Fraserburgh & Peterhead to Aberdeen Strategic Transport Study

Nestrans, Aberdeenshire Council, and Aberdeen City Council

Part 1 Appraisal Report

77919 March 2016

FRASERBURGH & PETERHEAD TO ABERDEEN STRATEGIC TRANSPORT STUDY

Description: Part 1 Appraisal Report

Date: 21 March 2016

Project Manager: Emily Seaman

Project Director: Bob Nicol

Report Authors: Emily Seaman Chris Paterson Henry Collin

Report Reviewers: Bob Nicol Dougie McDonald Paul McCartney Annie Say

SIAS Limited 37 Manor Place Edinburgh EH3 7EB UK

tel: 0131-225 7900 fax: 0131-225 9229 [email protected] www.sias.com

\\coral\tpxneeng$\3 part 1 appraisal\3 reporting\77919 fraserburgh peterhead to aberdeen strategic transport study - part 1 appraisal report_revised_v2.doc

FRASERBURGH & PETERHEAD TO ABERDEEN STRATEGIC TRANSPORT STUDY

CONTENTS :

Page

SUMMARY 1

1 INTRODUCTION 41

1.1 Options for appraisal 45 1.2 Appraisal scoring 57

2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 59

2.1 Geographical Context 59 2.2 Social Context 61 2.3 Economic Context 62

3 APPRAISAL OF OPTIONS AGAINST TRANSPORT PLANNING OBJECTIVES 67

3.1 Introduction 67 3.2 Option 1 69 3.3 Option 2 74 3.4 Option 3 79 3.5 Option 4 83 3.6 Option 5 87 3.7 Option 6 92 3.8 Option 7 97 3.9 TPO Appraisal Summary 103

4 APPRAISAL OF OPTIONS AGAINST THE STAG CRITERIA 105

4.1 Introduction 105 4.2 STAG Criteria Appraisal Methodology and Key Appraisal Points by Criteria 107

5 STAG APPRAISAL SUMMARY 113

5.1 Introduction 113 5.2 STAG Criteria Appraisal Overview 113

6 ESTABLISHED POLICY DIRECTIVES APPRAISAL 117

7 FEASIBILITY, AFFORDABILITY, AND PUBLIC ACCEPTABILITY 123

7.1 Introduction 123 7.2 Option 1 125 7.3 Option 2 129 7.4 Option 3 132

21 March 2016

7.5 Option 4 134 7.6 Option 5 136 7.7 Option 6 138 7.8 Option 7 150 7.9 Feasibility, Affordability, and Public Acceptability Summary 158

8 APPRAISAL SUMMARY AND OPTION SELECTION, REJECTION, AND PACKAGING167

8.1 Introduction 167 8.2 Appraisal Summary 167 8.3 Option Packaging 173

21 March 2016

FRASERBURGH & PETERHEAD TO ABERDEEN STRATEGIC TRANSPORT STUDY

FIGURES :

Page Options for Appraisal, Road 6 Options for Appraisal, Bus 7 Options for Appraisal, Rail 8 STAG seven point scale 9 Package 1: Road & Bus 30 Package 2: Rail & Bus 35 Figure 1.1 : Recommended road options for Part 1 Appraisal (Options 1, 2, and 3) 53 Figure 1.2 : Recommended bus options for Part 1 Appraisal (Options 4 & 5) 54 Figure 1.3 : Recommended rail options for Part 1 Appraisal (Options 6 & 7) 55 Figure 1.4 : STAG seven point scale 57 Figure 2.1 : Study Area 60 Figure 3.1 : Option 1 Indicative alignment 70 Figure 3.2 : Option 2 Indicative alignment 75 Figure 3.3 : Option 3 Indicative alignment 80 Figure 3.4 : Option 4 Indicative alignment 84 Figure 3.5 : Option 5 Indicative alignment 88 Figure 3.6 : Option 6 Indicative alignment 93 Figure 3.7 : Option 7 Indicative alignment 98 Figure 6.1 : PAF Scoring 117 Figure 8.1 : Package 1: Road & Bus 174 Figure 8.2 : Package 2: Rail & Bus 179

21 March 2016

FRASERBURGH & PETERHEAD TO ABERDEEN STRATEGIC TRANSPORT STUDY

TABLES :

Page Transport Planning Objectives 3 Options for Appraisal, Description 5 Journey time comparisons (2012 vs. 2023 vs. 2023 with option in place) Northbound 13 Journey time comparisons (2012 vs. 2023 vs. 2023 with option in place) Southbound 14 Affordability Summary Options 1 – 5 19 Affordability Summary Option 6 20 Affordability Summary Option 7 21 Appraisal Summary Scores and Risk Ratings 25 Key Advantages and Disadvantages , Options 1 and 2 26 Key Advantages and Disadvantages, Options 3, 4, and 5 27 Key Advantages and Disadvantages, Options 6 and 7 28 Option Packaging, Package 1: Road & Bus (Table 1 of 3) 31 Option Packaging, Package 1: Road & Bus (Table 2 of 3) 32 Option Packaging, Package 1: Road & Bus (Table 3 of 3) 33 Option Packaging, Package 2: Rail & Bus (Table 1 of 4) 37 Option Packaging, Package 2: Rail & Bus (Table 2 of 4) 38 Option Packaging, Package 2: Rail & Bus (Table 3 of 4) 39 Option Packaging, Package 2: Rail & Bus (Table 3 of 4) 40 Table 1.1 : Recommended options for Part 1 Appraisal, Option 1 47 Table 1.2 : Recommended options for Part 1 Appraisal, Option 2 48 Table 1.3 : Recommended options for Part 1 Appraisal, Option 3 49 Table 1.4 : Recommended options for Part 1 Appraisal, Options 4 & 5 50 Table 1.5 : Recommended options for Part 1 Appraisal, Option 6 51 Table 1.6 : Recommended options for Part 1 Appraisal, Option 7 52 Table 1.7 : Complementary Active Travel Measures 56 Table 3.1 : Transport Planning Objectives 67 Table 3.2 : Option 1 TPO Scores 73 Table 3.3 : Option 2 TPO Scores 78 Table 3.4 : Option 3 TPO Scores 82 Table 3.5 : Option 4 TPO Scores 86 Table 3.6 : Option 5 TPO Scores 91

21 March 2016

Table 3.7 : Option 6 TPO Scores 96 Table 3.8 : Option 7 TPO Scores 102 Table 3.9 : Option Appraisal Scores against Transport Planning Objectives, Summary 103 Table 4.1 : STAG Appraisal Criteria 106 Table 5.1 : Option Appraisal Scores against STAG Criteria, Summary 115 Table 6.1 : Option PAF appraisal against National Policy Objectives (Table 1 of 3) 119 Table 6.2 : Option PAF appraisal against National Policy Objectives (Table 2 of 3) 120 Table 6.3 : Option PAF appraisal against National Policy Objectives (Table 3 of 3) 121 Table 7.1 : Option 1 Approximate Cost Range 126 Table 7.2 : Option 6 Approximate Capital Costs 143 Table 7.3 : Option 6 Revenue Summary: Method 1 147 Table 7.4 : Option 6 Revenue Summary: Method 2 148 Table 7.5 : Option 7 Approximate Capital Costs 152 Table 7.6 : Option 7 Revenue Summary: Method 1 155 Table 7.7 : Option 7 Revenue Summary: Method 2 156 Table 7.8 : Feasibility and Public Acceptability Summary 158 Table 7.9 : Affordability Summary Options 1 – 5 161 Table 7.10 : Affordability Summary Option 6 162 Table 7.11 : Affordability Summary Option 7 163 Table 7.12 : Affordability CAPEX, OPEX and Revenue implications cost banding 165 Table 7.13 : Affordability Summary 166 Table 8.1 : Selection or Rejection, Overall Appraisal Summary, Scores and Risk Ratings 169 Table 8.2 : Key Option Advantages and Disadvantages, Options 1 and 2 170 Table 8.3 : Key Option Advantages and Disadvantages, Options 3, 4, and 5 171 Table 8.4 : Key Option Advantages and Disadvantages, Options 6 and 7 172 Table 8.5 : Option Packaging, Package 1: Road & Bus (Table 1 of 3) 175 Table 8.6 : Option Packaging, Package 1: Road & Bus (Table 2 of 3) 176 Table 8.7 : Option Packaging, Package 1: Road & Bus (Table 3 of 3) 177 Table 8.8 : Option Packaging, Package 2: Rail & Bus (Table 1 of 4) 181 Table 8.9 : Option Packaging, Package 2: Rail & Bus (Table 2 of 4) 182 Table 8.10 : Option Packaging, Package 2: Rail & Bus (Table 3 of 4) 183 Table 8.11 : Option Packaging, Package 2: Rail & Bus (Table 4 of 4) 184

21 March 2016

SUMMARY

Nestrans (The North East Scotland Transport Partnership) Regional Transport Strategy (RTS) Refresh was approved by Scottish Ministers in 2014. The RTS vision is for “A transport system for the north east of Scotland which enables a more economically competitive, sustainable, and socially inclusive society”.

There was strong support during consultation on the RTS Refresh to examine the costs and benefits of re-opening the Formartine & Buchan railway line. In response to this, the RTS Refresh contains a commitment to carry out an all-modes study of the corridor from Fraserburgh and Peterhead to Aberdeen.

In collaboration, SIAS Limited (SIAS), Peter Brett Associates LLP (PBA), and Energised Environments, together the Consultant Team, were appointed by Nestrans to undertake the Fraserburgh and Peterhead to Aberdeen Strategic Transport Study. The purpose of the study is to identify and examine the options for improving strategic transport connections between Fraserburgh, Peterhead, and Aberdeen including incorporating the Energetica Corridor.

The study is being undertaken in line with the Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance (STAG), and the study covers the Pre-Appraisal and Part 1 Appraisal stages of STAG.

Pre-Appraisal Summary

The Pre-Appraisal stage of the study was reported in Fraserburgh & Peterhead to Aberdeen Strategic Transport Study Pre-Appraisal Report (SIAS, PBA & Energised Environments, SIAS Ref. 77316, October 2015) and covered:  An introduction to the study, its purpose and the study area  Analysis of the Problems and Opportunities for the study area, informed through a wide ranging engagement programme and baseline data analysis (with the baseline data analysis reported in Fraserburgh & Peterhead to Aberdeen Strategic Transport Study - Baseline Report (SIAS, PBA & Energised Environments, SIAS Ref. 77322, August 2015)  Transport Planning Objective (TPO) setting  Option Generation, Sifting and Development

The Pre-Appraisal stage of the study provided an appreciation of the economic and social context of the study area allowing for a clearer understanding of why and for whom transport improvements are needed. This understanding has been key to: establishing the transport problems the study should seek to address; setting the study objectives; developing transport options for appraisal; and the appraisal of options.

The analysis at the Pre-Appraisal stage highlighted economic and social motivation for transport improvements, with the analysis highlighting a clear north-south divide in the study area, with a lower economic rate, educational attainment, and recent lower growth in the northern areas when compared to the regional figures, highlighting the inequalities gap between the study area and the wider affluent Aberdeenshire region.

Page 1 of 184 21 March 2016

Harbour are key freight attractors and freight generators (as part of the oil & gas and fishing industries). Connectivity to and from the harbours, principally by road, is evidently important to enabling efficient and successful business operations. For the fishing industry, where stock can depreciate in value quickly (up to 50% depreciation a day), the movement of product is particularly time critical with road delays impacting heavily on businesses in this highly competitive market. For the oil & gas supply and subsea industries, where vessels only have limited time at berth in the harbours, ‘slack’ must be built into freight movements, leading to inefficiencies and higher costs.

Delay on the strategic roads in the study area, namely the A90(T) and A952 also impact on the general public with road delay meaning trips must be started earlier or later to avoid heavily congested times, and delay making people late for appointments and meetings, and also creating feelings of isolation.

The proportion and speed of freight traffic on key road routes was a cause of frustration for the public when undertaking day-to-day activities. This frustration at delay on the roads was felt to be the key cause of the high road accident occurrences in the study area. The impact of accidents and the delay they cause was also noted by the business community in terms of the impact on business operations and the difficulty in planning with this element of unreliability and unpredictability in travel times by road. The main bus operators in the area both cited the need to provide slack time in timetables to allow for this element of unpredictability and enable the statutory targets, surrounding punctuality and reliability, to be met; leading to occasions where buses are required to wait at stops for long periods to ensure timetables are adhered to. This is particularly unattractive to passengers and detracts from the use of this more sustainable means of travel, where journey times by bus cannot compete with equivalent car journey times, meaning those reliant on public transport have significantly reduced accessibility to key regional services and job opportunities.

Fraserburgh is recognised as the most fisheries dependant community in Scotland and many local people are employed locally in both Fraserburgh and Peterhead. Providing the transport links to support the large industries within the towns and retaining the employment opportunities, is key to each town’s vitality and supports the regeneration priority for Peterhead, Fraserburgh and the coastal region between them, as identified in the Strategic Development Plan. If these employment opportunities were to be reduced or lost, the geographical location of the towns and the economic draw of Aberdeen would likely lead to an increased need for commuting longer distances, or may ultimately lead to out-migration from the towns.

Increased accessibility to the region’s main retail and health facilities in Aberdeen and also increased job opportunities, in higher paid vocations, is a key opportunity for the study. While it is accepted that the unemployment rate in the study area is lower than the Scottish average, it should be acknowledged that the unemployment rate in both Fraserburgh and Peterhead is notably higher than the regional average and there is an opportunity to reduce this gap. It is, however, recognised that improved accessibility to employment further afield may attract workers away from local opportunities leading to a potential strain on the local labour market.

The population projections for the region alongside the aspirations of Aberdeenshire’s Local Development Plan in the area, as well as Aberdeen City’s allocations in their Plan for north Aberdeen, will impact further on the transport network. It is recognised that the implementation of the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route (AWPR), and in particular the A90(T) Balmedie to Tipperty dualling will be major step change in transport connectivity between the study area, Aberdeen and further south, however, modelling of the future transport network with the AWPR and other major transport interventions (such as the Third Don Crossing and Haudagain interchange) included, as well as the travel demand associated with the housing and

Page 2 of 184 21 March 2016 employment build-out as suggested by the Local Development Plans, suggest that by 2023 there will be increased traffic and increased travel time on the road routes north of Ellon.

Overall the analysis emphasises that the future ability to efficiently move people and goods is paramount in order to anchor local businesses and employment opportunities in the area – enabling wider access to regional health and social facilities, and reducing the inequalities gap.

The Pre-Appraisal stage of the study consolidated the transport problems identified into three key problems in the study area:  Traffic speeds significantly below posted speed limits and unreliable and unpredictable journey times on strategic road links, namely the A90(T) and A952  Road safety risk on the A90(T) and A952  Limited travel mode choice

In addition, the main opportunities identified were:  Supporting both employment and housing land development including supporting and promoting the Energetica project  Supporting the growth aspiration of local businesses  Attracting inward investment to the region  Increasing the accessibility of local and regional employment opportunities  Increasing the accessibility of regional health, education and social services in Aberdeen  Supporting the regeneration of Fraserburgh and Peterhead  Reducing feelings of peripherality and an image of remoteness

Taking cognisance of the policy context and the key problems and opportunities identified, six TPOs were set during Pre-Appraisal and are listed in the following table. Note that strategic travel choice relates to the travel choices available for the long distance movement of people and freight.

Transport Planning Objectives

Transport Planning Objectives 1 Reduce journey times between North-East communities and the Aberdeen conurbation

2 Increase journey time reliability and predictability between North-East communities and the Aberdeen conurbation

3 Reduce accidents on the A90(T) and A952

4 Increase strategic travel choice between North-East communities and the Aberdeen conurbation

5 Increase direct public transport connectivity between North-East communities and the main trip attractors within the Aberdeen conurbation

6 Increase mode share for non-car based modes between North-East communities and the Aberdeen conurbation

Page 3 of 184 21 March 2016

Part 1 Appraisal

Seven options were recommended from the Pre-Appraisal stage to be taken forward Part 1 Appraisal.

The Part 1 Appraisal is an initial appraisal of the options generated during Pre-Appraisal. It involves:  Background information relating to the geographical, economic and social context of the study area  A qualitative appraisal of the options against the study Transport Planning Objectives (TPOs)  A qualitative appraisal of the options against the STAG Criteria of Environment, Economy, Safety, Accessibility & Social Inclusion, and Integration.  Appraisal of the fit of the options with established policy directives  Assessment of the Feasibility, Affordability, and Public Acceptability of options  Participation and Consultation  Completion of Appraisal Summary Tables for all options  Discussion on the potential packaging of options and next steps

At this phase in the study, an indicative assessment of the scope and scale of the benefits and impacts associated with each option are considered. This allows for a focus of appropriate effort and resources towards options which merit detailed quantitative appraisal at the Part 2 Appraisal stage, and eliminates options which are unlikely to meet the Transport Planning Objectives, alleviate problems or realise opportunities identified during Pre-Appraisal.

Options for Appraisal

The seven options recommended from the Pre-Appraisal stage to be taken forward for Part 1 Appraisal are listed in the table below and shown indicatively in the three figures that follow. A more detailed list of the options, and the key assumptions assumed for each, is presented in the main body of this report. The options include three road based options, and four public transport based options consisting of two bus based and two rail based options.

During the option generation process a range of ‘complementary measures’ were identified. These measures were options that in themselves were not felt to meet the aim of the study, but would support the seven recommended options for Part 1 Appraisal in achieving the study aim. For appraisal, it is assumed that a sub-set of these measures would be implemented alongside each of the seven recommended options. Specifically from these measures, a package of high quality active travel measures to integrate with other modes of transport is assumed to form part of the complementary measures subset for all seven options. The list of active travel complementary measures is shown in Table 1.7 in the body of the Report. A full list of all complementary measures can be found in the study’s Pre-Appraisal Report.

Page 4 of 184 21 March 2016

Options for Appraisal, Description

Mode No. Option Description

Road Phased road dualling north of Ellon, with junction improvements, including consideration of: • A90(T) Ellon to Toll of Birness • A90(T) Toll of Birness to Peterhead 1 • A952 and A90(T) Toll of Birness to Fraserburgh (Note: this option does not consider the dualling of the A90(T) between Peterhead and Fraserburgh. The focus of the study is on improving connectivity between Fraserburgh, Peterhead and Aberdeen. As such the focus is on the most direct road routes between these conurbations). Overtaking lanes and junction improvements, including consideration of: 2 • A90(T) from Ellon to Peterhead • A952 and A90(T) Toll of Birness to Fraserburgh Safety improvements on: 3 • A90(T) from Ellon to Peterhead • A952 and A90(T) Toll of Birness to Fraserburgh Bus Bus service improvements including consideration of: • New direct bus linkages between the study area and key employment, health and 4 social facilities in the Aberdeen conurbation • Increased express services between the study area and key employment, health and social facilities in the Aberdeen conurbation Bus service improvements (as Option 4) accompanied by priority infrastructure and Park and Ride improvements considering: 5 • New bus priority measures • Extending bus priority lane operational hours • Development of a Park & Ride Strategy for the study corridor Rail Phased reinstatement on existing railway alignments, via Dyce, including examining options for light rail or tram from: 6 • Dyce to Ellon • Ellon to Maud/Peterhead • Maud to Fraserburgh Phased implementation of a new railway alignment, via the Bridge of Don, including examining options for light rail or tram from: 7 • Aberdeen to Ellon • Ellon to Peterhead • Ellon to Fraserburgh and/or Peterhead to Fraserburgh

Page 5 of 184 21 March 2016

Options for Appraisal, Road

Page 6 of 184 21 March 2016

Options for Appraisal, Bus

Page 7 of 184 21 March 2016

Options for Appraisal, Rail

Page 8 of 184 21 March 2016

Option Appraisal

The options have been scored against the TPOs and STAG criteria using the STAG seven point scale shown as follows.

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Moderate Major Cost or Minor Cost or Cost or No Benefit or Moderate Negative Negative Minor Benefit Major Benefit Negative Impact Benefit Impacts Impact Impact STAG seven point scale

The appraisal of the options against option Feasibility, Affordability, and Public Acceptability has used a risk weighting of low, medium, or high risk.

A summary of the outcomes of the appraisal against the Transport Planning Objectives and STAG Criteria, as well as the Feasibility, Affordability, and Public Acceptability of each option, is provided here. Full details of the appraisal and engagement undertaken can be found in:  Section 3: Appraisal against TPOs  Sections 4 and 5: Appraisal against STAG criteria (with supporting information in Appendices A and B)  Section 6: Appraisal against Established Policy Directives  Section 7: Appraisal of Feasibility, Affordability (with supporting information in Appendices C, D & E) & Public Acceptability (with supporting information in Appendix F)  Appendix G: Appraisal Summary Tables

A full summary of the option appraisal scores and risk ratings for all seven options is shown in a table following the summary here, with an overall summary of the key advantages and disadvantages of all seven options shown in the subsequent three tables.

Appraisal against the Transport Planning Objectives

Options 1 and 2, both of which are road based options providing increased road capacity and safe overtaking opportunity on the A90(T) and A952, as well as junction improvements, score well against TPOs 1, 2, and 3, which relate to reducing journey times, increasing journey time reliability and predictability, and reducing accidents. Given the full dualling proposed for Option 1, this option scores more favourably than Option 2 which provides overtaking lanes at appropriate locations on the two routes and not over the full length of the routes. Similarly, Option 3, which considers safety measures on the A90(T) and A952, scores favourably against TPO3 relating to reducing accidents. A moderate positive benefit is also noted for Option 3 against TPO2, with recognition that the implementation of safety measures on the routes leading to a reduced accident rate would reduce unpredictable delay on the A90(T) and A952 routes as a consequent of accidents.

