28.11.2012 Views

Newlands Cross Upgrade EIS - European Investment Bank

Newlands Cross Upgrade EIS - European Investment Bank

Newlands Cross Upgrade EIS - European Investment Bank

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

South Dublin County Council N7 <strong>Newlands</strong> <strong>Cross</strong> <strong>Upgrade</strong><br />

Environmental Impact Statement<br />

Arup Consulting Engineers<br />

In summary, the underpass option makes it difficult to utilise existing outfalls without<br />

pumping. There is little land available to install a pump at the Fonthill road outfall, therefore<br />

most of the mainline drainage needs to be discharged at the Belgard road watercourse. This<br />

will significantly increase the discharge flows at this location.<br />

3.13.3 Water Quality<br />

3.13.3.1 Option 1 – Overpass<br />

There is the potential to significantly impact on the water quality of Ballymount Park and the<br />

Camac River during construction. The extent of the risk depends on the proximity of<br />

construction activity to the watercourse and sensitivity of the watercourse. If mitigation<br />

measures are implemented the potential risk is minimised.<br />

There are operational risks from road runoff, winter maintenance and accidental spillage.<br />

Runoff from such sources would be split between the Camac River and Ballymount Park.<br />

Again, if mitigation measures are implemented the potential risk is minimised.<br />

3.13.3.2 Option 2 – Underpass<br />

The construction and operational risks here are the same as for the other option. However, the<br />

requirement for a pump to remove water from the underpass means that, rather than a constant<br />

flow, pollutants will be pulsed/pumped in large quantities into the drainage catchments. This<br />

is coupled with the fact that all drainage from the underpass option will drain to the<br />

Ballymount Park catchment rather than being split between the two catchments as with the<br />

other options.<br />

3.13.4 Aquatic Ecology<br />

3.13.4.1 Option 1 – Overpass<br />

Operational runoff from the overpass will be on a constant basis which will enable ecosystems<br />

to adjust over time. However, if mitigation measures are implemented the potential risk is<br />

minimised.<br />

3.13.4.2 Option 2 – Underpass<br />

Runoff from the underpass could overload the system. Also, a pulse of water at the wrong<br />

time i.e. during spawning, could be critical for the wildlife. Again, however, if mitigation<br />

measures are implemented the potential risk is minimised.<br />

3.14 Economics<br />

Davis Langdon PKS were commissioned by Arup Consulting Engineers to prepare a cost<br />

estimate of both options for the proposed development.<br />

3.14.1 Summary of Costs<br />

A summary of the construction costs for both the Overpass and Underpass Options are<br />

depicted in Table 3.18.<br />

Table 3.18: Overall Summary of Construction Costs<br />

OPTION OVERPASS UNDERPASS<br />

Total Construction Cost incl. VAT and PVC €53,064,067 €78,759,566<br />

December 2007 Page 64

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!