Appendix A | Public Consultation

Figure from page 107

Figure from page 108

Introduction

Summary of responses

This Appendix summaries the analysis of responses received as part of the second public consultation for the All-Island Strategic Rail Review, which was held from 25th July to 29th September 2023.

In total, 474 responses were received as part of the public consultation. Of these:

•454 were assessed to be unique and material responses (i.e. not duplicates, not queries about process, etc.);

Previously, a public consultation for the Review was held from November 2021 to January 2022 to understand the aspirations of stakeholders and the public for the island’s railway, to gain insight into perceptions of the relative importance of the goals of the project, and to inform the development process of the Review’s recommendations. The second consultation presented the first opportunity to test the response of stakeholders and the public to the subsequent recommendations of the Review.

•131 were from stakeholders, including airports and ports, business groups, campaign groups, councils, elected officials, government, and other institutions; and

•323 were from the general public.

Of the 454 unique and material responses, 351 expressed a clear opinion of the Review and its recommendations. Of these:

•Approximately 64% were favourable;

•Approximately 29% were unfavourable; and

The technical remit of the second consultation was to formally consult on a Draft Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), which was published alongside the Draft Final Report for the Review. However, the large majority of responses to the consultation focused on non-SEA topics.

•The remaining 7% expressed mixed sentiments.

One of the most cited issues in the consultation, featuring in approximately 32% of responses, was the absence of proposals to extend rail services to Enniskillen in Co. Fermanagh within the Review’s recommendations. Of these:

The rest of this Appendix summarises the key comments that emerged from the second consultation and outlines how the Review has utilised feedback from this consultation to develop the final version of this Report.

•Approximately 30% were from respondents who stated that they live in or are based in Fermanagh;

•Approximately 16% were from respondents who stated they live or are based outside Fermanagh; and

When reviewing any figures presented in this Appendix, it should be noted that these were derived from consultation responses, which may not be representative of wider public opinion.

•Approximately 53% were from respondents who did not identify their location.

Excluding responses relating to Fermanagh, approximately 74% of the remaining responses were favourable, 17% were unfavourable, and 9% were mixed.

Categorises of responses

that they are from the location in question have not had their location assumed.

Jurisdiction

Sentiment of responses

A total of 151 responses were from respondents based in Ireland, 109 in Northern Ireland, 8 from respondents spanning the border or based outside the island, and 186 did not explicitly state a location. While more respondents were based in Ireland, when weighted by population a higher proportion of responses came from respondents based in Northern Ireland. The proportions of respondents per category were broadly similar in each jurisdiction.

The sentiment of responses was analysed and categorised into one of the following categories:

•Support for the recommendations of the Review;

•General support for the recommendations of the Review, but feeling that the recommendations must go further with additional routes, stations, higher speeds, etc;

Role

•Mixed/nuanced responses that supported some aspects of the recommendations while critiquing others;

Business groups, councils, and government bodies made up a slightly greater proportion of respondents in Ireland while elected officials and the general public made up a slightly greater proportion among Northern Ireland respondents.

•Responses that do not support the recommendations of the Review in general because they were not considered to be ambitious enough for rail, and suggested significant review of the recommendations;

Location

The largest number of respondents were from Co. Fermanagh, and given the county’s small population, its proportion of responses dwarfed any other. This reflects that Fermanagh was the only county not to be served by rail in the recommendations of the Review. Other counties with high numbers of responses were the North West counties of Derry~Londonderry and Donegal, counties containing major cities such as Dublin, Antrim, Limerick, and Cork, and Louth on the Dublin-Belfast corridor. By contrast, very few responses were received from Midland counties.

•Responses that do not support the recommendations of the Review because they were more critical of rail investment in general; and

•Responses that were neutral or did not contain enough information to be categorised.

This analysis found the majority of respondents were broadly in favour of the recommendations, including those who felt the recommendations should go further. There was a higher proportion of support in Ireland than in Northern Ireland, reflecting the large number of respondents in Co. Fermanagh who felt the recommendations did not go far enough. More than half of respondents felt that the recommendations should go further when those who are broadly in favour of the review and those who are

It is noted that a location has only been assigned to a respondent when explicitly stated within their response. Respondents who highlighted specific local issues but did not expressly identify

generally critical of the review are considered together. Only 2% of respondents were unsupportive of investing more in rail.

Airport, Ireland West Airport, and Shannon Airport, along with new station proposals between Wicklow and Wexford such as Avoca and Ferns.

Location specific comments

Key themes

A significant number of the responses received mentioned specific rail routes that respondents wished to see included in the final Report.

While the responses received in the consultation covered a wide range of topics, six key themes were identified in the analysis.

Enniskillen (and in particular, a route from Enniskillen to Omagh) was the most mentioned by a significant margin, with other routes in the North West and West making up the top of the list.