Options 1, 2, and 3 score generally neutrally against TPOs 4, 5, and 6 relating to increasing strategic travel choice, increasing direct public transport connectivity and increasing modal share for non-car based modes. It is, however, recognised that road improvements, particularly the full dualling proposed for Option 1, would provide journey time benefits for buses using the routes and may act as a catalyst for the introduction of new services. As such

Page 9 of 184 21 March 2016

Option 1 is awarded a minor positive benefit against TPOs 4 and 5 relating to increasing direct public transport connectivity between the study area and the main trip attractors in Aberdeen.

The two bus based options, Options 4 and 5, score well with moderate positive benefit against TPOs 4 and 5 relating to increasing strategic travel choice and increasing direct public transport connectivity. New direct bus routes and increased express services between the study area and key trip attractors in the Aberdeen conurbation would provide journey time benefits for existing public transport users and as such, Options 4 and 5 scored favourably against TPO1 relating to reducing journey times. Given the enhanced level of intervention in Option 5, which not only includes the new direct and increased express bus services proposed in Option 4, but also increased bus priority measures and new Park & Ride sites in the study area, the option scores more favourably than Option 4, with moderate positive benefit in relation to TPO1 regarding journey time reductions. It is, however, noted that the bus priority infrastructure proposed in Option 5 would likely reduce the available road capacity for non-bus based road users which may cause journey time delay for these other road users.

The two rail based options, Option 6 and 7 score well, with major positive benefit, against TPOs 4 and 5 given the increase in strategic travel choice and increased direct public transport connectivity both options would bring through the introduction of new rail services in the area. Both options also score positively, with moderate benefit against TPO6 which relates to increasing non-car based mode share. Recognising the evidence from elsewhere relating to user demand when new railway lines are introduced, the potential modal shift that may be achieved from road to rail, as opposed to from road to bus under the Option 4 and 5 measures, means that Options 6 and 7 were awarded a more favourable positive score against TPO6 than Options 4 and 5.

It is noted that the introduction of a heavy rail line would likely produce a greater modal shift than if a tram or light rail line were introduced, given the quicker journey times that could be achieved. Both options 6 and 7 score with moderate positive benefit against TPO2 given that a rail service would not be subject to the existing unreliable and unpredictable road delay.

Option 7 also scores with moderate positive benefit against TPO1 relating to reducing journey times, with Option 6 only scoring with minor positive benefit, in recognition of the more direct railway alignment proposed in Option 7. The Option 6 alignment on the Formartine & Buchan Way would not provide the most direct route between some conurbations in the study area and Aberdeen, particularly between Peterhead and Aberdeen, given the routing via Maud. As such, the railway line does not provide journey times which could be competitive with the private car. It should also be noted that if the rail route to Fraserburgh in Option 7 were on a continuous route via Peterhead (and not operating as a branch line from Ellon) the rail travel time would actually be over 5min slower than the Option 6 rail travel time. There are instances where the rail options in some instances (dependant on time of day and direction of travel), provide a greater travel time saving between key towns in the study area and Aberdeen compared to the road options. Despite this, the rail options do not score as highly/higher than the road options against TPO1 as they do not consistently provide benefit, unlike the road options which provide journey time benefit at all times of day and regardless of direction of travel.

All four public transport based options, Options 4, 5, 6, and 7 score with minor positive benefit against TPO3 relating to reducing accidents, recognising the potential reduction in road accidents that may be achieved if there is a moderate shift in travel mode from road to public transport. It should be noted that the potential modal shift is expected to be greater for the rail based options than the bus options and that within the rail option, the shift would be greatest for a heavy rail option, as opposed to tram/light rail implementation.

Page 10 of 184 21 March 2016

It has been important to understand the potential impact of the options in reducing journey times between the key towns in the study area and Aberdeen in terms of appraising each option against TPO1 (journey time reduction), and also against the STAG Economy criteria (discussed as follows). Journey time comparisons have been made between Aberdeen and Ellon, Peterhead and Fraserburgh between:  2012 journey times by road.  2023 journey times by road (with the AWPR and other major transport interventions in place as well as predicted travel demand associated with future development).  2023 journey times by road or rail with the option in place (as well as with the AWPR and other major transport interventions in place and with predicted travel demand associated with future development). For Option 1 and 2 the journey time by road is estimated, and Options 6 and 7 the journey time by rail is estimated)

It should be noted that the journey time comparisons are purely indicative and the data used to make the comparisons has come from a variety of sources. There have also been a number of assumptions made when estimating the journey times with the options in place. All the assumptions made are detailed within the corresponding tables in the body of the Report and cognisance of them should be taken when viewing these figures.

The following two tables show the journey time comparisons for the morning and evening periods for the road options (Option 1 and 2) and rail options (Option 6 and 7). No journey time comparisons have been made for Options 3, 4, or 5. This is due to their less defined nature at this stage. Option 3 proposes accident reduction measures, but does not explicitly state the exact nature of the measures or their exact location as this would require detailed engineering investigation which is not appropriate at this stage in the appraisal process, so understanding potential journey time reductions is not possible. It is also difficult to estimate potential journey time savings for the two bus based options, Option 4 and 5, as detailed data on passenger origins and destinations, current dwell times and number of stops, etc. would be required to robustly establish how express services and new routes would operate, however, high level analysis has shown that direct bus services from Fraserburgh and Peterhead to Dyce could reduce current bus travel times by up to 50min. In addition, it should be noted that the road based improvements proposed in Options 1 and 2 would also benefit existing bus operations.

Considering the future 2023 comparisons, key points to note from the journey time comparison in the following tables are:  In general, journey time savings with the options in place, northbound in the evening period and southbound in the morning period. This is to be expected given the commuting pattern into Aberdeen in the morning and out of Aberdeen in the evening.  Option 1 dualling proposals provide up to 10 and a half minutes in journey time saving between Aberdeen and Fraserburgh, and up to 8min in journey time saving between Aberdeen and Peterhead.  Option 2 overtaking lane proposals provide around 30s of journey time saving between Aberdeen and Peterhead and Fraserburgh. Note that the analysis does not account for any additional increase in speed that may be possible on the single carriageway sections of road due to having overtaken slower moving vehicles on the overtaking sections. Therefore, the journey time saving is likely to be greater than that shown.

Page 11 of 184 21 March 2016

 Journey times by rail that are quicker than the equivalent car journey times northbound in the evening period from Aberdeen to Peterhead and Fraserburgh, with the journey time for the Option 7 rail route to Ellon and Peterhead quicker than the Option 6 route given the more direct nature of the railway line.  The Option 6 and 7 rail journey times between Aberdeen and Ellon are either quicker or comparable with the equivalent journey time by road (with at most a 4 and a half minute longer rail journey time, which is for Option 6 northbound in the morning period).  The Option 6 and 7 rail journey times between Aberdeen and Peterhead and Fraserburgh are longer than the equivalent journey time by road southbound in the evening period (over 13min slow by rail between Aberdeen and Fraserburgh for Option 6, 7min slower for Option 7 (on the branch line route) and 19min slower for Option 7 (if the rail route is a continual route via Peterhead).

Page 12 of 184 21 March 2016

Journey time comparisons (2012 vs. 2023 vs. 2023 with option in place) Northbound

Journey Time (hh:m:ss) 2

Journey time difference with option 2023 with option 1 (2023 with option - 2023) Option 1 Option 2 Option 6 Option 7 Option 1 Option 2 Option 6 Option 7 Road Road Rail Rail Rail Road Road Rail Rail Rail

New New Existing Formartine New alignment - Formartine New alignment - 2012 2023 Overtaking & Buchan alignment - continual Overtaking & Buchan alignment - continual Northbound (by road) (by road) Dualling lanes route branch line route Dualling lanes route branch line route

Aberdeen to Ellon 00:28:30 00:23:30 00:23:30 00:23:30 00:28:00 00:25:30 00:25:30 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:04:30 00:02:00 00:02:00

AM Aberdeen to Peterhead 00:46:00 00:41:00 00:35:30 00:40:00 01:02:30 00:47:00 00:47:00 -00:05:00 -00:00:30 00:21:30 00:06:00 00:06:00

Aberdeen to Fraserburgh 00:59:00 00:49:30 00:43:30 00:49:00 01:04:30 00:58:30 01:10:00 -00:06:00 -00:00:30 00:15:00 00:09:00 00:21:00

Aberdeen to Ellon 00:43:00 00:45:00 00:45:00 00:45:00 00:28:00 00:25:30 00:25:30 00:00:00 00:00:00 -00:17:00 -00:19:30 -00:19:30

PM Aberdeen to Peterhead 01:00:30 01:05:00 00:57:00 01:04:00 01:02:30 00:47:00 00:47:00 -00:08:00 -00:00:30 -00:02:30 -00:18:00 -00:18:00

Aberdeen to Fraserburgh 01:12:00 01:16:00 01:05:00 01:15:00 01:04:30 00:58:30 01:10:00 -00:10:30 -00:00:30 -00:11:00 -00:17:30 -00:05:30 1 Journey time by road for Options 1 and 2 and by rail for Options 6 and 7. 2 All journey times and the journey time differences have been rounded to the nearest 30 seconds.

Page 13 of 184 21 March 2016

Journey time comparisons (2012 vs. 2023 vs. 2023 with option in place) Southbound

Journey Time (hh:m:ss) 2

New New Existing Formartine New alignment - Formartine New alignment - 2012 2023 Overtaking & Buchan alignment - continual Overtaking & Buchan alignment - continual Southbound (by road) (by road) Dualling lanes route branch line route Dualling lanes route branch line route

Aberdeen to Ellon 00:36:00 00:32:00 00:32:00 00:32:00 00:28:00 00:25:30 00:25:30 00:00:00 00:00:00 -00:03:30 -00:06:00 -00:06:00

AM Aberdeen to Peterhead 00:53:30 00:50:30 00:43:30 00:49:30 01:02:30 00:47:00 00:47:00 -00:07:00 -00:00:30 00:12:00 -00:03:30 -00:03:30

Aberdeen to Fraserburgh 01:06:00 01:00:00 00:51:30 00:59:30 01:04:30 00:58:30 01:10:00 -00:08:30 -00:00:30 00:04:30 -00:01:30 00:10:00

Aberdeen to Ellon 00:37:30 00:25:00 00:25:00 00:25:00 00:28:00 00:25:30 00:25:30 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:03:00 00:00:30 00:00:30

PM Aberdeen to Peterhead 00:54:00 00:42:00 00:37:00 00:41:30 01:02:30 00:47:00 00:47:00 -00:05:00 -00:00:30 00:20:00 00:04:30 00:04:30

Aberdeen to Fraserburgh 01:07:30 00:51:30 00:45:00 00:51:00 01:04:30 00:58:30 01:10:00 -00:06:00 -00:00:30 00:13:30 00:07:00 00:19:00 1 Journey time by road for Options 1 and 2 and by rail for Options 6 and 7. 2 All journey times and the journey time differences have been rounded to the nearest 30 seconds.

Page 14 of 184 21 March 2016

Appraisal against the STAG Criteria

A summary of the appraisal of all options against the five STAG criteria; Environment, Safety, Economy, Integration and Accessibility & Social Inclusion is provided here.

Environment

Against the environmental criteria, Option 7 (a new railway line on a new alignment) scores the lowest, with major negative impact given the major construction works required and subsequent impact with changes in hydrology, land take, changes in landscape character, loss of habitat, and increased noise and air pollution for those close to the new heavy railway or light rail/tram alignment.

Both Option 1 (road dualling) and Option 6 (rail on the Formartine & Buchan Way) score with moderate negative impact. Option 1 has the potential to increase road noise and emissions as well as produce changes in hydrology, land-take, and habitat loss. Option 6 is predicted to increase noise and carbon emissions as well as local air pollutants if a diesel rail locomotive were operated, although this is likely to impact on a relatively small number of people given the rural alignment of the route and the number of properties that are affected. Again, there would be a subsequent impact with changes in hydrology, land take, changes in landscape character, and loss of habitat.

Option 3 (road safety improvements) and Option 5 (bus improvement and additional bus priority measures) are expected to bring minor negative impact, with Option 4 scoring with minor positive benefit given the modal shift that may be achieved without the need for any physical infrastructure/land take.

Safety

All options score positively against the safety criteria, however, the road based Options 1, 2, and 3 scored highly with both Options 1 and 3 scoring with major positive benefit. The full dualling proposed in Option 1 would provide continuous safe overtaking opportunity, while the safety measures proposed in Option 3 would specifically target locations of known safety risk.

While the four public transport options will not provide direct road safety improvement, any modal shift that could be achieved from car to public transport (and in particular for those with a higher road safety risk such as the young and elderly) would reduce traffic on the A90(T) and A952 routes and subsequently the accident risk on these roads. As discussed, the modal shift that could be achieved is likely to be greatest for the two rail based options and within the rail options is likely to be greater for a heavy rail implementation given the faster journey times that could be achieved compared to a light rail/tram implementation. All four public transport options have been scored with minor positive benefit against the safety criteria.

Page 15 of 184 21 March 2016

Economy

All options score favourably against the economy criteria. Option 1 scores with major positive benefit given the benefits to the local economy the dualling could bring including reduced journey times (see previous journey time analysis) for businesses supporting both existing local businesses and potentially attracting inward investment in the area, as well as enhancing employment opportunities for those resident in the study area who would be able to consider work further afield due to reduced commuting times. Given the expected reduction in journey times for Option 2, where overtaking lanes are provided, the option scores with moderate positive benefit with similar benefits to those that Option 1 would provide, albeit to a lesser extent.

The bus-based Option 4 and 5 also score with minor positive benefit recognising that improved bus services increases the accessibility of employment opportunities (with potential journey times savings of around 50min to Dyce on a direct service from both Peterhead and Fraserburgh), while also potentially generating mode shift from road to bus, providing additional journey time savings on the road network.

Recognising the journey time benefits that could be provided by the rail options (see previous journey time analysis) , both score with moderate positive benefit recognising also the increased employment accessibility a rail service could bring, as well as the potential mode shift from road to rail which could benefit travel times on the road network. It is, however, noted that the implementation of a railway line would likely impact on the commercial viability of existing bus services operating in the area.

Integration

All options score favourably against the integration criteria with proposals supporting a range of national, regional and local policies.

It is noted that the road based options provide limited opportunity for transport integration between modes whereas the public transport based options could provide a high level of integration between public transport and active travel, given the set of complementary active travel measures assumed to be in place in all options.

In terms of transport and land-use integration, the rail Option 7 is better aligned to serve allocated development sites compared to the Option 6 rail alignment on the Formartine & Buchan Way, which routes from Dyce through the rural hinterland to Ellon.

Page 16 of 184 21 March 2016

Accessibility & Social Inclusion

All four public transport based options (Options 4, 5, 6, and 7) score with moderate positive benefit against the accessibility and social inclusion criteria given their ability to improve the accessibility of the Aberdeen conurbation from the study area, increasing employment, social and health care accessibility, especially for those with limited or no access to a car. The impact of this on Fraserburgh and Peterhead is of particular note given their recognition in the Strategic Development Plan as areas of regeneration priority.

While the road based options (Option 1, 2, and 3) score with either neutral or minor positive benefit, the benefits to bus services from reduced delay on the road network under the Option 1 dualling proposals is noted with the benefit to bus journey times and, hence, increased accessibility for bus users, so Option 1 scores with minor positive benefit.

Feasibility, Affordability and Public Acceptability

Feasibility

A preliminary assessment of the feasibility to construct or implement each option has been undertaken. The assessment also considers the operation of each option and, where appropriate, the status of the technology required to implement it (e.g. proven, prototype, in development, etc.). Any costs, timescale or deliverability risks (including funding risk, consent risk due to potential legal and planning issues, and stakeholder acceptability risk), associated with the construction or operation of each option, have also been considered in the feasibility assessment. Engineering judgement has been used in each instance and considered against issues which have been raised throughout the Pre-Appraisal stage of the study.

The road options, Options 1, 2, and 3 and the two rail options, Options 6 and 7, have been awarded a medium engineering feasibility risk given the larger scale nature of the schemes and the construction involved. Furthermore given the more major interventions for the dualling in Option 1 and the rail implementation in Options 6 and 7, these options have been awarded a high deliverability risk overall. This reflects the many contractors, stakeholders, and land owners likely to be involved in planning, design, and implementation of the options which increases the complexity of delivery and consent risk.

Option 4 has been awarded a low risk with respect to both engineering feasibility risk and deliverability risk given the option assumes no additional infrastructure will be required, and any associated costs would be in relation to the purchase and running costs of additional public transport vehicles required to operate the service. Similarly Option 5 has been awarded a low risk with respect to both engineering feasibility risk and deliverability risk given the minor infrastructure works that may be required for the reallocation of road space to allow for bus priority measures.

Affordability

The affordability appraisal has considered the scale of the financing burden on the promoting authority and other funding organisations involved and the risks associated with these. Capital Expenditure (CAPEX) and on-going operating and maintenance costs (OPEX) have also been considered alongside any revenue implications. At this initial phase, detailed costs are not available, however, information on infrastructure costs from other, similar schemes has been used wherever possible, including recent projects delivered in Scotland. These provide a useful evidence base to inform the Part 1 Appraisal. It should be noted that no funding has been set aside at present to fund any of the interventions proposed in the options.

Page 17 of 184 21 March 2016

The information is presented in the following three tables for Options 1 – 5, Options 6 and Option 7. For Options 6 and 7, the capital and operating costs, and revenue estimates have been undertaken for the railway lines considering the full route to Ellon, Peterhead and Fraserburgh, and also considering implementation of the route to Ellon only. When the route to Ellon only is considered, a number of sensitivities have been undertaken to estimate the potential revenue if a certain percentage of users from further north choose to join the rail line at Ellon. Given the high level nature of the estimates at this stage, two separate methodologies have been used to estimate patronage and revenue, which provide a range for revenue estimates. Full details of the methodologies used and their associated assumptions are provided in the body and associated appendices of this Report.

It is important to note that both Options 6 and 7 would require some adaption of Aberdeen Rail Station to allow for the termination of trains on the proposed new lines. At this stage, any associated cost for this has not been included with the estimated capital costs for either option. Additionally, the capital cost of Option 6 does not include for any of the works that may be required to accommodate the Buchan line trains on the Aberdeen-Inverness line, i.e. to accommodate the trains between Dyce and Aberdeen. This would include:  A requirement for doubling of the tunnels between Dyce and Aberdeen that is likely to be the most expensive and disruptive work required to deliver Buchan line trains into Aberdeen  More signals on the Dyce-Aberdeen line section

It should be noted that while operating and revenue calculations have been undertaken for the rail options (Options 6 and 7) no similar exercise was undertaken for the likely operational costs and patronage, and hence potential revenue if Options 4 and 5 (the bus options) were implemented. This has not been undertaken due to the lack of available data relating to current bus patronage in the study area, details on the likely express bus stopping patterns (compared to the existing), and the assumptions that would be required in terms of assumed modal shift that might be achieved. This level of detail should be sought if the either of the bus options proceeds to the more detailed Part 2 Appraisal.

It should be noted that the assumptions used when estimating scheme capital expenditure, operating costs and potential revenue, have been made at a high level. While the assumptions enable an indication of the potential costs and revenue of the schemes to be made, attention should be paid to the assumptions used and caution applied when considering the figures presented in the body of this Report and the associated appendices. Detailed cost and revenue calculations would be expected to be undertaken at the more detailed STAG Part 2 stage when the assumptions used would be refined. This is particularly relevant for the rail options, Options 6 and 7.

Page 18 of 184 21 March 2016

Affordability Summary Options 1 – 5 Annual Annual Capital Operating Annual Option Costs Costs Revenue Assumptions 1 Road dualling £620million - Not £0 Cost range based on cost per kilometer as taken from A9(T) dualling (£22.5million per km) £1.3billion estimated and Balmedie to Tipperty scheme (£10million per km) costs. but likely to Junction improvement costs (with possible grade seperation at Toll of Birness) is be low estimated at at approximately £50million.

2Over-taking £110million - Not £0 Each 1km section of overtaking lane (single direction) would cost between £5million - lanes £188million estimated £11.5million. The option assumes 12 sections of single direction overtaking lanes of but likely to approx. 1km. be low Junction improvement costs (with possible grade seperation at Toll of Birness) is estimated at approximately £50million.

3Safety £50million - Not £0 Assumes significant safety improvements, potentially involving road realignment and a Improvements £100million estimated bypass of Mintlaw. but likely to be low 4 New direct and Approximately Not Not Assumes 4 new coaches required. Cost relates to capital expenditure, including increased £12million estimated estimated reaplacement, over the 60 year appraisal period. express bus services

5 New direct and Approximately Not Not Assumes: increased £50million estimated estimated • 4 new coaches required. Cost relates to capital expenditure, including reaplacement, express bus over the 60 year appraisal period (£12million) services and • Bus lane/priority implementation over various locations (£1million) bus prioirty • Implementation of 4 new Park & Ride sites (approximately £10million each) infrastructure • Expansion of 2 existing Park & Ride sites (at approximately £0.5million each).

Page 19 of 184 21 March 2016

Affordability Summary Option 6 Annual Annual Capital Operating Option Costs Costs Annual Revenue Assumptions 6 Rail line to Peterhead and £530million - £4.2million £3.1milllion - £11.2million • Capital cost based on cost per Fraserburgh (via Ellon) £1.1billion kilometer as taken from Borders Rail £2.5million - £8.8million (when equivalent fares scheme (£6.125million per km) and used based on Option 7 distances for fairer Airdrie-Bathgate rail scheme comparison) (£12.5million per km) Rail line to Ellon only £130million - £2.2million • £1.3million - £3.6million (30% demand tranfer to • Operating costs based on Edinburgh- £260million Ellon from station further north) Dunbar-Newcastle STAG study, assuming running half hourly service (£330million • £1.5million - £4.4million (50% demand tranfer to from Aberdeen. for tramway) Ellon from station further north)

• Revenue based on assumed demand • £1.8million - £5.6million (80% demand tranfer to estimated through two differing Ellon from station further north) methods and a fare price based on distance travelled.

