kerry county council environmental impact...

KERRY COUNTY COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE SOUTH KERRY GREENWAY, CO. KERRY VOLUME 2 – MAIN EIAR/EIS CHAPTER 5 –ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

AUGUST 2018

LE15-017-01 i/ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page 5 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ................................................................................. 1

5.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1 Project Background ............................................................................................ 1

5.2 ROUTE SELECTION ...................................................................................................... 3 Policy Hierarchy ................................................................................................. 3 Route Alternatives .............................................................................................. 6 Route Selection Process ...................................................................................... 7

5.3 LOCALISED ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTIONS OFF THE RAILWAY LINE .......................... 9 Alternative Route Options Assessment .................................................................. 9 Preferred Options ............................................................................................. 10 Examples of Route Selection Process .................................................................. 10

5.4 ALTERNATIVE LAND USE.............................................................................................. 11 Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 12

5.5 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 43

LE15-017-01 ii/ii

LIST OF FIGURES Page

FIGURE 5-1: ROUTE OF GREENWAY ......................................................................................... 2 FIGURE 5-2: REPUBLIC OF IRELAND, ATLANTIC COAST ROUTE (EUROVELO 1) ...................................... 5 FIGURE 5-3: EXAMPLE OF ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS – OBSTRUCTION ON THE LINE .................................. 10 FIGURE 5-4: EXAMPLE OF ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS – NO OBSTRUCTION ON THE LINE .............................. 11 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 5-1: PRELIMINARY ROUTE OPTIONS ASSESSMENT MATRIX .................................................... 7 TABLE 5-2: ASSESSMENT OF LOCATIONS WHERE THERE ARE OBSTRUCTIONS ON THE FORMER RAILWAY LINE. .

................................................................................................................. 13 TABLE 5-3: SCREENING ASSESSMENT FOR LOCATIONS WITH NO OBSTRUCTIONS ON-LINE BUT WHERE

LANDOWNERS REQUESTED DEVIATIONS .................................................................. 22

Chapter 5 – Alternatives Considered Kerry County Council EIAR/EIS for the South Kerry Greenway

Volume 2 – Maine EIAR/EIS

LE15-017-01 Chapter 5 - Page 1 of 43

5 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 5.1 Introduction Kerry County Council propose to develop the South Kerry Greenway a 32km walking/cycle track predominantly along the existing line of the former railway from Reenard in the South West to Glenbeigh to the North East of the Iveragh Peninsula in County Kerry. A map of the South Kerry Greenway is presented in Figure 5.1. This Chapter of the EIAR/EIS outlines the main design and route selection considerations examined during the development of the Scheme including the alternatives considered as well as the reasons for the selection of the proposed final route. Article 5 of the 2011 EIA Directive requires:

“An outline of the main alternatives studied by the developer and an indication of the main reasons for his choice, taking into account the environmental effects”.

Article 5 of the Directive 2014/52/EU requires:

“A description of the reasonable alternatives studied by the developer, which are relevant to the project and its specific characteristics and an indication of the main reasons for the option chosen, taking into account the effects of the project on the environment”.

Project Background At the inception of this project it was envisaged that the land required for the development of the South Kerry Greenway would be acquired through negotiation with the individual landowners. As the consultation process progressed however, it became apparent that this would not be possible. In February 2015 Kerry County Council agreed with the recommendation and decision of the Chief Executive on the need to acquire the lands compulsorily. This required the Council to undertake a thorough route selection process in order to establish the optimum route for the proposed development. This process involved extensive consultation to minimise the impact of the scheme on landowners and other impacted persons and the environment, while still ensuring that the overall objectives of the project were achieved.

!

!

!

!

!

!

!! !

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!! !

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

! !! ! !

! !

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

03/05/2018DateName Of Client

Kerry County Council

Name Of Job

EIAR/EIS for South Kerry Greenway

Title Of FigureSite Location Map

Scale Used 1:80,000Figure No.

5.1Rev

Map: R:\Map Production\2015\LE15\017\01\Workspace\MXD\EIS\Chapter 5 Alternatives\LE1501701_Fig5-1_RouteLayout_A3.mxd Mapping Reproduced Under Licence from the Ordnance Survey Ireland Licence No. EN 0001215 © Government of Ireland

«1

A

Legend! ! Greenway Route

0 1 20.5

Kilometers

@ A3

Credits:

CONSULTANTS IN ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

Core House, Pouladuff Rd, Cork, Ireland.T:+353-21-4964133, F:+353-21-4464Unit 16, J5 Plaza, North Park Business Park , Dublin 11, Ireland. T:+353-1-6583500, F:+353-1-6583501W:www.fehilytimoney.ie, E: [email protected]




5.2 Route Selection

Policy Hierarchy The development of the South Kerry Greenway project, which is a public infrastructure project, has been informed by a hierarchy of plans, including the National Planning Framework- Project Ireland 2040, the South West Regional Planning Guidelines 2010-2022 and specifically at a local level by the Kerry County Development Plan 2015-2021, Kerry Local Economic and Community Plan 2016-2021 and both Cahirciveen and Killorglin Functional Area Local Area Plans. The National Planning Framework – Project Ireland 2040 has outlined the objective of “building on the progress made in developing an integrated network of greenways, blueways and peatways that will support the diversification of rural and regional economies and promote more sustainable forms of travel and activity based recreation utilising canal and other routes.” This objective relates to the Atlantic Economic Corridor which encompasses a linear network along the Western seaboard stretching from Kerry to Donegal. At a local level particular reference is made hereunder to the Kerry County Development Plan 2015-2021 with specific reference to the strategic policies and objectives as they relate to the development of greenways. Development Plans provide a strategic framework and policy context for all planning decisions. The Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended) reinforces the role of the Development Plan as the primary strategic statement on land-use planning at city, town and county levels, and provides a clear defined context for the formulation and content of planning applications. A full policy review outlining the planning and development policy context of this project is set out in Chapter 6 of Volume 2 of this EIAR/EIS. This policy context examines the full hierarchy of policies and identifies the relevant key objectives, plans and policies which comprise the planning framework governing the proposed South Kerry Greenway and which underpin the design decisions taken during the evolution of this project including, in particular, those decisions relating to route selection and consideration of alternative options. The key policies and objectives comprising this planning framework include the following: 5.2.1.1 The National Planning Framework (NPF). The NPF national strategic outcomes include:

7. Enhance Amenities and Heritage: “The development of greenways, blueways and peatways offer a unique alternative means for tourists and visitors to access and enjoy rural Ireland. The development of a strategic national network of these trails is a priority and will support the development of rural communities and job creation in the rural economy, as well as the protection and promotion of natural assets and biodiversity.”

8. Strengthening Rural Economies and Communities: “rural walking, cycling and water-based recreation routes, as well as ‘peatways’, has demonstrated a major potential to bring new life to regional and rural locations.” “building on the progress made in developing an integrated network of greenways, blueways and peatways that will support the diversification of rural and regional economies and promote more sustainable forms of travel and activity” The national policy objectives include:

75 National Policy Objectives, NPO 21, 22: Enhance the competitiveness of rural areas by supporting innovation in rural economic development and enterprise through the sustainable diversification of the rural economy into new sectors and in particular those with a low or zero carbon output.




5.2.1.2 Kerry County Development Plan 2015-2021 A long-standing objective of Kerry County Council, as set out in the Kerry County Development Plan 2015-2021 has been to utilise the old South Kerry railway line. Policy objective T-27 of the Kerry County Development Plan states that it is an objective of the Council to:

T-27: “Promote and facilitate the sustainable re-use of existing former railway lines for amenity purposes, such as cycleways, walkways and other recreational activities in order to develop a network of ‘green routes’ throughout the Country.”

Related to the above is policy objective T-28 of the Kerry County Development Plan 2015-2021, which states that it is an objective of the Council to:

T28: “Support the sustainable development of a National Cycle Network and the development of the EuroVelo project, in particular the Atlantic Coast Route where it passes through the County.”

T-5: “Promote the sustainable development of tourist related infrastructure….”

T-20: “Facilitate the sustainable provision at appropriate locations, of a network of quality pathways & associated car parks for walkers and cyclists that are attractive and free from vehicle traffic”. RD-31: “Support the establishment of a network of cycleways and walkways within the County including Glenbeigh to Renard”. As noted in April 2014 the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport approved funding under the second tranche of the National Cycle Network Local Authority Scheme 2014-2016. For some time, Kerry County Council had recognised the abandoned South Kerry railway line as a suitable location for the development of a Greenway. The Kerry County Development Plan 2015-2021 sets out the key policies and objectives for the County.

One of the most pertinent Strategic Aims of the Core Strategy is to:

“Promote and support the integration of land use and transport and encourage a modal shift to greater use of sustainable modes of transport, including public transport, walking and cycling.”

The Atlantic Coast Route, as referred to in objective T-28 above, relates to EuroVelo Route 1 and is outlined in Figure 5.2.




