Slane Traffic Management Study. Stage 2: Project Appraisal of HGV Restriction in Slane

Transcription

1 Meath County Council May 2013

2 SLANE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STUDY STAGE 2: PROJECT APPRAISAL OF HGV RESTRICTION IN SLANE TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction Overview Background Project Context Identification of Need Policy Review Project Objectives The Preferred Option Scheme Design Scheme Costing Alternatives Considered Analysis Tools Traffic Modelling Tools Economic Appraisal Tools Scheme Appraisal Approach to Scheme Appraisal Scheme Impacts Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) Project Appraisal Balance Sheet (PABS) Comparison against Project Objectives Risk Assessment General Appendix A Page 2

3 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Overview This report details the Project Appraisal undertaken on a proposed HGV Ban in Slane which is located on the N2 National Route. This report follows the guidance set out in NRA Project Appraisal Guidance Unit 14: Non-Major Schemes, which sets out the project appraisal requirements for schemes with a value of between 0.5m and 5m. The purpose of this report is to assess the need and demand for the proposed works, present the preferred design, outline the costs and analyse the benefits of the scheme. 1.2 Background The basis for the proposed N2 Slane Bypass arose out of the high volume of goods vehicle traffic which was traversing the town via the N2 and the resulting road safety problems on the N2 through Slane Village. The problems in the village centre were broadly acknowledged; noise and air quality issues resulting from goods vehicle activity, and exacerbated by the steep gradient leading out to the north and the south of the town. The safety issue was particularly notable, with a number of incidents occurring in the town centre in recent years. In 2001, a Traffic Management Scheme was implemented in Slane to address the significant road safety issues that existed. The scheme complemented the existing shuttle system across Slane Bridge and included the implementation of advanced traffic signals which provided priority to light vehicles, and associated signage. This scheme did lead to a safety improvement, but at significant journey time cost to non-goods vehicles. The proposed N2 Slane Bypass was intended to act as a long term solution to the existing issues in addition to the existing traffic management measures. By removing a large volume of goods vehicle traffic from the town centre, the scheme would provide significant safety and environmental improvements to residents of the town, in addition to journey time savings for road users. Following the preparation of the proposed N2 Slane Bypass Scheme and its submission for planning approval, the scheme was refused planning consent by An Bórd Pleanála in March In its report, An Bórd suggested that the need for a bypass of the town had not been demonstrated, and that lower cost management measures which would achieve the desired outcomes had not been fully explored. The findings are summarised below; Due to the location of the bypass in the viewshed of Brú na Bóinne, An Bórd Pleanála considered that the proposed bypass would be acceptable only where it has been demonstrated that no appropriate alternative is available. Following on from the submissions received and the oral evidence given during the Oral Hearing, An Bórd was not satisfied that alternatives to a bypass have been adequately explored. In this context, they considered that: The proposed development would have a detrimental impact on the setting of the Brú na Boinne archaeological complex which would be contrary to the Page 3

4 heritage protection provisions of the County Development Plan and that The bypass would be contrary to proper planning and sustainable development, as it would tend to undermine the investments that had been made improving the M1 and M3 corridors, and would have negative implications for the quality of the environment and road safety along the N2 route. Whilst it was accepted that the Slane Bypass would assist in alleviating the high traffic levels in the village in a north-south direction it would not impact upon the east-west traffic. An Bórd also reported that the scheme was: likely to attract additional traffic, including a substantial proportion of additional heavy commercial vehicles onto the single carriageway N2 along its length, and through the settlements of Collon and Ardee An Bórd also reported its conclusion that the proposed Slane Bypass would undermine public investment given the current configuration of the overall national road network in the region, and that alternatives to a bypass had not been fully explored. An Bórd went on to state that although it has no role in developing regional transport policy or the implementation of a traffic management system they suggested that traffic management in the form of a HGV ban merited more investigation. An Bórd stated that potential negative impacts for local business would need to be considered as would potential improvements on alternative routes to alleviate safety concerns. An Bórd concluded that traffic management alternatives might align well with the principles of proper planning and sustainable development, and ought to be given further consideration. As a consequence of the refusal of the scheme, AECOM has been requested by Meath County Council to prepare a study that would assess the impact of various levels of goods vehicle restriction through Slane Village : Stage 1 The : Stage 1 (2012) was prepared by AECOM on behalf of Meath County Council. The study assessed the impact of seven possible scenarios for goods vehicle restrictions through Slane Village, ranging from restrictions on 3 axle vehicles up to 5+ axle vehicles. Note that the terminology for vehicle restrictions is based on axle numbers, with 5+ referring to vehicles with 5 axles or greater. The data analysis highlighted that approximately 20% of goods vehicle traffic across Slane Bridge could be considered traffic that was using the N2 to avoid the M1. A further 25% was legitimate N2 traffic travelling between Ardee/Monaghan and either Ashbourne or onwards to the Greater Dublin Area. It is considered that a high proportion of this 25% could be encouraged to transfer to the M1 under the right conditions Following a detailed analysis of alternatives, it is concluded that, of the options considered, the implementation of 5 axle restrictions on Slane Bridge represents the most manageable approach for implementing vehicle size restrictions through Slane village. Nevertheless, this proposal brings with it a number of notable adverse impacts: Page 4