• No account taken for assoicated demand from future development

• Operating costs assume 5 train sets (2 carraiges long) required for half hourly frequency for full routes and 3 train sets (2 carraiges long) required for half hourly frequency for route to Ellon only.

• Operating costs take account of fuel, maintenance, wages, track accesss fees etc.

Page 20 of 184 21 March 2016

Affordability Summary Option 7 Annual Annual Capital Operating Option Costs Costs Annual Revenue Assumptions 7 Rail line to Peterhead and £580million - £3.7million £2.0million - £10.9million • Capital cost based on cost per Fraserburgh - Branch lines £1.2billlion kilometer as taken from Borders Rail from Ellon scheme (£6.125million per km) and Airdrie-Bathgate rail scheme Rail line to Peterhead and £490.0million - £4.5million £1.9million - £10.4million (£12.5million per km) Fraserburgh - Continuous £1.0billion lines from Ellon • Operating costs based on Edinburgh- Dunbar-Newcastle STAG study, assuming running half hourly service Rail line to Ellon only £160million - £2.0million • £0.8million - £3.6million (30% demand tranfer to from Aberdeen. £330million Ellon from station further north)

• Revenue based on assumed demand (£320million • £1.0million - £4.4million (50% demand tranfer to estimated through two differing for tramway) Ellon from station further north) methods and a fare price based on distance travelled. • £1.2million - £5.6million (80% demand tranfer to Ellon from station further north) • No account taken for assoicated demand from future development

• Operating costs take account of fuel, maintenance, wages, track accesss fees etc.

Page 21 of 184 21 March 2016

Page 22 of 184 21 March 2016

Public Acceptability

Engagement has been undertaken during both the Pre- and Part 1 Appraisal stages of the study and has been used, where appropriate, as a key evidence base from which to assess likely public support for the options. Engagement has included:  During the Pre-Appraisal stage an extensive consultation exercise was undertaken with a wide range of stakeholders which included the public. Details on the engagement undertaken can be found in Appendix A of the Pre-Appraisal Report.  During the Part 1 Appraisal stage, four public events were held in late October/early November 2015 to present all work to date on the study including the high level appraisal of the seven options. Full details of the public events and feedback can be found in Appendix F.

The engagement undertaken has highlighted an over-riding sentiment and belief amongst stakeholders in the business community that current transport links do not fully support the areas key industries and that the growth aspirations of the Energetica project and local businesses are being constrained by the current transport network. Businesses highlighted their desire for road improvement in the area such that journey times would not only be reduced but become more reliable and predictable.

The desire for road improvement was also prominent in engagement with the general public, with current road delays meaning trips must be started earlier or later to avoid heavily congested times, and delay making people late for appointments and meetings and also creating feelings of isolation. There is a current local interest campaign with both public and political support for providing dual carriageway north of Ellon. The campaign Why Stop At Ellon? is campaigning for a dual carriageway from Ellon to Peterhead and has a popular Facebook page with over 2,500 ‘likes’ with the campaign also supported by the local press.

The proportion and speed of freight traffic and other slower moving vehicles on the key road routes was highlighted by the public as a cause of frustration on the roads when undertaking day-to-day activities. This frustration at the delay was felt to be the key cause of the high road accident occurrences in the area. The public noted the potential for road improvements to not only improve safety, but also increase the attractiveness of the area to investors and employees and ease the commute for both workers and students. It was, however, recognised that road improvements may encourage car use and, hence, increase vehicular emissions and could potentially encourage speeding and increase accident rates.

While there was a clear public desire for road improvements, there was also a clear wish for new rail connections, with a public survey highlighting that limited travel mode choice was a major problem for 66% of respondents and that rail connectivity in the area could provide a more reliable travel mode, improve commuting, reduce road emissions and encourage investment in the area, but with recognition of the large capital cost. This desire for rail connectivity was not mirrored by the business community who suggested the ‘just-in-time’ nature of their business operations and the size of loads being transported meant that their operations could not easily be transferred to the rail network.

Page 23 of 184 21 March 2016

Engagement regarding the existing bus network highlighted a desire for improvement, but not on the same scale as that for road and rail modes. It is worth noting that any road improvement would likely provide additional benefit for bus operations. Feedback on the bus options showed that nearly a third of respondents felt that bus improvements would either not impact on them or they did not know what the impact would be. The public noted that while the bus options would improve services from key points, it would do nothing for populations living outwith Fraserburgh and Peterhead or service points on the route. It was also noted that buses themselves are a contributor to the slow journey times with more buses exacerbating the existing delay on the road network.

Given the comments received it was clear that there is public support for both road and rail interventions, and to a lesser extent bus improvement, while the business community would be far more in favour of road improvements over any other intervention. It is recognised that given the local Why Stop At Ellon? dualling campaign, and the political and public desire for a rail line, the more minor bus interventions may be viewed with a certain level of disappointment if a more major intervention were not implemented.

Page 24 of 184 21 March 2016

Appraisal Summary Scores and Risk Ratings

Transport Planning Objectives TPO1 TPO2 TPO3 TPO4 TPO5 TPO6 STAG Criteria Risk Rating

Option Reduce journey North-East times between conurbationcommunities and the Aberdeen journeyIncrease and time reliability predictability between North-East conurbationcommunities and the Aberdeen Reduce accidents on A90(T)the A952 and between choice travel strategic Increase North-East communities and the Aberdeen conurbation Increase direct public transport connectivity between North-East communities the and attractorsmain trip within the Aberdeen conurbation modeIncrease share for non-car based modes between North-Eastcommunities and conurbationthe Aberdeen Environment Safety Economy Integration & SocialAccessibility Inclusion Fit with NationalPolicy Established Directives Feasibility Affordability Acceptability Public

1 3 3 3 1 1 0 -23321 1MediumHighLow

2 2 2 2 0 0 0 -12210 0MediumMediumLow

3 1 2 3 0 0 0 -13110 1MediumMediumLow

4 1 0 1 2 2 1 11122 1 LowMediumLow

5 2 1 1 2 2 1 -11122 1 LowMediumHigh

6 1 2 1 3 3 2 -21222 1 HighHighLow

7 2 2 1 3 3 2 -31222 2 HighHighLow

Page 25 of 184 21 March 2016

Key Advantages and Disadvantages , Options 1 and 2

Op. Description Key Advantages Key Disadvantages 1 Phased road dualling north of • Reduced journey times between Fraserburgh, • The routes could attract additional road traffic Ellon, with junction improvements, Peterhead and Aberdeen through the provision of • Increased noise and traffic emissions close to the including consideration of: additional road capacity A90(T) and A952 • A90(T) Ellon to Toll of Birness • Reduced driver frustration and the likelihood of • Limited opportunity for improved integration with • A90(T) Toll of Birness to accidents through providing continuous overtaking other transport modes Peterhead opportunity • Land take required to widen carriageway and adverse • A952 and A90(T) Toll of Birness to • Support for existing businesses and create a more impacts on natural and cultural heritage Fraserburgh attractive inward investment location • High financial cost • Increased accessibility to employment opportunities through reduced commuting time • Greater journey time reliability to all road users, including bus services

2 Overtaking lanes and junction • Reduced journey times between Fraserburgh, • Increased noise and traffic emissions close to the improvements, including Peterhead and Aberdeen through the provision of A90(T) and A952 although not as great as for the full consideration of: additional road capacity, although journey time dualling as proposed in Option 1 • A90(T) from Ellon to Peterhead reductions will not be as great as in Option 1 • Land take required to widen carriageway at chosen • A952 and A90(T) Toll of Birness to • Reduced driver frustration and reduced likelihood of locations and adverse impacts on natural and cultural Fraserburgh accidents through the provision of overtaking heritage opportunity • No opportunity for improved integration with other • Support for existing businesses and create a more transport modes attractive inward investment location • High financial cost, although not as high as Option 1 • Increased accessibility to employment opportunities through reduced commuting time • Greater journey time reliability to all road users, including bus services

Page 26 of 184 21 March 2016

Key Advantages and Disadvantages, Options 3, 4, and 5 Op. Description Key Advantages Key Disadvantages 3 Safety improvements on: • Significant reduction in accidents on the A90(T) and A952 • Limited impact on connectivity between • A90(T) from Ellon to Peterhead would be expected Fraserburgh, Peterhead and Aberdeen • A952 and A90(T) Toll of Birness to • Reduced social cost of accidents • No opportunity for improved integration with Fraserburgh • Reduced economic impact to business of accident delays on other transport modes the road network • Limited environmental impact for construction • Lower financial cost and relative to other road-based options this option is more affordable

4 Bus service improvements • Reduced journey times for public transport users • Increased accessibility to employment further including consideration of: • Reduced need for public transport interchange in Aberdeen afield may result in a strain on the local labour • New direct bus linkages between City centre market the study area and key • Increased accessibility to employment opportunities and • Requires commercial support from bus employment, health and social regional healthcare and social facilities, particularly for those operators and suitable demand from the public to facilities in the Aberdeen limited, or no, car access ensure on-going service provision conurbation • Potential shift from car to bus use with environmental • Increased express services benefits of reduced emissions between the study area and key • Opportunity for improved integration with walking and facilities in Aberdeen cycling 5 Bus service improvements (as • Reduced journey times for public transport users, with • Potential journey time delay to non public Option 4) accompanied by priority journey times improved on those in Option 4 transport road users if road space reallocated for infrastructure and Park and Ride • Reduced need for public transport interchange in Aberdeen bus priority measures improvements considering: City centre • Increased accessibility may result in a strain on • New sections of dedicated bus • Increased accessibility to employment opportunities and the local labour market lanes regional healthcare and social facilities, particularly for those • Requires commercial support from bus • Extending operating hours for without access, or with limited access, to a car operators and suitable demand from the public to bus priority lanes • Potential shift from car to bus use with environmental ensure on-going service provision • Development of a Park & Ride benefits Strategy for the study corridor • Opportunity for improved integration with walking and cycling

Page 27 of 184 21 March 2016

Key Advantages and Disadvantages, Options 6 and 7 Op. Description Key Advantages Key Disadvantages 6 Phased reinstatement • Increased travel choice between Fraserburgh, Peterhead, Ellon • Indirect routing (via Maud) on the existing Formartine on existing railway and Aberdeen & Buchan Way alignment could reduce use by those in alignments, via Dyce, • Increased accessibility to employment opportunities and Peterhead including examining regional healthcare and social facilities, particularly for those • The route on the existing alignment would not service options for light rail or without access, or with limited access to a car including direct key conurbations immediately north of Aberdeen where tram from: linkage to key employment centre at Dyce future development is planned (Blackdog, Balmedie etc.) • Dyce to Ellon • Potential shift from car to rail/tram use with environmental • Loss of Formartine & Buchan Way as strategic cycle • Ellon to benefits and walking route and wildlife corridor Maud/Peterhead • Opportunity for improved integration with walking and cycling • Rail capacity issues on the line between Dyce and • Maud to Fraserburgh • Improved image that the region is connected which may Aberdeen encourage inward investment • Potential negative impact on commercial viability of current bus services and withdrawal of services • High financial undertaking

7 Phased implementation • Increased travel choice between Fraserburgh, Peterhead, Ellon • Potential negative impact on commercial viability of of a new railway and Aberdeen current bus services and withdrawal of services alignment, via the • Increased accessibility to employment opportunities and • Land take required for new rail/tram alignment and Bridge of Don, including regional healthcare and social facilities, particularly for those adverse impacts on natural and cultural heritage examining options for without access, or with limited access, to a car • High financial undertaking light rail or tram from: • Direct linkage to Aberdeen potentially increasing demand for • Aberdeen to Ellon the service and enabling competitive journey times against the • Ellon to Peterhead private car (compared to Option 6) • Ellon to Fraserburgh • Direct rail/tram route would serve key conurbations and/or Peterhead to immediately north of Aberdeen where future development in Fraserburgh planned (Blackdog, Balmedie etc.) • Potential shift from car to rail/tram use with environmental benefits • Opportunity for improved integration with walking and cycling • Improved image that the region is connected which may encourage inward investment

Page 28 of 184 21 March 2016

Option Packaging and Next Steps

The next stage in the STAG process, the STAG Part 2 Appraisal, requires a more detailed appraisal of options taken forward from Part 1.

This Report does not seek to make recommendations about the options which should be selected or rejected at the end of the Part 1 Appraisal, but instead presents the appraisal for decision makers such that they can make an informed choice as to which options to progress if desired, however, taking cognisance of the key advantages and disadvantages of each option there is evidence to suggest that mixing and matching elements from different options would provide more favourable options over any individual option on its own.

The packaging of options was discussed at a meeting with the Client Group in December 2015, and based on these discussions, the following figures and tables set out two potential option ‘packages’ and the rationale and benefits behind each package. These packages are:  Package 1: Road & Bus  Package 2: Rail & Bus

Page 29 of 184 21 March 2016

Package 1: Road & Bus

Page 30 of 184 21 March 2016

Option Packaging, Package 1: Road & Bus (Table 1 of 3) Package 1 Package Description Rationale for packaging Road & Bus Road dualling on the A90(T) between Ellon and the • Dualling between Ellon and the Toll of Birness junction could be justified on the grounds Toll of Birness (from Option 1) of traffic volumes (traffic levels are already nearly in excess of that recommended for a single lane road)

• Road dualling between Ellon and the Toll of Birness would benefit traffic from to/from both Peterhead and Fraserburgh

• An approximate journey time reduction of around 01:30minutes (AM) and 03:30 minutes (PM) northbound, and 02:40minutes (AM) and 01:30minutes (PM) southbound is predicted between Ellon and the Toll of Birness when compared against future predicted 2023 journey times.

• All road improvements would benefit current public transport utilising the A90(T) and A952 routes Junction improvements at the Toll of Birness (from • The Toll of Birness has been identified as a key accident location and junction Option 1 and 2) improvements would reduce this while also providing some reduction in southbound journey times from the A952 (due to likely reduced queuing at the junction stop line)

Overtaking lanes (from Option 2) on the: • While road dualling north of the Toll of Birness could not be justified based on traffic • A90(T) between Toll of Birness and volumes alone, overtaking lanes at appropriate locations would provide journey time Peterhead (3 over-taking sections, both directions) benefits and help tackle the higher than expected rate of fatal accidents noted on the • A90(T) between Fraserburgh and A952 between the Toll of Birness and Mintlaw and on the A90(T) south of Fraserburgh A90(T)/A952 (Cortes) junction (1 overtaking and south of Peterhead. section, both directions) • Analysis shows overtaking lanes would provide journey time savings of around 30 • A952 between Toll of Birness and Cortes seconds between the Toll of Birness and Peterhead, and around 30 seconds between the junction (2 overtaking sections, both directions) Toll of Birness and Fraserburgh when compared to 2023 predicted journey times. • All road improvements would benefit current public transport utilising the A90(T) and A952 routes

Page 31 of 184 21 March 2016

Option Packaging, Package 1: Road & Bus (Table 2 of 3)

PackageRoad & Bus1 Package Description Rationale for packaging Safety improvements (from Option 3) on the: • Safety improvements on roads would target the higher than expected rate of severe • A90(T) between Toll of Birness and Peterhead accidents of the A952 between Mintlaw and the Toll of Birness, on the A90(T) between • A90(T) between Fraserburgh and Fraserburgh and the A90(T)/A952 (Cortes) junction, and on the A90(T) between the A90(T)/A952 (Cortes) junction A90(T)/A975 junction and Peterhead. Safety improvements would include consideration • A952 between Toll of Birness and Cortes of road realignment, anti-skid services and provision for right hand turners. junction

Bypass of Mintlaw • The Local Development Plan for Aberdeenshire has allocation for over a 1000 new houses in Mintlaw. Traffic through the town is expected to increase by between 40%-60% (dependant on direction) by 2033. A bypass would increase road safety and provide further journey time improvements on the A952 for those travelling to/from further north Bus priority infrastructure and Park & Ride • The bus proposals included within this package are those proposed for Option 5 and will improvements (from Option 5) including: capitalise on the proposed road improvement measures. • Bus priority measures at key junction on the A90(T) • Analysis shows that bus journey times could be reduced by around 50 minutes to • Extending operating hours for bus priority lanes locations such as Dyce, if direct services were provided. Coupled with the road between Aberdeen City centre and Ellon on the improvements, and express services, this journey time saving is likely to be greater, A956 and A90(T) making the bus more attractive. • Development of a Park & Ride Strategy for the study corridor including expansion of existing Park & Ride sites and new mini Park & Ride sites at Mintlaw, Peterhead and Fraserburgh • Express and direct services (from Option 4 & 5) from the Park & Ride sites (as well as the existing Ellon and the Bridge of Don sites) to the main trip attractors in the Aberdeen conurbation, such as: Dyce, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen Airport, Robert Gordon University etc.

Page 32 of 184 21 March 2016

Option Packaging, Package 1: Road & Bus (Table 3 of 3) Package 1 Package Description Rationale for packaging Road & Bus Summary The packaged option would be more affordable than full phased road dualling north of the Toll of Birness and the bus improvements will capitalise on the road improvements for public transport users, with the packaged option providing benefit for all road users.

Estimated Capital Expenditure:

• Dualling (Ellon to Toll of Birness): £50million - £112.5million • Junction improvements: Approximately £50million • Overtaking Lanes: £60million - £138million • Safety improvements including Mintlaw Bypass: £40-50million (Mintlaw bypass £30million) • Bus Priority Infrastructure: Approximately £1million • New Express and Direct bus services: Approximately £12million • Three new Park & Ride sites and expansion of two existing sites: Approximately £30million

Page 33 of 184 21 March 2016

Page 34 of 184 21 March 2016

Package 2: Rail & Bus

Page 35 of 184 21 March 2016

Page 36 of 184 21 March 2016

Option Packaging, Package 2: Rail & Bus (Table 1 of 4) Package 2 Package Description Rationale for packaging Rail & Bus Introduction of heavy rail service, via Dyce: • The railway line into Dyce (and then into the existing rail network) would allow for • Between Dyce and Ellon on the existing connections from the study area to the key employment opportunities in the Dyce area alignment of the Formartine & Buchan Way (from as well as the airport, and the City Centre Option 6) • The assessment of affordability shows that a rail line to Ellon (served by express bus services from Fraserburgh and Peterhead) would have revenue costs (estimated at between £1.3million- 5.6million per annum) potentially higher than operating costs (estimated at £2.2million) indicating a potentail annual net profit in operational terms. However, this estimate does take account of any demand from future development, or take account of trips between intermediate stations i.e. Ellon to Newmachar etc.) which would increase revenue. • The capital costs of the railway line to Ellon only is estimated at between £130million - £260million. • An expanded Park & ride site at Ellon station alongside new Park & Ride sites at Fraserburgh Peterhead and Mintlaw would allow the demand for rail access to Aberdeen from Peterhead and Fraserburgh to be captured. • Estimation of journey time savings shows that future 2023 journey times from Ellon to A • 4 minutes quicker by rail than road southbound in the morning peak • 17 minutes quicker by rail than road northbound in the evening peak • Just 4 and a half minutes slower by rail than road northbound in the morning peak a

Page 37 of 184 21 March 2016

Option Packaging, Package 2: Rail & Bus (Table 2 of 4) Package 2 Package Description Rationale for packaging Rail & Bus Potential future introduction of heavy rail service, • North of Ellon, a future rail alignment on a new route would allow for more direct between Ellon and Peterhead on a new rail routeing and provide journey times more competitive with the car, specifically for access alignment (from Option 7) to/from Peterhead for which the Option 6 alignment via Maud on the existing alignment is indirect • Estimation of journey time savings shows that 2023 journey times from Peterhead to Aberdeen centre would be around: • 3 and a half minutes quicker by rail than road southbound in the morning peak • 18 minutes quicker by rail than road northbound in the evening peak • Just 6 minutes slower by rail than road northbound in the morning peak and just 5 minutes slower by rail than road southbound in the evening peak

Potential future introduction of heavy rail service • North of Ellon, a future rail alignment on a new route would allow for more direct between Ellon and Fraserburgh (branch line) or routeing and provide journey times more competitive with the car between Peterhead and Fraserburgh (continuation • Estimation of journey time savings shows that journey times from Fraserburgh to of Peterhead line) (from Option 7) Aberdeen centre, if a branch line were to operate from Ellon, would be around: • 1 and a half minutes quicker by rail than road southbound in the morning peak • 17 and a half minutes quicker by rail than road northbound in the evening peak • 9 minutes slower by rail than road northbound in the morning peak and 7 minutes slower by rail than road southbound in the evening peak.

If an extended line were introduced from Peterhead, rail travel time from Fraserburgh to Aberdeen would only be quicker for trips northbound in the evening peak.

Page 38 of 184 21 March 2016

Option Packaging, Package 2: Rail & Bus (Table 3 of 4) Package 2 Package Description Rationale for packaging Rail & Bus Bus priority infrastructure and Park & Ride • The bus proposals included within this package are those proposed for Option 5 and improvements (from Option 5) including: will capitalise on the proposed road improvement measures. • New sections of dedicated bus lanes on the • Analysis shows that bus journey times could be reduced by around 50 minutes to approaches to junctions on the A90(T) to allow locations such as Dyce, if direct services were provided. Coupled with the road buses to bypass queues improvements, and express services, this journey time saving is likely to be greater, • Extending operating hours for bus priority lanes making the bus more attractive. between Aberdeen City centre and Ellon on the • The Park & Ride sites would enable connections between the railway and bus A956 and A90(T) network, in the shorter term, enabling those north of Ellon to easier access the rail • Development of a Park & Ride Strategy for the network at Ellon and allowing for full length public transport trips between Fraserburgh, study corridor including new mini Park & Ride sites Peterhead and Dyce/Aberdeen. at Mintlaw, Peterhead and Fraserburgh which would service the Ellon Park & Ride site and enable connections between the railway and bus network

• Express and direct services (from Option 4 & 5) from the mini Park & Ride sites (as well as the existing Ellon and the Bridge of Don sites) to the main trip attractors in the Aberdeen conurbation such as Dyce, Westhill, Altens/Tullos, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Robert Gordon Univeristy etc.

