration - Sub-Criterion Element 1 – Project Ireland 2040 2) Geographical Integration - Sub-Criterion Element 2 –TEN-T Network

The consideration and assessment of these Sub-Criterion Elements is outlined in the sections below.

9.8.4.1 Geographical Integration Sub-Criterion Element 1 – Project Ireland 2040

This Sub-Criterion Element is specifically focussed on the compatibility of the proposed scheme and the Route Corridor Options with the aims and objectives of the NPF 2040 (and supporting NDP 2018 -2027) in terms of national connectivity between cities and regions and cross-border connectivity with Northern Ireland.

A detailed assessment of the compatibility of the proposed Scheme and its objectives with the NPF 2040 is outlined in Section 2.2.3 (National Policy) of this Report. For the purposes of this specific Sub-Criterion Element, the key sections of the NPF and supporting NDP 2018 - 2027, which highlight the compatibility of the proposed scheme and its options in terms of national and cross-border connectivity is provided below: National Planning Framework 2040

The NPF 2040 identifies and outlines ten National Strategic Outcomes (NSOs). The NSO which is of particular relevance in terms of national and cross-border connectivity is NSO 2 – Enhanced Regional Accessibility:

As per Section 1.3 of the NPF 2040, the goal of this outcome is ‘to enhance accessibility between key urban centres of population and their regions. This means ensuring that all regions and urban areas in the country have a high degree of accessibility to Dublin, as well as to each other. Not every route has to look east and so accessibility and connectivity between places like Cork and Limerick, to give one example, and through the Atlantic Economic Corridor to Galway as well as access to the North-West is essential.’

In the introductory to the outcome itself, the NPF states that:

‘Better accessibility between the four cities and to the Northern and Western region will enable unrealised potential to be activated as well as better preparing for potential impacts from Brexit.’

It is noted that the N2 /A5, which the proposed N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme forms part of, is a key strategic route providing accessibility between Dublin and the North-West.

The NSO 2 objectives are structured under the three headings of ‘Inter-Urban Roads’, ‘Accessibility to the North- West’ and Public Transport’. The objectives under these headings, which are of particular relevance to the proposed Scheme, are provided below:

228

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

• Inter-Urban Roads - ‘Maintaining the strategic capacity and safety of the national roads network including planning for future capacity enhancements’ - ‘Improving average journey times targeting an average inter-urban speed of 90kph’

• Accessibility to the North-West - ‘Upgrading access to the North-West border area, utilising existing routes (N2/N14/A5)’;

• Public Transport • ‘To strengthen public transport connectivity between cities and large growth towns in Ireland and Northern Ireland with improved services and reliable journey times’

With reference to the above, it is considered that the proposed scheme objectives align with these NPF objectives, where the proposed Scheme seeks to improve the connectivity and the transport links between the Greater Dublin Area and the North West Region (See Integration Scheme Objective), improve road safety on the route (See Safety Scheme Objective), and support and improve public transport by improving journey times and reliability (See Accessibility & Social inclusion Scheme Objective).

The importance of enhanced accessibility to the North-West, via. key routes, in collaboration with Northern Ireland is further outlined in the NPF Policy Objectives:

• National Policy Objective 2c - Accessibility from the north-west of Ireland and between centres of scale separate from Dublin will be significantly improved, focused on cities and larger regionally distributed centres and on key east-west and north-south routes.

The N2/A5 is a key ‘North-South Route’ in the context of the objective above, whilst the importance of enhanced accessibility to the North-West is identified in the objectives below:

• National Policy objective 43 – ‘Work with the relevant Departments in Northern Ireland for mutual advantage in areas such as spatial planning, economic development and promotion, co-ordination of social and physical infrastructure provision and environmental protection and management.

• National Policy objective 45 – ‘In co-operation with relevant Departments in Northern Ireland, support and promote the development of the North West City Region as interlinked areas of strategic importance in the North-West of Ireland, through collaborative structures and a joined-up approach to spatial planning”.

• National Policy Objective 46 – ‘In co-operation with relevant Departments in Northern Ireland, enhanced transport connectivity between Ireland and Northern Ireland, to include cross-border road and rail, cycling and walking routes, as well as blueways, greenways and peatways.’

National Development Plan (NDP) 2018 -2027

The NDP 2018 – 2027, sets out ten Strategic Investment Priorities that will underpin the implementation of the NPF 2040 over a ten-year period and support the National Strategic Outcomes of the NPF 2040.

The National Road Network forms one of the ten Strategic investment Priorities.

As per Section 4.3 (Investing in the Border Region), the NDP ‘represents a particular step change for the northern part of the island of Ireland, including the border counties and the North-West’.

‘As set out in the NPF, the Government wants to work with Northern Ireland authorities across three main dimensions: • Working together for economic advantage; • Co-ordination of infrastructure investment; and • Managing our shared environment. 229

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Working together, we can realise the full potential of the North-West, the Central Border Region, and the Dublin- Belfast Corridor.’

Section 4.3 further outlines that the NDP ‘provides for investment to support the ambition for development of the border region’ and specifically references; ‘the N2/A5 road, serving Meath, Monaghan and Donegal’.

Linked with NPF National Strategic Outcome 2 (Enhanced Regional Accessibility), and the Strategic Investment Priorities 2018 – 2027 (Regional Roads Network and Accessibility to the North-West), the NDP states in the context of linkages between Dublin and the North-West, which the N2 forms part of;

‘Under the National Development Plan, the objective is to complete those linkages so that every region and all major urban areas, particularly those in the North-West, which have been comparatively neglected until recently, are linked to Dublin by a high-quality road network’.

To this end, the N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme is specifically identified for prioritisation as per the following excerpt from the NDP:

‘The following sections of the national road network will be progressed through pre-appraisal and early planning during 2018 to prioritise projects which are proceeding to construction in the National Development Plan.

• N2 Clontibret to the Border • N2 Ardee to south of Castleblayney’

In relation to the A5 route, between the Northern Ireland Border and Derry, the NDP states: ‘A commitment has been made to provide support and funding for the first part of the A5 road project. The Government is committed to participation in the further development of the A5 and will continue to engage with the Northern Ireland executive in relation to this project.’ It is also noted that the ‘A5 Road Development’ is specifically included in the NDPs Strategic Investment Priorities 2018 – 2027 (Accessibility to the North-West).

With reference to the above, it is considered that the proposed scheme has very strong compatibility with Project Ireland 2040 in relation to national and cross-border connectivity. In terms of the Route Corridor Options, it is considered that all options will equally have the same strong compatibility with Project Ireland 2040’s enhanced connectivity objectives. Therefore, it is deemed that all options have ‘Major or Highly Positive’ impact. With reference to TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 seven-point scale, all options are allocated a Performance Score of 7. A summary of the results is provided in Table 9.66 below.

Option B Option E Option F Option A Option C Option D Description (Yellow + (Orange+ (Orange+ (Yellow) (Green) (Orange) Blue) Link1 +Green) Link2 +Green)

Major or Major or Major or Major or Major or Major or Level of Impact Highly Highly Highly Highly Highly Positive Highly Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Performance 7 7 7 7 7 7 Score

Table 9.66: Performance Scores for Geographical Integration – Sub-Criterion Element 1 – Project Ireland 2040

9.8.4.2 Geographical Integration Sub-Criterion Element 2 – TEN-T Network

This Sub-Criterion Element is specifically focussed on the compatibility of the proposed scheme and the Route Corridor Options with the aims and objectives of the TEN-T Network Policy in terms of connectivity across all member states of the European Union and de facto with the rest of the world.

230

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

A detailed assessment of the compatibility of the proposed scheme and its objectives with the TEN-T Network Policy is outlined in Section 2.2.2 (European Policy) of this Report. For the purposes of this specific Sub-Criterion Element, the key sections of the TEN-T Policy, which highlight the compatibility of the proposed scheme and its options in terms of access links with Europe/the world is provided below.

The current TEN-T Policy is outlined in EU Regulation No. 1315/2013 – Union Guidelines for the development of the trans-European Network. The TEN-T policy addresses the implementation and development of a Europe-wide network of railway lines, roads, inland waterways, maritime shipping routes, ports, airports and railroad terminals. The ultimate objective of the policy is to close gaps, ‘address bottlenecks’, ‘enhance cross-border connections’, as well as strengthening social, economic and territorial cohesion in the EU. The objective is to improve the use of infrastructure, reduce the environmental impact of transport, enhance energy efficiency and increase safety21.

Under TEN-T Network, nine Core Network Corridors across the Union were identified. The island of Ireland has one Core Network Corridor crossing the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland; The North Sea-Mediterranean Corridor, with Cork, Dublin and Belfast identified as nodes within this corridor. In addition, the TEN-T Network and each Core Network Corridor comprise of two network layers; the ‘Comprehensive Network’ and the ‘Core Network’. The existing section of the N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney which forms the N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme is identified as part of the Comprehensive Network of the TEN-T Network. The existing N2 and A5 routes in their entirety from Dublin to Derry, including the connections of N13, N14 and N15 to Donegal, all form part of the TEN-T Comprehensive network. The N2, A5, N13, N14, N15 are strategic cross-border routes, which offer transport connectivity between the North-West, the main urban and economic centres along their routes and other parts of the TEN-T Network (Including Dublin and Belfast). As identified in the National Planning Framework (NPF) 2040 and the National Development Plan (NDP) 2017 -2028 (See Section 2.2.3), they are particularly important for both industry and tourism to the Border and North-West Regions and provide the main transport connectivity (due to the lack of rail infrastructure) within and to/from these regions.

With reference to Section 2.2.2 of this Report, it is considered that the proposed scheme and its Scheme Objectives align with the TEN-T objectives of cohesion, efficiency, sustainability, and benefit increase for its users. The proposed scheme will ‘address bottlenecks’ by improving the existing TEN-T network infrastructure to a high-quality road, contribute to the enhancement of cross-border connections along the existing N2/A5 Route (‘enhance cross-border connections’), improve accessibility to the North-West and the main urban and economic centres along this route, whilst supporting other sustainable transport modes and minimising environmental impact as per the Scheme Objectives.

In conclusion, it is considered that the proposed scheme has very strong compatibility with TEN-T Network Policy in relation to international, as well as cross-border connectivity. In terms of the Route Corridor Options, it is considered that all options will equally have the same strong compatibility with TEN-T’s enhanced connectivity objectives. Therefore, it is deemed that all options have ‘Major or Highly Positive’ impact. With reference to TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 seven-point scale, all options are allocated a Performance Score of 7. A summary of the results is provided in Table 9.67 below.

Option B Option E Option F Option A Option C Option D Description (Yellow + (Orange+Link1 (Orange+Link2 (Yellow) (Green) (Orange) Blue) +Green) +Green)

Major or Major or Major or Major or Major or Highly Major or Highly Level of Impact Highly Highly Highly Highly Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Performance 7 7 7 7 7 7 Score

Table 9.67: Performance Scores for Geographical Integration – Sub-Criterion Element 2 – TEN-T Network

21 Source: European Commission Transport and Mobility TEN-T Website: https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/infrastructure/ten-t_en 231

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

9.8.4.3 Geographical Integration – Summary and Conclusion

As outlined in Section 9.8.1 (Introduction) above, and shown in Table 9.68 below, upon the determination of individual Performance Scores (1 – 7) for each of the two Sub-Criterion Elements related to Geographical Integration, each of these scores were combined to provide a Sub-Criterion Element Total (Sum of Individual Performance Scores – out of a maximum of 14) for each Route Corridor Option. Thereafter, a single overall Performance Score was derived for the Sub-Criterion of Geographical Integration based on an average of their associated Sum of Individual Performance Scores.

Sub- Option Option Option Option E Option F Criterion Sub-Criterion B Option D A C (Orange+Link1 (Orange+Link2 Element Element Description (Yellow (Orange) (Yellow) (Green) +Green) +Green) Ref. No. + Blue) Project Ireland 2040 7 7 7 7 7 7 1 TEN-T Network 7 7 7 7 7 7 2 Sum of Individual Performance 14 14 14 14 14 14 Scores (out of 14)

Average Score 7 7 7 7 7 7

Overall Geographical 7 7 7 7 7 7 Integration Performance Score

Table 9.68: Geographical Integration - Performance Scores Summary Table

232

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

9.8.5 Sub-Criterion 4 – Regional Balance

This PAG Sub-Criterion is based on the concept of Regional Balance in terms of promoting growth and economic parity between three regional assembly areas (Eastern and Midland, Northern and Western, and Southern) in Ireland, as defined in the National Planning Framework (NPF) 2040.