5 It leads to an increase in goods vehicle traffic using the R152, R168 and R153 as an alternative to the N2 via Slane; It leads to a reduction in network efficiency as drivers seek longer routes to avoid the restricted area and; It reduces strategic accessibility for 5 axle heavy vehicles between Ashbourne and the M1/Monaghan which is currently available via the N2 corridor. The study was presented to the Elected Representatives of Meath Council on 5 th November Further to this, AECOM was requested by Meath County Council to undertake a project appraisal on the preferred option of a 5+ axle restriction on Slane Bridge. Figure 1.1 Road Network Page 5

6 2.0 Project Context 2.1 Identification of Need Surveys undertaken in May 2012 showed that Slane Village currently caters for traffic flows of over 13,000 vehicles per day. The surveys found that over 9% of the vehicles travelling through the village are Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV) and a further 11% are Light Goods Vehicles (LGV). Slane Bridge itself experiences a traffic flow in the region of 7,000 vehicles per day of which 12% are Heavy Goods Vehicles. Table 2.1 highlights the existing traffic composition on the approach routes to Slane village with the LGV/HGV percentage significantly higher on the N2 than on the N51. Table Slane Village Traffic Survey Findings Location Cars LGV HGV N2 North of Slane 75% 12% 13% N2 South of Slane 76% 12% 12% N51 West of Slane 86% 9% 5% N51 East of Slane 88% 8% 4% Slane Village Overall 80% 11% 9% Examining the full study area, it was possible to develop a picture of the size and class of vehicles using the road network in the vicinity of Slane. Table 2.2 outlines vehicle categories, number of axles, and the contribution of each to total goods vehicle volumes. Table 2.2 Origin Destination Survey - Vehicle Classification Results Total Daily Daily Flow Daily Vehicle Category Axles Flows in through Flow on Survey Slane Slane Area Village Bridge HGV1 General LGV % 25.8% 23.7% HGV2 Retail LGV 3 1.9% 1.2% 1.8% HGV3 Construction/ Heavy Goods 3 1.0% 1.1% 0.7% HGV4 Other Vehicles 3 3.5% 1.9% 2.7% HGV5 Construction/ Heavy Goods 4 8.1% 9.0% 9.0% HGV 6 General Distribution/Retail Freight % 53.0% 52.1% HGV 7 Liquid Transporter (Non Fuel) 5 1.6% 0.5% 1.1% HGV 8 Liquid Transporter (Fuel) 5 0.4% 0.1% 0.2% HGV 9 Shipping Container 5 3.7% 1.1% 1.8% HGV 10 Automotive 5 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% BUS1 2 Axle Bus 2 4.2% 4.1% 4.6% BUS2-3 Axle Bus 3 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% HGV11 Other Vehicles 4 1.8% 2.2% 2.2% The survey found that the most common type of Goods Vehicle in the survey area is the general distribution 5-axle HGV (see HGV 6 in Figure 2.1 below) which accounts for 47% of Goods Vehicles on a daily basis. Construction traffic accounted for over 9%, buses for a further 4% and shipping container/liquid transport a further 5%. The remaining Goods Vehicles were smaller Page 6