Page 39 of 184 21 March 2016

Option Packaging, Package 2: Rail & Bus (Table 3 of 4) Package 2 Package Description Rationale for packaging Rail & Bus Summary The introduction of rail in the shorter term between Dyce and Ellon would provide rail access to Dyce and Aberdeen from the study area, and coupled with bus improvements including Park & Ride sites would allow accessibility to the rail network for those north of Ellon. Estimates of affordability show that annual rail revenue costs (£1.3million - £5.6million) could be more than operating costs (£2.2million) for the route between Aberdeen and Ellon, however a level of subsidy may be required. The analysis does not take account of any future development in the area, and as such it is likely this would increase revenue, and subsequently reduce any required subsidy.

In the longer term, dependant on the success of the rail line to Ellon, further consideration could be made on extending the rail line north of Ellon.

Estimated Capital Expenditure: • Rail from Dyce to Ellon: £130million - £260million • Rail from Ellon to Peterhead on new alignment: £170million - £340million • Rail from Ellon to Fraserburgh on new alignment (or Peterhead to Fraserburgh on extended line): £260million - £530million (£170million - £340million) • Bus Priority Infrastructure: Approximately £1million • New Express and Direct bus services: Approximately £12million • Three new Park & Ride sites and expansion of two existing sites: Approximately £30milli

Page 40 of 184 21 March 2016

1 INTRODUCTION

In collaboration, SIAS Limited (SIAS), Peter Brett Associates LLP (PBA), and Energised Environments (the Consultant Team) were appointed by Nestrans to undertake the Fraserburgh and Peterhead to Aberdeen Strategic Transport Study. The purpose of the study is to identify and examine the options for improving strategic transport connections between Fraserburgh, Peterhead, and Aberdeen including incorporating the Energetica Corridor.

Nestrans is the key client contact for the study, but the Client Group for the study consists of Nestrans, Aberdeenshire Council, Aberdeen City Council, and Transport Scotland.

The study is being undertaken in line with the Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance (STAG).

Pre-Appraisal Summary

The analysis at the Pre-Appraisal stage highlighted economic and social motivation for transport improvements, with the analysis highlighting a clear north-south divide in the study area, ith a lower economic rate, educational attainment, and recent lower growth in the northern areas when compared to the regional figures, highlighting the inequalities between the study area and the wider affluent Aberdeenshire region.

Page 41 of 184 21 March 2016

There is a clear economic rationale underpinning the need for transport improvement in the study area with analysis highlighting the dominance of the primary industries in the area, driven by the oil & gas, fishing, and farming sectors. These industries are relatively transport intensive, with a heavy reliance on the movement of goods, and Peterhead Port and Fraserburgh Harbour are key freight attractors and freight generators (as part of the oil & gas and fishing industries). Connectivity to and from the harbours, principally by road, is evidently important to enabling efficient and successful business operations. For the fishing industry, where stock can depreciate in value quickly (up to 50% depreciation a day), the movement of product is particularly time critical with road delays impacting heavily on businesses in this highly competitive market. For the oil & gas supply and subsea industries, where vessels only have limited time at berth in the harbours, ‘slack’ must be built into freight movements, leading to inefficiencies and higher costs.

The proportion and speed of freight traffic on key road routes was a cause of frustration for the public when undertaking day-to-day activities. This frustration at delay on the roads was felt to be the key cause of the high road accident occurrences in the study area. The impact of accidents and the delay they cause was also noted by the business community in terms of the impact on business operations and the difficulty in planning with this element of unreliability and unpredictability in travel times by road. The main bus operators in the area both cited the need to provide slack time in timetables to allow for this element of unpredictability and enable the statutory targets, surrounding punctuality and reliability, to be met, leading to occasions where buses are required to wait at stops for long periods to ensure timetables are adhered to. This is particularly unattractive to passengers and detracts from the use of this more sustainable means of travel, where journey times by bus cannot compete with equivalent car journey times, meaning those reliant on public transport have significantly reduced accessibility to key regional services and job opportunities.

Page 42 of 184 21 March 2016

Tipperty dualling will be major step change in transport connectivity between the study area, Aberdeen and further south. However, modelling of the future transport network with the AWPR and other major transport interventions (such as the Third Don Crossing and Haudagain interchange) included, as well as the travel demand associated with the housing and employment build-out as suggested by the Local Development Plans, suggest that by 2023 there will be increased traffic and increased travel time on the road routes north of Ellon.

Taking cognisance of the policy context and the key problems and opportunities identified, six TPOs were set during Pre-Appraisal and are discussed in Section 3.

Seven options were recommended from the Pre-Appraisal stage to be taken forward for Part 1 Appraisal.

The Part 1 Appraisal is an initial appraisal of the options generated during Pre-Appraisal and involves a qualitative assessment of the likelihood of such options being able to meet the Transport Planning Objectives, and subsequently proceed to the more detailed Part 2 Appraisal. At this phase in the study, an indicative assessment of the scope and scale of the benefits and impacts associated with an option are considered in order to focus appropriate effort and resources towards options which merit detailed quantitative appraisal and eliminate options which are unlikely to meet the Transport Planning Objectives, alleviate problems or realise opportunities identified during Pre-Appraisal.

Page 43 of 184 21 March 2016

This Report details the Part 1 Appraisal stage of the STAG process and includes:  Background Information To provide relevant context, this report contains a summary of the following:  Geographical Context: A general statement describing the geographic area likely to be affected by the option  Social Context: A summary of the social makeup of the area likely to be affected by the option  Economic Context: A description of the principal sectors and industries within the study area as well as a summary of factors affecting performance  Appraisal of the options against the study Transport Planning Objectives (TPOs)  High level appraisal of the options against the TPOs set for the study  Appraisal of the options against the STAG Criteria  High level appraisal of the options against the STAG criteria of Environment, Economy, Safety, Accessibility & Social Inclusion, and Integration.  Appraisal of the fit of the options with established policy directives  Assessment of the Feasibility, Affordability and Public Acceptability of options  Feasibility A preliminary assessment of the feasibility of construction or implementation and operation (if relevant) of an option and the status of its technology (e.g. proven, prototype, in development, etc.) as well as any cost, timescale or deliverability risks associated with the construction or operation of the option, including consideration of the need for any departure from design standards that may be required.  Affordability The scale of the financing burden on the promoting authority and other possible funding organisations and the risks associated with these should be considered together with the level of risk associated with an option’s ongoing operating or maintenance costs and its likely operating revenues (if applicable).  Public Acceptability The likely public response of the public to option implementation.  Participation and Consultation  Details of public events held towards the end of the Part 1 Appraisal to let the public and other key stakeholder feed into the appraisal process.  Option Packaging and Next Steps  Discussion on potential ‘option packaging’ for interventions to be taken forward for more detailed Part 2 Appraisal.

Page 44 of 184 21 March 2016

1.1 Options for appraisal

The seven options recommended from the Pre-Appraisal stage to be taken forward for Part 1 Appraisal are listed, alongside the key assumptions for each option, in Table 1.1 to Table 1.6.and shown indicatively in Figure 1.1 (road options), Figure 1.2 (bus options) and Figure 1.3 (rail options).

During the option generation process a range of ‘complementary measures’ were identified. These measures were options that in themselves were not felt to meet the aim of the study, but would support the seven recommended options for Part 1 Appraisal in achieving the study aim. For appraisal, it is assumed that a sub-set of these measures could be implemented alongside each of the seven recommended options. Specifically from these measures, a package of high quality active travel measures to integrate with other modes of transport has been developed which could form part of a complementary measures subset for the options. The list of active travel complementary measures is shown in Table 1.7. A full list of all complementary measures can be found in the study’s Pre-Appraisal Report.

Page 45 of 184 21 March 2016

Page 46 of 184 21 March 2016

Table 1.1 : Recommended options for Part 1 Appraisal, Option 1

Mode No. Option Description Assumptions

Road 1 Phased road dualling north of Ellon, It has been assumed that: with junction improvements, • The road would be widened by constructing a new carriageway generally adjacent to the existing including consideration of: single carriageway road to form a dualled route • A90(T) Ellon to Toll of Birness • The widening may be undertaken asymmetrically in some locations to avoid key constraints such as • A90(T) Toll of Birness to Peterhead designated areas and settlements. • A952 and A90(T) Toll of Birness to • Widened or new road bridges would be required over the principal watercourses which are the Fraserburgh River Ythan near Ellon (A90(T) Ellon to Toll of Birness) and the North and South Ugie Water near Mintlaw (A952 Toll of Birness to Fraserburgh). (Note: this option does not consider • Junction improvements at the Toll of Birness, with possible grade separation the dualling of the A90(T) between • Junction improvements at Cortes junction (at-grade improvements) Peterhead and Fraserburgh. The • Other at-grade junction improvements as required focus of the study is on improving • All construction works for the proposals would be undertaken concurrently connectivity between Fraserburgh, • Road dualling would increase capacity of the roads and junctions making them more attractive for Peterhead and Aberdeen. As such road users and it is anticipated that traffic flows would increase as a result of the improvements the focus is on the most direct road compared with the situation without dualling. routes between these conurbations).

Page 47 of 184 21 March 2016

Table 1.2 : Recommended options for Part 1 Appraisal, Option 2

Mode No. Option Description Assumptions Road 2 Overtaking lanes and junction It has been assumed that: improvements, including • Junction improvement at the Toll of Birness, with possible grade separation consideration of: • Junction improvement at Cortes junction (at grade improvements) • A90(T) from Ellon to Peterhead • Implementation of overtaking lanes (WS2+1 or similar) adjacent to the existing single carriageway • A952 and A90(T) Toll of Birness to road width with: Fraserburgh • Overtaking opportunity in both northbound and southbound directions (approximately 800m - 1500m in length in each direction at each individual occurrence) to form a widened route • Widening would be undertaken to avoid key constraints such as designated areas and settlements. • 3 overtaking sections provided in each direction on the A90(T) between Ellon and Peterhead; • 2 overtaking sectionsprovided in each direction on the A952, between the Toll of Birness and Mintlaw, and between Mintlaw and Cortes junction on the A90(T); • 1 overtaking section provided in each direction the A90(T) between Cortes junction and Fraserburgh. • Widening would not be undertaken in locations where significant upgrades or new structures such as bridges over larger watercourses would be required. • Construction works for the proposals would be undertaken concurrently. • Slightly increased road capacity making roads more attractive would increase traffic flow compared with the situation without new works.

Page 48 of 184 21 March 2016

Table 1.3 : Recommended options for Part 1 Appraisal, Option 3

Mode No. Option Description Assumptions Road 3 Safety improvements on: The option assumes: • A90(T) from Ellon to Peterhead • Significant safety improvements including: • A952 and A90(T) Toll of Birness to • Improvements to the Toll of Birness junction and Crotes junction Fraserburgh • Provision for right turn refuges throughout the length of the routes • Targeted accident reduction measures on the A90(T) south of Fraserburgh and south of Peterhead such as skid-resistant surfaces, • Road realignment where appropriate (subject to more detailed investigation) • Potentially a bypass of Mintlaw on the A952 • Minor safety improvement measures such as improved signage, road markings, barriers etc. • Works for safety measures would not be undertaken in locations where significant works near watercourses would be required • Construction works for the proposals would be undertaken concurrently • Slightly improved roads making the routes more attractive would increase traffic flow compared with the situation without new works. However, it is not anticipated that there would material changes in traffic flows as a result of the improvements.

Page 49 of 184 21 March 2016

Table 1.4 : Recommended options for Part 1 Appraisal, Options 4 & 5

Mode No. Option Description Assumptions Bus 4 Bus service improvements including The option assumes: consideration of: • No new infrastructure measures are required • New direct bus linkages between • New direct services/express services would be provided to locations such as: Dyce, Aberdeen Royal the study area and key employment, Infirmary, Aberdeen Airport, Robert Gordon University etc. health and social facilities in the • On-going subsidy of a number of currently non-commercial routes Aberdeen conurbation • Revenue implications for funding partners • Increased express services between the study area and key employment, health and social facilities in the Aberdeen conurbation

5 Bus service improvements (as The options assumes: Option 4) accompanied by priority • All above assumptions for Option 4 infrastructure and Park and Ride • Capital investment in the: improvements considering: • Development of Park & Ride sites at the Toll of Birness, Mintlaw, Peterhead and Fraserburgh • New sections of dedicated bus • Expansion of existing Park & Ride sites at Ellon and Bridge of Don; lanes • implementation of southbound bus priority measures at key junctions on the A90(T) from Ellon • Extending operating hours for bus to theA90(T)/A956 roundabout in north Aberdeen priority lanes • Capital investment would enable a partnership with operators with subsequent investment in • Development of a Park & Ride rolling stock and scope to operate commercial services with minimal subsidy Strategy for the study corridor • New services would operate with modern bus vehicles which meet relevant emissions standards • Any new bus priority measures requiring works would not be undertaken within or immediately adjacent to nationally important designated sites, key watercourses or residential receptors and that any new sections of bus lane would be developed on existing sections of road carriageway through reallocation of road space rather than by widening routes. • Construction works for the Park & Ride sites would be undertaken concurrently.

Page 50 of 184 21 March 2016

Table 1.5 : Recommended options for Part 1 Appraisal, Option 6

Mode No. Option Description Assumptions Rail 6 Phased reinstatement on existing The options assumes: railway alignments, via Dyce, • Reinstatement of 7 railway stations at: Newmachar, Ellon, Maud, Mintlaw, Peterhead, Strichen and including examining options for light Fraserburgh rail or tram from: • The reinstated Buchan line will connect into the existing rail network at Dyce • Dyce to Ellon • Rail services would operate on a half hourly frequency, with a hourly frequency at off-peak times • Ellon to Maud/Peterhead (evening and Sundays) • Maud to Fraserburgh • Rail services will be direct to Aberdeen, not requiring interchange at Dyce, and as such it is assumed that the location of the single to double track points on the Aberdeen - Kittybrewster line, any additional signalling infrastructure required, and any additional platforms at Aberdeen station would be in place such that the line could accommodate the new Buchan line services • ScotRail are assumed to be the operator, although another operator could, in theory, operate a the service, perhaps on a concession let by NESTRANs • Network Rail are the infrastructure provider • Stations would be developed within the urban areas and where possible close to the former station sites • Reinstatement of the railway and associated infrastructure is not expected to require permanent development on significant new areas of agricultural land. • Modern low emissions rail vehicles would be used on the route and that best use would be made of existing railway structures (e.g. key bridges) • New facilities such as stations or freight sidings would be sited and designed sensitively with respect to surrounding land uses, landscapes/townscapes and environmental constraints. • The rail proposals may result in some localised changes in road traffic (e.g. to access new stations) but overall railway operations are anticipated to contribute to modal shift from road to rail, particularly in combination with the proposed active travel complementary measures.

Page 51 of 184 21 March 2016

Table 1.6 : Recommended options for Part 1 Appraisal, Option 7

Mode No. Option Description Assumptions Rail 7 Phased implementation of a new The option assumes: railway alignment, via the Bridge of • A tram/railway line alignment adjacent to the existing A90(T)/A952 road alignment (diverting Don, including examining options for through towns and villages as appropriate) light rail or tram from: • 8 new rail stations (dependant on continuous or branch line route) at: Bridge of Don, Blackdog, • Aberdeen to Ellon Balmedie, Ellon, Hatton, Peterhead, St. Fergus (if continuous route), Mintlaw (if branch line) and • Ellon to Peterhead Fraserburgh • Ellon to Fraserburgh and/or • Rail services would operate on a half hourly frequency, with a hourly frequency at off-peak times Peterhead to Fraserburgh (evening and Sundays) • ScotRail are assumed to be the operator, although another operator could, in theory, operate a the service, perhaps on a concession let by NESTRANs • Network Rail are the infrastructure provider • New railway bridges would be required over the principal watercourses in the option corridors which are the River Don, River Ythan near Ellon, and the North and South Ugie Water near Mintlaw and the River Ugie near Peterhead • Rail proposals may result in some localised changes in road traffic (e.g. to access new stations) but overall railway operations are anticipated to contribute to modal shift from road to rail, particularly in combination with the proposed active travel complementary measures.

Page 52 of 184 21 March 2016

Figure 1.1 : Recommended road options for Part 1 Appraisal (Options 1, 2, and 3)

Page 53 of 184 21 March 2016

Figure 1.2 : Recommended bus options for Part 1 Appraisal (Options 4 & 5)

Page 54 of 184 21 March 2016

Figure 1.3 : Recommended rail options for Part 1 Appraisal (Options 6 & 7)

Page 55 of 184 21 March 2016

Table 1.7 : Complementary Active Travel Measures

Complementary Measure Description Measures

Active Travel Investment in a package of high quality active travel measures with a view to encouraging ‘whole journey’ sustainable travel including (but not limited to): • Surfacing sections of the Formartine & Buchan Way to encourage commuter travel • Improving cycle links into Aberdeen from commuting distance radii • Provide cycle routes from Foveran to Dyce and Newmachar to Dyce (not just into City) • Provide off road cycle routes along B-class roads - ensure appropriate interaction with junctions • Develop off-road cycle paths to Dyce Industrial Estate • Ensure cycle routes to link into Park and Ride sites and cycle racks at sites • Ensure cycle and walking routes to link into Fraserburgh, Peterhead & Ellon bus terminuses • Improved integration between Public Transport and cycle e.g. bikes on buses/trains

Travel Plans for major businesses to encourage greater sustainable travel

Environmental Encourage growth in the number of hydrogen powered vehicles via introduction of hydrogen powered buses, greenways and refuelling infrastructure

Develop an electric vehicle network map/app

Page 56 of 184 21 March 2016

1.2 Appraisal scoring

A qualitative appraisal of the options against the TPOs and STAG criteria has been undertaken based on the STAG seven point scale which considers the relevant size and scale of impacts.

For each TPO and STAG criteria, the appraisal illustrates whether the option would bring:  Major benefit (+3) These are benefits or positive impacts which, depending on the scale of benefit or severity of impact, the practitioner feels should be a principal consideration when assessing an option's eligibility for funding.  Moderate benefit (+2) The option is anticipated to have only a moderate benefit or positive impact. Moderate benefits and impacts are those which taken in isolation may not determine an option's eligibility for funding, but taken together do so.  Minor benefit (+1) The option is anticipated to have only a small benefit or positive impact. Small benefits or impacts are those which are worth noting, but the practitioner believes are not likely to contribute materially to determining whether an option is funded or otherwise.  No benefit or impact (0) The option is anticipated to have no or negligible benefit or negative impact.  Small minor cost or negative impact (-1) The option is anticipated to have only a small cost or negative impact. Small costs/negative impacts are those which are worth noting, but the practitioner believes are not likely to contribute materially to determining whether an option is funded or otherwise.  Moderate cost or negative impact (-2) The option is anticipated to have only a moderate cost or negative impact. Moderate costs/negative impacts are those which taken in isolation may not determine an option's eligibility for funding, but taken together could do so.  Major cost or negative impact (-3) These are costs or negative impacts which, depending on the scale of cost or severity of impact, the practitioner should take into consideration when assessing an option's eligibility for funding.

The seven point scale assessment is presented graphically for all options, using the colour scale shown in Figure 1.4.

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Moderate Major Cost or Minor Cost or Cost or No Benefit or Moderate Negative Negative Minor Benefit Major Benefit Negative Impact Benefit Impacts Impact Impact Figure 1.4 : STAG seven point scale

Page 57 of 184 21 March 2016

Page 58 of 184 21 March 2016

2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The Baseline Report for the study (Fraserburgh & Peterhead to Aberdeen Strategic Transport Study – Baseline Report_Final, SIAS Ref. 77322) presented a wealth of geographical, social, and economical data for the study area which is summarised here. The Baseline Report should be referred to for more detailed background information.

2.1 Geographical Context

The study area is located in the North-East of Scotland and covers a board corridor from central Aberdeen in the south to the town of Fraserburgh in the far north, encompassing the towns of Peterhead, Ellon, and Dyce, as shown in Figure 2.1. The study area fully encompasses the Aberdeen City & Shire Economic Future Energetica project study boundary, which extends from the Bridge of Don to Peterhead.

The study area is wholly contained within Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire Council boundaries. The majority of the study area, north of Blackdog, is contained within the bounds of Aberdeenshire covering parts of the administrative areas of Banff & Buchan, Buchan, Formartine, and Gairoch. The remainder of the study area, including the conurbations of Bridge of Don, Dyce, and Aberdeen is contained within the bounds of Aberdeen City.

Aberdeen is the major conurbation, the city centre and north Aberdeen being contained within the study area. Aberdeen itself has a population of approximately 230,000 (of which around 100,000 is contained within the study area). Peterhead is the second largest town in the study area and, with a population of 18,500, is Aberdeenshire’s largest conurbation. The other major conurbations in order of size are: Fraserburgh (population approx. 12,500); Ellon (population approx. 10,000), and Dyce (population approx. 6,000).

The study area contains a mix of landscapes, from the urbanised city region area of Aberdeen to the smaller towns of Ellon, Peterhead, and Fraserburgh, to the more rural nature of much of Aberdeenshire. The study area contains an approximate 100km stretch of coastline on the eastern and northern edges, with active ports at Aberdeen, Peterhead, and Fraserburgh.