Figure 5-2: Republic of Ireland, Atlantic Coast Route (EuroVelo 1)

The assessment of route alternatives was also undertaken in the context of The Environmental Protection Agency document ‘Guidelines on the Information to be Contained in Environmental Impact Statements’ (EPA, 2002) and draft Guidelines on the Information to be Contained in Environmental Impact Assessment Reports, (Draft, 2015). These latter Draft Guidelines state:

“Alternatives may be identified at many levels and stages during the evolution of a project, from project concepts and site locations, through site layouts, technologies or operational plans and on to mitigation and monitoring measures. The alternatives that are typically available for consideration at the earlier stages in the evolution of a project generally represent the greatest potential for avoidance of adverse effects.”

Section 3.4 of the Draft Guidelines is concerned with the Consideration of Alternatives, which states that:

“Higher level alternative may have been addressed during the strategic environmental assessment of strategies or plans. Assessment at that level is likely to have taken account of environmental considerations associated for example with the cumulative impact of the area zoned for industry on a sensitive landscape. Note also that plan-level/higher-level assessments may have set out project level objectives or other mitigation that the project and its EIS should be cognisant of. So, at EIA level this prior assessment of strategic alternatives inform the EIS”.

(Note: In this context the preparation of the Kerry County Development Plan, both the overall plan and individual plan policies and objectives, were considered in the SEA).




Route Alternatives

Four primary route alternatives were considered as part of this project, namely the development of a greenway/dedicated cycle path along the following routes:

1. On-Road Route Option

2. Abandoned Railway Line Route Option;

3. New Greenfield Route Option; and

4. Do-Nothing Route Option Each of the four route alternatives were assessed in the context of the scheme objectives and County Development Plan policies. The assessment is set out in a preliminary assessment matrix. This is detailed in Table 5.1 below. The preliminary assessment matrix identified the railway route and the greenfield route as meeting the majority of the route selection criteria. A subsequent criterion of the suitability of route alternatives was based on ‘economic cost’. Option 1 – On Road Alternative Even though an on-road alternative could be developed, its cost in comparison to the use of the existing railway corridor is very high. In this alternative it would be required to widen the existing N70 for the length of the route and undertake very significant work where constraints are present (e.g. properties adjacent to the road, physical constraints such as Drung Hill etc). This would have to be completed to the TII design standards. Such widening would require approximately 6.5m of additional space adjacent to the existing roadway to meet the design standards. This would allow for a separation distance (including hardshoulder) of 2m, cycleway pavement of 3m, a 1m lateral clearance to the edge of the fenceline and 1m for a new fence or boundary. The existing drainage would have to be redeveloped though existing outlets could be maintained. Significant works would be required at all river and stream crossings where the width of the existing structures would not facilitate the cycleway. In such locations either a new stream or river crossing would be required, or the existing structure would have to be extended. The crossing of all public roads and private accesses would require additional land take as the crossing would have to cross the minor road at a distance removed from the N70 to ensure adequate visibility. This would involve a number of bends on the cycleway on approach and departure from the crossing. Options 2 and 3 Abandoned Railway and Greenfield While both the railway and greenfield alternative are deliverable in principle, the greenfield option would have a significantly higher cost in comparison to the railway corridor alternative which reuses existing infrastructure. This is detailed in Table 5.1 below. Option 4 – Do Nothing option If the proposed greenway is not constructed any additional economic benefit which could be derived from the project will not be realised. This benefit is calculated based on the Public Consultation Paper Strategy for the Future Development of Greenwaysi which states that the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform estimates that “approx. 12 construction jobs will be created for every €1 million of capital investment. The tourism sector sees an output of 29 jobs for every €1 million of capital investment.” In addition, Fáilte Ireland note that 34 jobs are supported by each €1m spent through tourism expenditure (Tourism facts 2015) and the CEDRA Report notes that 12 jobs per €1m are created during the construction phase of similar projects. Evidence from similar projects, particularly the Fitzpatrick Report1 with regard to the Mayo Greenway notes that 37 new full-time jobs were created, and 50 existing jobs were sustained by the project In the ‘do nothing’ scenario, the former railway line between Glenbeigh and Reenard would remain disused and in this context, there would be no change in land use terms.

1 Great Western Greenway – Economic Impact Case Study, October 2011.




In the context of human health, the health benefits of walking and cycling have been well documented and include improved cardiovascular fitness, chronic disease prevention, improved muscle tone, improved mental health, a strengthened immune system and a reduced risk of cancer, obesity and coronary heart disease. As evidenced by the World Health Organisation’s Health Economic Assessment Tool (HEAT), health benefits can have an associated economic benefit for society. The proposed development offers a facility at which the health benefits of walking and cycling outdoors can be attained. In the context of the ‘do-thing scenario’ this will not be realised. Lastly the aims and objectives of the Kerry County Development Plan 2015-2021 pursuant to the development of a greenway along the former disused railway line between Cahersiveen and Reenard will not be realised. High level Preliminary Route Options assessment – conclusion The preliminary assessment matrix identified the railway route and the greenfield route as meeting the majority of the route selection criteria. A subsequent criterion of ‘economic cost’ was introduced into the suitability assessment of both routes. While both the railway option and the greenfield option were deliverable in principle, the greenfield option would have a significantly higher cost in comparison to the railway corridor option which reuses existing infrastructure. Lastly, the railway corridor option is most strongly supported by the Kerry County Development Plan 2015-2021, which is identified in Table 7.4, as a suitable location for a ‘Greenway’. Table 5-1: Preliminary Route Options Assessment Matrix

Criteria On/Adjacent to Road Railway Greenfield Do Nothing

CDP Objectives

Objective T-27 No Yes No No

Objective T-28 Yes Yes Yes No

Objective RD-31 Yes/No Yes Yes No

Overall Scheme Objectives

World class visitor experience Low High High* Low

Attracting the maximum number of visitors Low High High* Low

Optimising the amenity value Medium High High* Low

Designing universal access High High High Low

Maximising safety High High High Low

(* dependent upon location)

Route Selection Process The reuse of the existing railway corridor where feasible, formed the basis of the proposed route for the greenway. In certain locations along the route, the existing railway corridor was not available or was not feasible and deviations had to be considered to accommodate the Greenway. These locations included:

• Where there is development on the existing line obstructing the proposed route; • Where the old line is no longer in place, such as at Drung Hill by the sea; and • Where the residential amenity of properties, either built on the line or adjacent to the line would be

affected.




In addition, as part of the consultation process (detailed in Chapter 4 of this EIAR/EIS), some landowners requested deviations from the route even though there was no obstruction on the line. Kerry County Council considered it desirable to accommodate these landowner requests where reasonably feasible i.e. where it would not compromise the overall scheme objectives as outlined. In these instances, arising from the overall scheme objectives the following criteria were applied in determining whether the requested deviations could be further considered:

o The amenity value of the route is not diminished or is improved; o The proposed deviation incorporates re-joining the original rail line. Proposal of this nature can involve

an individual landowner or group of landowners; o The proposed deviation is off-road and of sufficient distance from the road not to diminish the amenity

value of the route; o Safety is not compromised; o Design standards can be optimised; o The Impact on landowners on or adjacent to the route being proposed by landowner.

In summary, the route selection process therefore focused on the options available in diverting the greenway off the line of the old railway, at locations where:

a) A physical obstruction was on the line (e.g. dwelling built on the line)

b) The railway line no longer existed (e.g. used for road widening), or

c) Where deviations from the original line were requested or required and satisfied the route selection screening process.

In the case of a) and b) where the corridor was no longer available, a number of local options were identified at 21 such locations. Each local option was assessed against Engineering, Economic, Environmental and Safety Factors and a comparative assessment between each was made to determine the on-balance preferred option at the specific location Options at these locations are presented in Section 5.3 below. In the case of c) – it was necessary to firstly determine that further consideration of options off line were justified:

o Locations where there were no obstructions on the line but where landowners requested deviations. Fifteen locations were requested, of which 6 were not considered further following initial screening against the criteria outlined

o Options at the remaining 9 locations underwent further assessment as set out in Section 5.4 of this report.

There were, therefore, 30 locations in total where route option assessments were carried out on diversions off the railway corridor. These assessments specifically took account of engineering, economic and environmental and safety factors. A full route selection process as set out above was completed for the scheme. This route selection process is summarised in the following sections.




5.3 Localised Assessment of Alternative Route Options off the Railway line

Alternative Route Options Assessment In determining the final route option, at each of the 30 locations the following four headings were considered:

1. Engineering; 2. Economics; 3. Environment; and 4. Safety.

The purpose of the Route Options Assessment was to provide a comparative analysis between the options considered at each location along the route. Each option at a particular location was compared to the other options considered at that location. The following rankings were then applied to each criterion as follows:

• Preferred; • Intermediate; • Least preferred.

These gradings are not absolute but are applied in relation to how the option compares to the other options being considered at that specific location.

• A preferred grading means that this option is preferred to the other options being considered at that location.

• An intermediate grading means that this option is less preferred than the preferred option. • A Least preferred grading means that this option is significantly less preferred than the preferred

option. Where two or more options are considered to be equal they are given the same grading. To inform the above outlined methodology, Malachy Walsh and Partners, Engineering and Environmental Consultants, were engaged to do an environmental comparison of each of these options. Lisneys were appointed to carry out a land valuation of each option to assist in the economic evaluation and Kerry County Council carried out the construction cost and engineering analysis. The engineering elements of each route option were compared across four broad headings as follows:

• Geometry • Drainage • Construction logistics • Utilities and services conflict

The Environmental Assessment investigates the potential environmental impacts of the route corridors under the following headings:

• Human Environment • Agriculture • Ecology • Soil, Geology and Hydrogeology • Water Quality and Fisheries • Noise • Air Quality • Archaeology




• Landscape and Visual Resources • Material Assets

A road Safety Audit Stage F Phase 1 was completed for all options at each location to inform the assessment.