Regional Balance forms a key part of the vision of Project Ireland 2040. Within Section 1.2 (Making the Vision a Reality) of the National Planning Framework (NPF) 2040 under the heading ’A New Strategy for Managing Growth’, it states:

‘From an administrative and planning point of view, Ireland is divided in to three regions: The Northern and Western, Southern, and Eastern and Midland Regional Assembly areas. We need to manage more balanced growth between these three regions because at the moment Dublin, and to a lesser extent the wider Eastern and Midland area, has witnessed an overconcentration of population, homes and jobs. We cannot let this continue unchecked and so our aim is to see a roughly 50:50 distribution of growth between the Eastern and Midland region, and the Southern and Northern and Western regions, with 75% of the growth to be outside of Dublin and its suburbs.’

The NPF formalises the statement within National Policy Objective 1a:

‘The projected level of population and employment growth in the Eastern and Midland Regional Assembly area will be at least matched by that of the Northern and Western and Southern Regional Assembly areas combined.’

In relation to the PAG’s specific appraisal requirements of Regional Balance, the PAG outlines the following:

‘It is likely that the NPF will continue the focus of the National Spatial Strategy in promoting balanced regional development, which will mean supporting both underutilised and rapidly developing areas in-tandem. Therefore, the appraisal process should assess the extent that regional balance is promoted.

The following transport projects (or Options) should be regarded positively for regional balance: • Transport investment within or to urban centres from peripheral regions • Transport investment on links (Or Options) between urban centres • Transport investment on routes (Or Options) which improve access to international ports and airports

The following transport projects (or Options) should be regarded as neutral to regional balance: • Links (Or Options) between the East and peripheral regions which do not improve international access • Transport projects (Or Options) which will only improve mobility within the East region’

Regarding the PAG guidance on transport projects or Route Corridor Options, which should be regarded as ‘Neutral’, these are considered non-applicable to this proposed scheme due to the following:

• Non-Improvement to International Accesses: As outlined in Section 9.8.4.2 (Geographical Integration – Sub-Criterion 2 – TEN-T Network) and Section 9.8.4.2 (Transport Integration Sub-Criterion Element 4 – Access to Other Transport Infrastructure- Ports & Airports), the proposed Scheme will improve international connectivity for the region on the TEN-T Network to maritime ports and airports within Dublin and the north- West. • Improvement Within the East Region Only: The proposed scheme lies within both the Northern and Western Regional Area, as well as the Eastern and Midland Regional Assembly Area. It is noted that a larger proportion of the Study Area lies within the Northern and Western Region Area.

233

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Therefore, for the basis of this assessment, the remaining Sub-Criterion Elements, which are regarded by TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 to have a positive impact were considered and assessed:

1) Regional Balance – Sub-Criterion Element 1 – Urban Centres Within Peripheral Regions 2) Regional Balance – Sub-Criterion Element 2 – Links between Urban Centres 3) Regional Balance – Sub-Criterion Element 3 – Improved Access to Maritime Ports and Airports

The consideration and assessment of these Sub-Criterion Elements is outlined in the sections below.

9.8.5.1 Regional Balance – Sub-Criterion Element 1 – Urban Centres Within Peripheral Regions

In the context of this proposed scheme, a larger proportion of the Study Area covers County Monaghan, which is within the Northern and Western Regional Assembly Area (NWRA) and is identified as a peripheral region in line with NPF’s definition of Regional Balance. The smaller proportion of the Study Area lies within County Louth, which forms part of the Eastern and Midlands Regional Assembly (EMRA). Although, technically outside of the NPF’s definition of a peripheral region, this portion of the Study Area is on the northern extremities of the EMRA, adjacent to the NWRA. In addition, it is a relatively rural and sparsely populated area from North of Ardee to the Monaghan/Louth Border, and with similar isolated economic growth as Monaghan, which lies within the NWRA. Therefore, for the purposes of this assessment, it is considered appropriate to categorise the entire Study Area as resting within a peripheral region. The proposed scheme includes three main urban centres (Ardee, Carrickmacross and Castleblayney) coupled with a number of smaller settlements, which rest within this peripheral region. Therefore, the proposed scheme and/or all of the Route Corridor Options are equally deemed to satisfy PAG requirements of a transport Investment to urban centres, which are from a peripheral region. Hence, it has been qualitatively assessed that all options have a ‘Major or Highly Positive’ Impact. With reference to TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 seven-point scale, all options are allocated a Performance Score of 7. A summary of the results is provided in Table 9.69 below.

Option E Option F Option Option B Option C Option D (Orange+ (Orange+ Description A (Yellow + (Green) (Orange) Link1 Link2 (Yellow) Blue) +Green) +Green)

Major or Major or Major or Major or Major or Major or Level of Impact Highly Highly Highly Highly Highly Highly Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Performance Score 7 7 7 7 7 7

Table 9.69: Performance Scores for Regional Balance – Sub-Criterion Element 1 – Urban Centres Within Peripheral Regions

9.8.5.2 Regional Balance – Sub-Criterion Element 2 – Links between Urban Centres

The proposed scheme and/or all of the Route Corridor Options will provide an improved link between each urban centre (Ardee, Carrickmacross, and Castleblayney) within this peripheral region via. the strategic N2 corridor, whilst also improving the connectivity between these urban centres, to Dublin and the North-West, and to other urban centres (Monaghan Town, Emyvale, etc.) within this peripheral region. Therefore, the proposed scheme and/or all of the Route Corridor Options are deemed to satisfy PAG requirements for a transport Investment on links between urban centres. In terms of qualitatively assessing the level of positive impact, for the N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme, the urban centre of Carrickmacross, which lies within the middle of the Study Area, is a key economic hub for growth in the region. Therefore, the Route Corridor Options (i.e. Options A and B) which traverse closer to this hub are considered to have a potentially higher positive impact.

234

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

In conclusion, whilst recognising that all Route Corridor Options strongly achieve the PAG requirement, it is recognised that Options A and B have a slightly more positive impact due to their proximity with Carrickmacross. Therefore, it is qualitatively assessed that Options A and B have a ‘Major or Highly Positive’ Impact (Performance Score of 7), whilst Options C to F are slightly downgraded to a ‘Moderately Positive’ Impact (Performance Score of 6). A summary of the results is provided in Table 9.70 below.

Option E Option F Option B Option A Option C Option D (Orange+ (Orange+ Description (Yellow + (Yellow) (Green) (Orange) Link1 Link2 Blue) +Green) +Green)

Major or Major or Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Level of Impact Highly Highly Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Performance Score 7 7 6 6 6 6

Table 9.70: Performance Scores for Regional Balance – Sub-Criterion Element 2 – Links between Urban Centres

9.8.5.3 Regional Balance – Sub-Criterion Element 3 – Improve Access to Maritime Ports and Airports

As outlined in Section 9.8.2.4 (Transport Integration Sub-Criterion Element 4 – Access to Other Transport Infrastructure -Ports & Airports), it is assessed that all options will equally improve international connectivity for the region on the TEN-T Network to maritime ports and airports, which are located within Dublin and the North-West. In terms of the level of positive impact, similar to Section 9.8.2.4, as the proposed scheme / options are not in the immediate vicinity of maritime port and airport facilities, the impact has been slightly downgraded to a ‘Moderately Positive’ impact. With reference to TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 seven-point scale, all Route Corridor Options are allocated a Performance Score of 6. A summary of the results is provided in Table 9.71 below.

Option E Option F Option B Option A Option C Option D (Orange+ (Orange+ Description (Yellow + (Yellow) (Green) (Orange) Link1 Link2 Blue) +Green) +Green)

Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Level of Impact Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive

Performance Score 6 6 6 6 6 6

Table 9.71: Performance Scores for Regional Balance – Sub-Criterion Element 3 – Improve Access to Maritime Ports and Airports

235

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

9.8.5.4 Regional Balance – Summary and Conclusion

As outlined in Section 9.8.1 (Introduction) above, and shown in Table 9.72 below, upon the determination of individual Performance Scores (1 – 7) for each of the three Sub-Criterion Elements related to Regional Balance, each of these scores were combined to provide a Sub-Criterion Element Total (Sum of Individual Performance Scores – out of a maximum of 21) for each Route Corridor Option. Thereafter, a single overall Performance Score was derived for the Sub-Criterion of Regional Balance based on an average of their associated Sum of Individual Performance Scores.

Sub- Option E Option F Option Option B Criterion Sub-Criterion Element Option C Option D (Orange+ (Orange+ A (Yellow + Element Description (Green) (Orange) Link1 Link2 (Yellow) Blue) Ref. No. +Green) +Green) Urban Centres Within a 7 7 7 7 7 7 1 Peripheral Region Links between Urban 7 7 6 6 6 6 2 Centres Improve Access to 6 6 6 6 6 6 3 Maritime Ports and Airports Sum of Individual Performance 20 20 19 19 19 19 Scores (out of 21)

Average Score 6.67 6.67 6.33 6.33 6.33 6.33

Overall Regional Balance 7 7 6 6 6 6 Performance Score

Table 9.72: Regional Balance - Performance Scores Summary Table

236

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

9.8.6 Integration Appraisal – Overall Summary and Results

As stated in Section 9.8.1 above, upon the determination of a single overall Performance Score (1 – 7) for each of the four Sub-Criteria (Transport Integration, Land Use Integration, Geographical Integration, and Regional Balance), each of these scores was added together to provide and Overall Integration Appraisal Performance Score (out of a maximum of 28) for each of the Route Corridor Options. Subsequently, the score was then expressed as marks out of 100 to align with marking system of the other five Main Criteria of the Stage 2 Appraisal. The results of the Integration Appraisal are shown in Table 9.73 below.

Sub- Option Option Option Option E Option F Criterion Sub-Criterion B Option D A C (Orange+Link1 (Orange+Link2 Element Description (Yellow (Orange) (Yellow) (Green) +Green) +Green) Ref. No. + Blue)

Transport 7 7 6 6 6 6 1 Integration (1-7)

Land-Use 6 6 6 6 6 6 2 Integration (1-7)

Geographical 7 7 7 7 7 7 3 Integration (1-7)

Regional Balance 7 7 6 6 6 6 4 (1-7)

Overall Integration Appraisal 27 27 25 25 25 25 Performance Score (Out of 28)

Overall Integration Appraisal Performance Score (Expressed 96 96 89 89 89 89 as Marks out of 100)

Table 9.73: Integration Appraisal - Performance Scores Summary Table

237

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

9.9 Physical Activity Appraisal The Physical Activity Appraisal was undertaken in accordance with TII’s PAG Unit 7.0, with guidance taken from TII’s PAG Unit 13.0 – Pedestrian and Cyclist Facilities (October 2016). The purpose of this appraisal is to comparatively assess the impact of each Route Corridor Option against the Do-Nothing and/or Do-Minimum Option in terms of how each option meets the defined PAG sub-criteria of Physical Activity.

With reference to the two relevant PAG documents, the following five Sub-Criteria were adopted for the Physical Activity Appraisal: 1) Sub-Criterion 1 – Health Benefits 2) Sub-Criterion 2 – Absenteeism Benefits 3) Sub-Criterion 3 – Journey Ambience Benefits 4) Sub-Criterion 4 – Changes in Numbers of Collisions / Incidents 5) Sub-Criterion 5 – Changes in Journey Time

It is noted that the identification and assessment of Sub-Criterion Elements for the five Sub-Criteria above was not required and/or applicable.

Similar to the other Main Criteria, and as outlined in Section 9.3 of this Chapter, TII’s PAG Unit 7.0’s seven-point Impact Scoring System was adopted for the appraisal assessment, where an impact level (‘Highly Positive’ to ‘Highly Negative’) was determined for each Route Corridor Option against the defined Sub-Criterion. Then, each impact level was assigned a Performance Score based on the defined seven-point scale (i.e. ‘Highly Positive’ Impact = Performance Score of 7, ‘Highly Negative’ Impact = Performance Score of 1).

Upon determination of a Performance Score for each of the five Sub-Criteria, an overall Physical Activity Appraisal Performance Score was calculated for each of the Route Corridor Options. Further details of overall results are provided in the Summary of Results Section below.

In the case of the Physical Activity Appraisal, as the scheme is at initial stages of design, it was not practicable to quantitively assess the impacts (See Section 9.9.1 below for further details). Therefore, the impact level and Performance Score for each Route Corridor Option was qualitatively assessed against each of the five Sub-Criteria.

With respect to the sections below, the Physical Appraisal is structured with an outline of the general methodology employed for the assessment (See Section 9.9.1), followed with the Identification of Existing and Proposed Infrastructure and Facilities (See Section 9.9.2) and a Description of Proposed Scheme Infrastructure (See Section 9.9.3). Thereafter, the assessment of the impacts of the proposed scheme against the five Sub-Criteria is outlined in Section 9.9.4, with a Summary of Results outlined in Section 9.9.5.