The A90(T) trunk road routes north to south through the study area, linking Fraserburgh, Peterhead, Ellon, and Aberdeen, and continuing further south to link to Dundee, Perth, and the Scottish central belt. The A96(T) provides trunk road connectivity from Aberdeen and Dyce north-west to Inverness. Within the study area, there are limited rail links with stations only at Aberdeen and Dyce in the south of the area, providing direct connectivity to Dundee, Perth, the Scottish central belt and Inverness, as well as a range of smaller conurbations along the routes.

It is assumed that the benefits of any transport proposals would be felt most strongly within the bounds of the study area, however, the benefits and impacts of any transport intervention which improves strategic connectivity may also be felt further afield including within the remainder of Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire and further south, particularly with respect to potential economic benefits.

Page 59 of 184 21 March 2016

Fraserburgh Fraserburgh and Peterhead to Aberdeen Strategic Transport Study Study Area and Energitica Corridor Study Area Energetica Corridor 0 10km

Mintlaw

Peterhead

EllonEllon

DyceDyce

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2014 Figure 2.1 : Study Area

Page 60 of 184 21 March 2016

2.2 Social Context

The total population of the study area is approximately 220,0001, equating to around 45% of the overall population of the combined Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire region. This population has increased between 2002 and 2013, although the overall growth has been largely concentrated in the southern area closest to Aberdeen, highlighting the economic pull of the city. The study area population outside of Aberdeen is just over 70,000, implying a low population density and certain challenges in terms of transport and wider service delivery.

The study area has a slightly broader demographic mix than the wider Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire area, and Scotland as whole, with a higher proportion of young people and a lower proportion of people approaching or above the retirement age2.

The study area is divided into a southern and northern half in terms of occupations. The southern section is dominated by the types of more professional occupations associated with Aberdeen City, while the northern section is focussed more on skilled trade occupations3. The prevalence of primary sector employment, apprenticeships and skilled trades in industry, particularly as the distance from Aberdeen increases, tends to a lower take-up of higher education places.

Overall, unemployment in the study area is relatively low and is well below the ‘natural’ rate of unemployment4. The low rate of unemployment hints at a labour shortage in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire generally, however, unemployment is notably higher (although still well below the national average) in the northern sections of the study area.

Gross weekly pay for those residents in Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire is much higher than the Scottish average5. Gross pay by workplace is higher in Aberdeen City than Aberdeenshire, reflecting the key role of the city as an employment centre.

The Scottish Government’s Scottish Indices of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) highlights concentrated pockets of deprivation in Aberdeen City, Peterhead and Fraserburgh. There has been an increase in the proportion of the study area’s SIMD datazones in the 20% most deprived zones since 2004, rising from 10% to 12%, however, while there has been an overall increase in the proportion, all of this increase has occurred within the section of the study area in Aberdeen City, with the number of zones in Peterhead and Fraserburgh falling into this category remaining constant over the period. The deprivation in Peterhead and Fraserburgh in turn reflects the low levels of education attainment and other such indicators in these areas and is likely to be at least in part driven by ‘structural unemployment’, possibly caused by the decline in employment in the fishing industry. In recognition of this, both Peterhead and Fraserburgh are identified as Regeneration Priority Areas in the Aberdeen City and Shire Strategic Development Plan (SDP).

The study area has lower levels of car ownership than the remainder of Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire, albeit higher than the Scottish average with car ownership levels particularly low in Peterhead and Fraserburgh.

1 Source: Mid 2012 GRO populations 2 Source: GRoS Mid-2013 Population Estimates 3 Source: Census 2011 4 Source: SNS 5 Source: ONS annual survey of hours and earnings - resident and workplace analysis

Page 61 of 184 21 March 2016

The majority of those who live in Peterhead and Fraserburgh also work in the towns6 with the percentage commuting to Aberdeen approximately 15% and 12% respectively. As you travel further south in the study area the pull of the city increases with the majority of those in Ellon and areas south of Ellon commuting to Aberdeen for employment. The proportions commuting south to north are generally much smaller with less than 1% (around 300 people) of the population of Aberdeen (contained with the study area) travelling to Fraserburgh and Peterhead for work.

Car driving is the dominant travel to work mode across the study area with the use of public transport also relatively low across the area including for Peterhead and Fraserburgh7.

While Peterhead and Fraserburgh have low levels of home ownership compared to the national and regional averages, this is not the case for the study area generally, where ownership levels significantly outstrip these averages8. The rural areas immediately to the north of Aberdeen have relatively high average house prices, with values dissipating the further the distance north from Aberdeen. This likely reflects the pull of Aberdeen for commuters/employment.

What is clear from the above, and from further more detailed analysis (as presented in the Baseline Report) is that there is a north-south divide in the study area, with a lower economic rate, educational attainment, and recent lower growth in the northern sections when compared to the regional figures, highlighting the inequalities gap between the study area and the wider affluent Aberdeenshire region.

2.3 Economic Context

Until the second half of the 20th Century, the economy of the north-east of Scotland was predominantly based on the primary sector. In addition to Fraserburgh and Peterhead, Aberdeen (amongst others) was also a key fishing port (particularly for white fish). Aberdeenshire, as today, also had an enviable reputation for the quality of its agricultural produce, particularly livestock. The City of Aberdeen was the main regional service centre. The agrarian nature of the economy meant that Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire escaped the problems associated with the industrial rundown of West Central Scotland and Tayside (amongst others) in the 1980s.

The discovery of North Sea oil in the 1960s and 1970s fundamentally and permanently changed the economic landscape of the north-east of Scotland. In the race to explore and develop the most productive reserves, Aberdeen Harbour was quickly colonised by oil & gas companies, leading to a relative decline of the traditional fishing industry in the capacity constrained harbour, although this has generally been to the benefit of the Peterhead and Fraserburgh fishing industry.

6 Source: Census 2011 7 Source: Census 2011 8 Source: Census 2011

Page 62 of 184 21 March 2016

The discovery of North Sea oil transformed Aberdeen into Europe’s oil capital and one of the leading oil related service centres in the world. Great wealth poured into the city, which has spilled over into rural Aberdeenshire, an area which frequently tops the annual list of UK house price rises. Land in the previously rural settlements such as Stonehaven, Portlethen, Kintore, and Inverurie has become much sought after, while the likes of Westhill, Dyce, Altens, and Tullos have been the focus of significant industrial development. The Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire economy has become heavily orientated around the oil industry and has developed a number of key spin-off industries in research and development, engineering, marine operations, etc.

The capacity constraints in Aberdeen, particularly in terms of the harbour and available industrial premises, have led to a gradual spread of activity into Aberdeenshire. In terms of marine activity, Peterhead has become one of the largest oil & gas ports in the UK, supporting both the supply and subsea sectors. In particular, the ASCO South Base at Peterhead Port handles a significant volume of oil & gas related tonnage. Fraserburgh has benefitted less from oil & gas traffic, with constraints at the harbour meaning that supply and subsea vessels gradually became too large to be accommodated there, however, the harbour has undergone some development in recent years including deepening of the north harbour basin and the construction of a new quay at Blacksands. While less intensive than oil & gas there are also aspirations that Fraserburgh will become an Operation, Maintenance and Servicing (OMS) port for off-shore wind.

While the Study Area has benefitted from increased shipping tonnage, it is not unreasonable to say that it has perhaps not experienced the benefits in terms of land-based commercial development that other areas of Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire have experienced. The ASCO South Base at Peterhead is largely served from Aberdeen, while Dyce, at the southern extent of the study area, is the only major oil & gas related base in the area. This development and the high value employment associated with it have instead largely gone to the south and west of Aberdeen City.

While North Sea oil clearly transformed Aberdeen and the Shire, it also presented its own challenges. The voracious demand for labour has left skill shortages in many areas, particularly in construction and skilled trades, where labour is abstracted by the oil industry.

Recent uncertainty in the oil and gas industry generally is a current challenge for the area. Global oil prices have fallen sharply in recent months, with Brent crude oil dipping below $50 a barrel for the first time since May 2009. The low prices have hit North Sea production particularly hard given the maturity of the North Sea reserves. While the recent cut in tax rates and new tax allowances, worth an estimated £1.5 billion over the next five years, will undoubtedly assist the industry, there remain concerns over its long-term trajectory.

There has also been a long standing problem of skill shortages in the oil & gas industry and, while less relevant at present given the low oil prices, the issue would likely reappear should there be a sudden increase in oil prices in the future.

Page 63 of 184 21 March 2016

There are also challenges in the fishing and agricultural sectors. The whitefish ports of Fraserburgh and Peterhead (amongst others) were negatively affected by the European Union (EU) quotas implemented in the early 21st Century. The introduction of the new EU Landing Obligation from 2015 – 2019, which requires that all catches be kept on board, landed, and counted against the quotas will also likely result in significant challenges for the industry as it tries to adapt to the new way of working. Approximately 40% of Fraserburgh’s population are employed in the fishing industry with much of the ancillary industry in the town also tied to the fishing industry, e.g. haulage, vessel servicing, warehousing, packaging, etc. The recent (Autumn 2015) loss of a significant contract means one of the major seafood employers in Fraserburgh is facing heavy job losses, the resonance of which is not yet felt with the local community.

Despite these issues, Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire remain important centres for energy, agriculture and fishing. Peterhead Harbour remains Europe’s largest fishing port (both whitefish and pelagic, and the harbour had 50% of the total Scottish seafood landings by volume in 2013).

A £47m redevelopment of the harbour is also being planned. Fraserburgh Harbour is also a key port and is the biggest shell-fish port in Europe and a major white fish port. Aberdeenshire agriculture also continues to have a reputation for quality and is a finishing area for cattle from the Northern Isles.

There are also significant economic opportunities in the area. The recent announcement (January 2016) of a major cash injection for the North-East in the form of UK and Scottish government investment in the Aberdeen City Region Deal, is a real boost for the region supporting innovation and diversification in the oil and gas industry, digital connectivity, Aberdeen Harbour expansion and transport connectivity.

The Energetica project is developing and promoting opportunities, including those in decommissioning, offshore renewable servicing and carbon capture and storage, as well as in the development of a number of business parks throughout the study area.

In terms of future development, the Aberdeen City and Shire region is expected to be the fastest growing in Scotland over the next 20 years. The Aberdeen City and Shire Strategic Development Plan (SDP) allocates 68,000 new homes by 2035 with major housing allocations in the Bridge of Don, Grandhome, Dyce, and Woodside (just under 13,000 new homes across the four areas), and between Blackdog and Peterhead (6,000 new homes). In addition, major employment allocations are set out for Dyce and the Bridge of Don (87 hectares) and between Blackdog and Peterhead (88 hectares). There are also large housing allocations in Fraserburgh, Peterhead, and Mintlaw and employment allocations at Fraserburgh, Peterhead, and Ellon, with Peterhead and Fraserburgh identified Regeneration Priority Areas in the SDP. It is recognised that a significant transport improvement for the region is underway, in the form of the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route (AWPR), which includes the Balmedie to Tipperty dualling which is wholly contained within the study area. Once operational (due for completion in late 2017) the A90(T) north of Aberdeen will be continual dual carriageway between the Aberdeen Parkway and Ellon. Together the AWP and Balmedie to Tipperty dualling are predicted to provide significant improvements in journey time from Ellon to the south of Aberdeen. There is, however, concern that current A90(T) route issues south of Ellon will move further north once the road improvements are in place, and there are higher volumes of traffic predicted on the A90(T) and A952 north of Ellon due to the SDP housing and employment allocations. This concern is supported by predicted future journey time information for these routes, which shows that while the dualling provides journey time reductions south of Ellon, north of Ellon there are journey time increases on both the A90(T) and A952 routes north of Ellon by 2033.

Page 64 of 184 21 March 2016

It is assumed that the benefits of any transport proposals would be felt most strongly within the bounds of the study area, however, the benefits and impacts of any transport intervention which improves strategic connectivity may also be felt further afield, including within the remainder of Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire and further south, particularly with respect to potential economic benefits.

Page 65 of 184 21 March 2016

Page 66 of 184 21 March 2016

3 APPRAISAL OF OPTIONS AGAINST TRANSPORT PLANNING OBJECTIVES

3.1 Introduction

The Pre-Appraisal stage of the study identified three key transport problems for the study area:  Traffic speeds significantly below posted speed limits and unreliable and unpredictable journey times on strategic road links, namely the A90(T) and A952  Road safety risk on the A90(T) and A952  Limited travel mode choice

In addition, a number of opportunities were identified for the study and included:  Supporting both employment and housing land development including supporting and promoting the Energetica project  Supporting the growth aspiration of local businesses  Attracting inward investment to the region  Increasing the accessibility of local and regional employment opportunities  Increasing the accessibility of regional health, education and social services in Aberdeen  Supporting the regeneration of Fraserburgh and Peterhead  Reducing feelings of peripherally and image of remoteness

Details about the identification of these key problems and opportunities can be found in the Pre-Appraisal Report Fraserburgh & Peterhead to Aberdeen Strategic Transport Study Pre-Appraisal Report (SIAS, PBA & Energised Environments, SIAS 77316, October 2015).

Taking cognisance of the policy context and the key problems and opportunities identified, six TPOs were set during Pre-Appraisal and are listed in Table 3.1. Note that strategic travel choice relates to the travel choices available for the long distance movement of people and freight.

Table 3.1 : Transport Planning Objectives

Transport Planning Objectives 1 Reduce journey times between North-East communities and the Aberdeen conurbation

2 Increase journey time reliability and predictability between North-East communities and the Aberdeen conurbation

3 Reduce accidents on the A90(T) and A952

4 Increase strategic travel choice between North-East communities and the Aberdeen conurbation

5 Increase direct public transport connectivity between North-East communities and the main trip attractors within the Aberdeen conurbation

6 Increase mode share for non-car based modes between North-East communities and the Aberdeen conurbation

Page 67 of 184 21 March 2016

At the STAG Part 1 stage, a qualitative appraisal and summary of the performance of each option against each TPO, that considers the relative size and scale of impacts, is required.

The appraisal of each option and awarded appraisal scores against each TPO is detailed in Section 3.2 to Section 3.8, with the appraisal of all awarded option scores summarised in Section 3.9.

To allow for clarity for decision makers when considering the benefits and impacts of options compared to one another, the scoring of options has been undertaken relatively between the options such that the options with the greatest benefits have been awarded the highest scores, and conversely the options with the greatest disbenefit have been awarded the lowest scores. In addition, to avoid repetitiveness of text in the Report, references are made, where appropriate, to supporting information contained within Appendix A of the Report (which presents the detailed appraisal of the options against the STAG criteria).

Page 68 of 184 21 March 2016

3.2 Option 1 Phased road dualling north of Ellon (A90(T) and A952), with junction improvements

Option 1 considers phased road dualling north of Ellon (A90(T) and A952), with junction improvements, including consideration of:  A90(T) Ellon to Toll of Birness  A90(T) Toll of Birness to Peterhead  A952 and A90(T) Toll of Birness to Fraserburgh

Figure 3.1 shows Option 1 diagrammatically, and further details on the assumptions for the option are shown in Table 1.1.

Note: this option does not consider the dualling of the A90(T) between Peterhead and Fraserburgh. The focus of the study is on improving connectivity between Fraserburgh, Peterhead, and Aberdeen. As such the focus is on the most direct road routes between these conurbations.

Page 69 of 184 21 March 2016

Figure 3.1 : Option 1 Indicative alignment

Page 70 of 184 21 March 2016

TPO 1: Reduce journey times between North-East communities and the Aberdeen conurbation

Score: +3

Option 1 is likely to significantly reduce journey times by providing additional road capacity and importantly a second lane which can be used for overtaking slower moving vehicles.

Essentially, dualling of both the A90(T) and A952 would provide infrastructure allowing for unimpeded, free flowing traffic. While the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route (AWPR), and in particular the Balmedie to Tipperty dualling, will provide journey time benefits south of Ellon, the analysis of future predicted 2033 journey time data from the Aberdeen Sub Area Model (ASAM) shows future traffic volume and journey time increases north of Ellon (see the study Baseline Report for details), where this option is targeted.

Journey time savings with the option in place have been estimated using available journey time data (as presented in the Baseline Report and further supplemented with data covering the southern section of the area from the Bridge of Don into Aberdeen).

The estimated journey times with the scheme in place have been compared to both 2012 journey times (observed Tom-Tom journey time data from north of the Bridge of Don, and S-Paramics modelled journey time data from the Bridge of Don into Aberdeen City centre) and 2023 future year modelled predicted journey times (from ASAM north of the Bridge of Don and from available S-Paramics models covering the route from the Bridge of Don into Aberdeen City centre). The results are shown in detail in Appendix A.1.3.

The journey time comparisons show potential journey time savings with the scheme in place of between 5 – 8min (northbound) and around 5 – 7min (southbound) between Aberdeen and Peterhead, when compared to the predicted 2023 journey times. Similarly, the comparisons show potential journey time savings of between 6 – 10 and a half minutes (northbound) and around 6 – 8 and a half minutes (southbound) between Aberdeen and Fraserburgh, when compared to the predicted 2023 journey time data.

The current speed limit for HGVs on the single carriageway routes in the study area is 40mph. While the journey times have been calculated assuming a top speed of 70mph, the introduction of a dual carriageway would raise this limit to 60mph for HGVs, providing significant benefits to commercial traffic and businesses.

TPO 2: Increase journey time reliability and predictability between North-East communities and the Aberdeen conurbation

Score: +3

The A90(T) and the A952 are currently constrained in terms of overtaking opportunity. Due to the presence of slower moving agricultural and freight vehicles (which can be as high as 17% of all traffic at certain times of day) cars and buses are often forced to travel well below their desired allowable speed and can have an adverse impact on journey time reliability. The introduction of a dual carriageway would provide continuous overtaking opportunities, generating more predictable and reliable journey times, helping to minimise the impact at times when there are significant fluctuations in traffic on the route. These fluctuations are particularly problematic for bus operators and freight carriers. Further discussion on this can be found in Appendix A.1.3.

Page 71 of 184 21 March 2016

Analysis of the current flow on the A90(T) between Ellon and the Toll of Birness, undertaken in accordance with the Design Manual for Road and Bridges (DMRB) guidance, indicates the flow on the route is close to being in excess of that recommended for a single carriageway carriageway (with an existing flow of approximately 12,300 AADT and a recommended maximum flow of 13,000) . Providing dual carriageway, specifically between Ellon and the Toll of Birness, would remove current capacity constraints on this key section, improving journey time reliability, and predictability.

TPO 3: Reduce accidents on the A90(T) and A952

Score: +3

Accident data from 2009 – 2013, as presented in the Baseline Report, and discussed in Appendix A.1.2, highlights the entire A90(T) route between Aberdeen and Fraserburgh as having a higher than average number of serious or fatal accidents than would be expected when compared to roads of a similar nature. In addition, the A952 has a higher than expected number of fatal accidents on the southern section between Mintlaw and the Toll or Birness, with the Toll of Birness junction suffering from four accidents classed as ‘serious’ within 100m of the junction between 2009 – 2013 (for which statistics are available).

Police Scotland have stated that one of the key reasons contributing to accidents on these routes is driver frustration at delay caused by slow moving vehicles and a lack of over-taking opportunity. Providing a dual carriageway and improvements to key junctions will help reduce driver frustration by providing for safe overtaking opportunities and other vehicle manoeuvres, thus reducing the number of accidents. It should be noted that with a dual carriageway in place, overall speeds would increase on the route, and while accidents would be expected to decrease, the severity of any occurring accidents would likely increase due to the higher speeds, however, junction improvement at the Toll of Birness, particularly if the junction were grade separated, would provide a considerably safety benefit.

TPO 4: Increase strategic travel choice between North-East communities and the Aberdeen conurbation

Score:+1

Dualling the A90(T) and A952 would not increase public transport connectivity between North-East communities and the main trip attractors in Aberdeen. It may, however, act as a catalyst for the introduction of new bus services given the potential bus journey time savings and journey time reliability the dualling could bring. New bus services would mean some increase in travel choice in the area.

Page 72 of 184 21 March 2016

TPO 5: Increase direct public transport connectivity between North-East communities and the main trip attractors within the Aberdeen conurbation

Score: +1

As noted for TPO4, dualling the A90(T) and A952 would not directly increase public transport connectivity between North East communities and the main trip attractors in Aberdeen. but it may, however, given the efficiency savings, act as a catalyst for the introduction of new bus services given the potential bus journey time savings and journey time reliability the dualling could bring, as discussed in Appendix A.1.5.

TPO 6: Increase mode share for non-car based modes between North-East communities and the Aberdeen conurbation

Score: 0

Dualling the A90(T) and A952 will make the route more attractive for all modes as journey times reduce and journey time reliability improves. As the private car will also be subject to the same improvements, it is unlikely that this option would deliver any significant modal shift from car to public transport. The option may however generate new journeys by public transport as the overall journey becomes faster, more reliable and more attractive in general.

3.2.1 Option 1 Summary

Table 3.2 shows the scores awarded for the appraisal of Option 1 against the TPOs.

Table 3.2 : Option 1 TPO Scores

Option 1: Phased road dualling north of Ellon (A90 and A952), with junction improvements TPO1 TPO2 TPO3 TPO4 TPO5 TPO6 Score333110

Page 73 of 184 21 March 2016

3.3 Option 2 Overtaking lanes and junction improvements on the A90(T) and A952

Option 2 considers overtaking lanes and junction improvements, including consideration of:  A90(T) from Ellon to Peterhead  A952 and A90(T) Toll of Birness to Fraserburgh

Figure 3.2 shows Option 2 diagrammatically, and further details on the assumptions for the option are shown in Table 1.1.

Page 74 of 184 21 March 2016

Figure 3.2 : Option 2 Indicative alignment

Page 75 of 184 21 March 2016

TPO 1: Reduce journey times between North-East communities and the Aberdeen conurbation

Score: +2

Option 2 is likely to reduce journey times by providing overtaking lanes at key points on the A90(T) and A952. It should be noted that any journey time reductions would be to a lesser extent than that observed under Option 1.