7 general and retail Goods Vehicles. This highlights the dominance of large 5-axle Goods Vehicles travelling through the Slane area. Figure 2.1 Goods Vehicles used in Survey Classification The existing N2 route passes through Slane village in a north-south direction as it descends from high ground adjoining Slane Hill to cross the River Boyne Valley at a much lower level. The route descends some 80m over a short distance of 1km, which leads to an average gradient of 8%, which exceeds the recommended maximum gradient of 6% for a single carriageway road. The steep road gradient is a significant contributory factor to the traffic safety problems in Slane. Further major safety problems arise at Slane Bridge over the River Boyne, where the road alignment involves very sharp corners at the bottom of steep hills at both ends of the bridge. This bridge is too narrow for two-way traffic, and a shuttle traffic signal system manages the flow in alternate directions. Inherent traffic hazards arise from the seriously deficient road layout at the bridge, and this has led to frequent accidents due to loss of control mainly by trucks. Following the most recent fatal accident at this location in 2001, a major road safety scheme was constructed in 2002, which involves separate signal control of light traffic and trucks with a holding point in a safer location further up the hill where there is enough width for a virtual escape lane for runaway trucks. In 2009 high skid resistant surfaces were reapplied on various road sections around Slane however residual safety issues still remain due to the layout and topography of the area as evident by the occurrence of a multi vehicle accident in Page 7

8 2.2 Policy Review The N2 National Primary Route is a strategic corridor connecting Dublin with Northern Ireland and the border counties. The National Spatial Strategy identifies Monaghan as a Hub which is defined as: An important local node in transportation and communication terms: (a) on the national road and rail or bus networks, (b) with access to a national or regional airport (c) having adequate, reliable, cost effective and efficient access to port facilities (d) with effective and competitive broadband access In this regard, the N2 is seen as key to supporting the intended function of Monaghan as a designated Hub. In addition, the route operates as a key National Primary route connecting Northern Ireland to Dublin and services the towns of Ardee and Ashbourne. 2.3 Project Objectives Objectives have been developed to reflect the identified need for the project as well as the objectives of local and national transport policy. The objectives have been defined in Table 2.3: Table Project Objectives Objective Safety Environment Economy Accessibility Integration To improve traffic safety; To improve air quality in Slane Village and other populated areas; To reduce transport emissions; To maximise the efficiency of the transport network; and To protect the accessibility of rural areas to designated Gateways, including the Greater Dublin Area To support government plans and policies in relation to transport and spatial development in the study area Measured by Aggregate PAG collision estimates based on road type Volume of goods vehicles through populated areas Total Vehicle kilometres travelled on the road network Total Vehicle hours travelled on the road network Impact on routing of restricted vehicles Adherence of scheme with policy The scheme appraisal will include a multi-criteria assessment against the objectives set out above on the basis of the indicators outlined. Page 8

9 3.0 The Preferred Option 3.1 Scheme Design The proposed works comprise the introduction of a 5+ Axle HGV Ban on Slane Bridge as per Figure 3.1 below. Broadboyne Bridge is a single lane crossing situated to the west of Slane on a minor road with limited traffic flows. A 5+ Axle HGV Ban may be required on this bridge also to prevent traffic diverting onto unsuitable roads. A detailed signage drawing and road layout of the scheme is included in Appendix A of this report. Figure 3.1 Proposed 5+ Axle HGV Ban on Slane Bridge The analysis found that the proposed scheme would remove a significant proportion of HGV s from Slane Village resulting in some benefits to users in terms of travel times and safety. Full detailed drawings of associated signage and turnaround facilities are included in Appendix A of this report. 3.2 Scheme Costing Following on from the detailed analysis undertaken in the Slane Traffic Management Report it was found that the proposed HGV Ban leads to some significant diversion of HGV s onto the R153, R152 and R168. Site visits were undertaken as part of this study to investigate the suitability of these roads to cater for diverted HGV traffic. The site visits found that the R168 was of reasonable standard but not considered to be of the same standard as R152 and R153 and therefore the signage strategy associated with the scheme has been developed to direct HGVs arriving to Slane from north to divert via the N51 National Secondary Road instead. The R153 was of reasonable quality and alignment to cater for HGV traffic in terms of pavement quality and road alignment however due to the volumes of diverted HGV s along the R152 the road would require additional base layer depth to be laid on the entire length of the road between the N2 and Page 9