Preferred Options The alternative options considered at each location along the preferred route are outlined Appendix 5.3. The Assessment of each of these options is summarised in the following Tables: Table 5.3 Assessment of Locations Where There are Obstructions on the Former Line

Table 5.4 Screening assessment in accordance with the scheme objectives for Locations Where There is No On-line Obstruction but where Landowners Requested Deviations

Table 5 5 Summary of screening assessment for off-track options requested by landowner

Table 5.6 Assessment of Locations Where There is No On-line Obstruction Based on the criteria of engineering, economics, environment and safety, the final route layout was proposed and is assessed in this EIAR / EIS. These summary Route Option Selection Tables have been grouped together in Appendix 5.3 for convenience.

Examples of Route Selection Process The figures below 5.3 and 5.4 presents an outline summary of the alternative option selection process described above firstly where obstructions are on the line and secondly where no obstruction is on the line.

Figure 5-3: Example of Alternative Options – Obstruction on the line

Deviation Required

o Multiple options generated at the specific location

Assessment

o Engineeringo Environmento Economicso Safety

ComparativeAssessment

o The various options are assessed in a comparative assessment

o The preferred option is then identified




Figure 5-4: Example of Alternative Options – No Obstruction on the line

5.4 Alternative Land Use Following the decommissioning of the former Great Southern and Western Railway line in 1960 having operated for 67 years, the route along the railway corridor was largely transferred to private ownership. Chapter 4 EIA Scoping, Consultation and Key Issues outlines that in total 197 individual landowners are identified along the preferred route, which includes Córas Iompar Éireann and Kerry County Council, who own 17% of the proposed corridor. The remaining 83% of the ownership of the route is made up of individual landowners. In this context, any reasonable alternative land use for this route would require a strategic, policy led and planned approach to development. The Kerry County Development Plan 2015-2021 in Section 5.5 Cycling notes that:

“The former railway lines have potential for use as corridors for amenity access, free from motorised traffic and even have potential for a revived railway use”.

It should be noted that the former South Kerry Railway line is predominantly no longer in the ownership of Córas Iompar Éireann, and that due to the abandonment of same, lands came into the ownership of adjacent landowners. In 2011 Iarnród Éireann/Irish Rail in association with AECOM prepared the 2030 Rail Network Strategy Review. The focus of this 2030 Rail Network Strategy Review is on the future development requirements of the Iarnród Éireann InterCity Network (ICN) and the regional services.

Request for Deviation

o Request assessed against screening criteria o If it does not satisfy the criteria - then remain on on-lineo If it does satisfy the criteria then additional options are generated

Generate Options

Multiple options generated including the requested option

Assessment

EngineeringEnvironmentEconomicsSafety

Comparative Assessment

All options are assessed in a comparative assessmentThe preferred option is then identifiedSa

me

proc

ess a

s pre

viou

s




The Strategy also considered an assessment of new business opportunities including the reinstatement of services on disused lines. While the reinstatement of the Southern and Western Railway line, along the route of the proposed greenway was not considered in this 2030 Strategy, the Strategy set out a Common Appraisal Framework (CAF) which is used to establish whether there is a prima facie case for particular proposals to proceed to a feasibility study for the reinstatement of railway lines. The CAF embodies both a cost-benefit analysis and a multicriteria analysis approach to appraisals. The criteria employed are:

o Economy;

o Safety;

o Environment;

o Accessibility and Social Inclusion; and

o Integration. In the case of railway investments, predicted patronage is a strong indicator of benefits. Chapter 7 of this EIAR/EIS Population, Human Heath and Material Assets notes that based on a review of CSO data and the Kerry County Development Plan; that the population of the Study Area has steadily decreased since 2006 by -4.2% between 2006 and 2011 and by 3.4% between 2011 and 2016. This significantly contrasts the pattern of population change in the overall County and the State. Patronage will also be dependent on the level of competition from road based modes. As road design speed is related to road type, an indicator developed around the latter was developed. Four levels of competition were identified as follows:

o Motorway/Dual Carriageway;

o Other National Primary;

o National Secondary; and

o Regional or local roads The proposed greenway route/former railway line is located within proximity to the N70 National Secondary Route. Thus, on this indicator, a proposed rail line that has a competing national secondary route would score low marks, as the level of service on that road would be high. The first two indicators reflect the capacity of the railway to win patronage relative to the costs of the line. One the basis of the above the provision of a greenway along the route of the former disused railway line is considered a more beneficial land use development than the reinstatement of the former railway line. It is anticipated that this land use form will achieve a number of government priorities including regional and local economic development, sustainable transport, improved mental and physical health of the population, improved quality of life in rural, village and town environments. The assessment of the loss of agricultural land to the proposed development is considered in Chapter 7, Population, Human Health and Material Assets, of this EIS / EIAR.

Conclusion Based on the above indicated route selection process and the application of the criteria of engineering, economics, environment and safety, as indicated, the preferred route layout was proposed, and this preferred route is assessed in this EIAR / EIS.

Chapter 5 – Alternatives Considered Kerry County Council South Kerry Greenway



Table 5-2: Assessment of Locations Where There Are Obstructions on the Former Railway Line.

See Appendix 5.2 for Location Maps and Drawings Location 1, Drawing 229-203. Preferred Option is No 3.

Options 1 and 3 are preferred from an engineering perspective. This is due to the geometry of option 2 involving two additional sharp bends. All other engineering aspects are considered equal. The environmental assessment indicates that route option 2 and 3 are preferred from an ecological, human beings and visual aspect while option 1 is preferred from a loss of agricultural land. Option 1 is preferred from an economic perspective due to its shorter length. The safety assessment indicates that there is little to choose between any of the options with option 1 being slightly more suitable but all options are acceptable. The impact on residential amenity is the greatest potential impact arising at this location. Option 3 will cost more to construct but is considered preferable to option 1 due to its reduced impact on residential amenity and adjacent properties while still satisfying all other considerations and being preferable to option 2 in terms of geometry.

Location 2, Drawing 229-204. Preferred Option is No 2.

Option 2 is the preferred option from a geometric perspective. Both options are equal on the remaining engineering criteria. The environmental assessment indicates that option 2 is the preferred option under human environment, agriculture, ecology, and landscape. Option 1 is preferred from an archaeological and visual perspective (slight preference as noted in the report) however the distance of the track from the dwelling and the provision of screening can mitigate this impact. Option 2 is the preferred option from an economic perspective. The safety assessment indicates that option 2 is slightly more suitable owing to its lack of sharp bends. Taking the above into consideration option 2 is the preferred option at this location.

Location 3, Drawing 229-205, 206. Preferred Option is No 1a

Notwithstanding the marginal preference for option 1 from a geometric perspective, options 1a and 2 are the preferred options from an overall engineering perspective. The environmental assessment indicates that options 2, 3 and 4 are preferable over the other options from a human environment and visual perspective. Options 1 and 1a are preferred from ecology and archaeological perspective. The environmental report outlines the relative nature of the preferences and all are marginal leading to an equal rating for all with the exception of option 1b which from an ecological perspective has a more significant impact on an SAC. Option 1a is preferred from an economic perspective, all other options being least preferred. The safety audit indicates that options 1, 1a and 1b are the preferred options. Option 1a is on balance the preferred option. Option 2, 3 and 4 both from a safety and/or engineering assessment are not preferred due predominantly to the higher gradients leading into bends and the locations of the required private road crossing points close to the public road. Two environmental considerations have shown a slight preference for options 2, 3 or 4 above other options. This is due to a slight preference when considered under human environment and visuals. The options traversing less habitats of higher value are preferred from an ecological perspective however as stated in the report there is little to choose between the route options in this regard. The visual impact indicates that options 2, 3 and 4 may have less of a visual impact on the residential properties. However, this is outweighed by the more significant negative impacts from a safety and engineering perspective of these options. In addition, options 2, 3 and 4 require the construction of the route adjacent to the public road. This will reduce the amenity value of the greenway.




Location 4

This location is assessed in Table 5.6 – No Obstruction – Landowner Request for alternative route Location 5, Drawing 229-208. Preferred Option is No 2.

Both options at this location are preferred routes from an engineering perspective. The environmental assessment indicates that options 2 is preferable over the option 1 from an agriculture, archaeological and landscape. Option 2 is also preferred from and economic perspective as it is shorter. The safety assessment indicates that option 2 is preferred. Option 2 is the preferred option.

Location 6

This location is assessed in Table 5.6 – No Obstruction – Landowner Request for alternative route Location 7

This location is assessed in Table 5.6 – No Obstruction – Landowner Request for alternative route Location 8, Drawing 229-215. Preferred Option is No 2.

Both options are equal on all engineering criteria. Environmentally option 2 is preferred. From an agricultural perspective it avoids severance, ecologically it traverses less habitat of county importance, hydrologically it minimises impacts on wetland habitats and archaeologically due to its lower potential impact. Economically option 1 is preferred. Both options are equal on safety. Option 2 is the overall preferred option.