9.9.1 General Methodology

The assessment methodology for the Physical Appraisal followed three main steps: 1) Identification of Existing and Proposed Infrastructure and Facilities Identification of all known existing and potential future pedestrian and cycle facilities (including walking, hiking and cycling trails), and the examination of fitness activity demand in the Study Area. The assessment did not consider the location or impact of discrete facilities such as GAA or athletics clubs. Consideration and assessment of these particular facilities has been undertaken in the Environment Appraisal (See the Environmental Sub-Criteria of Material Assets - Non-Agricultural Properties – Section 9.6 of Volume 1 and Chapter 10 of Volume 5 – Stage 2 Environmental Appraisal Report). 2) Description of Proposed Scheme Infrastructure Description of the indicative walking and cycling infrastructure proposed by the Route Corridor Options with reference to an outline cycling strategy.

238

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

3) Assessment of Impacts

For the purposes of the Option Selection Process, each option was appraised based on the potential new pedestrian and cycle facilities proposed as part of the scheme to meet the current TII Design Standards. As stated above, and with reference to TII’s PAG Unit 13.0, the impact of each Route Corridor Option was assessed against the following five Sub-Criteria as part of the Physical Activity Appraisal:

a) Physical Activity Sub-Criterion 1 – Health Benefits – Assessment of the likely increase or otherwise to health by the proposed Route Corridor Option. b) Physical Activity Sub-Criterion 2 – Absenteeism Benefits – Assessment of any reduction in absenteeism due to the proposed Route Corridor Option. c) Physical Activity Sub-Criterion 3 – Journey Ambience Benefits – Assessment of the quality of the journey on a proposed Route Corridor Option. d) Physical Activity Sub-Criterion 4 – Changes in Numbers of Collisions / Incidents – Assessment of the potential impact on pedestrian and cycle collisions due to the proposed Route Corridor Option. e) Physical Activity Sub-Criterion 5 – Changes in Journey Time – Assessment of journey time for each proposed Route Corridor Option.

Although, a review of the existing facilities and usage has been undertaken as part Section 9.9.2 below, as the design is at the initial stages of development, and due to a lack of accurate project-specific information on the number or frequency of existing cyclists and pedestrians within the Study Area, the standalone, quantitative assessments outlined in TII’s PAG Unit 13.0 were not undertaken at this stage. Furthermore, at this stage of the design, it was not reasonably practicable to calculate the future predicted usage (other than general routes taken), nor could the associated benefits (relating to health or absenteeism) be quantitatively assessed. Therefore, for the purposes of this appraisal, the comparative analysis of the proposed Route Corridor Options was limited to a qualitative assessment against TII’s PAG Unit 13.0 Sub- Criteria.

9.9.2 Identification of Existing and Proposed Infrastructure and Facilities

The existing publicly accessible facilities associated with physical activity along the proposed Route Corridor Options generally include walking and cycling. However, there are a number of locations within the Study Area that provide areas for group/club activities such as GAA, football etc. Consideration and assessment of these particular community facilities and centres has been undertaken in the Environment Appraisal (See Material Assets – Non- Agricultural).

In addition to the existing and potential future pedestrian and cycle facilities identified in Sections 9.9.2.1 and 9.9.2.2 below, an initial high-level review of the general walking and cycling activity within the Study Area is provided in Section 9.9.2.3 below.

9.9.2.1 Existing Pedestrian and Cycle Facilities within the Study Area

Assessment of Existing Facilities on the Existing N2

The existing cross-section between Ardee and Castleblayney does not have formal dedicated facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, where a safe separation distance is provided between the live trafficked carriageway (which includes the hard shoulders) and the vulnerable road users. It is also noted that this section of the N2 does not provide formal crossing facilities across existing junctions and accesses along the mainline.

Existing Pedestrian and Cycle Facilities

There are a number of formal, publicly accessible walking and/or cycling facilities within or in close proximity to the Study Area. These include: 1) The Monaghan Way; 2) Carrickmacross Tourism Walking & Cycling Loops;

239

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

3) Ardee Railway Walk / Ardee Valley Walk

A further description of these existing facilities above is provided below.

1) The Monaghan Way

The Monaghan Way is a long-distance walking route between Clontibret and Inniskeen and is 33.5 miles/54 km in length. It is designated as a National Waymarked Trail by the National Trails Office of the Irish Sports Council and is managed by Monaghan County Council and the Monaghan Way Committee. Figure 9.6 shows a map of the existing Monaghan Way Route, whilst Figure 9.7 shows it in the context of Study Area and the proposed Route Corridor Options. With reference to Figure 9.7, it is noted that the existing Monaghan Way runs to the east of all of the Route Corridor Options and that the proposed scheme does not directly cross/interface with The Monaghan Way.

Figure 9.6: The Monaghan Way

Figure 9.7: The Monaghan Way (shown in the ) in the context of the Study Area and the Proposed Route Corridor Options

240

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

2) Carrickmacross Walking and Cycling Loops

There are a number of existing walking trails and visitor cycling loops around Carrickmacross, which include: • Town, Avenue & Lakeside Walk (4km) • Town & Country Ramble (9.6km) • The Lakes Walking Trail (7.5km) • Four Counties Walking Trail (8km)

These are shown in Figure 9.8 below:

Figure 9.8: Location Plan of Carrickmacross Tourism Walking and Cycling Loops

3) Ardee Railway Walk / Ardee Valley Walk Ardee Railway Walk is also known as the Ardee Valley Walk. It follows the old Ardee Railway Line, which was a branch from the Dublin-Belfast Line, connecting Ardee Town to Dromin Junction. The walkway runs from Ardee’s old railway station in Ardee Town to Whitemills, in the townlands of Richardstown and Harristown, east of Ardee Town. The length of walk is approximately 4km each way. The majority of walkway runs parallel to the existing N33, resting on the former railway embankment. Figure 9.9 show a location map of the route. The Ardee Railway Walk runs parallel to the boundary edge of the South-Eastern corner of the Study Area.

241

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Figure 9.9: Location Plan of Railway Walk /Ardee Valley Walk (Extents of walk shown in Red, Study Area of proposed N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme shown in purple)

9.9.2.2 Potential Future Pedestrian and Cycle Facilities with the Study Area

As part of this appraisal, a review of potential future pedestrian and cycle facilities within the Study Area was undertaken. These included: 1) Border Kingdom Greenway Route – Carrickmacross to Dundalk Greenway Project 2) N52 Ardee Bypass Scheme

These are described in further detail below.

1) Border Kingdom Greenway Route – Carrickmacross to Dundalk Greenway Project

The Border Kingdom Greenway Route is the unofficial name for a section of walking/cycling route proposed to traverse the counties of Meath, Cavan, Monaghan and Dundalk between Navan, Carrickmacross and Dundalk. The route is being developed in sections. A section on the old railway line between Navan and Kingscourt has been under consideration for some time and is referred to as ‘Boyne Valley to Lakelands County Greenway’. Funding was secured under the Outdoor Recreation Funding Scheme 2019 to develop a phase of this section.

The section between Carrickmacross and Kingscourt (Co. Cavan) is proposed as an on-road facility and will follow existing local roads. This is currently referred to as ‘The Hilly Way’. Funding was secured from Outdoor Recreation Funding Scheme 2019 to resurface sections of the route and to provide signage and waymarking to develop this section.

The Carrickmacross to Dundalk Greenway project is a 20km greenway that proposes to follow the line of the 19th century Great Northern Railway spur between Carrickmacross in County Monaghan and Dundalk in County Louth. At the historic village of Inniskeen, located halfway along the proposed route, the proposed Greenway would provide access to village amenities and a number of heritage sites, including the Patrick Kavanagh Centre, which is an important local tourist and heritage facility. Figure 9.10 below shows the general route of the Historical Carrickmacross-Dundalk Railway Line, which the Carrickmacross to Dundalk Greenway Corridor is proposed to broadly follow.

242

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Figure 9.10: Location Map showing the general route of the historical Carrickmacross-Dundalk Railway Line, which the Carrickmacross to Dundalk Greenway Corridor is proposed to broadly follow (Extents of Railway Line shown in Red, Study Area of proposed N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme shown in purple)

2) N52 Ardee Bypass Road Scheme

It is noted that following a review of the N52 Ardee Bypass Road Scheme in September 2019, Louth County Council are currently undertaking further environmental and engineering studies, and a detailed review of the existing design (including junctions and pedestrian and cycle facilities). A Non-Statutory Public Consultation on the Emerging Preferred Junction Option was recently undertaken between October and November 2020. Thereafter, it is expected that the design of the scheme will be further refined, in advance of submitting an updated planning application.

Based on the current design, N52 Ardee Bypass is proposed to tie-in to the existing N2 approximately 600m north of the Carrickmacross Road Roundabout (N2/N233/R171) in the townlands of Mullanstown and Glebe. Figure 9.11 below shows an illustration of the current N52 Ardee Bypass route with the existing N2. It is noted at this stage that arrangements for pedestrian and cycle facilities connected with the N52 Ardee Bypass is yet to be confirmed.

Upon the identification and selection of Preferred Route Corridor Option for the N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme, further coordination of the designs between the two schemes will be undertaken. This will also include consideration of the connectivity between proposed walking and cycling facilities on both schemes.

243

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Figure 9.11: Location Map showing the proposed N52 Ardee Bypass Road Scheme (Extents N52 Ardee Bypass Road Scheme shown in red, Study Area of proposed N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme shown in purple)

9.9.2.3 Review of Existing Walking and Cycling Activity in the Study Area Fitness activities are now more part of Irish lifestyles than ever before with increasing demand for facilities and Government policies and initiatives encouraging all ages to become more active.

In a 2014 survey carried out by the European Commission, 16% of Irish respondents stated that they exercise regularly and 36% stating that they exercise with some regularity. This suggests that over 50% of the population actively exercise22.

Fitness facilities are wide and varied across counties Monaghan and Louth with numerous opportunities for individuals to engage in activities such as GAA, football, athletics etc. Other popular fitness activities that may interface with the proposed road scheme include walking, running and cycling as these activities are often undertaken on public roads and/or existing trails.

In order to understand the potential impact of proposed scheme on walking, running and cycling, it is important to understand where and on what routes these activities tend to be focused.

22 Source: https://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_412_en.pdf 244

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

To help understand the existing walking, running and cycling demand within the Study Area, data from fitness wearables available from the Strava Application23 was reviewed. It should be noted that the Strava data is indicative only, as it only reflects the travel patterns of users who have and use specific fitness wearables. A number of maps shown on Figures 9.12 to 9.15, displaying the Strava data show a predominance of certain routes for both cycling and running activities. The data has been collected over two years and shows a range of usage from thin blue lines to heavy red lines which indicates low to high usage respectfully. It is noted that higher usage areas are predominately located at the main urban centres within the Study Area, including Ardee, Carrickmacross, and Castleblayney.

23 Refer to https://www.strava.com/heatmap#10.72/-6.98650/54.10649/hot/all

245

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Figure 9.12: Cycling Activity – Carrickmacross to Castleblayney Figure 9.13: Cycling Activity – Ardee to Carrickmacross

246

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Figure 9.14: Running Activity – Carrickmacross to Castleblayney Figure 9.15: Running Activity – Ardee to Carrickmacross

247

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

9.9.3 Description of Proposed Infrastructure and Facilities

The N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme is currently at the initial stages of the design process. With reference to Chapter 4 (Traffic Assessment and Option Cross-Section) of this Report, the proposed cross-section of the scheme will be determined in the subsequent TII Phases as the design is further developed and refined. For comparative purposes of the Stage 2 Route Corridor Options, and in order to inform a number of Stage 2 Sub-Criteria and Cost Benefit Analysis, an initial carriageway cross-section of a Type 2 Dual Carriageway in accordance with TII Design Standard DN-GEO-03036 Cross Sections and Headroom (May 2019) was selected.

The provision of pedestrian and cycle facilities is supported by the National Cycle Policy Framework 2009-2020 (NCPF) and in accordance with clause 4.17.1 of TII Design Standard DN-GEO-03036, ‘Cycle/Pedestrian Facilities shall be provided as part of all Type 2 and Type 3 Single Carriageway and Type 2 and Type 3 Dual Carriageway national road schemes has been provided for within the standard type 2 & 3 single and dual cross sections’. Figure 9.16 shows the typical cross-section of Type 2 Dual Carriageway.

DN-GEO-03036 also notes that the following cycling strategy should be adopted; 1. as a Cycleway remote from the road designed in accordance with DN-GEO-03047. This may include the use of suitable disused railways, declassified national roads, canal tow paths or forest trails where appropriate. 2. within the maintenance strip or verge of the national road in accordance with the design details outlined in this document. 3. using a suitable existing alternative route incorporating appropriate signage. This option shall require a Departure from Standard which shall outline the justification for the use of this option.