10 M1 to cater for the additional HGV axle loading. The additional cost associated with the upgrade of the R152 in the form of thickening the base layer was therefore included in the scheme costs. It should be noted that the R152 has been included as the main diversion route for HGV s travelling to/from locations south of Slane as set out in the proposed signage plan. The N2 experiences a reduction in traffic however it has been assumed the carriageway will be maintained to the standard of a National Primary, therefore there will be no savings in the future in terms of maintenance costs. To establish the extra base layer thickness required on the R152 the DMRB Vol 7 Section 2 Pavement Design and Construction Part 1 HD 24/06 and NRA Addendum to HD 24/06 Pavement Design and Maintenance Traffic Assessment have been used. The pavement traffic loading, in terms of Million Standard Axles (MSA) has been calculated in accordance with Table 2.4a for the Calculation of Design Traffic of the NRA DMRB HD 24/06. The required thickness has been applied as per the Figure 4.2 Design Chart for fully flexible pavement of the NRA DMRB TD 25-26/10 Pavement and Foundation Design. Future traffic growth on the R152 was based on NRA Link Growth Rates for the Meath area assuming Medium Growth Forecasts as set out in PAG Unit 5.5. For the purpose of costing it has been assumed that, as a result of the 47% increase in HGV traffic, the R152 will require an additional 55mm layer of Road Base. In addition, it has been assumed that anti skid surfacing will be required adjacent to key junctions and bends to ensure safety for all users. It has been assumed that anti skid surfacing will be required over 2km of the 14.7 km road. The NRA Roadworks Unit Rate Database Version 6 of May 2011 was used to establish the costs, which are presented in Table 3.1. Table 3.1 Cost Estimates Item Unit Rate excl VAT Road Base Dense Bitumen Macadam with 28 mm aggregate, Roadbase 55mm thick in roadway M Anti-Skid surfacing M Scheme costs have been estimated as follows: Table Scheme Cost Item Ex VAT VAT Rate Including VAT HGV Ban Signage Installation Signs 86,050 23% 105,842 Traffic Management 12, % 14,650 Preliminaries & Contingencies 8, % 9,767 Construction of HGV Turning Area 70, % 79,450 R152 Additional Base Layer Costs 970, % 1,100,950 R152 Anti Skid Surfacing 700, % 794,500 Total Cost 1,847,562 2,105, Alternatives Considered A series of alternatives have been defined which seek to support the objectives set out in Section 2.3 of this report. During the identification of alternatives, it was considered that the existing Page 10

11 measures which have been implemented through Slane are targeted specifically at reducing the safety risks associated with the passage of larger goods vehicles through the town. The measures do not, however, lead to any environmental improvements, and in general lead to increases in journey times for all vehicles. The restriction of goods vehicles from the village brings obvious consequences for those who are the subject of such restrictions. As such, the scenarios comprise a series of goods vehicle restrictions which are applied across different locations, and apply to vehicles of different sizes. In this way, the incremental impacts of the measures on goods vehicles, and on those living adjacent to alternative routes can be understood. Traffic Management Scenarios considered are outlined in Table 3.3 below. Note that, as outlined above, the terminology for vehicle restrictions is based on axle numbers, with 5+ referring to vehicles with 5 axles or greater. Following a comparison of scheme impacts only the preferred scheme presented above was taken forward through the appraisal process. Table Traffic Management Scenarios Tested Description Goods Vehicle 5+ Axle Ban on Slane Bridge. Goods Vehicle 5+ Axle Ban on Slane Bridge, and on N2 between Slane and Collon Goods Vehicle 4+ Axle Ban on Slane Bridge, and on N2 between Slane and Collon Page 11

12 Goods Vehicle 3+ Axle Ban on Slane Bridge, and on N2 between Slane and Collon Goods Vehicle 3+ Axle Ban on Slane Bridge, on N2 between Slane and Collon, and on N51 between M1 and R163 Goods Vehicle 3+ Axle Ban on Slane Bridge, and on N2 between Slane and Collon, but in southbound direction only. Goods Vehicle 3+ Axle Ban on Slane Bridge, but in southbound direction only. Page 12