Option 1 and 2 are both preferred from an overall engineering perspective. Option 1 has slightly less favourable geometry due to the requirement for a tighter bend. The gradients in option 1 are less than option 2. However, it has preferable construction logistics as option 2 requires considerable fill requirements due to the level differences between the road and existing ground level. Environmentally both options are preferred and neither option has any distinct advantage identified over the other. Both options are considered preferable from the economic assessment with option 1 costing more. The safety audit indicates that both are considered acceptable. These options are broadly equivalent though on balance option 1 is preferred. This is due to its reduced construction impact (additional fill required for option 2) and the use of more marginal agricultural lands for option 1.





The engineering assessment is equal apart from a utilities/services conflict with option 1. The geometry of both options is rated equal as they both comply with RCD 2017 however option 2 is preferable as it utilises more gently curves. The environmental assessment is equal on all criteria with neither option having a distinct advantage over the other. The economic assessment indicates that option 1 would cost more to construct. The safety assessment indicates that both options are equivalent. On balance Option 2 is the preferred option.


The engineering assessment indicates that option 2 (on-road) is the preferred option. Option 2 is preferable from a geometry perspective though the bend to the east does present a blind spot. There are more works involved with option 1 in terms of drainage and construction logistics relative to option 2 and 3 and it is least preferred in direct comparison due to its scale. All options are common up to the crossing of the local road to the west. At this point option 3 runs parallel to option 2 but is off-road for its length. There are some additional works as it does not use the local road, but they do not present any particular difficulty. The environmental assessment indicates that option 2 is preferred from human environment, agriculture, ecology, archaeology and landscape. Option 2 and 3 are preferred from a visual resources perspective. All options are open on the remaining criteria. The basis for the option 2 preferences is that it uses the local road and thus avoids any interference with adjacent lands or is on already disturbed lands. Economically option 1 and 3 are least preferred and option 2 is the preferred option due to its shorter length and less works involved in its construction. The safety audit indicates that option 1 is the preferred option with option 3 being preferred to option 2 as it is off-road. The bend on the local road restricts visibility around the eastern crossing point for option 2. The individual assessments under engineering, environment and economics favour option 2. Option 1 scores more highly on safety. On-the-whole option 3 is preferred. The individual assessments are heavily influenced by the comparative length of the options and their primary features, option 2 being on-road with minor works and the others being new build on a green field location (with option 1 involving significant construction in comparison to the other options). In such a situation cost is going to be higher and engineering aspects more detailed in view of the additional size and new build aspect of option 1 and 3. Option 3 does not present any significant difficulties in itself and is preferable to option 1. One of the overall design objectives of the scheme is to minimise the on-road usage in order to maximise safety and usage of the scheme for all users. For this reason, option 3 is the preferred option.

Location 12



This location is assessed in Table 5.6 – No Obstruction – Landowner Request for alternative route





The engineering assessment indicates that option 1 is the preferred geometric option. Option 1 has intermediate geometry compared to least preferred with option 2 and all other option 1 criteria are preferred. The construction logistics are intermediate with option 2 reflecting the requirement to construct within the curtilage of a dwelling and adjacent to the N70. Environmentally both options are equal apart from visual assessment where option 2 is preferred and landscape where option 1 is preferred as both options are adjacent to the N70 which is already affected. The economic assessment indicates that option 1 is the preferred option with option 2 being least preferred due to the requirement to import the foundation layers. The safety audit indicates that option 1 is preferred. On balance option 1 is the preferred option.

Location 16, Drawing 229-223, 224. Preferred Option is No 4.

Locations 16 and 17 must be considered together in an overall context as the finish point of location 16 will become the start point for location 17. In summary of the engineering analysis, location 16 option 1, 2 and 3 must be considered in combination with location 17 option 2 (northern options). Location 16 option 4 must be considered in combination with Location 17 option 1, 3, 4 or 5 (southern options). The engineering assessment indicates that options 1, 2 and 3 are intermediate from a geometric perspective. Option 1 has a significant impact on residential amenity as the 2m set back would require building the greenway adjacent to the front facade of a dwelling. In effect there is insufficient space between the national secondary road and the facade of the dwelling. Option 4 is the preferred geometric option. Option 4 is least preferred from a construction logistics perspective due to requirement for an underpass. However, this is balanced by the equivalent requirement for all other options (all combined options have to cross the N70 and therefore will require an underpass). Options 1, 2 and 4 are preferred in drainage and option 4 is preferred under utilities/services conflicts. Option 1 and 2 are equal on the engineering assessment with option 3 being least preferred and option 4 being the preferred option. Environmentally option 4 is preferred from a human environment perspective. Options 1 and 4 are preferred from a visual and landscape perspective and archaeology. Options 1, 2 and 4 are preferred from an agricultural viewpoint. Option 1 from an ecological perspective. Options 1, 2 and 3 have a slight preference under soils, geology and hydrogeology. Options 1 and 4 are the preferred options from an environmental perspective with options 2 and 3 being intermediate (option 3 is equal to option 2 apart from agriculture). The safety assessment confirms that options 3 and 4 are the preferred options at this location. Option 2, 3 and 4 all have least preferred or intermediate ratings from an economic perspective when compared to option 1. Option 4, which includes the cost of an underpass, is significantly more expensive then option 2 and 3. The economic cost (considering location 16 and 17 together) indicates that all options are broadly equal with the combined cost varying from €452,395 to €481,838*. Location 16 option 4 has a higher construction cost than the other options at this location due the requirement for an underpass to be constructed (however, the other options will require an underpass to be constructed in the location 17 options, see the table below for comparison). From an engineering perspective option 4 is preferred from geometry over all options and is least preferred from a construction logistics perspective due the necessity for an underpass (which is balanced by the equivalent requirement for the other options). Options 2 and 3 require constructing the route adjacent to the N70 and crossing a residential sloping access and farm track. Option 4 has no residential crossings and has less impact on residential amenity as it is across the road from two residential dwellings. On balance therefore, option 4 is the preferred option (when considered with the options available at location 17).




*Note to Location 16, the combinations are tabulated below:

Location Option Cost, € Location Option Cost, € Total cost of

combined option, €

Location 16 Option 1 188,073 + Location 17 Option 2 264,322 = 452,395

Location 16 Option 2 217,516 + ” ” 264,322 = 481,838

Location 16 Option 3 213,356 + ” ” 264,322 = 477,678

Location 16 Option 4 369,023 + Location 17 Option 1 98,055 = 467,078

Location 16 Option 4 369,023 + ” Option 3 95,203 = 464,226

Location 16 Option 4 369,023 + ” Option 4 103,702 = 472,725

Location 16 Option 4 369,023 + ” Option 5 100,759 = 469,782 Location 17, Drawing 229-225, 226. Preferred Option is No 5.

Locations 16 and 17 must be considered together. The preferred option at location 16 is option 4, this requires that the route must be on the south side of the of the N70. This does not tie in with option 2 which has two least preferred rankings in its individual assessment. The engineering assessment indicates that options 4 and 5 are preferred geometrically due to the location of the local road crossing at a point removed from the its junction with the N70. Option 1 and 3 are intermediate geometrically due to the required location of the crossing of the local road in closer proximity to its junction with the N70. Option 2 is least preferred due to the requirement for an underpass and the difficulties around required gradients given the limited space available. Option 5 has a slightly more efficient line (over option 4) with regard to ensuring access/use to remaining segments of land. The environmental assessment indicates that options 3 and 5 are preferred from human environment and visuals. Option 2 has a slight preference from ecology though the other routes are also acceptable. Options 1, 3, 4 and 5 are slightly preferred from soils, geology and hydrogeology perspective. Overall options 3 and 5 are preferred with the other options being intermediate. The economic assessment indicates that options 1, 3, 4 and 5 are broadly equal with option 2 being of a higher cost due to the requirement for an underpass at this location. The safety assessment indicates that options 1, 3, 4 and 5 are the preferred options at this location. Taking account of the above option 5 is the preferred option (which will link with location 16 option 4).


The engineering assessment indicates that geometrically option 1, which although it has two sharp bends at the end of a 140m slope of 2.3% and two 5% gradient sections (30m and 20m) is preferred over option 2. Option 2 has two 5% gradient sections (70m and 110m) and is considered an intermediate option though the bends are more favourable. All other engineering assessment criteria are equal. Option 1 is marginally the preferred option from an engineering perspective. Environmentally option 2 is preferred on human environment, ecology, hydrology, archaeology and landscape and visual grounds. On ecology option 1 traverses lowland blanket bog of county to national importance (although degraded due to historic cutting and intermittent grazing). Option 1 is the most economic route to construct. Both options are considered equal on safety. On balance while both options are compliant with RCD 2017 option 1 is preferred geometrically. Option 2 is preferred environmentally under a number of criteria including ecology. Though most costly to construct it is equivalent on safety. Option 2 is on balance the preferred option.