As discussed in the TPO for Option 1, while the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route (AWPR), and in particular the Balmedie to Tipperty dualling, will provide journey time benefits south of Ellon, the analysis of future predicted 2023 journey time data from the Aberdeen Sub Area Model (ASAM) shows future traffic volume and journey time increases north of Ellon (see the study Baseline Report for details), where this option is targeted.

Journey time savings with the option in place have been estimated using available journey time data for both 2012 and 2023 as discussed in the commentary on TPO 1 for Option 1 in Section 3.2, with the analysis for Option 2 shown in detail in Appendix A.2.3.

When compared to the 2023 data, with the scheme in place there is a potential journey time saving (dependent on time of travel) of approximately:  30s between Peterhead and the Toll of Birness (both northbound and southbound) when compared to the 2023 traffic times.  30s between Fraserburgh and the Toll of Birness (both northbound and southbound) when compared to the 2023 traffic times.

TPO 2: Increase journey time reliability and predictability between North-East communities and the Aberdeen conurbation

Score: +2

Consistent with Option 1, providing overtaking lanes and junction improvements on these routes would likely improve journey time reliability and predictability as vehicles will have opportunities to overtake slow moving agricultural and freight traffic at various points along the route. It should be noted, however, that the scale of benefits will not be as pronounced as those gained under Option 1 where the overtaking opportunities would be available over the full length of the A90(T) and A952 routes.

Page 76 of 184 21 March 2016

TPO 3: Reduce accidents on the A90(T) and A952

Score: +2

As discussed for Option 1 in Section 3.2 and Appendix A.1.2, Police Scotland believe that one of the key contributors to accidents on these routes is driver frustration and a lack of over-taking opportunities. Providing overtaking lanes would go some way to reducing accident rates as an increased number of safer overtaking opportunities are introduced. Benefits would not, however, be as pronounced as for Option 1, and it is important to note that small overtaking sections can still encourage dangerous behaviour as drivers try to complete the overtaking manoeuvre in the final sections of dual carriageway, however, junction improvement at the Toll of Birness, particularly if the junction were grade separated, would provide a considerably safety benefit.

TPO 4: Increase strategic travel choice between North-East communities and the Aberdeen conurbation

Score: 0

Providing overtaking lanes and junction improvements on the A90(T) and A952 would have limited impact upon this TPO. Given the potential bus efficiency benefits, the improvements may, however, act as a catalyst for the introduction of new bus services given the potential bus journey time savings and journey tine reliability the improvements could bring. New bus services would lead to some increased travel choice in the area. As the improvements provide lower journey time benefits than Option 1, the benefit although positive, is considered marginal and the TPO score assigned reflects this.

TPO 5: Increase direct public transport connectivity between North-East communities and the main trip attractors within the Aberdeen conurbation

Score: 0

As discussed for Option 1, providing overtaking lanes and junction improvements on the A90(T) and A952 would have very limited impact upon this TPO. While it would not increase direct public transport connectivity on its own, it may act as a catalyst for the introduction of new bus services as journey times reduce and journey time reliability improves.

Page 77 of 184 21 March 2016

TPO 6: Increase mode share for non-car based modes between North-East communities and the Aberdeen conurbation

Score: 0

Similarly to Option 1, providing overtaking lanes and junction improvements on the A90(T) and A952 would make the routes more attractive for all travel modes as journey times reduce and journey time reliability improves. It should be noted, however, that the scale of these benefits would not be as high as Option 1. As the private car will also be subject to the same improvements, it is unlikely that this option would deliver any significant modal shift from car to public transport. The option may, however, generate new public transport journeys as the overall journey becomes quicker, more reliable and more attractive in general.

3.3.1 Option 2 Summary

Table 3.3 shows the scores awarded for the appraisal of Option 2 against the TPOs.

Table 3.3 : Option 2 TPO Scores

Option 2: Overtaking lanes and junction improvements

TPO1 TPO2 TPO3 TPO4 TPO5 TPO6 Score222000

Page 78 of 184 21 March 2016

3.4 Option 3 Safety improvements on the A90(T) and A952

Option 3 considers safety improvements on the:  A90(T) from Ellon to Peterhead  A952 and A90(T) from Toll of Birness to Fraserburgh

For appraisal purposes the option assumes significant safety improvements which include:  Improvements to the Toll of Birness junction and Cortes junction  Provision for right turn refuges throughout the length of the routes  Targeted accident reduction measures on the A90(T) south of Fraserburgh and south of Peterhead such as skid-resistant surfaces,  Road re-alignment where appropriate (subject to more detailed investigation)  Potentially a bypass of Mintlaw on the A952  Minor safety improvement measures such as improved signage, road markings, barriers, etc. Figure 3.3 shows Option 3 diagrammatically, and further details on the assumptions for the option are shown in Table 1.1.

Page 79 of 184 21 March 2016

Figure 3.3 : Option 3 Indicative alignment

Page 80 of 184 21 March 2016

TPO 1: Reduce journey times between North-East communities and the Aberdeen conurbation

Score: +1

As discussed in the TPO for options 1 and 2, while the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route (AWPR), and in particular the Balmedie to Tipperty dualling, will provide journey time benefits south of Ellon, the analysis of future predicted 2033 journey time data from the Aberdeen Sub Area Model (ASAM) shows future traffic volume and journey time increases north of Ellon (see the study Baseline Report for details), where this option is targeted.

Option 3 would have a moderate impact upon journey times, especially if road re-alignment or a bypass of Mintlaw were considered. Additionally, right turning lanes would remove delay caused to the mainline from waiting turning traffic. While safety improvements will lower accidents and the subsequent delays caused by accidents, these are not a daily occurrence, so would not provide consistent daily benefits in terms of journey time savings. As detailed measures for this option are not as yet developed, no estimation of the potential journey time savings of the option have been developed. More detailed data would also be needed, in terms of traffic movement off and onto the A90(T) and A952 routes in order to estimate the potential savings due to measures such as right turning lanes.

TPO 2: Increase journey time reliability and predictability between North-East communities and the Aberdeen conurbation

Score: +2

This option would have a moderate impact upon journey time reliability and predictability as there would be a reduction in the unpredictable nature of the delay caused by accidents. Additionally, right-hand turn lanes would improve reliability by removing delay caused to the mainline from waiting turning traffic. A bypass of Mintlaw, has the potential to provide future benefit on the A952, removing delay due to stopping at local junctions within the town, especially given the future predicted increases in traffic on the route if housing and employment allocations are built out in full (Mintlaw has a housing allocation that would significantly increase size of the town).

TPO 3: Reduce accidents on the A90(T) and A952

Score: +3

As discussed more fully in Appendix A.1.2, accident data from 2009 – 2013 highlights sections of the A90(T) south of Peterhead and south of Fraserburgh as having a higher than average number of serious accidents than would be expected when compared to be roads of a similar nature. In addition, the A952 has a higher than expected number of fatal accidents on the southern section between Mintlaw and the Toll or Birness, when compared to roads of a similar nature. The proposed bypass of Mintlaw would provide additional safety benefits to the town, which is expected to grow significantly under the current Local Development Plan allocations.

This option is particularly aimed at improving safety measures on these routes and, as discussed more fully in Appendix A.3.2, it would, therefore, be anticipated that significant benefits would be achieved in terms of this TPO.

Page 81 of 184 21 March 2016

TPO 4: Increase strategic travel choice between North-East communities and the Aberdeen conurbation

Score: 0

Providing safety improvements would have no effect on strategic travel choice.

TPO 5: Increase direct public transport connectivity between North-East communities and the main trip attractors within the Aberdeen conurbation

Score: 0

Providing safety improvements would have no effect on increasing direct public transport connectivity.

TPO 6: Increase mode share for non-car based modes between North-East communities and the Aberdeen conurbation

Score: 0

Providing safety improvements would have no effect on increasing mode share for non car based modes.

3.4.1 Option 3 Summary

Table 3.4 shows the scores awarded for the appraisal of Option 3 against the TPOs.

Table 3.4 : Option 3 TPO Scores

Option 3: Safety improvements on A90(T) and A952

TPO1 TPO2 TPO3 TPO4 TPO5 TPO6 Score123000

Page 82 of 184 21 March 2016

3.5 Option 4 Bus service improvements including new direct and increased express services between the study area and key employment, health, and social facilities in the Aberdeen conurbation

Option 4 involves bus service improvements including consideration of:  New direct bus linkages between the study area and key employment, health, and social facilities in the Aberdeen conurbation  Increased express services between the study area and key employment, health, and social facilities in the Aberdeen conurbation

Figure 3.4 shows Option 4 diagrammatically, and further details on the assumptions for the option are shown in Table 1.1.

Page 83 of 184 21 March 2016

Figure 3.4 : Option 4 Indicative alignment

Page 84 of 184 21 March 2016

TPO 1: Reduce journey times between North-East communities and the Aberdeen conurbation

Score: +1

The introduction of new direct and increased express bus services would provide journey time reductions for current public transport users within the study area, capitalising on committed road improvements (AWPR and Balmedie to Tipperty dualling) south of Ellon. New direct bus services would especially benefit those who must currently interchange between services in Aberdeen City centre, increasing access to employment, education and healthcare, as discussed in more detail in Appendix A.4.3. To highlight the potential journey time savings, the existing journey time by bus from Peterhead and Fraserburgh to Dyce (which currently requires interchange in Aberdeen) has been compared with the journey time saving if a new direct service were introduced. The analysis, presented in Appendix A.4.3 shows savings of around 50min from Peterhead and Frasebrurgh to Dyce.

There would be no benefits for public transport users for whom the express services cannot be utilised due to the limited stopping points where either the trip origin or destination is not directly serviced. There will also be no benefit to car drivers or freight traffic.

TPO 2: Increase journey time reliability and predictability between North-East communities and the Aberdeen conurbation

Score: 0

Introduction of new direct and express bus services would have no significant impact upon journey time reliability and predictability unless a significant modal shift to public transport were achieved. While direct and express services would provide journey time reductions for users of the services, they would, however, be subject to existing road conditions.

TPO 3: Reduce accidents on the A90(T) and A952

Score: +1

The introduction of new direct and increased express bus services would have no significant impact upon accidents (although some of the potential safety benefits are discussed in Appendix A.4.2) although if some modal shift to bus could be achieved this may reduce traffic on the strategic routes within the study area and as such reduce the potential for accidents along the routes.

Page 85 of 184 21 March 2016

TPO 4: Increase strategic travel choice between North-East communities and the Aberdeen conurbation

Score: +2

As discussed in greater detail in Appendix A.4.5, the introduction of new direct and increased express bus services would provide increased strategic travel choice between the study area and the Aberdeen conurbation as journey times become quicker due to the express service provision. Direct services would remove the need to interchange, reducing travel time and enabling greater accessibility between the study area communities and Aberdeen, thus allowing the bus to be used as a potential travel option. The benefit would be felt most amongst those in the study area towns and villages without access to a car, young people and the elderly for whom driving is not an option and those currently unemployed, for whom employment opportunities may be widened with increased accessibility.

TPO 5: Increase direct public transport connectivity between North-East communities and the main trip attractors within the Aberdeen conurbation

Score: +2

The option fully supports the TPO to increase direct public transport connectivity between the study area and the main trip attractors within the Aberdeen conurbation.

TPO 6: Increase mode share for non-car based modes between North-East communities and the Aberdeen conurbation

Score: +1

Introducing new direct and increased express bus services would both improve public transport connectivity and journey times between the study area and the Aberdeen conurbation.

These incentives could encourage modal shift from the private car to the bus when those who did not feel the journey was previously viable by bus (due to excessive travel time or lack of connectivity), are now able to utilise the services.

3.5.1 Option 4 Summary

Table 3.5 shows the scores awarded for the appraisal of Option 4 against the TPOs.

Table 3.5 : Option 4 TPO Scores

Option 4: Bus service improvements

TPO1 TPO2 TPO3 TPO4 TPO5 TPO6 Score101221

Page 86 of 184 21 March 2016

3.6 Option 5 Bus service improvements (as Option 4) accompanied by priority infrastructure and Park & Ride improvements

Option 5 includes bus service improvements (as Option 4) accompanied by priority infrastructure and Park & Ride improvements considering:  New sections of dedicated bus lanes/bus priority measures on the approach to/at key junctions  Extending bus priority lanes operational hours  Development of a Park & Ride Strategy for the study corridor

For the purposes of appraisal, the option assumes:  Potential development of Park & Ride sites at the Toll of Birness, Mintlaw, Peterhead, and Fraserburgh  Expansion of the existing Park & Ride sites at Ellon and Bridge of Don  Dedicated southbound bus priority measures at key junctions on the A90(T) from Ellon to connect to existing bus lane priority provision north of the A90(T)/ A956 roundabout

Figure 3.5 shows Option 5 diagrammatically, and further details on the assumptions for the option are shown in Table 1.1.

Page 87 of 184 21 March 2016

Figure 3.5 : Option 5 Indicative alignment

Page 88 of 184 21 March 2016

TPO 1: Reduce journey times between North-East communities and the Aberdeen conurbation

Score: +2

The introduction of new direct and increased express bus services, combined with priority infrastructure, would provide journey time reductions for bus users, both to existing users and to users who may be attracted to the new service offering and would capitalise on committed road improvements (AWPR and Balmedie to Tipperty dualling) south of Ellon.

Similarly to Option 4, to highlight the potential journey time savings from new direct and express services, the existing journey time by bus from Peterhead and Fraserburgh to Dyce (which currently requires interchange in Aberdeen) has been compared with the journey time saving if a new direct service were introduced. The analysis, presented in Appendix A.4.3 shows savings of nearly 50min from Peterhead and Frasebrurgh to Dyce. This journey time saving would be likely to increase if bus priority measures were also implemented, however, bus priority infrastructure would likely result in a reduction of road space, so the road capacity available to other modes. Journey times may, therefore, increase for other road users.

Development of Park & Ride sites may encourage some bus users to change their travel patterns and drive to Park & Ride sites to catch express/direct services which may increase traffic on sections of the A90(T) and A952(T) routes, potentially increasing journey times. On the other hand, the Park & Ride facility may encourage those who currently drive all the way into Aberdeen to change mode at the site, thus reducing traffic numbers on the road.

TPO 2: Increase journey time reliability and predictability between North-East communities and the Aberdeen conurbation

Score: +1

Priority bus infrastructure such as the extension of bus lanes would improve bus journey times and importantly improve bus journey reliability and predictability as buses are no longer delayed in general traffic.

This benefit would not be felt by other road users who would be faced with a reduction in road space, leading to potentially decreased reliability and predictability due to traffic congestion.

The introduction of Park & Ride sites may potentially lead to an increase in car use as people switch from bus to car for part of their journey to access the Park & Ride sites. This could increase vehicles on the road thus potentially reducing reliability and predictability for road users. As described above, however, the option could have a positive impact as some car users switch to the bus for part of their journey.

TPO 3: Reduce accidents on the A90(T) and A952

Score: +1

Bus service improvements could have a minor impact upon accident rates in the study area if significant modal shift from car to bus was generated.

Page 89 of 184 21 March 2016

TPO 4: Increase strategic travel choice between North-East communities and the Aberdeen conurbation

Score: +2

The introduction of new direct and increased express bus services would provide increased strategic travel choice between the study area and the Aberdeen conurbation as journey times become quicker due to the express service provision and the bus priority measures. Direct services would remove the need to interchange, reducing travel time, enabling greater accessibility between the study area communities and Aberdeen, thus allowing the bus to be used as a potential travel option. The benefit would be felt most amongst those in the study area towns and villages without access to a car, young people and the elderly for whom driving is not an option and those currently unemployed, for whom employment opportunities may be widened with increased accessibility, as discussed in Appendix A.4.5 and Appendix A.5.5.

TPO 5: Increase direct public transport connectivity between North-East communities and the main trip attractors within the Aberdeen conurbation

Score: +2

The option fully supports the TPO to increase direct public transport connectivity between the study area and the main trip attractors within the Aberdeen conurbation.

TPO 6: Increase mode share for non-car based modes between North-East communities and the Aberdeen conurbation

Score: +1

Introducing new direct and increased express bus services with Park & Ride facilities and bus priority infrastructure would both improve public transport connectivity and journey times, between the study area and the Aberdeen conurbation.

These incentives would most likely encourage modal shift from the private car to the bus when those who did not feel the journey was previously viable by bus are now able to utilise the services.

While the bus improvements and priority measures should encourage increased use of the bus, it should be noted that Park & Ride improvements could encourage modal shift from bus to car for part of the journey (by those utilising their car to access the Park & Ride sites), increasing the number of vehicles on the road in certain locations.

Page 90 of 184 21 March 2016

3.6.1 Option 5 Summary

Table 3.6 shows the scores awarded for the appraisal of Option 5 against the TPOs.

Table 3.6 : Option 5 TPO Scores

Option 5: Bus service improvements (as Option 4) accompanied by priority infrastructure and Park and Ride improvements TPO1 TPO2 TPO3 TPO4 TPO5 TPO6 Score211221

Page 91 of 184 21 March 2016

3.7 Option 6 Phased reinstatement on existing railway alignments, via Dyce, including examining options for light rail or tram (Dyce to Ellon, Ellon to Maud/Peterhead, Maud to Fraserburgh)

Option 6 includes phased reinstatement on existing railway alignments, via Dyce, including examining options for light rail or tram from:  Dyce to Ellon  Ellon to Maud/Peterhead  Maud to Fraserburgh

Figure 3.6 shows Option 6 diagrammatically, and further details on the assumptions for the option are shown in Table 1.1.

Trains would be assumed to stop at:  Aberdeen  Dyce  Newmachar  Ellon  Maud  Mintlaw  Peterhead  Strichen  Fraserburgh

It is assumed that trains would run through to Aberdeen and interchange at Dyce would not be required.

Page 92 of 184 21 March 2016

Figure 3.6 : Option 6 Indicative alignment

Page 93 of 184 21 March 2016

TPO 1: Reduce journey times between North-East communities and the Aberdeen conurbation

Score: +1

While detailed modelling has not yet been undertaken, estimates of the potential journey time that could be achieved between Fraserburgh, Peterhead, Ellon, and Aberdeen, if a heavy rail or tram/light rail route were introduced have been estimated using assumptions on the likely travel speed and the number of stops. The analysis is presented in full in Appendix A.6.3 alongside both 2012 and 2023 travel times by road (as discussed in TPO1 for Option 1 in Section 3.2), and shows when the estimated rail station to station journey times are compared against travel times by road:  Compared to the 2012 car travel times:  A comparable rail travel time northbound in the AM between Aberdeen and Ellon  Journey times by rail that are slower northbound in the AM between both Aberdeen and Peterhead (over 16min slower by rail) and Aberdeen and Fraserburgh (over 5min slower by rail)  A journey time saving southbound in the AM, between Ellon and Aberdeen (8min quicker by rail), and between Fraserburgh and Aberdeen (over 1min quicker by rail)  A journey time saving northbound in the PM, between Aberdeen and Ellon (15min quicker by rail), and between Aberdeen and Fraserburgh (over 7min quicker by rail)  A journey time saving southbound in the PM, between Ellon and Aberdeen (9 and a half minutes quicker by rail), and between Fraserburgh and Aberdeen that is 3min quicker by rail)  In both AM and PM periods in both northbound and southbound direction there are slower journey times to/from Peterhead by rail due to the circuitous route required via Maud (16min and 9min slower in the AM northbound and southbound respectively, and 2min and 8min slower in the PM northbound and southbound respectively).  Compared to the 2023 car travel times:  A journey time saving southbound in the AM between Ellon and Aberdeen (4min quicker by rail)  Journey times by rail that are slower southbound in the AM between both Peterhead and Aberdeen (12min slower by rail) and Fraserburgh and Aberdeen (4min slower by rail)  A journey time saving by rail northbound in the PM between Aberdeen and Ellon (17min quicker)  A journey time saving by rail northbound in the PM between Aberdeen and Peterhead (2 and a half minutes quicker)  A journey time saving by rail northbound in the PM between Aberdeen and Fraserburgh (11 and a half minutes quicker).  There are generally slower journey times to/from Peterhead by rail due to the circuitous route required via Maud (21min and 12min slower in the AM northbound and southbound respectively, and over 20min slower southbound in the PM).

Page 94 of 184 21 March 2016

It is noted that the Balmedie to Tipperty dualling will improve journey times between Aberdeen and Ellon, but north of Ellon the ASAM data shows future increases in traffic and journey times to 2023, and then again to 2033. As such, it is expected that a rail journey time benefit, over the car, would be expected to increase in future years as the road network congestion increases.

Journey time savings would be anticipated to be greater for a heavy rail route compared to the potential journey time savings if a light rail/tram route were implemented.

Should the heavy rail or tram/light rail route reinstatement result in modal shift from the private car, this could lead to a reduction in vehicles on the road which could subsequently provide minor journey time improvements for current road users. Any modal shift would be expected to be greater if a heavy rail route were implemented, as opposed to a tram/light rail route, due to the anticipated quicker journey times for heavy rail which would attract a greater number of users to the service.

TPO 2: Increase journey time reliability and predictability between North-East communities and the Aberdeen conurbation

Score: +2

The introduction of heavy rail or tram/light rail services would improve journey time reliability and predictability for those who use the new service, which will not be subject to any road delay, unreliability or unpredictability, however, users would be subject to any delay on the rail network that may occur.

TPO 3: Reduce accidents on the A90(T) and A952

Score: +1

The introduction of heavy rail or tram/light rail services may have a minor impact upon road accidents if significant modal shift from road-based modes to the new public transport service is achieved. As noted in TPO1, the modal shift expected would be greater for a heavy rail implementation when compared to tram/light rail and, as such, a greater reduction in accidents would be expected for the heavy rail option.