13 4.0 Analysis Tools 4.1 Traffic Modelling Tools The primary analysis tool that has been used for the project appraisal is the Slane VISUM Model, developed by AECOM in The model was developed to gain an insight into travel movements within the study area and to assess the impact of future measures. In order to develop a detailed understanding of traffic demand in the area, data was collated from the following sources: Goods Vehicle Origin-Destination (O-D) Surveys to understand vehicular routing through Slane, the nature of goods being transported, vehicle types, and the extent of local traffic; Automatic Traffic Counts (ATC) over 7 days, at sites across the Study Area; and Journey time surveys were collected along key routes. The model development process followed the guidance set out in the NRA Project Appraisal Guidelines, and was specifically developed to classify vehicles separately by axle numbers in order to support testing of different vehicle restrictions. The traffic model also included the M1 and M3 tolls such that the impacts of toll avoidance could be incorporated. The Study Area for the Traffic Model is outlined below in Figure 4.1. Further information on the data collection and traffic modelling can be found in the Report. Figure 4.1 Study Area for Traffic Analysis Page 13

14 The development of the Traffic Models and the relevant inputs and assumptions is set out in full in the : Stage 1 Report, October Economic Appraisal Tools The economic appraisal has been undertaken using a manual assessment of user benefits. The manual assessment is based on annualisation of travel time savings (as extracted from the traffic models), and the conversion of such benefits to net present value using the following assumptions: There is limited peak hour congestion in the Slane area, the majority of scheme benefits are derived from safety and non congestion related journey time savings through freed capacity on the network, therefore benefits have been accounted for over a full day based on the below factors which were developed based on traffic survey data; (5.3 * AM) + (11 * IP) = Daily Benefits There are 253 standard days in a full year; Vehicle composition, occupancy, discount rates and trip purpose based on default values in PAG Unit 11: National Parameter Values Sheet; The appraisal has been undertaken based on 2009 prices over a 10 year period which is the recommended appraisal period for Traffic Management Schemes. Page 14

15 5.0 Scheme Appraisal 5.1 Approach to Scheme Appraisal The Project Appraisal Guidelines specify that for non-major schemes, an appraisal of the scheme should be structured based on a Cost Benefit Analysis, and a Project Appraisal Balance Sheet. The Project Appraisal Balance Sheet is, in turn, based on the structure of a Multi Criteria Appraisal (structured under the headings of Economy, Environment, Accessibility/Social Inclusion, Integration and Safety). This section of the report sets out the preparation of the Cost Benefit Analysis, and the completion of the Project Appraisal Balance Sheet based on the objectives and quantification criteria set out in Table Scheme Impacts Overview Following a detailed analysis of alternatives 1, it was concluded that of the alternatives considered the implementation of 5 axle restrictions on Slane Bridge represents the most manageable approach for implementing vehicle size restrictions through Slane village. The proposal will generate slight safety benefits, and an improvement in local air quality in Slane. It will reduce the volume of commercial vehicles through Slane by approximately 42%, although the provision of a permit scheme for local access will reduce this to below 40%. Nevertheless, this proposal brings with it a number of notable adverse impacts: It leads to an increase in goods vehicle traffic using the R152 and R153 as an alternative to the N2 via Slane. The increase on the R152 is to the order of 317 vehicles per day, with an increase on the R153 of approximately 100 vehicles per day; It generates an increase in vehicle kilometres (and hence vehicle emissions), thereby leading to a reduction in network efficiency as drivers seek longer routes to avoid the restricted area; and It reduces strategic accessibility between Ashbourne and the M1/Monaghan which is currently available via the N2 corridor. Site visits were undertaken to provide a preliminary assessment of the alignment and condition of the R152, R153 and R168 regional roads which would be impacted by the proposed HGV Ban scheme. The R152, whilst of reasonable standard, was not considered to be of the same standard as the R152 and R153 and therefore the signage strategy associated with the scheme has been developed to direct HGVs arriving to Slane from the north to divert via the N51 National Secondary Road instead of the R168. It is envisaged that the HGV ban would be enforced by An Garda Síochána in a similar fashion to the operation of the Dublin City HGV Cordon. Fines for breaching the Dublin City cordon are up to 800 for a first offence, 1500 for a second offence within 12 months and 1500 and possible imprisonment for a third offence. It is envisaged that the fines for breaking the Slane HGV restriction would be along similar lines to ensure compliance. 1, Stage 1, 2012 Page 15