It is important to provide facilities where they are more likely to be of benefit to the users. For pedestrian and cycle facilities, this typically involves providing connectivity with the main residential and commercial areas. As illustrated in Section 9.9.2, there is a high use of the existing N2 corridor for fitness cycling. Other regional routes are also the focus of fitness cycling. The concentration of the demand on these routes would be due to the routes horizontal and vertical geometry allowing the users to cycle at a speed that is suitable for fitness requirements. However, some sections of these carriageways do not offer hard shoulder refuge for the cyclists resulting in the users diverting to parallel alternative routes, which they may perceive as being safer.

Figure 9.16: Typical Cross section of Type 2 Dual Carriageway

Considering the carriageway cross section requirements together with the demand for cycling along the existing N2 corridor, the following outline cycling strategy has been considered for the purposes of the Stage 2 Appraisal. • For a preferred route that is offline, it is proposed that the cycle facility would be best positioned running alongside the existing N2 carriageway by widening the existing cross section where applicable to provide for the required separation distance. This will have the benefit of connecting with the appropriate urban centres and will also provide encouragement to vehicles to reduce speed as there will be a resultant perception of a reduced carriageway width by removing the hard shoulder. 248

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

• For a preferred route that follows the existing corridor, then a dedicated cycle facility will be provided as part of the overall solution generally running parallel to the carriageway as per the cross-section requirements defined in TII Design Standard DN-GEO-03036. • Connectivity will be via existing road network utilising proposed interchanges where appropriate. • All existing pedestrian and cycle facilities will either be maintained within proposed side road alignments or accommodated on alternative routes if they are directly impacted by the Preferred Route Corridor Option.

9.9.4 Assessment of Impacts

As stated in Section 9.9.1 (General Methodology), following consideration of the existing and proposed pedestrian and cycle facilities within the Study Area, and a review of the existing activity and demand, the impact of each Route Corridor Option was assessed against the following five Sub-Criteria as part of the Physical Activity Appraisal: 1) Physical Activity Sub-Criterion 1 – Health Benefits – Assessment of the likely increase or otherwise to health by the proposed Route Corridor Option 2) Physical Activity Sub-Criterion 2 – Absenteeism Benefits – Assessment of any reduction in absenteeism due to the proposed Route Corridor Option 3) Physical Activity Sub-Criterion 3 – Journey Ambience Benefits – Assessment of the quality of the journey of a proposed Route Corridor Option 4) Physical Activity Sub-Criterion 4 – Changes in Numbers of Collisions / Incidents – Assessment of the potential impact on pedestrian and cycle collisions due to the proposed Route Corridor Option 5) Physical Activity Sub-Criterion 5 – Changes in Journey Time – Assessment of journey time for each proposed Route Corridor Option.

A description of the assessment of each of these Sub-Criteria is provided in the Sections below.

9.9.4.1 Physical Activity Sub-Criterion 1 – Health Benefits

All proposed Route Corridor Options, whether predominately offline or online, will make provision for a dedicated pedestrian and cycle facility running parallel to the existing N2. This new facility will provide for a safer environment for pedestrians and cyclists and therefore should attract greater use. A pedestrian and cycle facility running parallel to the existing N2, whether as part of a new carriageway or as part of the provision along the existing N2 carriageway, will provide for better connectivity with the adjacent local environs, and will therefore encourage local trips as well as being used for fitness and leisure. The exact details of this connectivity will be determined at a later stage of the design development.

Given the increasing demand for fitness activities and the use of the N2 corridor for cyclists, any additional facility is likely to attract additional demand. This in turn will have associated increased health benefits. As all Route Corridor Options will make provision for a new dedicated pedestrian and cycle facility, which is not currently available, and given that the impacts on the existing network will be minimal, all Route Corridor Options are likely to offer a similar level of health benefits, although the extent of those benefits are difficult to quantify at this stage. Therefore, for the purposes of this comparative assessment, all Route Corridor Options have been qualitatively assessed as having a ‘Moderately Positive’ Impact. In accordance with TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 seven-point scale, all Route Corridor Options are allocated a Performance Score of 6.

Option B Option E Option F Option A Option C Option D Description (Yellow+ (Orange+ (Orange+ (Yellow) (Green) (Orange) Blue) Link1+Green) Link2+Green) Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Level of Impact Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Performance Score 6 6 6 6 6 6 Table 9.74: Performance Scores for Physical Activity Sub-Criterion 1 – Health Benefits

249

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

9.9.4.2 Physical Activity Sub-Criterion 2 – Absenteeism Benefits Absenteeism benefits are largely correlated with health benefits, and the take-up and increase of physical activity. In terms of absenteeism benefits, TII’s PAG Unit 13.0 states:

‘An increase in physical activity has been shown to have a beneficial effect on work absenteeism; this is an additional benefit to employers on top of the health benefits calculated above. This reduction in short-term sick leave increases productivity in the economy.

[The World Health Organisation] WHO (2003) suggests that 30 minutes of exercise a day can result in a reduction in short term sick leave by between 6% and 32%.’

As noted in Section 9.9.2.3 above, some 50% of Irish people actively exercise, however, it is difficult at this stage to estimate without detailed surveys how much additional activity would likely occur as a result of the provision of a new facility.

Similar to that noted in Health Benefits in Section 9.9.4.1 above, all Route Corridor Options will result in the provision of a dedicated facility along the existing N2 corridor and therefore all options will likely result in increased physical activity levels and health benefits, with an increase in absenteeism benefits. Therefore, for the purposes of this comparative assessment, a conservative impact of ‘Slightly Positive’ is considered appropriate for all Route Corridor Options. In accordance with TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 seven-point scale, all Route Corridor Options have been allocated a Performance Score of 5.

Option B Option E Option F Option A Option C Option D Description (Yellow+ (Orange+ (Orange+ (Yellow) (Green) (Orange) Blue) Link1+Green) Link2+Green) Minor or Minor or Minor or Minor or Minor or Minor or Level of Impact Slightly Slightly Slightly Slightly Slightly Slightly Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Performance Score 5 5 5 5 5 5 Table 9.75: Performance Scores for Physical Activity Sub-Criterion 2 – Absenteeism Benefits

9.9.4.3 Physical Activity Sub-Criterion 3 – Journey Ambience Benefits TII’s PAG Unit 13.0 defines Journey Ambience Benefits, as follows:

‘Journey ambience benefits are the users’ perception of reduced danger (a reduced fear of potential collisions/incidents) and improved quality of journey as a result of the proposal being considered.’

‘Quality’ in this regard being the perceived environmental quality of the journey for the user, primarily linked to the perceived noise and air quality for the user, which is related to the general traffic volumes in the surrounding environment. Pedestrian and cycle facilities which are in environments of lesser volumes of adjacent traffic are considered more favourable. In terms of danger perception, along with adjacent traffic volumes, routes which have less junctions and crossing points (’Conflict Points’) between pedestrian and cyclists, and live traffic are deemed more favourable.

250

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

With reference to Section 9.9.3 (Description of proposed Infrastructure and Facilities) above, and as per the outline cycling strategy, which is for Phase 2 comparative purposes only, all Route Corridor Options would provide new pedestrian and cycle facilities and would follow the general route of the existing N2. In the case of the predominately online options (Option A and B), the proposed pedestrian and cycle facilities would generally be in place alongside the new proposed carriageway (as per Figure 9.16), where the proposed carriageway would generally follow the route of the existing N2. In the case of the offline options (Options C, D, E and F), the pedestrian and cycle facilities would still generally follow the existing N2, but the new carriageway would be further removed from the pedestrian and cycle facilities as it would be offline. It is also noted in the case of offline options, where the pedestrian and cycle facilities follow the existing N2 (which would no longer be classified as a National Road), it is expected that traffic volumes would be reduced on this existing road, as a large portion of traffic will follow the new offline carriageway.

Along the predominately online options (Options A and B), there will be greater opportunity to reduce/rationalise the number of side roads/direct accesses (i.e. conflict points) as part of the proposed road scheme, whereas in the case of the offline Route Corridor Options C, D, E and F, the existing N2 (which would no longer be classified as a National Road) and its associated side roads/direct accesses would not be subject to the same level of modification/rationalisation and there would likely be a higher number of conflict points for pedestrians/cyclists.

Conversely, in terms of traffic volumes, and as stated above, there is expected to be a significantly larger volume of traffic adjacent to the pedestrian and cycle facilities on predominantly online options (Options A and B) and pedestrians/cyclists may perceive a higher level of danger along these facilities. Also, It is expected that there would also likely to be a higher volume of HGVs and higher noise levels. In the case of the offline options (Options C, D, E and F), the perception of danger would be potentially decreased, and quality of journey increased, with the likely reduction of traffic on the declassified N2. In conclusion, considering the aspects above, and for the purposes of this comparative assessment of Physical Activity – Journey Ambience Benefits, the predominantly offline Route Corridor Options C, D, E and F are qualitatively assessed as having a ‘Moderately Positive’ Impact (a Performance Score of 6), whilst the pre- dominantly online Route Corridor Options A and B are assessed as having a ‘Slightly Positive’ Impact (a Performance Score of 5).

Option Option B Option E Option F Option C Option D Description A (Yellow+ (Orange+ (Orange+ (Green) (Orange) (Yellow) Blue) Link1+Green) Link2+Green) Minor or Minor or Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Level of impact Slightly Slightly Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Performance Score 5 5 6 6 6 6 Table 9.76: Performance Scores for Physical Activity Sub-Criterion 3 – Journey Ambience Benefits

9.9.4.4 Physical Activity Sub-Criterion 4 – Changes in Numbers of Collisions / Incidents It is noted that the general safety and security of vulnerable road users (including pedestrian and cyclists), as a Sub- Criterion Element along with vehicles, has been considered within the Stage 2 Appraisal under the Main Criterion of ‘Safety’. The Physical Activity Sub-Criterion 4 specifically considers the potential change in number of collisions/incidents in terms of pedestrian and cyclists only.

Collisions / incidents associated with pedestrians and cyclists generally increase where conflicts occur with vehicles, such as at crossing points and at private accesses and side road junctions. The existing N2 carriageway has a significant number of potential conflict areas associated with the high number of existing private and commercial accesses and side road junctions, which adjoin the road.

251

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

The provision of pedestrian and cycle facilities alongside the existing carriageway as part of an offline Route Corridor Options (Options C, D, E and F) will still include interactions with these existing conflict areas as there is unlikely to be the opportunity for major rationalisation or modification of the existing junctions and accesses along the route of the existing N2. A predominately online Route Corridor Option (Options A and B) offers a significantly larger opportunity of junction rationalisation, thus reducing the number of these conflict areas.

Notwithstanding the above, it is considered that all Route Corridor Options will bring increased safety to pedestrians and cyclists due to the provision of a separation distance between the vehicles and the pedestrian and cycle facilities, and an increased walking/cycleway width.

For the purposes of this comparative assessment of Physical Activity – Changes in Numbers of Collisions/Incidents, the predominately online Route Corridor Options (Options A and B) are considered to have a ‘Moderately Positive’ Impact in terms of accident rates, whilst the predominately offline Route Corridor Options (Options C, D, E and F), which make provision for walking/cycling facilities along the existing N2, which will have a potential higher number of junctions/accesses (conflict points) have been assessed as having a ‘Slightly Positive’ Impact (a Performance Score of 5).

Option B Option Option E Option F Option A Option D Description (Yellow+ C (Orange+ (Orange+ (Yellow) (Orange) Blue) (Green) Link1+Green) Link2+Green) Minor or Minor or Minor or Minor or Moderately Moderately Level of Impact Slightly Slightly Slightly Slightly Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Performance Score 6 6 5 5 5 5 Table 9.77: Performance Scores for Physical Activity Sub-Criterion 4 – Changes in Numbers of Collisions/Incidents

9.9.4.5 Physical Activity Sub-Criterion 5 – Changes in Journey Times

Changes in journey times can make a significant difference to pedestrians and cyclists by making walking/cycling more or less attractive and influencing people’s decision to travel by sustainable means. However, in the case of this proposed scheme, all Route Corridor Options provide for pedestrian and cycle facilities running parallel to the existing N2. Therefore, all facilities will be broadly similar lengths and all Route Corridor Options are considered to have a ‘Neutral’ impact and have been allocated a Performance Score of 4, as their journey times will be relatively similar to the existing situation.