TPO 4: Increase strategic travel choice between North-East communities and the Aberdeen conurbation

Score: +3

The three main towns in the study area (Ellon, Peterhead, and Fraserburgh) are amongst the most remote from the rail network in Scotland. Reinstatement of heavy rail or tram/light rail services on existing alignments would provide a new mode of travel for users whose origin and destination is served by the route (discussed more fully in Appendix A.6.5). This could result in significant benefits in terms of increasing strategic travel choices between North-East communities and the Aberdeen conurbation. It would be anticipated that a tram/light trail route would be more greatly utilised for shorter distance journeys and as such the heavy rail option would provide the greater increase in strategic travel choice.

Page 95 of 184 21 March 2016

TPO 5: Increase direct public transport connectivity between North-East communities and the main trip attractors within the Aberdeen conurbation

Score: +3

Reinstatement of heavy rail or tram/light rail services on existing alignments would provide a new, direct mode of travel for users whose origin and destination is served by the route, increasing direct public transport connectivity between North-East communities and the Aberdeen conurbation.

TPO 6: Increase mode share for non-car based modes between North-East communities and the Aberdeen conurbation

Score: +2

Reinstatement of heavy rail or tram/light rail services on existing alignments would provide a new, attractive direct mode of travel which is not currently available. Evidence from across the UK shows that the introduction of rail services can attract users from other modes, as well as new users. As such, it would be expected that this option would generate modal shift from road- based modes, particularly given the well documented issues on the road network. The extent of any modal shift is likely to be greater if a heavy rail option were taken forward (compared to tram/light rail) due to the anticipated quicker journey times that would be achieved.

3.7.1 Option 6 Summary

Table 3.7 shows the scores awarded for the appraisal of Option 6 against the TPOs.

Table 3.7 : Option 6 TPO Scores

Option 6: Phased reinstatement on existing railway alignments, via Dyce, including examining options for light rail or tram TPO1 TPO2 TPO3 TPO4 TPO5 TPO6 Score121332

Page 96 of 184 21 March 2016

3.8 Option 7 Phased implementation of a new railway alignment, via the Bridge of Don, including examining options for light rail or tram

Option 7 includes phased implementation of a new railway alignment, via the Bridge of Don, including examining options for light rail or tram from:  Aberdeen to Ellon  Ellon to Peterhead  Ellon to Fraserburgh (branch line)  Peterhead to Fraserburgh (extended continuous line)

Trains would be assumed to stop at:  Aberdeen  Bridge of Don  Blackdog  Balmedie  Ellon  Hatton  Peterhead  St. Fergus (if extended continuous line from Peterhead to Fraserburgh)  Mintlaw (if branch line to Fraserburgh from Ellon)  Fraserburgh

For the purposes of appraisal, the option assumes a railway line alignment adjacent to the existing A90(T) road alignment (diverting through towns and villages as appropriate).

Figure 3.7 shows Option 7 diagrammatically, and further details on the assumptions for the option are shown in Table 1.1.

Page 97 of 184 21 March 2016

Figure 3.7 : Option 7 Indicative alignment

Page 98 of 184 21 March 2016

TPO 1: Reduce journey times between North-East communities and the Aberdeen conurbation

Score: +2

While detailed modelling has not yet been undertaken, estimates of the potential journey time savings that could be achieved if a heavy rail or tram/light rail route were introduced have been estimated using assumptions on the likely travel speed and the number of stops. The analysis is presented in full in Appendix A.7.3, alongside both 2012 and 2023 travel times by road (using data as discussed in TPO1 for Option 1 in Section 3.2). It should be noted that the future 2023 ASAM predicted journey times points correlate to junctions on the A90(T) close to the towns of Ellon, Peterhead, and Fraserburgh and, as such, are not a true point-to-point comparison against the rail journey times, as rail stations are assumed to be close to the town centres. As such the 2023 predicted car journey times cover a slightly shorter distance than the rail based journey times.

In general, there are rail travel time savings over road, southbound in the morning peak and northbound in the evening peak, with the branch line from Ellon to Fraserburgh providing quicker journey times to Fraserburgh, as opposed to a continuation of the railway line from Peterhead. This is to be expected given the much shorter distance to Fraserburgh direct from Ellon, as opposed to the circuitous route to from Ellon to Fraserburgh via Peterhead.

Overall the analysis shows:  In general, rail travel time savings over road, southbound in the morning peak and northbound in the evening peak.  Compared to the 2012 car travel times:  A rail travel time northbound in the AM, between Aberdeen and Ellon that is 3mins quicker than by road, and between Aberdeen and Peterhead that is comparable with the road travel time  A journey time by rail northbound in the AM, between Aberdeen and Fraserburgh that is comparable with the road travel time, if the rail route to Fraserburgh is a branch line from Ellon. The travel time is just 11min slower by rail if an extended rail route to Fraserburgh from Peterhead is implemented  A rail travel time southbound in the AM, between Ellon and Aberdeen that is over 10min quicker than by road, and between Peterhead and Aberdeen that is over 6min quicker than by road  A journey time by rail southbound in the AM, between Fraserburgh and Aberdeen over 7min quicker than the road travel time, if the rail route to Fraserburgh is a branch line from Ellon. The travel time is 4min slower by rail if an extended rail route to Fraserburgh from Peterhead is implemented  A rail travel time northbound in the PM between Aberdeen and Ellon that is 17 and a half minutes quicker than by road, and between Aberdeen and Peterhead that is 13 and a half minutes quicker than by road  A journey time by rail northbound in the PM, between Aberdeen and Fraserburgh that is over 13min quicker than the road travel time, if the rail route to Fraserburgh is a branch line from Ellon. The travel time is 2min slower by rail if an extended rail route to Fraserburgh from Peterhead is implemented

Page 99 of 184 21 March 2016

 A rail travel time southbound in the PM between Ellon and Aberdeen that is 12min quicker than by road, and between Peterhead and Aberdeen that is 7min quicker than by road  A journey time by rail southbound in the PM, between Fraserburgh and Aberdeen 9min quicker than the road travel time, if the rail route to Fraserburgh is a branch line from Ellon. The travel time is 2 and a half minutes slower by rail if an extended rail route to Fraserburgh from Peterhead is implemented.  Compared to the 2023 car travel times:  A rail travel time northbound in the AM, between Aberdeen and Ellon that is 2min slower than by road, and between Aberdeen and Peterhead that is just 6min slower than by road.  A journey time by rail northbound in the AM, between Aberdeen and Fraserburgh that is 9min slower than by road, if the rail route to Fraserburgh is a branch line from Ellon. The travel time is just over 20min slower by rail if an extended rail route to Fraserburgh from Peterhead is implemented.  A rail travel time southbound in the AM between Ellon and Aberdeen that is over 6min quicker than by road, and between Peterhead and Aberdeen that is around 3 and a half minutes quicker than by road.  A journey time by rail southbound in the AM, between Fraserburgh and Aberdeen around one and a half minutes quicker than the road travel time, if the rail route to Fraserburgh is a branch line from Ellon. The travel time is 10min slower by rail if an extended rail route to Fraserburgh from Peterhead is implemented.  A rail travel time northbound in the PM, between Aberdeen and Ellon that is 19 and a half minutes quicker than by road, and between Aberdeen and Peterhead that is 18min quicker than by road.  A journey time by rail northbound in the PM, between Aberdeen and Fraserburgh that is over 17min quicker than the road travel time, if the rail route to Fraserburgh is a branch line from Ellon. The travel time is just 6min slower by rail if an extended rail route to Fraserburgh from Peterhead is implemented.  A rail travel time southbound in the PM, between Ellon and Aberdeen that is comparable with the road travel time, and between Peterhead and Aberdeen that is 5min slower than by road.  A journey time by rail southbound in the PM, between Fraserburgh and Aberdeen that is 7min slower than the road travel time, if the rail route to Fraserburgh is a branch line from Ellon. The travel time is ove 18min slower by rail if an extended rail route to Fraserburgh from Peterhead is implemented.

As discussed for Option 6, journey time savings would be anticipated to be greater for a heavy rail route compared to the potential journey time savings if a light rail/tram route were implemented, given the higher top speed that can be achieved by heavy rail.

Unlike Option 6, this new route option will be aligned more directly between the main conurbations in the study area and Aberdeen and would service key areas north of Aberdeen including where future development is planned. As such, the route would provide a quicker service which would be of benefit to and could potentially reduce journey times for a greater number of people.

Page 100 of 184 21 March 2016

Should the heavy rail or tram/light rail route introduction result in modal shift from the private car, this could lead to a reduction in vehicles on the road which could subsequently provide minor journey time improvements for current road users. Any modal shift would be expected to be greater if a heavy rail route were implemented, as opposed to a tram/light rail route, due to the anticipated quicker journey times for heavy rail which would attract a greater number of users to the service.

TPO 2: Increase journey time reliability and predictability between North-East communities and the Aberdeen conurbation

Score: +2

Similarly to Option 1, the introduction of heavy rail or tram/light rail services would improve journey time reliability and predictability for those who use the new service, which will not be subject to any delay, unreliability or unpredictability faced on the road network, however, users would be subject to any delay on the rail network that may occur.

TPO 3: Reduce accidents on the A90(T) and A952

Score: +1

TPO 4: Increase strategic travel choice between North-East communities and the Aberdeen conurbation

Score: +3

The three main towns in the study area (Ellon, Peterhead, and Fraserburgh) are amongst the most remote from the rail network in Scotland. The introduction of heavy rail or tram/light rail services on a new alignment would provide an alternative mode of travel for users whose origins and destinations are served by the route (discussed more fully in Appendix A.7.5). This would result in significant benefits in terms of increasing strategic travel choice between North-East communities and the Aberdeen conurbation. Given the more direct alignment of the proposed route and the higher level of population it would serve compared to Option 1, the benefits are likely to be felt by a greater number of people. It would be anticipated that a tram/light trail route would be more greatly utilised for shorter distance journeys and as such the heavy rail option would provide the greater increase in strategic travel choice.

Page 101 of 184 21 March 2016

TPO 5: Increase direct public transport connectivity between North-East communities and the main trip attractors within the Aberdeen conurbation

Score: +3

The introduction of heavy rail or tram/light rail services on a new alignment would provide a new, direct mode of travel for users whose origin and destination is served by the route, increasing direct public transport connectivity between North-East communities and the Aberdeen conurbation. It should be noted that the new service may lead to a reduction in demand for existing bus services and could lead to the reduction or potential withdrawal of bus services/routes which would decrease the existing bus connectivity offering in the study area.

TPO 6: Increase mode share for non-car based modes between North-East communities and the Aberdeen conurbation

Score: +2

Implementing tram/light rail services on a new alignment would provide a new, attractive direct mode of travel which is not currently available. Evidence from across the UK shows that the introduction of rail services can attract users from other modes, as well as new users. As such, it would be expected that this option would generate modal shift from road-based modes, particularly given the well documented issues on the road network. The extent of any modal shift is likely to be greater if a heavy rail option were taken forward (compared to tram/light rail) due to the anticipated quicker journey times that would be achieved.

3.8.1 Option 7 Summary

Table 3.8 shows the scores awarded for the appraisal of Option 7 against the TPOs.

Table 3.8 : Option 7 TPO Scores

Option 7: Phased implementation of a new railway alignment, via the Bridge of Don, including examining options for light rail or tram TPO1 TPO2 TPO3 TPO4 TPO5 TPO6 Score221332

Page 102 of 184 21 March 2016

3.9 TPO Appraisal Summary

Table 3.9 summarises the qualitative appraisal of the options against the Transport Planning Objectives. Table 3.9 should not be read as a score card where appraisal scores can be combined to define the option which achieves the highest score. The table, as it stands only shows the relative performance of the options against each of the TPOs, and does not consider any weighting which may give a greater degree of importance to one TPO over another.

Table 3.9 : Option Appraisal Scores against Transport Planning Objectives, Summary

Objective Scores

connectivity

transport

public

direct

Reduce journey times journey Reduce North-East between communitiesconurbation the Aberdeen and timeIncrease and journey reliability North-East between predictability communitiesconurbation the Aberdeen and accidentsReduce A952 and on the A90(T) Increase strategic travel choice between North-East communities and the Aberdeen conurbation Increase between communities North-East the between and Aberdeen attractors the trip within main conurbation Increase for based share non-car mode communitiesNorth-East modes between and conurbation the Aberdeen Option TPO1 TPO2 TPO3 TPO4 TPO5 TPO6

Option 1 3 3 3 1 1 0 Option 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 Option 3 1 2 3 0 0 0 Option 4 1 0 1 2 2 1 Option 5 2 1 1 2 2 1 Option 6 1 2 1 3 3 2 Option 7 2 2 1 3 3 2

Page 103 of 184 21 March 2016

Page 104 of 184 21 March 2016

4 APPRAISAL OF OPTIONS AGAINST THE STAG CRITERIA

4.1 Introduction

Transport Scotland’s appraisal guidance sets out five criteria against which all potential transport investments should be appraised. These are additional to the Transport Planning Objectives and cover:  Environment  Safety  Economy  Integration  Accessibility and Social Inclusion

Each of these criteria includes a number of sub-criteria as set out in Table 4.1. A qualitative appraisal of the options has therefore been undertaken against the STAG criteria and is reported in the remainder of this chapter.

Similar to the assessment of the TPOs, the approach uses the seven-point scale (as set out in Figure 1.4) to appraise the performance of each option against the individual criteria.

Page 105 of 184 21 March 2016

Table 4.1 : STAG Appraisal Criteria

STAG Criteria Sub-criteria Environment • Noise and Vibration • Global Air Quality – carbon dioxide (CO2) • Local Air Quality – particulates (PM10) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) • Water Quality, Drainage and Flood Defence • Geology • Biodiversity and Habitats • Landscape • Visual Amenity • Agriculture and Soils • Cultural Heritage • Physical Fitness Safety • Identifying for accidents, which, if any user groups may be affected, and develop projections of the likely impact of each option

• Considering whether each option has any material impact on security for the users Economy • Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) The benefits captured by standard cost-benefit analysis

• Wider Economic Benefits (WEB) The benefits relating to potential transport impacts on agglomeration, and the relationship between agglomeration and productivity

• Economic and Location Impacts (EALI) Considers the impact of an option in terms of the net effects on the local and/or national economy Integration • Transport Integration The degree to which a proposal fits with other transport infrastructure and services

• Transport and Land-Use Integration: The fit between options and land use plans and land use and transport planning guidance

• Policy Integration: The fit of the option with wider local and national government policies Accessibility & Social • Community Accessibility Inclusion • Comparative Accessibility

The appraisal of each option and awarded appraisal score against each against each criterion is summarised in Section 5 and presented in detail in Appendix A.

Page 106 of 184 21 March 2016

4.2 STAG Criteria Appraisal Methodology and Key Appraisal Points by Criteria

Before each option is appraised against the STAG criteria, and to avoid repetition within the appraisal text, the following provides a synopsis of the key points relating to the study area in relation to each of the STAG criteria, based on the findings from the Pre-Appraisal stage. It is against these key points that the appraisal against the STAG criteria has been made for each option.

4.2.1 Environment

The environmental appraisal methodology follows the Part 1 guidance for environmental assessment set out in STAG taking account of other relevant guidance, including the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (Volume 11: Environmental Assessment9) and the professional experience of the appraisal team.

The assessment draws on baseline information for the study area prepared for the Pre-Appraisal stage of the study. The following sections present the findings of the environmental appraisals of the options. At the start of each section a summary of key baseline constraints of relevance to each option is set out to assist in understanding the findings of the appraisal along with information on the key assumptions used for the environmental appraisal.

The appraisal of environmental impacts has been undertaken taking into account the nature and scale of the proposals for each option (including their physical extent and potential operational characteristics), the likely scale of impacts on each environmental sub-criterion10 and the sensitivity of the baseline resource. A plan showing key environmental designations referenced in this Report is provided in Appendix B. Detailed transport modelling has not been undertaken at this stage of the study, however, discussions amongst the study team have informed the understanding of the potential of each option to result in new road/rail traffic and (for the public transport based options) to generate modal shift of road traffic to bus or rail services.

The appraisal has also taken account of the proposals (for each option) for a package of active travel complementary measures to be delivered in tandem with each option (see Table 1.7).

The appraisal has followed a precautionary approach where appropriate to ensure that impacts are not underestimated, for example in terms of the description of physical works for key infrastructure. Predicted environmental impacts typically vary between sub-criteria, so it is possible to predict a mix of beneficial and negative impacts for each option. For example, a new rail service may generate modal shift from road to rail which has the potential to reduce traffic noise on key roads (beneficial) but also to generate noise for other receptors (adverse).

For some sub-criteria the appraisal also predicts a potential range of impacts because at STAG Part 1 stage the nature and location/alignment of the options and their infrastructure are described quite broadly which limits the precision of the impact evaluation process. These ranges are captured in the appraisal text however for the purposes of a single final overall environmental impact (recorded in the text boxes at the end of each option commentary) it has been necessary to judge the balance of effects and this should be taken into account when considering the ‘overall’ effect of an option on the environment.

9 http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/DMRB/vol11/index.htm 10 STAG divides the Environment criterion into various sub criteria which have been used to structure the appraisal and reporting in this report

Page 107 of 184 21 March 2016

An assumed basic level of mitigation (for example following good construction practices, etc.) has been taken into account in the appraisals which would be applied to the construction, permanent development and operation of the option. Other key mitigation measures which are considered to be appropriate to each specific option are described at the start of the section reporting the predicted effects of each option. The appraisal has concentrated on the potential long term impacts of the options on the environment (e.g. as a result of its permanent development and operation) to provide a consistent basis for comparison of the options. For those options which would involve development of significant new physical infrastructure, some supporting commentary has also been provided for predicted construction impacts. Impacts have been reported using the STAG seven point scale) and in this appraisal environmental impacts which are predicted to be significant are those of moderate or major scale (beneficial or adverse). Wherever possible the impacts are reported after mitigation has been taken into account (residual impacts11). Further surveys and more detailed assessment would be required at later stages of the STAG process and project design process to specifically assess predicted environmental impacts of any option taken forward, and drawing on site specific surveys. Following the STAG process, the design of some options may be developed into more detailed projects and these would need to be screened for Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)12 and/or Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA)13.

4.2.2 Safety

The Safety criterion comprises two sub-criteria: accidents and security. The appraisal takes account of impacts against both sub-criteria including:  Identifying for accidents which, if any, user groups may be affected  Considering whether each option has any material impact on security for the users One of the key problems noted during the Pre-Appraisal stage of the study was road safety risk on the A90(T) and A952 with accident data from 2009 – 2013, as presented in the Baseline Report, highlighting the entire A90(T) route between Aberdeen and Fraserburgh as having a higher than expected proportion of serious accidents than would be expected on a road of similar nature. In addition, Police Scotland noted that driver frustration is a key cause of accidents on the A90(T) and A952 routes with the Public Survey undertaken as part of the engagement programme highlighted perceptions that accidents are caused by: the mix of strategic and local traffic; slow moving agricultural and heavy goods vehicles; and the number of farm and side road access points onto the A90(T) with a lack of dedicated right-hand turn lanes. All of these can cause delay to traffic, leading to driver frustration and dangerous overtaking manoeuvres. In particular, difficulties at the Toll of Birness, for southbound traffic turning right from the A952 onto the A90(T) southbound carriageway, were noted. Accident analysis from 2009 to 2013 highlights four accidents (recorded as ‘serious’) within 100m of the Toll of Birness junction. This will be taken in to consideration in the Safety appraisal.

11 This report uses the term ‘impact’ to describe the predicted effects of the proposals and to be consistent with STAG terminology 12 Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is a requirement for projects listed in Schedule 1 and 2 to the EIA Regulations and which have the potential for significant environmental effects 13 As required for proposals which could have significant effects on Natura sites under regulation 48 of the Habitats Regulations (Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 as amended). The process is commonly referred to as Habitats Regulations Appraisal

Page 108 of 184 21 March 2016

4.2.3 Economy

The economy criterion has three sub-criteria:  Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) captures the impacts generally included in conventional transport appraisal cost benefit analysis, such as effects on journey time, traffic volume, travel reliability, and investment attraction, and also seeks to determine who the winners and losers will be of the proposed option.  Wider Economic Benefits (WEBs), which relate to those factors not captured in traditional transport appraisal and include agglomeration, and labour supply benefits from people accessing the labour force or moving to more productive jobs.  Economic Activity and Location Impacts (EALIs) measures the net impacts on the local or national economy as measured through changes in output or employment. It should be noted that these impacts are not additional to those in the first two bullets, but are merely presented using different metrics.

At the Part 1 Appraisal stage, the economic impacts are assessed solely using qualitative assessment measures, considering the size and scale of the interventions upon the network.

Transport connections have a key role to play in contributing to economic activity and business performance. For example, they can anchor existing business to the area and also attract further inward investment as time to markets, suppliers and labour force decline. Supporting existing businesses and their growth aspirations has a key role in retaining current employment opportunities in the study area, and specifically in Fraserburgh and Peterhead. Comments received during the engagement programme indicate a general business sentiment that current transport links do not support the nature of present business operations and that if deciding again, due to the perceived poor connections, some businesses would choose a location south of Aberdeen.

Data analysed has shown a lower economic activity rate in the northern sections of the study area compared to other parts of Scotland. This is particularly so in Fraserburgh and the rural north, and while unemployment in the North-East is low compared to the national average, unemployment in the northern sections of the study area is notably higher than the regional average.

The three key problems identified during the Pre-Appraisal stage; traffic speeds significantly below posted speed limits, and unreliable and unpredictable journey times on strategic road links, namely the A90(T) and A952; road safety risk on the A90(T) and A952; Limited travel mode choice all have economic impacts.

Engagement with stakeholders highlighted issues related to journey time reliability and predictability which can have a significant impact on business and commercial operations. In particular, the impact of journey time unpredictability on operations and the financial cost to business of a requirement to build additional time into both staff and goods movements are major economic considerations.