Option 3 is the preferred engineering option with acceptable gradients and no sharp bends. Option 1 has both high gradients and sharp bends while option 2 has intermediate geometry. Environmentally option 2 is preferred on agriculture, archaeology and landscape grounds. This is due to a relative less loss and severance of agricultural land. All options have a very low impact under archaeology however option 2 has relatively less associated disturbance. From a landscape perspective there is a slight preference for option 2. Option 3 is preferred from an ecological perspective with less loss of higher value habitat than option 1 and avoids encroaching on wet heath with option 2. Economically option 2 and 3 are the preferred options with option 3 being more economic. Option 3 is the preferred option from a safety perspective as it avoids having high gradients and sharp bends. Option 3 is preferred from an engineering and safety perspective. It is equal to option 2 on economics. Environmentally it is marginally less preferred than option 2 but has a distinct advantage under ecology. On balance option 3 is the preferred option.


Option 1 is preferred under all engineering criteria at this location. Option 2 is least preferred under geometry due to steep gradients and a requirement for a very sharp bend at the eastern road crossing point. Option 2 is intermediate under construction logistics due to it being within the curtilage of a dwelling. Environmentally both options are equal with the exception of a preference for option 1 under archaeology. Economically option 1 is preferred. The safety assessment indicates that option 1 is slightly preferred to option 2. On balance option 1 is the preferred option.

Location 21


Location 22, Drawing 229-231, 232, 233. Preferred Option is No 3.

The engineering assessment indicates that options 2 and 3 are the overall preferred and intermediate options. Option 3 being preferred over option 2 due to construction logistics issues surrounding the volumes of fill required. Options 1 and 4 have a least preferred rating for geometry due to the requirement for higher gradients and a significant constraint between the N70 and a dwelling through which each option would have to pass. These options are also least preferred under construction logistics due to the impact on the N70 during their construction. The environmental assessment indicates that options 2 and 3 are preferred under human environment, archaeology and landscape and visuals. Option 2 is slightly preferred on ecology though the other options remain acceptable. Economically options 2 and 3 are preferred with options 1 and 4 being intermediate and least preferred. The difference in ranking is reflective of the additional works associated with options 1 and 4. The safety assessment indicates that options 2 and 3 are preferred to the other options. On balance option 3 is preferred due to its more favourable engineering and equivalence on other criteria.




Location 23, Drawing 229-234, 235, 236. Preferred Option is No 2d.

The engineering assessment indicates that options 1 and 2c are least preferred with three rankings of least preferred in their individual assessments under geometry, drainage and construction logistics. Option 2a has an overall intermediate ranking due to intermediate ratings under drainage, construction logistics and utilities/services. Option 2, 2b and 2d are ranked overall as preferred from an engineering perspective. Option 2 has an overall preferred ranking on engineering, however it is geometrically least preferred, and this outweighs all the other criteria in the engineering assessment. Option 2 would require a 90-degree bend at the end of 10% slope coming straight on to the N70 without any possibility of adequate safety measures (the junction can’t be altered as it has to be shared with vehicles accessing private dwellings further up). This consideration is also reflected in it being considered least preferred in the safety audit. Options 2b and 2d are both preferred options from an engineering perspective. Option 2b is rated as least preferred from a services/utilities perspective due the requirement to alter/move fibre optic lines. Option 2d has an intermediate rating on geometry and drainage. Geometrically the designation reflects the requirement to dismount for a 60m section coming towards Caitíns Bar from the west. The drainage requires more involved work over this 60m section to cater for the slope though it is not a difficult matter. Options 2a and 2c would also require cyclists to dismount to access the underpass in those particular options. Environmentally option 2b is preferred from a visual perspective. Archaeologically options 2 and 2a are preferred. Under the criteria ecology, hydrology, and landscape options 2, 2a, 2b or 2d are preferred. Options 1, 2, 2b and 2d are slightly preferred from a soils, geology and hydrogeology perspective. From an economic perspective option 2d is preferred with option 2 being intermediate and all other options being least preferred. The safety assessment indicates that option 2a and 2c are the preferred options as they are not on the N70. Option 2d, which as noted in the Safety Report, is adjacent to and will be separated by a barrier from the N70 for 60m is preferred to option 1. The assessment notes that installation of barriers requiring cyclists to dismount or at least control speed will improve options 2a, 2c and 2d. Furthermore, the proposed realignment of the N70 resulting in the 2m separation distance and the reduction of the speed limit would also improve 2, 2b and 2d. Option 2 and 2b are least preferred of all options. Option 2d is ranked preferred on two criteria and is marginally less preferable under environment. From a safety perspective it is initially an intermediate option (relative to 2a and 2c) but can be improved by taking mitigation actions as detailed in the Safety Report. Its safety ranking is preferable to that of option 2 which is also geometrically least preferred in the engineering assessment. Taking all the above into account then on balance option 2d is the preferred option.

Location 24, Drawing No 229-237. Preferred Option is No 1.

The engineering assessment indicates that option 2 is preferred. Option 1 geometrically is considered intermediate due to gradients and option 2 and 3 are preferred. From a construction logistics perspective option 1 requires rock breaking which makes it intermediate and option 3 requires demolition of the existing cottage. The demolition does not impose any particular difficulty and the line that will be available with its removal is better than option 2 as it is further from the N70. Similarly, the rock breaking does not pose any significant difficulty. All options are equal on drainage and service conflicts. Environmentally option 2 is preferred under human environment, ecology, archaeology and landscape and visuals. Option 2 and 3 are preferred under soils, geology and hydrogeology. Option 1 and 3 are taken as both intermediate as they are equivalent on all criteria except soils, geology and hydrogeology due to the potential impacts of the rock breaking. It is noted in the text that the impact of rock breaking will be minor. The economic assessment indicates that option 2 is preferred with options 1 and 3 being least preferred




The safety assessment indicates that option 1 and 3 are preferred to option 2. On balance option 1 is the preferred option. From an engineering perspective its least preferred ranking is due to having to a small section of higher gradient relative to the other options and the requirement for some localised rock breaking. These are not significant issues in themselves. The confirmed presence of the bats in the structure excludes option 3. Option 2 is close to the N70 and has an intermediate safety ranking. Option 1 has a preferred safety option and on balance is the preferred option.

Location 25 Drawing 229-238, 239, 240. Preferred Option is Primary Route.

The engineering assessment indicates that the primary route is the preferred option. Option 1 requires an underpass and this creates difficulties both geometrically and from a construction logistics perspective. Option 2 is also least preferred as the distance between the piers of the overpass and the edge of the National Secondary Route is insufficient to accommodate the cycle route while allowing for the required separation distances from the N70. The construction logistics of option 2 would also pose considerable difficulties. The environmental assessment indicates that option 2 is preferred under human beings, archaeology and visuals with option 1 and 2 under landscape. The preference broadly reflects options that use previously disturbed lands and corridors that are already affected. The economic assessment indicates that the Primary Route is preferred and options 1 and 2 being least preferred. The safety audit confirms that the primary route is preferable to option 1 with option 2 being least preferred. Option 1 requires an additional on-road distance of 300m. This is contrary to the overall objective to minimise on-road use by the greenway. Taking the above into consideration the preferred option is primary route based upon engineering, safety, the marginal difference in environment and the schemes overall objectives.

Location 26 This location is assessed in Table 5.6 – No Obstruction – Landowner Request for alternative route

Location 27 Drawing 229-242, 243, 244. Preferred Option is 1 + 4.

The engineering assessment indicates that option 1 in combination with option 4 is the preferred route. It is the only preferred option under geometry as all others are least preferred due the gradients and bends required for each other option. Option 2, 2a, 2b have one least preferred designation being geometry and Option 1, 1a and option 3 have two and three least preferred designations under engineering. While option 2, 2a and 2b are preferred from a drainage and construction logistics perspective it is the least preferred from geometry. Option 2 requires the route being adjacent to the N70 with a number of agricultural and residential crossings which entail steep gradients approaching the greenway. The environmental assessment does not identify any option with a clear difference above others. They are all open to consideration under noise, air quality and material assets. Option 2, 2a, 2b are preferred under agriculture, ecology and landscape. Options 2, 2a, 2b and 3 are preferred under hydrology and visuals. Option 4 is preferred under archaeology. Options 2 and 3 are preferred under human environment. Options 1, 1a, 2, 2a, 2b and 4 are preferred under soils, geology and hydrogeology. The economic assessment indicates that Option 1 in combination with Option 4 is the most economic and is the preferred option. The safety audit indicates that Option 4 is preferred over options 1a, 2, 2a, 2b and 3. Option 1 is preferred option 2. In combination therefore, option 1 with option 4 is preferred. On the balance of the above and given the clear benefits from an engineering perspective of option 1 with 4. The preference of option 1 with 4 from a safety perspective and economic assessment and the marginal differences between all options from an environmental perspective the preferred option is option 1 in combination 4.




Location 28 Drawing 229-245. Preferred Option is No 1.

The engineering assessment indicates that option 1 is preferred geometrically as it avoids a steeper gradient, additional bends and has no private road crossing which are all required for option 2. Works in close proximity of the dwelling would also be required for option 2. Environmentally both options are similar with option 1 being preferred under human environment and visuals and option 2 being preferred under agriculture. The options are equal on all other criteria. The economic assessment indicates that both options are equivalent on cost. The safety assessment indicates that option 1 is slightly preferred to option 2.