Sub-Criterion Option A Option B Option C Option D Option E Option F Description (Yellow) (Yellow+ (Green) (Orange) (Orange+ (Orange+ Blue) Link1+Green) Link2+Green) Not Not Not Not Not Not Level of Impact Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant or Significant or or Neutral or Neutral or Neutral or Neutral Neutral Neutral Performance Score 4 4 4 4 4 4 Table 9.78: Performance Scores for Physical Activity Sub-Criterion 5– Changes in Journey Time

252

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

9.9.5 Physical Activity Appraisal – Summary of Results

With references to Sections 9.9.4.1 to 9.9.4.5, the Performance Scores (1 – 7) for each of the five Sub-Criteria was added together to provide an Overall Physical Appraisal Performance Score (out of a maximum of 35) for each of the Route Corridor Options. Subsequently, the score was then expressed as Marks out of 100 to align with marking system of the other five Main Criteria of the Stage 2 Appraisal. The results of the Physical Activity Appraisal are shown in Table 9.79 below.

Sub- Option Option B Option Option E Option F Sub-Criterion Option D Criterion A (Yellow+ C (Orange+ (Orange+ Description (Orange) Ref. No. (Yellow) Blue) (Green) Link1+Green) Link2+Green)

1 Health Benefits 6 6 6 6 6 6 Absenteeism 2 5 5 5 5 5 5 Benefits Journey Ambience 3 5 5 6 6 6 6 Benefits Changes in 4 Numbers of 6 6 5 5 5 5 Collisions/Incidents Changes in Journey 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 Time Overall Physical Activity 26 26 26 26 26 26 Performance Score (Out of 35) Overall Physical Activity Performance Score (Expressed 74 74 74 74 74 74 as Marks out of 100) Table 9.79: Physical Activity Appraisal – Performance Scores Summary Table

253

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

9.10 Stage 2 Project Appraisal Matrix

9.10.1 Introduction

As outlined in the preceding sections, the impacts of each of the Stage 2 Route Corridor Options were assessed against the defined TII PAG Unit 7.0 Main Criteria, as listed below, with an associated Overall Appraisal Performance Score for each of the Main Criteria determined; • Economy (See Section 9.4. above) • Safety (See Section 9.5 above) • Environment (See Section 9.6 above) • Accessibility & Social Inclusion (See Section 9.7 above) • Integration (See Section 9.8 above) • Physical Activity (See Section 9.9 above)

The Overall Appraisal Performance Scores for each of the six Main Criteria were entered into the Stage 2 Project Appraisal Matrix, and an Overall Option Appraisal Performance Score for each Route Corridor Option was then determined.

9.10.2 Stage 2 Project Appraisal Matrix Results

A detailed table of the Stage 2 Project Appraisal Matrix, showing the full breakdown of Performance Scores of both the Sub-Criteria and Main Criteria for each Route Corridor Option is provided in Table 9.80 below. Whilst, a summary table of the Stage 2 Project Appraisal Matrix showing the Performance Scores of the six Main Criteria only is provided in Table 9.81.

As outlined in Section 9.3 (Stage 2 Appraisal Methodology & Criteria) in this Chapter, each of the six Main Criteria were allocated equal weighting, and the total score of each of the six Main Criteria (expressed as marks out of 100) were added together to provide an Overall Option Appraisal Performance Score for each Route Corridor Option (expressed as marks out of 600).

254

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Option E Option E Criteria Option A (Yellow) Option B (Yellow+Blue) Option C (Green) Option D (Orange) [Orange+Link1(Grey)+Green] [Orange+Link2(Grey)+Green]

Economy Transport Efficiency and Effectiveness 4 4 4 4 4 4

Wider Economic Impacts 4 4 4 4 4 4

Transport Quality 5 5 5 5 5 5

Funding Impacts 4 4 4 4 4 4

Performance Scores Sub-Total: 17 17 17 17 17 17 Overall Economy Appraisal Performance Score (Expressed as Marks 61 61 61 61 61 61 out of 100)

Safety

Collision Reduction Benefits 7 6 6 5 6 6

Security of Road Users 6 6 6 6 6 6

Road Safety Audit Stage F Part 1 6 6 6 6 6 6

Performance Scores Sub-Total: 19 18 18 17 18 18 Overall Safety Appraisal Performance Score (Expressed as Marks out of 100) 90 86 86 81 86 86

Environment

Air Quality & Climate 3 3 3 3 3 3

Noise 2 2 1 2 2 2

Landscape and Visual 3 3 2 2 2 2

Biodiversity – Flora & Fauna 1 1 1 1 1 1

Waste 2 1 1 3 1 1

Soils & Geology 2 2 2 2 2 2

Hydrogeology 2 2 1 1 2 2

Hydrology 3 3 3 3 3 3

Cultural Heritage (Archaeological & Architectural) 3 2 1 1 1 1

Material Assets – Non-Agricultural Properties 3 2 4 3 4 4

Agriculture 2 2 2 1 2 2

Performance Scores Sub-Total: 26 23 21 22 23 23 Overall Environment Appraisal Performance Score (Expressed as Marks 34 30 27 29 30 30 out of 100)

255

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Option E Option E Criteria Option A (Yellow) Option B (Yellow+Blue) Option C (Green) Option D (Orange) [Orange+Link1(Grey)+Green] [Orange+Link2(Grey)+Green]

Accessibility & Social Inclusion

Deprived Geographical Areas 5 5 5 5 5 5

Vulnerable Groups 5 5 5 5 5 5

Performance Scores Sub-Total: 10 10 10 10 10 10 Overall Accessibility & Social Inclusion Appraisal Performance Score 71 71 71 71 71 71 (Expressed as Marks out of 100)

Integration

Transport Integration 7 7 6 6 6 6

Land Use Integration 6 6 6 6 6 6

Geographical Integration 7 7 7 7 7 7

Regional Balance (Other Government Policy) 7 7 6 6 6 6

Performance Scores Sub-Total: 27 27 25 25 25 25 Overall Integration Appraisal Performance Score (Expressed as Marks 96 96 89 89 89 89 out of 100)

Physical Activity

Health Benefits 6 6 6 6 6 6

Absenteeism Benefits 5 5 5 5 5 5

Journey Ambience Benefits 5 5 6 6 6 6

Changes in the Number of Incidents/Collisions 6 6 5 5 5 5

Changes in Journey Time for Pedestrian & Cyclists 4 4 4 4 4 4

Performance Scores Sub-Total: 26 26 26 26 26 26 Overall Physical Activity Appraisal Performance Score for Physical 74 74 74 74 74 74 Activity (Expressed as Marks out of 100)

Overall Option Appraisal Performance Score (Expressed as Marks out 426 418 408 405 411 411 of 600) Table 9.80: Stage 2 Project Appraisal Matrix – Detailed Breakdown of Results

256

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Main Criteria Option A Option B Option C Option D Option E Option F (Yellow) (Yellow+Blue) (Green) (Orange) [Orange + Link1 [Orange+Link2 (Pink) + Green] (Grey) + Green] Economy (Marks out of 100) 61 61 61 61 61 61 Safety (Marks out 100) 90 86 86 81 86 86 Environment (Marks out of 100) 34 30 27 29 30 30 Accessibility & Social Inclusion (Marks out 100) 71 71 71 71 71 71 Integration (Marks out of 100) 96 96 89 89 89 89 Physical Activity (Marks out of 100) 74 74 74 74 74 74 Overall Option Appraisal Performance Scores 426 418 408 405 411 411 (Expressed as Marks out of 600) Table 9.81: Stage 2 Project Appraisal Matrix – Summary of Results

257

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

9.10.3 Review of the Stage 2 Project Appraisal Matrix Results

With reference to Tables 9.80 and 9.81 above, and as outlined in Section 9.3 (Stage 2 Appraisal Methodology and Criteria), the Route Corridor Options were ranked based on their Overall Option Appraisal Performance Scores, and hence their overall impact and benefit, as per Table 9.82 below.

Overall Option Appraisal Route Corridor Option Performance Score (Expressed as Ranking Order Marks out of 600) Option A (Yellow) 426 1

Option B (Yellow+Blue) 418 2 Option E [Orange+Link1(Pink)+Green] 411 3 Option F [Orange+Link2(Grey)+Green] 411 3 Option C (Green) 408 5 Option D (Orange) 405 6 Table 9.82: Stage 2 Project Appraisal Matrix – Ranking of Options

Upon completion of the ranking, and with reference to the tables above, it is noted that Option A (Yellow) is ranked top with the highest Overall Option Appraisal Performance Score of 426 out of 600, and hence had the lowest impact / greatest benefit. Whilst, Option D (Orange) is the lowest ranked option with an Overall Option Appraisal Performance Score of 405, and hence had the greatest impact /lowest benefit. Thereby, there was a difference of 21 marks between the highest and lowest ranked options.

It is noted that the Route Corridor Options which predominately follow the existing N2 corridor, Options A (Yellow) and Option B (Yellow+Blue) have the highest performance / least impact when compared to the options which predominately diverge from the existing N2 Corridor; Route Corridor Options C, D, E and F. When considering the spread of 21 marks between the top and bottom, it is noted that there is a relatively significant separation distance of 8 marks between Option A (Yellow), ranked 1st with 426 marks, and Option B (Yellow+Blue), ranked 2nd with 418 marks.

Separate to the analysis of the Overall Option Appraisal Performance Score, and the ranking of the options, Table 9.83 below presents the overall preference of the options in terms of the six Main Criteria. With reference to this table, it is noted that all Route Corridor Options performed the same in terms of Economy (all scoring 61 marks), Accessibility & Social Inclusion (all scoring 71 marks), and Physical Activity (all scoring 74 marks). Hence, there was no differentiation between the Route Corridor Options against these three Main Criteria. Under the Main Criteria of Safety and Environment, Option A (Yellow) performed the best against these two criteria. Whilst, in relation to Integration, Option A (Yellow) was the best performing option, along with Option B (Yellow+Blue). Therefore, Option A (Yellow) was the option, which had most Main Criteria where it performed best or joint top with another option (Safety, Environment, Integration), along with performing similarly to all other options against the remaining three Main Criteria (Economy, Accessibility & Social Inclusion, Physical Activity). In conclusion, as per Table 9.83 below, Option A (Yellow) was identified as the best overall performing option when assessed against the six individual Main Criteria.

As a general overview of Option A (Yellow), and with respect to the documented findings in the preceding sections of this Chapter, it is noted in terms of Economy that Option A has a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of greater than 1 (i.e. 1.1), where the benefits outweigh the cost. Although, not directly forming part of the Stage 2 assessment criteria, it is noted that Option A (Yellow) has the lowest Options Comparison Cost Estimate (OCE). In relation to Safety, Option A (Yellow) has the highest monetised Collision Reduction Benefits, which has been estimated from TII’s prescribed software package COBA-LT. In terms of other road safety aspects (Road Safety Audit Stage F – Part 1 and Security of Road Users), it performs similarly to all other Route Corridor Options.

258

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Regarding Environment, Option A (Yellow) has the lowest overall impact when compared to all other Route Corridor Options, where it has lowest comparative impact in Cultural Heritage (Archaeological & Architectural), joint lowest in Agriculture, Landscape & Visual, Noise & Vibration and Hydrogeology, whilst it performs similarly to all other Route Corridor Options in Ecology, Geology & Soils, Hydrology, and Air Quality & Climate. In terms of Accessibility & Social Inclusion, Option A (Yellow) performs similarly to all other Route Corridor Options, with a positive impact in terms of Deprived Geographical Areas and Vulnerable Groups, as it has the potential to allow for more efficient and safer accessibility for these groups and areas. In relation to Integration, Option A (Yellow) is the best performing option, along with Option B (Yellow+Blue), where they perform best in terms of Transport Integration and Regional Balance, due to their relative close proximity to Carrickmacross, when compared to the other options. Finally, regarding Physical Activity, Option A (Yellow) performs similarly to all other Route Corridor Options, with a positive impact to Vulnerable Road Users, with the provision of dedicated pedestrian and cycle facilities as part of the proposed scheme.

It is noted that discussions on the identification of the Emerging Preferred Route Corridor Option is provided in the following section. Whilst, a further description of the performance, impact and benefits of Option A (Yellow) is provided in Chapter 10 (Stage 3 – Preferred Option).