16 5.2.2 Traffic Impacts The 5+ Axle HGV Ban will lead to a reduction of 66% in heavy goods vehicle traffic (3 axles or greater) across Slane Bridge, with a 52% reduction in 3+ axle goods vehicles on the N2 immediately north of the village. An increase in HGV traffic on the M1 is evident, as are decreases on the R169 and the N2. Furthermore the HGV ban results in some HGV trips utilising the R152 past Duleek to travel between the M1 and N2 corridors. The reduction in volumes on the R125 and R169 is likely associated with goods vehicle traffic rerouting onto the M1 as the most direct route (i.e. a reduction in M1 toll avoidance). The increase in N33 traffic is likely to be as a result of N2 traffic switching to the longer, but more appropriate, M1 corridor. It is noted that Heavy Goods Vehicle flows through the M1 Drogheda Toll increase by 21% over a full weekday. Table 5.1 All (3 and above axles) HGV Traffic across key links (Weekday ) Location Base Do Something % Difference Slane Bridge % Chapel Street (N2) North of Slane % N51 East of Slane % N51 West of Slane % M1 Dunleer % M1 Drogheda % R % N2 North of Ashbourne Bypass % N33 East of Ardee % R150 East of the N % R152 East of the N % R153 West of the N % R125 between N2 and M % R147 between Kells and Navan % R168 South of Collon % N % R % * The provision of HGV permits to facilitate local access to Slane will reduce the above traffic flow impacts The 5+ Axle HGV Ban has a significant positive impact upon Slane in terms of improvements to safety, ambience and emissions, albeit with some impact on local roads which may require some Page 16

17 mitigation measures. The majority of traffic is encouraged onto the M1 corridor, which provides a safer and less environmentally intrusive corridor for vehicles however these vehicles will experience travel time disbenefits as a result Network Performance Indicators At a network level, a series of indicators output by the traffic models allow the aggregate impacts of the proposal to be quantified. Total journey time impacts are set out in Table 5.2. Table Network Performance Statistics Indicator Units Do-Min Do-Some Total Daily Travel Time (hrs) Total Daily Travel Distance (Veh km) * Daily Values based on 253 Standard Days per year. Diff (Daily) Diff (Annual) Car 155, , ,469 HGV <5 axles 6,029 6, ,265 HGV 5+ axles 7,589 7, ,096 Car 10,719,252 10,718, ,274 HGV <5 axles 454, , ,349 HGV 5+ axles 576, , , Impact on Tolls The M1 toll at Drogheda will experience a slight increase in vehicles through the toll plaza however the impact will be negligible as the majority of the monetary benefits to the exchequer will be balanced by the costs to the consumer. The distortionary effects of the public funds required for the scheme would also be negligible so no shadow costs or tax deadweight benefits have been accounted for in the appraisal. 5.3 Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) Net Present Value of Benefits The Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) is undertaken utilising outputs from the VISUM models used as part of this project. The CBA has been structured to account for the following impacts: Table 5.3 Scheme Impacts Impact Source Data extracted from VISUM Traffic Models and monetised using Journey time savings parameters set out in PAG Unit 6.11 Calculated using an Accident Spreadsheet based on link types, Safety Impacts speeds etc contained within VISUM Model. Accident rates, types, values etc based on parameters set out in PAG Unit 6.11 Data extracted from VISUM Traffic Models and monetised using Emissions impacts parameters set out in PAG Unit 6.11 All parameter values for the calculation of economic benefits are referenced from PAG Unit 11: National Parameter Values Sheet. As stipulated in the Project Appraisal Guidelines, costs are represented as 2009 prices and values and exclusive of VAT. Scheme Budget Costs and Target Costs are referenced from Section 3 of this report. In accordance with Table of PAG Unit 6.1: Guidance on Conducting CBA, no residual value allowance has been made for this Traffic Management project. Page 17