North West connectivity

The most cited theme in responses by a considerable distance was a sentiment that the recommendations of the Review did not go far enough to provide rail connectivity for the North West. While the exclusion of routes serving Co. Fermanagh from the recommendations was the most commonly cited specific issue, a broader range of concerns were also presented. Respondents also suggested delivering other routes in the North West, such as continuing the recommended route from Derry~Londonderry to Letterkenny southwards to Sligo, connecting Enniskillen to Omagh, Sligo, and Clones, and reopening part of the Western Rail Corridor from Collooney to Claremorris.

Approximately half of the specific lines mentioned were included within the recommendations of the Review, with some of the comments highlighting the need for higher specifications such as 200km/h on the proposed Portadown to Derry~Londonderry line.

There were also several references to existing routes – albeit fewer than references to proposed new routes. The most commonly mentioned were the cross-country lines from Galway to Limerick and from Limerick to Waterford. Some concerns were raised about the draft Report’s proposals for the Wicklow area, and these have been taken onboard in this refined final Report.

Respondents highlighting connectivity in the North West often cited that the recommendations did not go far enough to addressing gaps in interregional connectivity. While many welcomed the introduction of lines from Derry~Londonderry to Portadown and Letterkenny, from Portadown to Mullingar, and from Claremorris to Athenry, some felt that these were not sufficient to enhance connectivity between the North West, the West, and other regions.

The main themes of comments relating to existing routes were a desire to see higher speeds, more frequent services, better connections between rail services and with other modes of transport, and considering direct services rather than a requirement for interchange on certain routes such as Limerick-Cork.

There were also many requests for new stations, particularly in the North West, and specifically in counties Fermanagh, Donegal, and Sligo. Other places that were mentioned more frequently included various airports, in particular City of Derry

A common sentiment was that the North West is more deprived than other regions, and, as such, it should receive ‘positive discrimination’ with a lower economic

viability threshold for schemes than in other regions. Several respondents felt that delivering comprehensive rail services in the region was critical to enable the region to economically catch up with other parts of the island.

Improvements to rail services in Wicklow and Wexford beyond those recommended in the Review would require more comprehensive assessment of these interactions.

The influence of tourism on demand

South east connectivity

Some respondents highlighted the importance of tourism for rail demand in many of the regions where the population of residents and access to employment is lower. While the demand projections for the Review were based on the Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook (PDFH) approach commonly used in the UK, which focuses on residential and employment populations and does not directly consider demand from tourism, non-commuting trip purposes such as leisure and tourism account for around half of intercity rail journeys in Ireland (according to passenger surveys in each jurisdiction). In response, preliminary analysis was carried out to compare demand at adjacent stations where one is a renowned tourist destination, and the other is less so. This indicated that tourism may contribute significantly to demand in some locations. For instance, Portrush station has over twice as many passengers per annum as Ballymoney despite having half its population. As such, further research was carried out to investigate into whether tourism is a significant factor behind higher demand at specific stations across the island’s rail network.

The other region where many respondents felt the recommendations of the Review were not aligned to local aspirations was the South East, and, in particular, Wicklow. The line from Rosslare to Dublin has particular challenges – it is generally single track, runs close to the coast, runs through residential neighbourhoods in South Dublin, and is constrained by frequent DART services north of Greystones. The Review recommended the restoration of the Waterford to Wexford line to improve service quality for Wexford and to enable Dublin-Wexford services to be rerouted through Waterford to Dublin. Under this plan, communities between Wexford and Greystones would be served by a (more frequent) shuttle service, which would require passengers to transfer to DART at Greystones throughout most of the day. Some respondents in Wicklow were critical of this approach, stating that it would represent no improvement in service quality over the existing offering.

Figure from page 112

The small number of respondents from Wexford were generally more positive towards the recommendations of the Review although they emphasised that services to Dublin should continue to serve central areas of the city rather than terminating at Heuston.

Technical considerations

Some respondents went into some detail on specific technical aspects of the recommendations. These included aspects such as line speeds and the details of a cross-Dublin link between the Northern line and the Kildare line. However, these comments were not always in agreement with each other. For example, some suggested that 200km/h /

While urban rail services did not fall within the scope of the Review, and the recommendations aimed to segregate longer distance services from urban ones, the interaction between the two is complex on the Dublin to Rosslare line.

Further research

125mph speeds would be too ambitious while others said they were insufficient.

In response to feedback from the public consultation, the technical advisor team:

Equality and inclusion

•Undertook research into the potential for tourism demand to be captured in the Review’s analysis.

While the recommendations of the Review included the accessibility of stations and services for disabled people, some feedback from organisations supporting disabled people felt the proposals were not explicit enough. The National Disability Agency in Ireland was broadly supportive of the Review, however, they asked for explicit consultation with advocacy groups and the inclusion of a disability impact assessment for the recommendations. The Inclusive Mobility and Transport Advisory Committee (IMTAC) in Northern Ireland was more critical, requesting engagement with the Departments to address their concerns of insufficiently definitive measures to support accessibility within the recommendations.