259

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Rank Economy Safety Environment Accessibility & Social Integration Physical Activity Overall Inclusion Option Score Option Score Option Score Option Score Option Score Option Score Option Score 1 Equal -Option A Option A Equal -Option A Option A Equal -Option A Option A 61 90 Option A Yellow 34 71 96 74 426 Yellow Yellow Yellow Yellow (Yellow) Yellow

2 Equal - Option B Option B Option B Yellow Equal - Option B Option B Yellow Equal - Option B Option B 61 86 30 71 96 74 418 Yellow+Blue Yellow + Blue + Blue Yellow+Blue + Blue (Yellow+Blue) Yellow + Blue 3 Option E Option E Equal - Option E Equal - Option E Option E Orange Equal - Option E Option E 61 Orange + 86 30 71 Orange + Green 89 (Orange+Link1 74 411 Orange+Green 1 + Green 1 Orange+Green 1 Orange+Green1 Green 1 1 +Green) 4 Option F Option F Equal - Option F Option F Equal - Option F Option F Orange Equal - Option F 61 Orange + 86 30 71 Orange + Green 89 (Orange+Link1 74 Orange 411 Orange+Green 2 + Green 2 Orange+Green 2 Green 2 2 +Green) +Green2 5 Equal - Option C Option C Option D Equal - Option C Equal - Option C 61 86 29 71 Option C Green 89 74 Option C Green 408 Green Green Orange Green (Green) 6 Equal - Option D Option D Equal - Option D Option D Equal - Option D Option D 61 81 Option C Green 27 71 89 74 405 Orange Orange Orange Orange (Orange) Orange Table 9.83: Stage 2 Project Appraisal Matrix – Trending Table of Options against the Six Main Criteria (Note: For the purposes of brevity in table above, Option E [Orange+Link1(Pink)+Green] has been shortened to Orange+Green1, whilst Option F [Orange+Link2 (Grey)+Green] has been shortened to Orange+Green2)

260

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

9.10.4 Identification and Recommendation of an Emerging Preferred Route Corridor Option

With reference to Section 9.10.3 above and following the completion of the Stage 2 appraisal process and the Project Appraisal Matrix, Option A (Yellow) was identified as the best overall performing option, with the lowest overall impact and greatest benefit. Consequently, it was identified as the Emerging Preferred Route Corridor Option, and in accordance with TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 and TII’s PMM, it was recommended to progress Option A (Yellow) to the next stage of the three-stage option selection process; Stage 3 (Preferred Option).

Figure 9.17 below shows a layout plan of the Emerging Preferred Route Corridor Option [Option A (Yellow)], which is also provided in Part A of Volume 2 (Drawings).

261

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Figure 9.17: Layout Plan of Option A (Yellow) – Identified as the Emerging Preferred Route Corridor Option

262

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

10. Stage 3 – Preferred Option

10.1 Introduction As outlined in Chapter 7 (General Overview of the Three Stage Option Selection Process), following the identification of the Emerging Preferred Route Corridor, a Project Appraisal Balance Sheet was undertaken to assess and summarise the benefits and impacts of this option. In addition, as per TII’s Design Standards, a Road Safety Audit Stage F Part 2 was undertaken on the Emerging Preferred Route Corridor.

Also, during the Stage 3 process, and as outlined in Chapter 6 (Non-Statutory Consultations) of this Report, a non- statutory public consultation (Public Consultation 3) was undertaken between August and October 2020 on the Emerging Preferred Route Corridor Option.

The sections below describe the key activities of the Stage 3 process.

10.2 Emerging Preferred Route Corridor Option

As outlined in Section 9.10.4 above, and following the completion of the Stage 2 appraisal process and the Project Appraisal Matrix, Option A (Yellow) was identified as the best overall performing option, with the lowest overall impact and greatest benefit (i.e. the best combination of impacts and benefits), and was consequently identified as the Emerging Preferred Route Corridor Option.

As described in Chapter 6 of this Report, a Non-Statutory Public Consultation on the Emerging Preferred Route Corridor Option was undertaken between August and October 2020. The purpose of the consultation was to obtain feedback from the public and the stakeholders on this option for consideration by the Project Team in advance of confirming the Preferred Option.

In advance of undertaking the consultation, and as part of the Stage 2 refinement of the corridors, the widening of the Option A (Yellow), which as previously stated is typically 400m, was identified at a singular location. The location in question is highlighted in red in Figure 10.1 below and is located in the Townlands of Cookstown and Charlestown, directly North-East of Cookstown Cross. The necessity to widen at this location was identified to allow further flexibility in assessing and mitigating against potential impacts to existing Cultural Heritage Sites at Cookstown Cross, as part of the subsequent design and planning phases of the proposed scheme.

Figure 10.1: Location of Localised Widening of the 400m Wide Corridor of Option A (Yellow) in the Townlands of Cookstown and Charlestown 263

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

With reference to Figure 10.1 above, it is noted that the red hatched area extends approximately 1km and is approximately 140m at its widest point. A layout plan of Option A (Yellow), the Emerging Preferred Route Corridor, which was displayed at Public Consultation 3 (Emerging Preferred Route Corridor Corridor), and included this localised widening at Cookstown Cross, is shown in Figure 10.2 below.

264

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Figure 10.2: Layout Plan of the Emerging Preferred Route Corridor Option displayed at Public Consultation 3

265

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

With reference to Figure 10.2 above, in addition to the showing the 400m corridor, this layout plan also includes the indicative locations and types (‘Full Movement’ and ‘Restricted Movement) of proposed junctions along the proposed route. As highlighted in Section 4.5 (Consideration of Indicative Design Approach) of the Report, the junction types and locations are indicative, were identified to inform the Stage 2 comparative assessment only and obtain feedback from the public and stakeholders as part of Public Consultation 3. These junction details will be subject to change and refinement during the next phase of the planning and design process.

In addition to the junction details, the layout plan also includes an ‘Indicative Route of the New N2’ i.e. the dashed Blue Line. This Blue line is an approximate 50m wide representation of the most likely route of the proposed new N2 at this stage of the design (i.e. TII PMG Phase 2). The continuous 50m width of the ‘Indicative Route of the New N2’ does not represent the likely final width of the new N2, and similar to the junction details, was provided for demonstration purposes only, and to seek feedback from the public and stakeholders as part of Public Consultation 3. The required final width for the new N2 is expected to vary through the length of the scheme. The final width and landtake required for the scheme will be identified in the next phase of the planning and design process (i.e. TII PMG Phase 3).

In addition to Figure 10.2 above, further drawings showing the indicative junction details and the ‘Indicative Route of the New N2’ is provided in Part A of Volume 2 (Drawings).

Following completion of Public Consultation 3 (Emerging Preferred Route Corridor) in October 2020, all feedback and submissions received were considered by the Project Team. Thereafter, as outlined in Chapter 6 (Non-Statutory Public Consultations), a Post Consultation Report was prepared, which is provided in Volume 7 (Non-Statutory Post Consultation Reports). After review and consideration of the feedback and comments, it was determined that there was no substantially new and/or additional information, which would necessitate an amendment to the corridor (Option A) that was selected as the Emerging Preferred Route Corridor Option.

10.3 Project Appraisal Balance Sheet Following identification of the Emerging Preferred Route Corridor Option, a Project Appraisal Balance Sheet (PABS), in accordance with TII PAG Unit 7.1 – Project Appraisal Balance Sheet (October 2016), was undertaken to assess and summarise the benefits and impacts of this option. The PABS is a standardised Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, which is applicable to all proposed National Road Schemes in Ireland, where the impacts of the Preferred Option against the headings of Economy, Safety, Environment, Accessibility & Social Inclusion, Integration, Physical Activity are entered, and the Overall Scale of Impact is calculated by the spreadsheet and presented along with its benefits in a summary sheet.

A full copy of the PABS is provided in Volume 8 (Project Appraisal Balance Sheet), and the Overall Scale of Impact against each of the six Main Criteria for Option A (Yellow) is provided in Table 10.1 below.

Main Criteria PABS – Overall Scale of Impact Economy Neutral Safety Highly Positive Environment Moderately Negative Accessibility & Social Inclusion Slightly Positive Integration Highly Positive Physical Activity Moderately Positive Table 10.1: PABS Overall Scale of Impact for Option A (Yellow)

The sections below outline the key impacts and benefits of Option A (Yellow) against the six Main Criteria and the Scheme Objectives, as identified through the PABS process.

266

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

10.3.1 Economy

The economy objective of the proposed scheme is ‘to reduce the costs of travel between the endpoints of the scheme at an investment cost that offers good value for money.’

With reference to Sections 9.4 (Economy Appraisal) above, a Present Value of Costs (PVC) figure of €196 million and Present Value of Benefits (PVB) of €212 million was estimated for the Option A (Yellow), resulting in a Net Present Value (NPV) of €16 million, with all values expressed in 2011 Market Prices and discounted in accordance with the requirements of the PAG. As shown, in Table 10.2 below, a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of 1.1, under a Central Growth Scenario, was determined for Option A. The benefits generated by the Preferred Option are anticipated to exceed the costs of constructing and maintaining the proposed scheme, which results in a positive NPV and a BCR greater than one.

Economic Metric Quantification Present Value of Benefits (PVB) €212M Present Value of Costs (PVC) €196M Net Present Value (NPV) €16M

Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) 1.1 Table 10.2: Breakdown of Present Value of Benefits for Option A (Yellow)

The PVB Value of €212M, contains €30.3M of Collision Reduction Benefits. As part of PABs input, the Collision Reduction Benefits forms part of the separate heading of Safety and is not included within the sub-criterion of Transport Efficiency and Effectiveness. Therefore, a benefits total of €181M (€212M - €30.3M) under Economy is presented in the PABS. A reproduced breakdown of the benefits (as presented in the PABs format) is provided in Table 10.3.

Commuting Business Other (€m) Private Sector Indirect Residual Total (€m) (€m) Provider Impact Tax (€m) Value Benefits (€m) (€m) (€m) Monetised Benefits €9.7 €57.1 €12.7 €0.0 -€0.1 €101.9 €181.3 Table 10.3: PABS - Monetised Transport Economic Efficiency Benefits for Option A ( Yellow)

In relation to the sub-criterion of Wider Economic Impact, the Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme does not connect previously separate goods or labour markets; does not impact on a dense urban area with a working population greater than 60,000; is not being progressed at the request of an inward investor; and does not specifically support urban regeneration. As such, the potential Wider Economic Benefits of the scheme have been assessed as neutral.

In terms of Funding Impacts, it has been assumed that the Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme will be 100% Irish Exchequer funded. EU grants or developer contributions have not been identified at this stage, so the funding impacts of the scheme have also been assessed as neutral.

In conclusion, an Overall Scale of Impact of ‘Neutral’ has been assessed in the PABS for the Main Criterion of Economy.

267

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

10.3.2 Safety

The safety objective of the proposed scheme is ‘to reduce the potential for collisions through provision of an improved and safer route between Ardee and Castleblayney in accordance with current design standards. This scheme will seek to: 1) Provide safe overtaking opportunities for motorists along the entire length of the route in accordance with design standards; 2) Reduce the frequency and severity of collisions by providing improved and safer infrastructure for all users (vehicles and vulnerable road users); 3) Reduce junction numbers and conflict points for N2 traffic; 4) To improve safety for vulnerable road users and provide a better environment for vulnerable road users within the study area; and 5) Support the RSA Road Safety Strategy and its objective in the reduction of collisions and fatalities through the provision of a safer, more forgiving and more consistent standard of improved route.’

As stated in Chapter 4 (Traffic Assessment & Options Cross-section) above, an initial carriageway cross-section of a Type 2 Dual Carriageway has been identified for appraisal purposes. The incorporation of a central median to physically separate the northbound and southbound flows will provide safer overtaking opportunities. In tandem with a proposed improvement to the existing cross-section, the proposed scheme will seek to rationalise and reduce the number of existing accesses with the provision of new junctions designed to current TII Design Standards. In addition, the proposed scheme, through the implementation of current design standards, will seek to reduce the number of roadside hazards within close proximity of the live carriageway, and improve driver visibility on the carriageway and at junctions. Through these improvements to the existing infrastructural deficiencies, it is considered that likelihood and severity of vehicle collisions will be reduced. As the reduction of collisions is a key objective of the RSA Safety Strategy 2013 – 2020, it is considered that the Preferred Option supports this strategy.

Supporting the paragraph above, the estimated accident collision reduction benefits derived from Cost and Benefits to Accidents – Light Touch (COBA-LT) software are presented in Part C of the PABS, which is included in Volume 8, and is reproduced in Table 10.4 below.

Total Casualty Reduction Value of collision Accident Reduction Fatal Serious Slight Reduction (€m) Collision / Casualty Reduction over 30 Years 313 17 39 508 €30.3 Table 10.4: Collision Reduction Benefits for Option A (Yellow)

In terms of Security of Road Users, this sub-criterion relates to the personal security of both vehicle users as well as vulnerable road users. With regard to Vehicle Users the provision of a Type 2 Dual Carriageway cross section standard is deemed to provide safer, more secure and improved road infrastructure compared to the existing arrangements, and therefore, is deemed to have a positive impact. In relation to vulnerable road users, the improved safety to cyclists and pedestrians forms a key safety objective of the scheme. Currently, there is no formalised segregated provision for vulnerable road users on this section of the N2 route. The Preferred Option seeks to provide segregated infrastructure to cater for pedestrians and cyclists along the entirety of its route, and therefore, is deemed to have a positive impact.