Location 29


Location 30 Drawing 229-249, 250, 251, 252. Preferred Option is No 2.

The engineering assessment indicates that geometrically all options are preferred apart from option 3 due to gradients on the approach to the road crossing. Option 1 has difficulties around drainage and is least preferred on construction logistics due to the very extensive cut required to the rear of the dwelling and the existing topography in the area. Option 1a has an intermediate rating on construction logistics again due to the cut requirement. Option 3 is least preferred on construction logistics, this is due to the constraint to the south of the houses and the very steep slope falling towards the river which makes construction at this location unfeasible. Option 2 is preferred from an engineering perspective. The environmental assessment indicates that option 1, 1a and 2 are preferred under human environment, agriculture, and visuals. Option 2 is preferred under ecology, archaeology and landscape. Option 2 is the preferred option with option 1 being intermediate and the other options being least preferred relative to 1 and 2. The economic assessment indicates that option 2 is preferred with options 3 and 1/1a being least preferred. Option 1 with 1a has been considered together (in order to encompass the full length of the required deviation). The safety assessment indicates that options 1, 1a and 3 being fully off road (they all have a road crossing in common) are preferred. Option 2 which uses the local road is intermediate to the other options. On balance option 2 is the preferred option. The other options all have considerable difficulties associated with their construction. Option 3 is also through a farmyard and within the curtilage of a dwelling. The intermediate safety raking of option 2 is in direct comparison to the off-road options.




Table 5-3: Screening Assessment for Locations with no Obstructions On-line but

where Landowners Requested Deviations The following table is the screening of locations where there was no obstruction on the line but where the landowner requested that an alternative route be considered (15 Locations). Each of the following locations (referenced by chainage) were initially assessed under the following criteria:

a) Is the proposed route environmentally acceptable? ( if yes, else ). b) If the amenity value of the route is not diminished or improved? ( if yes, else ). c) Does the proposed deviation re-join the original rail line? ( if yes, else ). d) Is the proposed deviation off-road and of sufficient distance from a road not to diminish the amenity

value of the route? ( if yes, else ). e) Is safety compromised? ( if no, else ). f) Can design standards can be maintained? ( if yes, else ). g) Does the proposed deviation adversely impact on landowners who are on or adjacent to the route

being proposed by landowner? ( if no, else ). Having satisfied the criteria a) to g) each was then assessed under the same methodology as for locations where there was an obstruction on the former railway line. Chainage: 960 – 1,180 Result: Consider off track options - Location 4

a) Is the proposed route environmentally acceptable?

Based on a high level assessment, the route appears to be acceptable but would need to be subject to a more detailed assessment to confirm this is the case. It lies adjacent to Valencia Harbour/Portmagee Channel SAC lies on its northern side but does not appear to encroach on it. The route traverses agricultural grassland and doesn’t encroach on the shoreline. There are no dwellings nearby.

b) If the amenity value of the route is not diminished or improved?

The amenity value is not diminished by the proposed deviation. The route would move closer to the coastline on a line parallel to the existing railway track at a distance varying up to 20m from the existing line.

c) Does the proposed deviation re-join the original rail line?

Yes, the deviation would rejoin the line. The start point is not on the existing track as the western side of the proposed deviation is the end point of an adjacent deviation which is to avoid an obstruction on the track.

d) Is the proposed deviation off-road and of sufficient distance from a road not to diminish the amenity value of the route?

The proposed deviation is off road and would not be any closer to a road. The amenity value is of the greenway would not diminished.

e) Is safety compromised?

Safety would not be compromised, adequate sight lines and gradients are available. The proposed route can comply with RCD 2017 requirements.

f) Can design standards can be maintained?

Yes, design standards can be maintained and the proposed deviation can comply with the requirements of RCD 2017.

g) Does the proposed deviation adversely impact on landowners who are on or adjacent to the route being proposed by landowner?

No, there is no adverse impact on adjacent landowners. The greenway is further away from a residential dwelling to the west. It rejoins the line within the single holding of the landowner.




Chainage: 2,030 – 2,260 Result: Stay on track


The proposed alternative route traverses the Valencia River Estuary pNHA. In order to avoid entering the pNHA it will be necessary to remain on the line.


The amenity value is not diminished by the proposed deviation. The route would move closer to the coastline.


Yes, the deviation would rejoin the line. The start point is not on the existing track as the western side of the proposed deviation is the end point of an adjacent deviation which is to avoid an obstruction on the track.


The proposed deviation is off road and would not be any closer to a road. The amenity value is of the greenway would not diminished.


Safety would not be compromised, adequate sight lines and gradients are available. The proposed route can comply with RCD 2017 requirements.




No, there is no adverse impact on adjacent landowners. It rejoins the line within the single holding of the landowner.






No. It traverses the Valencia River Estuary pNHA while not protected under the Wildlife Act is afforded protection under the KCDP 2015-2021. The route supports saltmarsh habitat, one of the habitats for which the site is proposed, and thus would directly impact on this valuable habitat. The route lies adjacent to a caravan park.


The amenity value is not diminished.


Yes, it rejoins the original line.


The proposed deviation would not diminish the amenity value of the route.


Safety would not be compromised, adequate sight lines and gradients are available. However wide radius bends would be required on the line. The proposed route could can with RCD 2017 requirements.




No, there is no adverse impact on adjacent landowners. It rejoins the line within the single holding of the landowner.




Chainage: 2,940 – 3,210 Result: Consider off track options - Location 6


Based on a high level assessment, the route appears to be acceptable but would need to be subject to a more detailed assessment to confirm this is the case. It lies adjacent to the Valencia River Estuary pNHA while not protected under the Wildlife Act is afforded protection under the KCDP 2015-2021. The route lies along improved agricultural grassland with some scattered scrub, and these are not habitats for which the site is proposed for designation. The route also lies adjacent to saltmarsh habitat to the north, a habitat which the site is proposed for designation and is a valuable habitat; however, the route does not appear to encroach on this habitat. The route lies close to one dwelling.


The amenity value would not be diminished by this proposed deviation. The proposed route would move closer to the coastline.


Yes, the deviation would rejoin the line. The start point and end point of the proposed deviation are on the existing track.


The proposed deviation is off road and would not be any closer to a road. The amenity value would not be diminished.


Safety would not be compromised, adequate sight lines and gradients are available along the deviation. A geometric option could be developed along the indicative polyline which can comply with RCD 2017.


Yes, design standards can be maintained and the propose deviation and could comply with the requirements of RCD 2017.


No, there is no adverse impact on adjacent landowners. The proposed deviation would rejoin the line within the holding of the landowner.






Based on a high level assessment, the route appears to be acceptable but would need to be subject to a more detailed assessment to confirm this is the case. It lies adjacent to the Valencia River Estuary pNHA while not protected under the Wildlife Act is afforded protection under the KCDP 2015-2021. The route lies along improved agricultural grassland for the most part with some wet grassland. The pNHA is proposed for damp grassland but the wet grassland along the route is not encompassed by the site. The route lies close to a small number of dwellings.


The amenity value will not be diminished by the proposed deviation. The route would move closer to the coastline and its amenity value would not diminished.


Yes, the proposed deviation would rejoin the original line.


The proposed deviation is off road and would not be any closer to the road. The amenity value would not be diminished.


Safety would not be compromised. Adequate sight distances and gradients are available and a geometric option complying with RCD 2017 can be developed.


Yes, design standards can be maintained and the deviation can comply with the requirements of RCD 2017.


No, there is no adverse impact on adjacent landowners. It rejoins the line within the aggregated holding of the landowners who have suggested the option for consideration.




Chainage: 6,740 -9,330 Result: Stay on track


Based on a high level assessment, the route appears to be acceptable but would need to be subject to a more detailed assessment to confirm this is the case. While much of the route is along local road, some traverses agricultural grassland with some wet grassland and scrub, habitats of local value. However, the route travels to the rear of a couple of properties, which might impinge on their residential amenity and make the route less acceptable.


The suggested route is parallel to a local road. The road is quiet and it could be taken as not diminishing the amenity value.


The proposed option did not have the agreement of all the effected landowners and consequently did not rejoin the original line. Without full agreement it was not possible to rejoin the original line from any suggested departure point.


Though the option would bring the route adjacent to the local road the impact would not be significant given the low use of the road. It is unlikely to diminish the amenity value.


Safety would not be compromised. Adequate sight distances and gradients are available and a geometric option complying with RCD 2017 can be developed.


Yes, design standards can be maintained and the deviation can comply with the requirements of RCD 2017. Some wider radius bends would be required.


Yes, there are two residential properties that would have the greenway on three sides – these properties are not adjacent to the original line.






Based on a high level assessment, the route appears to be acceptable. Much of the land on either side is used for agricultural though much of it is marginal. Both sides of the road support semi-natural habitat. A few residences lie adjacent the road more so on the north but these could be avoided by using the southern route for the most part.


The suggested options have a line on the north or south of the N70. Such a route would diminish the amenity value of the route given its length parallel to the road approximately 1,500m and the busy nature of the N70.


No, there was no connection point suggested on the western side of the option. Despite requesting a location where the alternative route would connect ot the greenway no connection point was suggested other than using the local road. This would seriously undermine the amenity and safety aspects of the greenway.