•Undertook three additional scenario sensitivity tests to explore alternative options for improving connectivity in Co. Fermanagh (further details are provided below under the heading “Enniskillen”).

•Consulted with key stakeholders to agree appropriate changes to the Report, in particular with respect to the approach for the South East, the Report’s narrative on e uality and accessibility, and the response to some technical comments received from specialists and experts. There were also recommended changes to include references to more stations and adjust the timing of some proposed initiatives.

Affordability and deliverability

Some stakeholders, while broadly supportive of the Review, raised concerns about the deliverability and affordability of the recommendations. Some, such as IBEC and the CBI, suggested that prioritisation would be critical to ensure that impactful recommendations such as upgrades to the Dublin-Belfast line were delivered promptly. Other stakeholders highlighted the risks to delivering the project posed by the length of the proposed timeline, the complex range of stakeholders, and potential budgetary challenges with competing priorities. Some, such as the Irish Academy of Engineering, highlighted the need to consider rail in the context of transport more broadly when developing proposals.

This additional work provided the following insights and outcomes:

•Tourist demand specifically does not appear to be a large source of trips when compared to leisure trips more generally. The analysis does not suggest that tourist demand has been underestimated in the trip rate model, and as such the demand estimates for new stations are reasonable – assuming that future rail travel behaviours are broadly in line with those on the existing network.

•Including an additional railway between Omagh and Enniskillen would likely represent poor value for money – see below for details.

Focus on Enniskillen

In response to feedback from the public consultation, further analysis was undertaken to investigate the viability of including a rail link to Enniskillen in the final Report.

•A branch line between Omagh and Enniskillen would deliver journey times to Belfast that are comparable to car journey times and would be faster than current bus journey times. Service frequencies would likely be hourly for both rail and bus options. The relative competitiveness of the public transport options between Belfast and Enniskillen would therefore strengthen if a railway were developed – but not substantially.

This exercise found:

•Enniskillen is located in a relatively sparsely populated part of the island. The area of Fermanagh to the west of the town and Lough Erne is has a similar population density to West Donegal and Leitrim, and the area to the east has similar population density to West Tyrone and Cavan.

Figure from page 114

•Demand forecasts undertaken for the Review (and elsewhere) indicate demand for passenger rail services in Enniskillen would be relatively low. They would likely pass the threshold for developing a new station on an existing railway, but they appear to fall short of the levels of demand needed to justify building a new railway.

•That said, Enniskillen itself is a relatively large settlement in the context of Northern Ireland, and if the town were located on an existing rail corridor, then there would be a very strong case for building a station for the town.

•Under the CAF and TAG appraisal frameworks, the Benefit Cost Ratio for building a new railway between Omagh and Enniskillen is significantly below 1. The incremental BCR range for scenarios assessed for this option in the Review is approximately 0.04 – 0.17 (depending on scenario and appraisal framework). This proposal would therefore represent poor value for money.

•However, Enniskillen is relatively isolated from major population centres and is not located on an obvious corridor between major cities – indeed, the corridor on the former railway between Sligo and Enniskillen has been formally earmarked to be developed as a greenway.

•Several demographic indicators – including population, employment, and jobs – indicate relatively weak growth in Co. Fermanagh compared to areas further east such as South Tyrone, Co. Armagh, and Greater Belfast.

Given these findings, a rail link to Enniskillen has not been included in the recommendations in the final Report.

•The Report has been amended to reflect plans to improve connectivity to the South East – as outlined in the latest Greater Dublin Area Transport Strategy – to include the extension of the DART network to Wicklow.

Amendments to the final Report

The following amendments have been included in this final Report to take account of feedback from responses received from the public consultation.

•A specific new recommendation to continue to invest in improving accessibility on the rail network, including rolling out step-free access more widely. The Review also commits to undertake Equality Impact Assessments when schemes are taken forward for future development.

•The timeline for delivery has been adjusted to bring forward the reinstatement of the North Midlands railway between Portadown and Armagh from a long-term to a medium-term horizon.

•Maps have been amended to include a proposed new station at Craigavon.

•A new recommendation for both jurisdictions to undertake a refresh of this Review once a decade.

•Some technical wording has been adjusted to ensure it reflects the “highlevel” nature of the Review (for example, by removing references to in-cab signalling).

•The report has been amended to clarify that the proposed new railway between Derry~Londonderry and Portadown should be designed to accommodate line speeds up to 200km/h / 125mph, where this is found in further study to be beneficial, as was intended in the Draft Final Report.

•A reference has been added to the Executive Summary to emphasise the need to safeguard alignments for future railways and stations.

Figure from page 116