In conclusion, an Overall Scale of Impact of ‘Highly Positive’ has been assessed in the PABs for the Main Criterion of Safety.

268

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

10.3.3 Environment The Environment Objective is to ‘minimise the environmental impact and the private landtake required for the scheme. This scheme will seek to:

1) Implement sustainable development principles and measures to minimise effects on the environment to support the government’s carbon and Climate Action Plan and UN Sustainable Development Goals. 2) Minimise impacts to Natural Heritage and Cultural Heritage areas (such as environmentally sensitive areas and National Monuments). 3) Reduce/Minimise air quality and climate impacts, and noise impacts on sensitive receptors as far as reasonably practicable. 4) Minimise the impact to agricultural and private land, reducing the impacts to people as far as is reasonably practicable.

The consideration of environmental impacts of the proposed Scheme as part of the Phase 2 Option Selection Process is an area of significant importance. The Environment Appraisal was undertaken in accordance with TII PAG Unit 7.0, TII’s Environmental Planning Guidelines, and the EIA and Habitats Directives. As part of the Option Selection Process, specific environmental assessments were undertaken across a range of environmental criteria in accordance with PAG Unit 7.0. These assessments were supplemented by on-site surveys, where required.

Regarding the Stage 2 Appraisal Matrix, it is noted that Option A (Yellow) had the lowest overall impact when compared to all other Route Corridor Options. Therefore, it was the option which was most aligned with the Environment Scheme Objectives. It has the lowest comparative impact on Cultural Heritage (Archaeological & Architectural), joint lowest in Agriculture, Landscape & Visual, Noise & Vibration and Hydrogeology, whilst it performs similarly to all other Route Corridor Options in Ecology, Geology & Soils, Hydrology, and Air Quality & Climate.

In terms of landtake, and impact to agricultural and private land, Option A (Yellow) follows the existing N2 Route to the greatest degree, and unlike the other Route Corridor Options avoids going through substantial sections of undeveloped land. Therefore, this option offers the greatest opportunity to minimise land take when compared to all of the other options.

Regarding climate change, as outlined in Section 2.2.6.2 (Climate Action Plan 2019), and described in further detail in Volume 5 (Stage 2 Environmental Appraisal Report), the proposed scheme seeks to support and promote sustainable transport, including walking, cycling and bus transportation, which will encourage a modal shift to these sustainable modes, and contribute to the decarbonisation of transport in the Study Area. There are currently no formal pedestrian and cycle facilities on the existing section of the N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney. The proposed scheme seeks to provide continuous dedicated cycle and pedestrian facilities throughout the length of the scheme. Regarding bus transportation, through increasing capacity, and improving the journey times and journey time reliability on the N2 corridor, the proposed scheme seeks to support the integration and growth of bus transportation in the Study Area, with the aim of encouraging a modal shift to this sustainable transport mode. In terms of existing land types (forestry, bogs, etc.), which store carbon and other greenhouse gases, the proposed scheme will seek to limit, where feasible, the land take required for the scheme, and the associated impacts to these land types. In addition, the proposed scheme will seek to maximise the re-use of waste (Including earthworks) and aim to reduce the amount of disposal of material. Through the above measures, it is considered that the proposed scheme will support and align with the objectives of the Government’s Climate Action Plan and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.

In relation to ecology, and Natural Heritage Areas, it has been assessed that all options would have a negative impact. However, as outlined in Section 9.6.5 (Stage 2 – Biodiversity – Flora & Fauna), through appropriate mitigation measures, along with routing and design optimisation to avoid particular sites, where feasible, the impact level is likely to reduce. These measures will be developed and assessed as part of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in TII PMG Phase 3 (Design and Environmental Evaluation).

269

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

In terms of Cultural Heritage (Archaeological & Architectural), as stated above, Option A (Yellow) was the best performing against this sub-criterion. No direct impacts on any Recorded Monuments were predicted for Option A at this stage. However, further surveys and re-assessment of the proposed scheme will be undertaken in TII PMG Phase 3.

In relation to Air Quality, it has been assessed that all options would have a ‘Slightly/Minor’ negative impact due to the relatively good standard of existing air quality in the Study Area and the relative traffic flows.

Lastly, regarding Noise, although Option A (Yellow) has a relatively larger number of sensitive receptors, it predominately follows the existing N2, and therefore has a relatively higher baseline when compared to other options. Consequently, the potential increase in noise levels is comparatively less when compared to other options. Where noise levels will exceed the prescribed threshold values, the proposed scheme will identify appropriate mitigation measures (acoustic barrier structures, etc.) to minimise the potential noise impacts. Also, as the proposed scheme predominately follows the existing N2, and as more onerous noise mitigation requirements are now in place for new schemes, there may be potential opportunity to provide betterment at certain sensitive receptor locations, which are within close proximity to the N2.

In terms of the PABS itself, Option A (Yellow) was assessed against 12 sub-criteria. A summary table of the PABS sub-criteria, their associated impact level for these sub-criteria and the overall Scale of Impact for the Main Criterion of Environment is provided in Table 10.5 below. A summary of the appraisal of each of these sub-criteria is provided in the PABS in Volume 8.

Ref. Sub-Criteria Impact Level No. 1 Air Quality Slightly Negative 2 Noise & Vibration Moderately Negative 3 Waste Moderately Negative 4 Landscape and Visual Slightly Negative 5 Biodiversity – Flora & fauna (Ecology) Highly Negative 6 Agriculture (Material Assets – Agricultural) Moderately Negative 7 Non-Agricultural Properties (Material Assets - Non-Agricultural) Slightly Negative 8 Architectural Heritage Slightly Negative 9 Archaeological & Cultural Heritage Slightly Negative 10 Soils & Geology Moderately Negative 11 Hydrology Slightly Negative 12 Hydrogeology Moderately Negative Overall Scale of Impact Moderately Negative Table 10.5: Environmental Impacts as per the PABs for Option A (Yellow)

As per Table 10.5 above, an Overall Scale of Impact of ‘Moderately Negative’ has been assessed in the PABS for the Main Criterion of Environment. It is noted at this stage of the scheme development and for this appraisal, appropriate mitigation measures do not form part of determination of impact. As part of subsequent TII PMG Phase 3 (Design and Environmental Evaluation), an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) will be undertaken, where appropriate mitigation measures will be identified and developed, along with routing and design optimisation to avoid particular sites, where feasible. Thereafter, the environmental impacts will be re-assessed in the context of post-mitigation, with the likely potential that the Impact level of some environmental sub-criteria may reduce.

270

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

10.3.4 Accessibility & Social Inclusion

The Accessibility & Social Inclusion Scheme Objectives for the proposed scheme are: 1) To reduce social exclusion by enhancing accessibility to services from designated rural zones within the Study Area; 2) To support the National Planning Framework’s National Strategic Outcome 3 (Strengthen Rural Economics and Communities) by investing in strategic road improvements in rural areas to ensure access to critical services such as education, healthcare and employment; 3) To strengthen and support public transport connectivity between cities, towns and rural areas by improving existing journey times and journey time reliability on this section of N2/A5 Corridor; 4) To support the integration and expected growth of existing and future bus services in the Study Area by providing safer strategic connectivity to this section of the N2 corridor.

In relation to Objectives 2, 3 and 4, improvement of public transport forms a key aspect of national, regional and local policy. The National Planning Framework (NPF) recognises that public transport plays a key role in sustaining the vitality and viability of rural communities as well as providing access to essential services. NPF also recognises that significant investment is required in order to support the integration and expected growth of bus transportation, and to improve its connectivity between cities, smaller towns, and rural areas. This is reflected in the following NPF objectives: National Strategic Outcome 4 – Sustainable Mobility

Under the heading of Public Transport, it outlines the objective to: • ‘…Provide public transport infrastructure and services to meet the needs of smaller towns, villages and rural areas;’

National Strategic Outcome 2 – Enhanced Regional Accessibility

Under the heading of Public Transport, it outlines the objective:

• ‘To strengthen public transport connectivity between cities and large growth towns in Ireland and Northern Ireland with improved services and reliable journey times.’

Equally, the NPF recognises that investment is required in strategic road improvements, as well as bus transportation, in order to fully realise the potential of bus transportation, and to ensure access to essential services. National Strategic Outcome 3, as reflected in the 2nd Scheme Objective, states: • ‘Invest maintaining regional and local roads and strategic road improvement projects in rural areas to ensure access to critical services such as education, healthcare and employment.’

The proposed scheme and Option A (Yellow) seeks to provide improved road infrastructure, with increased capacity, and improved journey times and journey time reliability, which will support public transportation and improve accessibility to essential services within and through the Study Area. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed scheme aligns with the NPF objectives and the Scheme Objectives.

In relation to the first objective, and as per Accessibility and Social Inclusion Appraisal in Section 9.7 of this Report, the Government objectives for reducing social exclusion are set out in the Roadmap for Social Inclusion 2020 – 2025: Summary of Ambition, Goals and Commitments (January 2020) and other relevant government policy documentation. The Roadmap aims to reduce, and ideally eliminate, poverty and social exclusion which affect vulnerable groups. The term vulnerable groups can include; vulnerable women, children, young people, older people, people with disabilities, ethnic minorities, lower income socio-economic groups and identified deprived areas.

271

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

It is recognised that transport investment plays a major role in improving access for vulnerable groups, and from deprived areas, to employment, education, essential services and amenities. By improving road infrastructure, the proposed scheme, and Option A (Yellow), is likely to have a positive impact with respect to accessibility and social inclusion, such as improved access to vital services/infrastructure and employment opportunities.

In terms of the PABS, and the Accessibility and Social Inclusion Appraisal, Option A (Yellow) has been assessed against two sub-criteria: Deprived Geographical Areas and Vulnerable Groups. A summary table of Accessibility and Social Inclusion Appraisal is provided in Table 10.6 below.

Sub-Criteria Summary of Appraisal

With reference to Pobal HP Deprivation Index, Option A (Yellow) has been determined to be located within the Deprived Deprivation categories of ‘marginally below average’ or ‘marginally above average’ or ‘disadvantaged’. It has been Geographical identified that a number of initiatives (including Area Based Childhood Programme or the Rural Social Scheme) to Areas support socially excluded areas are in place within the Study Area of this option. It is assessed that Option A (Yellow) will improve accessibility to and from areas of disadvantage within the Study Area. It is anticipated the Option A (Yellow) will improve access to vital services such as health, education and employment Vulnerable for vulnerable groups, which are concentrated in the urban centres of Ardee, Carrickmacross and Castleblayney. Groups Equally it is anticipated that the Option A (Yellow) will improve access for vulnerable groups to local services such as GP surgeries, Garda stations and local shops, which are also concentrated in the same urban centres. Table 10.6: Summary of Accessibility and Social Inclusion Appraisal for Option A (Yellow)

In conclusion, an Overall Scale of Impact of ‘Slightly Positive’ has been assessed in the PABS for the Main Criterion of Integration.

10.3.5 Integration

The Integration Scheme Objectives for the proposed scheme are: 1) ‘To improve the strategic connectivity and overall route consistency of the national road network and on the N2/A5 corridor; 2) To be compatible with land use objectives as set out in regional and local land use plans; 3) To improve transport links between the Greater Dublin Area and the North West region for all strategic traffic including the transfer of freight and heavy goods, which will support economic resilience post-Brexit; 4) To maintain the strategic capacity of the national roads network including planning for future enhancements.’

In accordance with TII’s PAG Unit 7.0: Multi Criteria Analysis, the purpose of the integration appraisal to assess the impact of the proposed scheme against the Do-Nothing and/or Do-Minimum Options in terms of how the proposed scheme meets and integrates with existing transport and planning policy. As well as deficiencies with the existing road infrastructure, the ‘Need for the Scheme’ is defined by the European, national, regional and local policy objectives, which align with the proposed Scheme Objectives (See Chapter 2 above).

In terms of National Policy, the N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme is specifically identified for prioritisation as part of National Development Plan’s (NDP) 2018 - 2027 Strategic Investment Priorities, which support the National Planning Framework’s (NPF) National Strategic Outcomes (NSOs). Under NSO 2 (Enhanced Regional Accessibility), the importance of enhanced connectivity to the North-West, via. improvements to key N2 and A5 routes is outlined: • Accessibility to the North-West - ‘Upgrading access to the North-West border area, utilising existing routes (N2/N14/A5)’; • Inter-Urban Roads - ‘Maintaining the strategic capacity and safety of the national roads network including planning for future capacity enhancements’ - ‘Improving average journey times targeting an average inter-urban speed of 90kph’

272

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

The importance of enhanced accessibility to North-West is further highlighted in NPF National Policy Objective 2c, where ‘North-South Routes’ includes the N2/A5 Route: • National Policy Objective 2c - Accessibility from the north-west of Ireland and between centres of scale separate from Dublin will be significantly improved, focused on cities and larger regionally distributed centres and on key east-west and north-south routes.