The option is not off road as it uses the local roadway on the western side. It also runs parallel to the N70 for approximately 1,500m. Amenity value would be diminished.


Safety standard can be complied with as the on-road section is a local road. Crossing of the N70 would require an underpass.


Yes, design standards can be maintained.


There are a number of properties effected by the option that would not be by remaining on the original line.






Based on a high level assessment, the route appears to be acceptable but would need to be subject to a more detailed assessment to confirm this is the case. The land use is considered marginal agricultural supporting semi-natural habitats. There are no dwellings nearby.


The amenity value would not be diminished by the proposed deviation. The route would move to an adjacent line parallel to the existing.


Yes, the proposed deviation rejoins the original line.


The proposed deviation is off road and not any closer to the road. The amenity value would not be diminished.


Safety would not be compromised. Adequate sight distances and gradients are available and a geometric option in compliance with RCD 2017 can be developed.


Yes, design standards can be maintained and the proposed deviation could comply with the requirements of RCD 2017.


No, there would be no adverse impact on adjacent landowners. The proposed deviation would rejoin the line within the holding of the landowner who has suggested the option for consideration.






Based on a high level assessment, the route appears to be acceptable but would need to be subject to a more detailed assessment to confirm this is the case. The land use is considered agricultural possible supporting limited area of semi-natural habitats. There are no dwellings nearby.


The amenity value would not diminished by the proposed deviation. The proposed route would move to a line parallel and adjacent to the existing.


Yes, the proposed deviation would rejoins the original line.




Safety would not be compromised. Adequate sight distances and gradients are available. A geometric option in compliance with RCD 2017 can be developed.




No, there is no adverse impact on adjacent landowners. The proposed deviation rejoins the line within the holding of the landowner who has suggested the option for consideration.






Based on a high level assessment, the route appears to be acceptable but would need to be subject to a more detailed assessment to confirm this is the case. The land use is agricultural possible supporting limited area of semi-natural habitats. It lies close to a couple of properties with possible effects on residential amenity.


The amenity value would not be diminished by the proposed deviation. The route would move to a line parallel and adjacent to the existing line.




The proposed deviation is off road and would not be any closer to the road. The amenity value would not be diminished.




Yes, design standards could be maintained and the proposed deviation could comply with the requirements of RCD 2017.


No, there would be no adverse impact on adjacent landowners. It rejoins the line within the holding of the landowner who has suggested the proposed deviation for consideration.






Based on a high level assessment, the route may or may not be acceptable depending on the landtake along the N70. The land use is bog and scrub, with the latter habitat evident along the road margin. If the route encroached on the marginal scrub that may be acceptable, however, if it were to encroach significantly onto the bog that would be potentially unacceptable. There are no dwellings nearby.


The option would require a line running parallel to the N70 for 350m approximately. This would reduce the amenity value.


Yes it would rejoin the original line.


The amenity value would be diminished by the route being parallel to the N70.






No there is no adverse impact.






Based on a high level assessment, the route appears to be acceptable but would need to be subject to a more detailed assessment to confirm this is the case. The land use is agricultural supporting some semi-natural habitats. One property lies to the west.


The amenity value would not be diminished by the proposed deviation. The proposed route would move to a line parallel to the east of the existing.






Safety would not be compromised. Adequate sight distances and gradients are available. A geometric option in compliance with RCD 2017 can be developed.




No, there would be no adverse impact on adjacent landowners. It would rejoin the line within the holding of the landowner who has suggested the option for consideration.






Based on a high level assessment, the route appears to be acceptable but would need to be subject to a more detailed assessment to confirm this is the case. It traverses agricultural grassland with elements of scrub and lies close to a few of properties.


The amenity value is not diminished by the proposed deviation. The route follows the local roadway further away from the N70 for a short distance before crossing.


Yes, the deviation rejoins the original line.


The deviation is off road and not any closer to the road. The amenity value is not diminished.


Safety is not compromised. This crossing point provides adequate sight distances and gradients to facilitate a safe crossing point (the point on the line of the original line has a restricted line of sight).




No, there is no adverse impact on adjacent landowners.






Based on a high level assessment, the route appears to be acceptable but would need to be subject to a more detailed assessment to confirm this is the case. It traverses agricultural grassland and lies close to at least one property.


The amenity would be diminished if part of the route was adjacent to the N70


No the proposal is to go to the N70 but a line to the N70 and return has not been identified by the proposer.


The proposal (assuming that a return length is possible) would be closer and adjacent to the N70. Amenity would be diminished.


Safety would not be compromised but large radius bends would be required (assuming the line runs parallel to the N70 and returns to the tie-in point).




Yes as the proposal runs outside the current landowners holding and the option is not fully identified.






Based on a high level assessment, the route appears to be acceptable but would need to be subject to a more detailed assessment to confirm this is the case. It crosses a tributary of the River Behy. It traverses improved and marginal agricultural grassland. The river separates the route from the nearest properties.


The amenity value would not be diminished by the proposed deviation. The route would move to a line parallel and adjacent to the existing line.


No, the proposed deviation would have to join the local roadway due to an obstruction on the eastern side of the proposed deviation.


The proposed deviation is off road and not any closer to the road. The amenity value is not diminished.


Safety would not be compromised. Adequate sight distances and gradients are available. A geometric alignment can be developed consistent with RCD 2017.




No, there is no adverse impact on adjacent landowners. The proposed deviation rejoins the line within the holding of the landowner who suggested the proposed deviation for consideration on the western side and the local roadway on the eastern side.




Table 5-5: Summary of individual assessment for off track option This table summarises the screening assessment of locations where there is no obstruction on the original line but where alternatives have been proposed by the landowner.

Criteria → Chainage ↓

a b c d e f g Stay on

track

Consider off track

Reference Location

Ch 960 – 1,180 Yes 4

Ch 2,030 – 2,260 Yes --

Ch 2,820 – 2,940 Yes --

Ch 2,940 – 3,210 Yes 6

Ch 5,360 – 6,430 Yes 7

Ch 6,740 – 9,330 Yes --

Ch 10,100 – 13,600 Yes --

Ch 10,275 – 10,535 Yes 12

Ch 11,695 – 11,980 Yes 13

Ch 12,750 – 12,800 Yes 14

Ch 15,450 – 16,220 Yes --

Ch 17,400 – 17,620 Yes 21

Ch 25,810 – 25,920 Yes 26

Ch 27,190 – 27,270 Yes --

Ch 28,050 – 28,550 Yes 29

Nine locations are considered suitable for further assessment (see Table 5.6). A number of options have been developed for each of these locations. Each of the options is now assessed against the Engineering, Environment, Economic and Safety criteria and these assessments are summarised in the following table. Table 5-6: Assessment of Options at Locations where there are no obstructions on the

former railway line

Location 4, Chainage 960-1,180, Drawing No 229-207 – Preferred option is Option 2

The engineering assessment confirms that option 1 is preferred as it only requires one bend as opposed to two for option 2. Each option meets the requirements of RCD 2017. There are no other differences between both options from an engineering perspective. Overall option 1 is the preferred option from an engineering perspective. The environmental assessment indicates that option 1 is slightly preferred when considering ecology as it’s further from an SAC. The report notes that both options will result in loss of similar habitat and that option 2 is also acceptable. Option 2 is preferred under agriculture. Economically option 1 is the preferred option due to its shorter distance. The safety audit indicates that there is a slight preference to option 1 over option 2 at this location but as stated there is little to choose between them. There is a marginal preference for option 1 on all criteria however option 2 does allow for mitigation of the impact of severance.




The differences under each criterion when assessed are slight and are outweighed by the distinct advantage in option 2 of being able to avoid unnecessary severance without impacting negatively on the route. On balance option 2 is the preferred route option.

Location 6, Chainage 2,940 – 3,210, Drawing 229-209 – Preferred Option is Option 2

Option 1 is preferred from a geometric perspective. Both options satisfy the requirements of RCD 2017 however option 1 has less bends. The environmental assessment indicates that option 1 is preferred under agriculture, ecology and archaeology. The agricultural preference is based upon less loss of agricultural land. Ecologically option 1 is slightly preferred as it is further from the pNHA however the report notes that option 2 is also acceptable. Archaeologically option 1 is on already disturbed ground so there is no potential impact, option 2 is in an area where there is potential to encounter sub-surface features hence the preference. The economic assessment indicates that Option 1 is preferable as it is a shorter distance. The safety assessment indicates that there is little to choose between both options with option 1 being slightly preferred. On balance taking specific account of the relative impact of severance versus the slight differences between both options in terms of safety, environment and engineering and the preference of the landowner option 2 is the preferred option.