18 Traffic growth allowance has been included in the scheme assessment using rates taken from PAG Unit 5.5: Link-Based Traffic Growth Forecasting. Table 5.4 Annual Scheme Benefits (2009 Values) Class Type Value (2009) Travel Time + 343,681 Cars Emissions + 2,006 Operating Costs + 7,184 Travel Time - 192,277 HGV Emissions - 7,222 Operating Costs - 78,817 All Safety + 10,097 Overall + 84,652 Overall for 10 years (Undiscounted) + 996,377 Overall for 10 years (Discounted) + 710,436 When traffic and Value of Time (VoT) growth are taken into account the analysis therefore yields a net present value of benefits of 0.71 million over the 10-year appraisal period. These benefits are derived from benefits to cars utilising free capacity on the N2 and deriving journey time benefits outweighing the negative impacts to HGV s in terms of travel time, operating costs and emissions Net Present Value of Costs The total scheme cost including VAT is 2,105,385 based on 2012 costs. Based on a January 2009 CPI of and an October 2012 CPI of the scheme costs are equivalent to 2,037,598 in 2009 costs including VAT. Assuming an opening year of 2013, the scheme costs reduce to 1,741,747 when costs are discounted to Economic Indicators The results of the Cost Benefit Analysis, based on a 30 year horizon assuming, is summarised in Table 5.5. Table Scheme Cost Benefit Analysis Summary (2009 values) Description Monetary Value ( ) Present Value Benefits ( m) PVB + 710,436 Present Value Costs ( m) PVC 1,741,747 Net Present Value ( m) NPV - 942,112 Benefit to Cost Ratio BCR 0.41 The scheme therefore yields a Benefit to Cost Ratio less than 1, based on the consideration of all day benefits. 5.4 Project Appraisal Balance Sheet (PABS) The analysis presented above demonstrates that the proposed 5+ HGV Ban can lead to substantial reductions in goods vehicle traffic through Slane. Nevertheless, although this meets one element of the project objectives, it is noted that the proposed scheme can lead to adverse impacts through other populated areas, most notably Kentstown and Duleek. In addition, excessive restrictions can lead to reductions in network efficiency as vehicles are required to route over longer distances to access specific destinations. A broader assessment of the Page 18

19 scheme on the basis of project objectives is therefore the relevant means for appraising the impact. Safety Air Quality Emissions Efficiency Accessibility Integration The potential impact upon safety was accounted for by utilising accident rates for each road type and vehicle kilometres on each road type extracted from the various models. Benefits were calculated over a 10-year period. Reductions in goods vehicle movements through Slane are balanced against increases through other populated areas most notably Collon, Ardee, Duleek and Kentstown. Total kilometres travelled by all vehicles are extracted from the traffic models. Total hours travelled by all vehicles are extracted from the traffic models. The impact on accessibility between Dublin and Monaghan, and to/from Slane is qualitatively assessed. The integration of the scheme with government plans and policies in relation to transport and spatial development in the study area was qualitatively assessed. An Appraisal Summary Table is presented in the Table 5.6 overleaf which summarises the key impacts discussed above, and includes the network performance indicators as extracted from the traffic models. Page 19

20 Table 5.6 Project Appraisal Balance Sheet Summary Table Scheme Option: Description: Problems Identified: Slane 5+ Axle HGV Ban Ban on HGV s with 5 or more axles across Slane Bridge. Permit system required for local access. Some diversion off N2 National Route onto Regional Roads to access M1. Enforcement of ban to be addressed. Objective Sub-objective Qualitative impacts Quantitative assessment Environment Safety Air Quality Increase in emissions due to increased travel distance Estimate made based on fuel consumption Monetised ( million over 10 yrs, discounted) (this also includes GHG emissions) Budget Cost (million) Noise and vibration Limited impact, some benefits to Slane Village balanced by disbenefits on diversion routes. 4 Landscape & visual quality No impact 4 Biodiversity No impact 4 Cultural Heritage No impact 4 Land Use No impact 4 Water resources No impact 4 Accident reduction Reduction in accidents due to PAG Accident Rates Calculation rerouting from N2 onto safer utilising VISUM model outputs. motorway standard M Security No impact Not undertaken Score 4 Page 20