The objective of the proposed scheme is to provide more consistent and safer road infrastructure, with greater capacity, between Ardee and Castleblayney, which will contribute to the overall enhancement of strategic connectivity between the Greater Dublin Area and North-West, whilst also improving regional connectivity. As identified in Section 2.3 (Project Specific Need) of this Report, the current N2 is reaching capacity and is expected to fall below the required Level of Service for a national road in the near future. In addition, the existing section of the N2 between Ardee and Castleblayney suffers from a lack of safe overtaking opportunities, with existing journey times considerably lower than the NPF’s target of 90 kph for Inter-Urban Roads, coupled with a traffic composition where the percentage of Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) is considerably higher than the national average. These issues lead to an underperforming road, which is unable to continue serving the growing traffic demand in efficient and safe manner. The proposed cross-section of a Type 2 Dual Carriageway, which has been selected at this stage, will meet the future traffic demands. In addition, as well as maintaining and enhancing the strategic capacity of this section of the N2, a Type 2 Dual Carriageway will provide consistent and safe overtaking opportunities throughout the entire length of the scheme, and improve existing journey times and journey time reliability.

Regarding Brexit, and as outlined in Section 2.2 (Development Policy) of this Report, the NPF and the NDP recognises that substantial investment is required in the all-island economy, with a ‘particular focus on building economic resilience and linkages in the cross-border regions’. The NDP also recognises that investment is particularly required in the supporting services and infrastructure, including transportation, where Chapter 4 (A Connected Island), under the heading of ‘Planning and Investing for Implications of Brexit’ states the following: ‘Our investment priorities will ensure that our economy remains competitive and resilient. This includes significant investment in:

• Connectivity through improved roads and public transport…’

Following on from the identification of this Brexit investment priority, the NDP specifically identifies ‘N2/A5 road’ in terms of investment to support the border region. In addition, NPF’s NSO 2 (Enhanced Regional Accessibility) identifies that better accessibility between the Greater Dublin Area and the North-West, which both N2 Projects and the A5 Western Transport Corridor (ETC) project will support, ‘…will enable unrealised potential to be activated as well as better preparing for potential impacts from Brexit.’

In terms of the PABS, and the Integration Appraisal, Option A (Yellow) has been assessed against four specific sub- criteria: Transport Integration, Land-Use Integration, Geographical Integration and Regional Balance (Other Government Policy). A summary table of Integration Appraisal is provided in Table 10.7 below.

273

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

Main Sub- Sub-Criteria Summary of Appraisal Criteria Connectivity of the Option A (Yellow) will satisfy a specific gap identified by Project Ireland 2040 for improvement Strategic Road of the existing strategic road network. Network

No existing or proposed rail network in the Study Area. In terms of bus, Option A (Yellow) will support and enhance bus routes operating on the N2 by improving journey times, journey Connectivity between reliability and providing safer connectivity along the N2 Corridor. With the proximity of the Transport Modes Transport Preferred Option to Carrickmacross, there is greater opportunity for the option to integrate Integration with the existing transport hub of Carrickmacross. Sustainable Transport There are no formalised existing pedestrian/cycle facilities on this section of the N2. Option A Modes (Yellow) will seek to provide formalised segregated facilities in line with TII Standards. Access to Other Option A (Yellow) will improve connectivity between Dublin (& its Maritime Port and Airport) Transport Infra. (Ports with the North-West and Northern Ireland (& its Maritime Ports and Airports). and Airports)

The prioritisation and protection of the proposed Scheme is specifically identified in the Local and County current Monaghan and Louth County Development Plans (CDPs). The is a very strong Development Plans compatibility of the proposed Scheme with both CDPs in terms of land use and transportation policy and objectives. Strategic Connectivity Option A (Yellow) aims to provide a high-quality safer road, with improved journey times and Land Use for Long Journey reliability for both strategic and local traffic. Therefore, Option A (Yellow) is Integration Distance/High Value considered to have a positive impact. Its positivity has been slightly downgraded due to the Trips potential proportion of local trips. Option A (Yellow) aligns with national and local policies in terms of compact growth. There is Mitigate Risks of potential that it may reduce urban sprawl. However, at this stage, it is difficult to ascertain with Urban Sprawl certainty the potential future implications of the proposed scheme regarding urban sprawl. Therefore, as per TII’s PAG Unit 7.0 Guidance, the impact has been assessed as neutral.

Project Ireland 2040 Option A (Yellow), in line with the NPF and NDP, aims to enhanced accessibility between the & Cross-Border Greater Dublin Area, the North-West and the Border Region, by providing high-quality and Geographical Connectivity safer road infrastructure, with increased capacity and journey time reliability. Integration Option A (Yellow) forms part of the TEN-T Comprehensive Road Network and aligns with TEN- TEN-T Network T's objectives to 'address bottlenecks' and 'enhance cross-border connections'. NPF – Urban Centres Option A (Yellow) rests within the peripheral region of Monaghan and North Louth. The Within Peripheral Regional Preferred Option will improve connectivity, and support growth, between Urban Centres of Regions / links Balance Ardee, Carrickmacross and Castleblayney. (Other between. Government Improved Access to Option A (Yellow) forms part of the TEN-T Comprehensive road Network and aims to improve Policy) Maritime Ports and international connectivity for the region to maritime ports and airports within Dublin and the Airports North-West. Table 10.7: Summary of Integration Appraisal for Option A (Yellow)

In conclusion, an Overall Scale of Impact of ‘Highly Positive’ has been assessed in the PABs for the Main Criterion of Integration.

274

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

10.3.6 Physical Activity The Physical Activity Scheme Objectives for the proposed scheme are:

1) ‘Provide opportunities for vulnerable road users (including pedestrians and cyclists) to pursue more active travel options between Ardee and Castleblayney as part of this scheme. 2) To support the National Planning Framework’s National Strategic Outcome 4 (Sustainable Mobility) and other relevant active travel policies by providing safe and accessible routes for vulnerable road users.‘

The existing cross-section between Ardee and Castleblayney does not have formal dedicated facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, and no defined safe separation distance is provided between the live trafficked carriageway (which includes the hard shoulders) and vulnerable road users. It is also noted that this section of the N2 does not provide formal crossing facilities across existing junctions and accesses along the mainline.

In order to meet the Scheme Objective of providing opportunities for pedestrian and cyclists, and align with National, Regional and Local Policy objectives (including NPF and the National Cycle Policy Framework 2009 – 2020), the proposed scheme will provide continuous and integrated pedestrian and cycle facilities between Ardee and Castleblayney. In accordance with TII Design Standard DN-GEO-03036 Cross Sections and Headroom, a number of approaches may be adopted (i.e. within the proposed verge, use of declassified roads, etc.). The exact strategy and design will be further developed and confirmed during the subsequent TII PMG Phase 3 (Design and Environmental Evaluation). For the purposes of informing the Stage 2 Option Selection Process and selection of an Emerging Preferred Route Corridor (and the Preferred Option), an outline cycling/walking strategy was identified based on an initial road cross-section type (i.e. Type 2 Dual Carriageway) and the existing demand within the Study Area. For Option A (Yellow) and for the purposes of Stage 2 comparative assessment only, a dedicated shared cycle facility, with a defined separation distance, in accordance with TII Design standards, running parallel to the proposed carriageway has been initially identified.

In terms of the PABS, and the Physical Activity appraisal, the Option A (Yellow) has been assessed against three specific sub-criteria: Ambience, Absenteeism and Reduced Health Risk. A summary table of Physical Activity Appraisal is provided in Table 10.8 below.

Sub-Criteria Summary of Appraisal

Currently, there are no existing formalised pedestrian/cycle facilities on this section of the N2. It is considered that provision of a segregated shared facility, with a defined separation distance, in compliance with TII Standards will provide Ambience a reduced perception of danger and improved quality of journey for vulnerable road users. Notwithstanding this, it is currently envisaged that new facilities would be in close proximity to new carriageway of the Preferred Option. Thereby, damning the potential positive impact to a certain degree. Absenteeism benefits are largely correlated with health benefits; however, its magnitude is influenced by the take up and increase in fitness activities. At this stage of the development of the scheme, it is difficult to estimate without further data Absenteeism how much additional activity would likely occur because of the provision of a new facility. Therefore, at this juncture, without supporting data, a conservative impact of ‘Slightly Positive’ is considered appropriate. The proposed shared cycle track will provide a safer environment for vulnerable road users and therefore should attract greater use. This facility will provide connectivity with the adjacent local environs and therefore encourage local trips as Reduced well as fitness usage. Given the increasing demand for fitness activities, any additional facility is likely to attract additional Health Risk demand. This in turn will have associated and increased health benefits. Therefore, the option has been qualitatively assessed as having a ‘Moderately Positive’ Impact. Table 10.8: Summary of Physical Activity Appraisal of Option A (Yellow)

In conclusion, an Overall Scale of Impact of ‘Moderately Positive’ has been assessed in the PABS for the Main Criterion of Physical Activity.

275

VOLUME 1 – MAIN REPORT

10.3.7 PABS Conclusion

Following conclusion of the PABS, it is identified that Route Corridor Option A (Yellow) has a positive impact against four of the assessment criteria (Safety, Accessibility & Social Inclusion, Integration and Physical Activity), a neutral impact against the criterion of Economy, and a Moderately Negative Impact against the criterion of Environment.

In terms of environment, as stated in Section 10.3.3 above, it is noted at this stage of the scheme development and for this appraisal, appropriate mitigation measures do not form part of determination of impact. As part of subsequent TII PMG Phase 3 (Design and Environmental Evaluation), an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) will be undertaken, where appropriate mitigation measures will be identified and developed, along with routing and design optimisation to avoid particular sites, where feasible. Thereafter, the environmental impacts will be re- assessed in the context of post-mitigation, with the likely potential that the impact level of some environmental criteria may reduce.

10.4 Road Safety Audit Stage F (Part 2)

Following completion of the Road Safety Audit (RSA) Stage F Part 1 on the Stage 2 Route Corridor Options (See Section 9.5 of this Report), an RSA Stage F Part 2 was undertaken on the Emerging Preferred Route Corridor (Option A).

The Stage F Road Safety Audit (Part 2) was carried out in accordance with TII’s GE-STY-01024 Road Safety Audit Standard and GE-STY-01027 Road Safety Audit Guidelines. The Audit was undertaken by TII approved Road Safety Audit Team who are independent from the Design Team.

As per Clause 3.9.9 of GE-STY-01027, the Stage F Audit Report is in two separate parts, the first part (i.e. Stage F, Part 1) assesses and ranks all of the Stage 2 Route Corridor Options in terms of road safety impact, whilst the second part (i.e. Stage F, Part 2) is focussed only on the option selected as the Emerging/Preferred Route Corridor Option. The Part 2 Audit identifies potential road safety issues with respect to the option, and provides recommendations. Thereafter, these recommendations are reviewed and responded to by the Design Team, where the Auditor then determines approval of Audit. In the case of the N2 Ardee and Castleblayney Road Scheme, the Part 2 Audit was successfully approved and closed-out. A copy of the Stage F (Part 2) is provided in Part C of Volume 6.

In accordance with TII Standards, the RSA Process continues throughout the lifecycle of the project, with subsequent audits being undertaken at the completion of discrete stages of the scheme development. This will include a RSA Stage 1 at the completion of the preliminary design as part of the subsequent TII PMG Phase 3 (Design and Environmental Evaluation).

10.5 Recommendation of the Preferred Option

Following completion of the Stage 3 Process, where the PABS was undertaken and feedback was received and considered as part of the Non-Statutory Public Consultation on the Emerging Preferred Route Corridor Option (Option A: Yellow), this completes the TII PMG Phase 2 three stage Option Selection Process for the proposed N2 Ardee to Castleblayney Road Scheme.

In conclusion, it is assessed that the Emerging Preferred Route Corridor Option, Route Corridor Option A (Yellow) is the optimum solution to meet the Project Specific Need, as outlined in Chapter 2 of this Report, and the Scheme Objectives, as outlined in Section 1.5 of this Report.

Therefore, it is recommended that the Emerging Preferred Route Corridor Option, Route Corridor Option A (Yellow), be adopted as the Preferred Option, and be taken forward to form the basis of TII PMG Phase 3 (Design and Environmental Evaluation).

276