Location 7, Chainage 5,360 - 6,430, Drawing 229-210, 211, 213 – Preferred Option is Option 3

The engineering assessment indicate that option 1 and 2 are preferred from a geometric perspective with option 3 being intermediate. Option 3 is preferred under drainage and options 1 and 2 preferred under geometry and construction logistics due to their relative length (being shorter than option 3). The environmental assessment indicates that option 3 is the preferred under agriculture criteria as it results in less land severance. Option 1 is preferred under archaeology due to less potential for unrecorded features. Option 1 is also preferred from an ecology perspective as it is further from a pNHA and results in less loss of habitat however the other options are also acceptable. The economic assessment confirms that option 1 is the preferred option with option 2 being intermediate and option 3 being least preferred. The safety audit indicates that option 3 is slightly preferred to options 1 and 2 at this location. On balance option 3 is the preferred option. It is marginally preferred from a safety perspective. Its intermediate engineering ranking is due to a large radius bend (that satisfies RCD 2017), it does not present any difficulties in construction. It is the least preferred from an economic perspective due to its additional length and is broadly equal on environmental criteria. The relative significance of its reduced impact on the operation of the land holdings from a severance and agricultural practice perspective is important. The line is adjacent to the water as it comes over the river and continuing adjacent to the water minimises the impact on agricultural practices, this is the preference of the effected landowners and is noted in the environmental report. The option of bringing the line adjacent to the public road would have a greater impact on agricultural practices as it would require numerous agricultural access crossing points. This would also reduce the rural nature of the cycleway by bringing it adjacent to the public road traffic.


Option 1 is currently used as a farm access track. This takes advantage of the existing railway bed construction which provides an excellent road base suited for farm machinery and livestock.

From an engineering perspective option 1 is the preferred as it remains on the existing railway track bed. Both options are preferred under geometry, drainage and utilities. Option 2 has an intermediate rating under construction logistics due to the need to import the foundation layers.




Option 1 is the preferred option from an environmental perspective under ecology, hydrology, archaeology and landscape. The broad basis for the preference is that option 1 remains on the original track, however option 2 is acceptable from an ecology perspective. Under hydrology option 1 will use an existing culvert and option 2 would require a new culvert hence the preference for option 1. On archaeology option 1 remains on already disturbed lands which is the reason for the preference. The economic assessment indicates that option 1 is the preferred option with option 2 being least preferred due to the requirement to import the foundation layers. The safety assessment indicates that there is little to choose between the two options. The differences in engineering and environment are marginal and taken on-the-whole both options are broadly equal. The landowner has a preference for option 2 and as it does not pose any significant negative impact or difficultly it is taken as the preferred option given the general equivalence between both options when considered in detail in the first instance. Taking the above into consideration option 2 is the preferred option.


Option 1 is currently used as a farm access track. This takes advantage of the existing railway bed construction which provides an excellent road base suited for farm machinery and livestock. From an engineering perspective option 1 is preferred as it remains on the existing railway track bed. Both options are preferred under geometry, drainage and utilities however option 2 has an intermediate rating under construction logistics due to the need to import the foundation layers. Option 1 is the preferred option from an environmental perspective under ecology, hydrology, archaeology and landscape. The broad basis for the preference is that option 1 remains on the original track, however option 2 is acceptable from an ecology perspective. Option 1 will use an existing culvert and option 2 would require a new culvert hence the preference for option 1 under hydrology. On archaeology option 1 remains on already disturbed lands which is the reason for the preference. The economic assessment indicates that option 1 is the preferred option with option 2 being least preferred due to the requirement to import the foundation layers. The safety assessment indicates that there is little to choose between the two options. The differences in engineering and environmental consideration are marginal and taken on-the-whole both options are broadly equal. The landowner has a preference for option 2 and as it does not pose any significant negative impact or difficultly it is taken as the preferred option given the general equivalence between both options when considered in detail in the first instance. Taking the above into consideration option 2 is on balance the preferred option.

Location 14, Chainage 12,750 – 12,800, Drawing 229-221– Preferred Option is Option 2

Option 1 is currently used as a farm access track. This takes advantage of the existing railway bed construction which provides an excellent road base suited for farm machinery and livestock.

From an engineering perspective option 1 is the preferred as it remains on the existing railway track bed. Both options are preferred under geometry, drainage and utilities however option 2 has an intermediate rating under construction logistics due to the need to import the foundation layers. Environmentally option 1 is the slightly preferred option under hydrology as it uses an existing culvert and option 2 would require a new culvert. Both options are equal on all other criteria.

The economic assessment indicates that option 1 is the preferred option with option 2 being least preferred due to the requirement to import the foundation layers. The safety assessment indicates that there is little to choose between the two options.

The differences in engineering and environment are marginal and taken on-the-whole both options are broadly equal. The landowner has a preference for option 2 and as it does not pose any significant negative impact or difficultly it is taken as the preferred option given the general equivalence between both options when considered in detail in the first instance. Taking the above into consideration option 2 is on balance the preferred option.





Option 1 is adjacent to an existing well that serves a number of dwellings to the west of the N70 which is a particular matter of concern for the landowner.

The engineering assessment indicates that all options are preferred with the exception of construction logistics being intermediate for option 2 and least preferred for option 3. There is more cut required for option 3 relative to other options which makes it a least preferred option in this regard though this doesn’t present a difficultly in its own right. There is smaller cut and fill requirement for option 2 which makes it intermediate relative to option 1.

Environmentally option 1 is preferred under agriculture, archaeology and landscape with option 3 being preferred under visuals and human environment.

Economically option 1 is preferred with option 2 and 3 being intermediate and least preferred respectively. The difference in ranking is reflective of the increased construction cost of the options.

The safety audit indicates that options 1 and 2 are slightly preferred over option 3 due to being shorter and fewer changes in direction though it is noted in the report that there is little to choose from a road safety point of view between the options.

Option 3 is the preferred option. Its less favourable rankings on economics and engineering are directly related to the requirement for additional cut along the option during construction. It is a preferred environmental option and is equal on safety. It is also the preference of the landowner given the location of the existing well.

On balance option 3 is the preferred option.

Location 26, Chainage 25,810 – 25,920, Drawing 229-241 – Preferred Option is Option 2a

The engineering assessment indicates that option 2a is preferable from an engineering perspective being preferred on geometry all other criteria being equal.

Environmentally option 2a is preferred under human environment and visual with option 1a being preferred under archaeology.

The economic assessment indicates that option 1a is intermediate to option 2a which is preferred. The safety assessment indicates that option 2a is preferred to option 1a as it further removed from a bend with poor visibility.

Option 2a is the preferred route.

Location 29, Chainage 28,050 – 28,550, Drawing 229-246, 247, 248 – Preferred Option is Option 2

Option 1 is currently used as a farm access track. This takes advantage of the existing railway bed construction which provides an excellent road base suited for farm machinery and livestock. The farm track has field gate access points on both sides of the track.

The engineering assessment indicates that all the options are preferred from a geometric, drainage and utilities/services perspective. Option 2 and 3 have a fill requirement above that of option 1 on the eastern side of the over pass due to this construction logistics consideration both have an intermediate rating.

The environmental assessment indicates that option 1 is preferred under agriculture, hydrology, ecology, archaeology, landscape and visuals. It is noted that the other options are also acceptable (under ecology) or that the preference is based upon using an already disturbed corridor. The preference under hydrology for option 1 refers to it not requiring a new stream crossing. All options are equal on the remaining criteria of human environment, soils, geology and hydrogeology, noise, air quality and material assets.

It is noted in the environmental report that the preference from an agricultural point of view is due to the route being located along the existing line which minimises loss of productive land.




However, there are other considerations which have been highlighted by the landowner which will have a significant impact in relation to efficiently working the landholding.

A particular consideration arises due to the existing line entering a deep cut at original chainage 28,400 approximately and continuing under the overpass to the east (after which is the point where all the options turn northwards to join the local road).

If option 1 is used for the greenway (stay on the existing line) then access to the farm fields on both sides will have to be provided from a new farm access track. In this instance gate access to the fields on either side will require either an overpass at each location, the provision of a farm access route on both sides of the greenway or additional areas of cut to get the necessary levels and widths for the gate access to cross at grade on the greenway and rise again on the far side (the existing gates to the fields on both sides are not opposite each other). The first option would incur significant additional cost and footprint, the second is not practical due to the additional loss of agricultural land and the final option will require additional lands at each access point to allow for the approach in the areas of cut to be widened to achieve the necessary levels. Consequently, from the perspective of efficiently working the farm holding either option 2 or 3 is preferred over option 1 (only access widening on one side is required for this option).

The economic assessment indicates that option 1 is preferred with option 2 and 3 being least preferred. This preference reflects the additional works associated with these options relative to option 1, namely the foundation layers to the west of the overpass and the additional fill on the eastern side of the options. Option 2 has a higher cost that option 3. This is due to the additional 150m off road section that is part of option 2 (option 3 is on road for this section).

The safety assessment indicates that option 3 is least preferred with the other options being considered equal.

On balance, even though option 2 is not the most economic, it is preferred as it minimises the on-road requirement. It is equivalent to the other options on the engineering assessment. It is a preferred option from a safety perspective. It is marginally less preferred to option 1 environmentally due in-the-main to it being not on the original track. However, it has a distinct advantage in supporting the efficient working of the farm holding on both sides of the existing track. Option 2 is therefore the preferred option.




5.5 References

i Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, (May 2017) Public Consultation Paper on Strategy for the Future Development of Greenways, available at: http://www.smartertravel.ie/sites/default/files/uploads/2017_05_19%20Publication%20Version_0.pdf

http://www.smartertravel.ie/sites/default/files/uploads/2017_05_19%20Publication%20Version_0.pdf

kerry county council environmental impact...

Documents