21 Economy Accessibility and Social Inclusion Integration Transport Efficiency and Effectiveness Reduction in network costs Journey time Vehicle Costs Increase of 6,914 vehicle hours per annum for HGV s and decrease of 18,536 vehicle hours per annum for Cars Increase of 235,069 vehicle km per annum for HGV s and decrease of 65,288 vehicle km per annum for Cars Wider economic impact Limited Impact, slight negative impact on areas south of Slane due to reduced access 3.5 Funding Not assessed 4 Vulnerable groups Minimal impact 4 Deprived geographic areas Minimal impact 4 Transport integration Minimal impact 4 Land-use integration Minimal impact 4 Geographical integration Minimal impact 4 It is noted that with any vehicle restrictions through Slane, the N2 will cease to function as a strategic corridor for Integration with other commercial traffic. This will impact most significantly on government policies Ashbourne, where transport-dependant industry will suffer a reduction in accessibility to the Dublin-Belfast Economic 3.5 Corridor via Drogheda, or the Monaghan Hub via Ardee. 4.5 PVB BCR 0.41 Page 21

22 5.5 Comparison against Project Objectives A summary of the performance of the scheme against the relevant project objectives is provided in Table 5.7: Table Project Objectives Objective Impact Safety To improve traffic safety; Slight reduction in accidents; Environment To improve air quality in Slane Village and other populated areas; HGV traffic through Slane reduces significantly by approx 40%. Rerouted HGV s avoid populated areas. To reduce transport emissions; Slight increase in veh km s travelled by HGV s balanced by Economy Accessibility Integration To maximise the efficiency of the transport network; and To protect the accessibility of rural areas to designated Gateways, including the Greater Dublin Area To support government plans and policies in relation to transport and spatial development in the study area decrease in car veh km s. Slight increase in travel times for HGV s together with a slight increase in veh km s travelled however positive impacts on cars due to freed capacity outweigh negative HGV impacts. Level of HGV accessibility to areas such as Ashbourne and Monaghan reduced as a result of the ban. Scheme does not comply with role of N2 as a National Route. The review demonstrates slight negative impacts against majority of objectives identified at the outset of the design study however there are some safety benefits as a result of the proposed scheme. Overall the scheme does not meet the objectives set with negative impacts far outweighing positive impacts and the scheme does not appear to have a viable business case. Page 22

23 6.0 Risk Assessment 6.1 General This section summarises the residual risks associated with the delivery of the proposed scheme. The project is deemed to represent a low risk non-major scheme, comprising signage, short term traffic management and construction of an off-line turnaround area. No significant risks are envisaged however a number of potential issues are outlined below: The legislation within which any restrictions can be delivered and; the need to manage access through the issuing of permits, and subsequent enforcement; These issues are discussed below Extent of Restrictions The implementation of an axle restriction is facilitated by the current Road Traffic (Control of Traffic) Regulations 2006 (SI ). The implementation of Bye-Laws is a reserved function of the Local Authority, and would require the specific area within which the restriction applies to be defined. In defining the specific area, attention would be required to appropriate advance signage on key routes, the facility for turn-back at entry points, the provision of lay-bys where drivers may make arrangements for permits at the point of entry, and the means of enforcement (manual or automated) Management of Access/Permits The analysis has recognised that the restriction of goods vehicle movement through Slane can have an adverse impact on accessibility for local businesses. As with other successful schemes, the implementation of restrictions can be supported by a system of permits which will allow managed access to the restricted area. As the level of restriction increases, so too does the need for permits. Although more detailed analysis and consultation would be necessary to understand the exact demand for a permit scheme, it is anticipated that the daily demand for access would be substantially less than the 200 daily permits issued by the system operating in Dublin City. Our analysis suggests that the daily requirement for permits would likely be no greater than 50 permits per day. Ultimately, the demand for permits will be related to the basis upon which permits are granted. The permit system would be a natural extension of the system already established by Dublin City Council, and the cost of permits would be set to cover the costs of administering that scheme. It is anticipated that the cost of a daily permit would be in the region of 5 to 10. Page 23

24 Appendix A Page 24