There is a dominance of primary industries in the study area and a subsequent heavy reliance on the road network for the movement of goods. The time critical nature of some of the products in the area (e.g. oil and gas, and fishing) means that a road network where average speeds are well below the posted speed limits with unreliable and unpredictable journey times can have particular adverse economic consequences as the quality and value of the stock/freight/produce can deteriorate very quickly due to time delays.

Page 109 of 184 21 March 2016

Businesses also noted that accessing labour supply and attracting employees has historically been a key problem, with a feeling that opportunities in the study area are ‘on the wrong side of Aberdeen’ requiring too long a commute time from many parts of Aberdeenshire, and further afield. Indeed, transport network reliability and efficiency was seen as essential in attracting employees for existing business and also attracting new business investment to the area.

While accident reduction will be considered more generally within the Safety section of the appraisal, it is important to remember that accidents themselves can have economic impacts through causing delays on the road network. The economic cost of accidents themselves can be significant, such as in terms of lost output due to injury, ambulance and hospital treatment costs, damage to vehicles and property, and police and insurance costs.

In economic terms, a key opportunity of increased travel choice is the widening skills base for employment, helping to attract workers to those industries where recruitment is challenging. It can also enable business investment where the catchment to a skilled work force is widened, supporting the Energetica Corridor in its aims as well as the growth aspirations of existing businesses.

Improved public transport choices with good integration between modes can encourage people out of their cars with the benefit of freeing up road space, thus enabling a more efficient road network. It also reduces the perceptions of peripherality surrounding the area and can encourage increased visitor numbers, with the economic benefits to the area this can bring.

Page 110 of 184 21 March 2016

4.2.4 Integration

STAG guidance notes that the Integration objective has three sub-criteria, which together should summarise the full extent of integration impacts. These include:  Transport Integration: The extent to which a proposal fits with other transport infrastructure and services  Transport and Land–Use Integration: Which relates to the fit between the option and the established land-use plans and land-use/transport planning guidance  Policy Integration: The appropriateness of the option in light of wider policies including those of both Central and Local Government

Approach to Assessment of Transport Integration

STAG anticipates that the majority of transport integration benefits will be captured in the TEE under the economy criterion. Indeed, the guidance notes that two key questions should be asked:  Is there an identifiable impact upon transport interchange resulting from this option?  Is it the case that some aspect(s) of this impact will not be captured by the TEE or another aspect of the appraisal?

Considering this, the appraisal process has been undertaken to qualitatively explain any ‘transport integration’ which can be expected from each option, along with a summary of the type of benefits which could be expected. Note, not all of these benefits will be included within the appraisal if they are anticipated to be picked up with the TEE or another aspect of the appraisal.

In addition to each identified option, a package of high quality active travel measures has been identified which should be considered as complementary to each option. The measures were presented in Table 1.7. The purpose is to encourage ‘whole journey’ sustainable travel. It is important to consider these measures during the Integration appraisal as they are purposefully designed to provide key benefits which are summarised as follows:  Active travel measures will be integrated with existing public transport to provide an attractive alternative to car use for longer journeys  New and improved cycle links and routes will allow safer access by foot and by cycle to public transport stops and stations, encouraging improved take up of public transport and modal shift away from car  Providing infrastructure such as cycle racks and safe crossing locations ensures that walking and cycling are a key part of a truly integrated transport network and connected to public transport  Allowing for more cycles on buses and trains will further encourage the use of the network  Provision of travel plans by major businesses will encourage greater use of the sustainable network by advertising what is available, how easy it is to use, allowing people to make informed choices

Page 111 of 184 21 March 2016

Approach to Assessment of Transport and Land Use Integration and Policy Integration

An extensive review of relevant local, regional and national transport, land use and economic policies was provided within the Baseline Report. The appraisal of Transport and Land Use Integration highlights any specific fit or conflict that each option has with these policies. The Baseline Report should be referred to for a more detailed discussion on the overarching policy context.

4.2.5 Social Accessibility & Inclusion

The Accessibility and Social Inclusion criterion includes the sub criteria of:  Community Accessibility  Comparative Accessibility

The Community Accessibility appraisal has been undertaken assessing:  The public transport network coverage, where changes in accessibility provided by the transport system have been analysed  Access to local services, where changes in accessibility by walking and cycling to local services have been analysed

The Comparative Accessibility appraisal has been undertaken assessing:  The distribution of impacts by people group, where comparisons of impacts for different population groups relevant to local policy objectives have been assessed  The distribution of impacts by location, where comparisons of impacts for policy sensitive locations, such as Community Regeneration Areas and areas of deprivation defined by the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD), have been assessed

The Pre-Appraisal stage of the study highlighted limited travel mode choice as a key problem. With no rail link serving the study area, public transport travel choice for those without a car (and those with access to a car), is limited to bus services. Current bus journey times cannot compete with equivalent car journey times from Fraserburgh/Peterhead to Aberdeen meaning those reliant on public transport have significantly reduced accessibility to key regional services (health, education, shopping, leisure, etc.) and job opportunities. The high travel times can act as a barrier to travel for a large number of people.

Analysis undertaken during the Pre-Appraisal stage of the study has shown a lower economic activity rate in the northern sections of the study area, particularly in Fraserburgh and the rural north. Transport infrastructure linking Fraserburgh, Peterhead, and Aberdeen can constrain unemployed people, as well as young people, in these areas from accessing employment in the Aberdeen and Dyce areas as well as educational opportunities in Aberdeen. In addition, compared to the regional averages, the towns of Fraserburgh and Peterhead have lower levels of both home and car ownership, and while house prices have been increasing over the last decade, average house prices in both towns are still low compared to the regional average. In general, the overall affluence commonly associated with Aberdeenshire living, is not prevalent in the towns, reflected in the Scottish Indices of Multiple Deprivation with pockets of deprivation highlighted in both Peterhead and Fraserburgh. This is also recognised in the region’s Strategic Development Plan which highlights Fraserburgh, Peterhead and the coastal region between as a regeneration priority.

The Social Accessibility and Inclusion appraisal takes consideration of all these points.

Page 112 of 184 21 March 2016

5 STAG APPRAISAL SUMMARY

5.1 Introduction

A detailed appraisal of the seven options against the STAG criteria is provided in Appendix A, with the Appraisal Summary Tables presented in Appendix G setting out the key points against the criteria. Both Appendices A and G should, therefore, be referred to for the underlying detail and rationale for the scores awarded for each option, which are summarised in Table 5.1.

5.2 STAG Criteria Appraisal Overview

Environment

Against the environmental criteria, Option 7 scores the lowest, with major negative impact given the major construction works required and subsequent impact with changes in hydrology, land take, changes in landscape character, loss of habitat, and increased noise and air pollution for those close to the new heavy railway or light rail/tram alignment.

Both Options 1 and 6 score with moderate negative impact. Option 1 has the potential to increase road noise and emissions as well as produce changes in hydrology, land-take, and habitat loss. Option 6 is predicted to increase noise and carbon emissions as well as local air pollutants if a diesel rail locomotive were operated, although this is likely to impact on a relatively small number of people given the rural alignment of the route and the number of properties that are affected. Again, there would be a subsequent impact with changes in hydrology, land take, changes in landscape character, and loss of habitat.

Options 3 and 5 are expected to bring either minor negative, with Option 4 scoring with minor positive benefit.

Safety

While the four public transport options will not provide direct road safety measures, any modal shift that could be achieved from car to public transport (and in particular for those with a higher road safety risk such as the young and elderly) would reduce traffic on the A90(T) and A952 routes and subsequently the accident risk on these roads. As discussed, the modal shift that could be achieved is likely to be greatest for the two rail based options and within the rail options is likely to be greater for a heavy rail implementation given the faster journey times that could be achieved compared to a light rail/tram implementation.

Page 113 of 184 21 March 2016

Economy

All options score favourably against the economy criteria. Option 1 scores with major positive benefit given the benefits to the local economy the dualling could bring including reduced journey times (over 10min quicker between Aberdeen and Fraserburgh, and over 8min quicker between Aberdeen and Peterhead, compared to existing journey times) for businesses supporting both existing local businesses and potentially attracting inward investment in the area, as well as enhancing employment opportunities for those resident in the study area who would be able to consider work further afield due to reduced commuting times. Given the expected reduction in journey times for Option 2 (around a 30s reduction between Toll of Birness and Fraserburgh and between Toll of Birness and Peterhead), where overtaking lanes are provided, the option scores with moderate positive benefit with similar benefits to those that Option 1 would provide, albeit to a lesser extent.

The limited impact on the economy due to the safety measures proposed in Option 3 is noted, but any reduction in accidents on the A90(T) and A952 routes would benefit the local economy by reducing the unpredictable delay that accidents can cause and as such Option 3 scores with minor positive benefit, it is, however, recognised that if a bypass of Mintlaw were implemented or road re-alignment measures there may be greater journey time savings possible. The bus-based Option 4 and 5 also score with minor positive benefit recognising that improved bus services increases the accessibility of employment opportunities (with potential journey times savings of around 50min to Dyce on a direct service from both Peterhead and Fraserburgh), while also potentially generating mode shift from road to bus, providing additional journey time savings on the road network.

Both the rail options 6 and 7 score with moderate positive benefit, recognising the journey time benefits that could be provided by the rail options with analysis showing:  Journey times by rail that are quicker than the equivalent car journey times northbound in the evening period from Aberdeen to Peterhead and Fraserburgh, with the journey time for the Option 7 rail route to Ellon and Peterhead quicker than the Option 6 route given the more direct nature of the rail route  Option 6 and 7 rail journey times between Aberdeen and Ellon that are either quicker or comparable with the equivalent journey time by road (with at most a 4 and a half minute longer journey time, which is for Option 6 northbound in the morning period)  Option 6 and 7 rail journey times between Peterhead, Fraserburgh and Aberdeen that are longer than the equivalent journey time by road southbound in the evening period

This moderate positive benefit score also recognises the increased employment accessibility a rail service could bring, as well as the potential mode shift from road to rail which could benefit travel times on the road network. It is, however, noted that the implementation of a railway line would likely impact on the commercial viability of existing bus services operating in the area.

Page 114 of 184 21 March 2016

Integration

All options score favourably against the integration criteria with proposals supporting a range of national, regional and local policies.

In terms of transport and land-use integration, the rail Option 7 is better aligned to serve allocated developments sites compared to the Option 6 rail alignment on the Formartine & Buchan Way.

Accessibility & Social Inclusion

All four public transport based options score with moderate positive benefit against the accessibility and social inclusion criteria given their ability to improve the accessibility of the Aberdeen conurbation from the study area, increasing employment, social and health care accessibility, especially for those with limited or no access to a car. The impact of this on Fraserburgh and Peterhead was of particular note given their recognition in the Strategic Development Plan as areas of regeneration priority.

While the road based options score with either neutral or minor positive benefit, the benefits to bus services from reduced delay on the road network under the Option 1 dualling proposals is noted with the benefit to bus journey times and hence increased accessibility for bus users.

Table 5.1 : Option Appraisal Scores against STAG Criteria, Summary

STAG Criteria Scores Accessibiltiy and Social Option Environment Safety Economy Integration Inclusion Option 1 -2 3 3 2 1 Option 2 -1 2 2 1 0 Option 3 -1 3 1 1 0 Option 4 1 1 1 2 2 Option 5 -1 1 1 2 2 Option 6 -2 1 2 2 2 Option 7 -3 1 2 2 2

Page 115 of 184 21 March 2016

Page 116 of 184 21 March 2016

6 ESTABLISHED POLICY DIRECTIVES APPRAISAL

An appraisal has been made of the fit of each option against relevant established national policy directives identified during the Pre-Appraisal stage of the study, as detailed in the Baseline Report, and discussed further in relation to each option in the Policy Integration appraisal in Appendix A.

The contribution of each option towards meeting established Scottish Government policy objectives is demonstrated using the Policy Assessment Framework (PAF) as detailed in the STAG Technical database. PAF is a tool to assist early appraisal of a number of interventions and enables outputs to be presented in a clear visual format. PAF features a defined set of policy objectives which must be considered in each appraisal.

To assess each option, the PAF scoring system has been used to assess the fit of each option against each national objective or sub-objective. For each option, the fit of the option with the objectives is scored from -3 to +3 as shown in Figure 6.1.

-3-2-10123

Strong Moderate Slight Slight Moderate Strong No Benefit Negative Negative Negative Positive Positive Positive or Impact Impact Impact Impact Impact Impact Impact

Figure 6.1 : PAF Scoring

The PAF appraisal for the National Transport Strategy, high level strategic policy objectives is shown in Table 6.1, Table 6.2, and Table 6.3. The appraisal shows for the national objectives and sub-objectives:  Options 1 and 7 providing the greatest positive impact on the economic objective  The public transport options 4, 5, 6, and 7 provide the greatest positive impact on the integration objective  Options 6 and 7 score the highest with relation to the environmental and health objective, with Options 1 and 2 scoring negatively overall.  Options 1 and 3 scoring the highest for the safety objective  Options 5, 6, and 7 scoring highly for promoting social inclusion

Page 117 of 184 21 March 2016

Page 118 of 184 21 March 2016

Table 6.1 : Option PAF appraisal against National Policy Objectives (Table 1 of 3)

National Transport Strategy - High Level Strategic Outcomes Objective Questions to consider Option Promote Economic Growth 1234 5 6 7 Promote 'competitive' inter-urban journey To what extent does the intervention reduce inter-urban journey times? 3211222 times Reduce inter-urban journey time on public To what extent does the intervention reduce inter-urban journey time 2111212 transport on public transport? Reduce the proportion of driver journeys To what extent does the intervention reduce the proportion of driver 3220-111 delayed due to traffic journeys delayed due to traffic? Maximise the labour catchment area in city To what extent does the intervention help maximise the labour regions catchment area in city regions where economic evidence demonstrates 2111222 that this is required? Support the development and To what extent does the intervention support the development and implementation of relevant proposed implementation of relevant proposed national developments identified national developments identified in the in the National Planning Framework? 2221212 National Planning Framework

Average Score 2.4 1.6 1.4 0.8 1.4 1.4 1.8 Improve Integration Promote seamless travel To what extent does the intervention improve the integration of journeys made by public transport or via Park and Ride by reducing 0001111 interchanges and interchange times? Policy Integration To what extent does the intervention support or constrain the potential achievement of policy objectives within other sectors or delivery 2112122 agencies? Access to amenities and services To what extent does the intervention improve accessibility? 2112322 Average Score 1.3 0.7 0.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7

Page 119 of 184 21 March 2016

Table 6.2 : Option PAF appraisal against National Policy Objectives (Table 2 of 3)

Objective Questions to consider Option Protect the environment and improve health 12345 67 Reduce CO2 emissions per person To what extent does the intervention reduce CO2 emissions per person? -1-101122

Meet the targets set out in the Climate To what extent does the intervention help meet the targets set out in -1-101122 Change (Scotland) Act 2010 the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2010? Improve air quality To what extent does the intervention affect air quality? Is the -1-101122 intervention located in an Air Quality Management Area? Improve health To what extent does the intervention enable the population of Scotland 0011111 to live longer healthier lives? Well designed, sustainable places To what extent does the intervention improve landscape, streetscape -1-100000 and the local environment? Reduce the overall ecological footprint To what extent does this intervention reduce overall ecological -2-201111 footprint? Average Score -1.0 -1.0 0.2 0.8 0.8 1.3 1.3 Improve safety of journeys Promote continuing reduction in accident To what extent does the intervention promote continuing reduction in rates and severity rates across the accident rates and severity rates across the strategic transport strategic transport network recognising the network? need to continue the work of the Strategic 3231112 Road Safety Plan through the STPR period

To reduce the accident and severity rate Does the intervention have the potential to reduce accident rates? 3231111 to the national average Average Score 3.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5

Page 120 of 184 21 March 2016

Table 6.3 : Option PAF appraisal against National Policy Objectives (Table 3 of 3)

Objective Questions to consider Option Promote social inclusion 12345 67 Improve the competitiveness of public To what extent does the intervention improve the competitiveness of -1-101212 transport relative to the car public transport relative to the car? To what extent does the intervention improve the choice of modes or 0001233 routes facing public transport users? To what extent does the intervention reduce the relative costs of 0000000 public transport? Reduce Inequality To what extent does the intervention tackle the significant inequalities 1002222 in Scottish society? Improve overall perceptions of public To what extent does the intervention Improve overall perceptions of 1002222 transport public transport? Average Score 0.2 -0.2 0.0 1.2 1.6 1.6 1.8

Page 121 of 184 21 March 2016

Page 122 of 184 21 March 2016

7 FEASIBILITY, AFFORDABILITY, AND PUBLIC ACCEPTABILITY

7.1 Introduction

As part of the Part 1 Appraisal an assessment of the implementability of the options has been undertaken, considering:  Feasibility A preliminary assessment of the feasibility to construct or implement each option has been undertaken. The assessment also considers the operation of each option and, where appropriate, the status of the technology required to implement it (e.g. proven, prototype, in development, etc.). Any costs, timescale or deliverability risks (including funding risk, consent risk due to potential legal and planning issues, and stakeholder acceptability risk), associated with the construction or operation of each option, have also been considered in the feasibility assessment. Engineering judgement has been used in each instance and considered against issues which have been raised throughout the Pre-Appraisal stage of the study.  Public acceptability It is important to report upon the likely public support or otherwise of the option. Where appropriate, evidence has been used to comment on likely public support or opposition. A series of qualitative factors have been considered. These include:  The impact for current users (private and public motorised transport)  The impact for new users (private and public motorised transport)  The impact on accessibility by active travel modes  The impact on local residents/non-users during both construction and operation

Page 123 of 184 21 March 2016

 Affordability The affordability appraisal considers the scale of the financing burden on the promoting authority and other funding organisations involved and the risks associated with these. Capital Expenditure (CAPEX) and on-going operating and maintenance costs (OPEX) have also been considered alongside any revenue implications. At this initial phase, detailed costs are not available, however, information on infrastructure costs from other, similar schemes has been used wherever possible, including recent projects delivered in Scotland. These provide a useful evidence base to inform the Part 1 Appraisal. It should be noted that the assumptions used when estimating scheme capital expenditure, operating costs and potential revenue, have been made at a high level. While the assumptions enable an indication of the potential costs and revenue of the schemes to be made, attention should be paid to the assumptions used and caution applied when considering the figures. Detailed cost and revenue calculations would be expected to be undertaken at the more detailed STAG Part 2 stage when the assumptions used would be refined. This is particularly relevant for Options 6 and 7.

The key points relating to each option in terms of feasibility, affordability and public acceptability are discussed in Section 7.2 to Section 7.8. The overall feasibility and public acceptability appraisal is summarised in Section 7.9 for all options.

Page 124 of 184 21 March 2016

7.2 Option 1 Phased road dualling north of Ellon (A90 and A952), with junction improvements

7.2.1 Feasibility

Option 1 is based around improvements to the road network, specifically phased dualling north of Ellon on the A90(T) and A952.

The construction involved would be well within the bounds of standard civil engineering experience for similar road schemes and it is not anticipated that major technical issues would be presented. Transport Scotland is currently delivering a dual carriageway upgrade project on the A9(T) and we anticipate that all challenges for this type of work have already been considered and overcome. While it is possible that site-specific difficulties might emerge during detailed design and subsequent construction, these are not foreseen at this stage and therefore should not be used to discount or favour this option over another.

The environmental appraisal has identified the potential for indirect effects of construction, permanent development and operation on one or more Natura 2000 sites (sites of European nature conservation importance designated under EU Bird and Habitats Directives). Where there is a likely significant effect on these sites from a development proposal then a Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA) needs to be carried out in accordance with the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations 1994 (as amended). Provided that any HRA confirms that the option can be designed and implemented (with appropriate environmental mitigation) without a predicted adverse impact on the integrity of any Natura site then the proposals are likely to be feasible from an environmental regulatory perspective, however, if it was not possible to demonstrate that there would be no adverse impacts on the integrity of any site through HRA then there may be issues for the feasibility of the proposals and other, less impacting, options may need to be developed. Option 1 would have potential connectivity with the following three sites: the Ythan Estuary, Sands of Forvie and Meikle Loch Special Protection Area (SPA) within 700m of the A90(T) at Ellon and the Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA and Buchan Ness to Collieston Special Area of Conservation (SAC) within 100m of the A90(T) near Boddam (also see Appendix A.1.1). The potential for likely significant effects on these sites would have to be considered under the Habitats Regulations.

Construction of additional lanes would be the subject of the usual statutory procedures for road schemes in Scotland. In the case of the A90(T) the promoter would be Transport Scotland/ Scottish Government, while Aberdeenshire Council would assume responsibility for the A952. Subject to following the correct procedures both Transport Scotland and Aberdeenshire Council have the necessary powers to promote the schemes.

There may be many contractors, stakeholders and land owners involved in planning, design and implementation of the option which increases the complexity of delivery and consent risk.

Taking account of engineering feasibility, complexity of delivery, consent and funding risks, the option is awarded an overall high risk for deliverability, predominantly given the issues around funding potential and consent risk, given the scale of the intervention.

Page 125 of 184 21 March 2016

7.2.2 Affordability

DMRB guidance on indicative costs for road schemes has recently been withdrawn, which makes a tried and tested approach based on best practice guidance difficult. With this material absent, as an alternative, comparisons have been drawn from similar recent road schemes to provide useful evidence upon which to assess the affordability of this option.

Transport Scotland currently estimates the cost of dualling 80 miles of the A9(T) at £3 billion. This figure represents costs of around £22.5 million per km. It should be noted that the A9(T) is routed through particularly challenging landscape and involves significant earth movements and cuttings. It is not anticipated that the route and landscape within the study area would require the same level of engineering. As such, it anticipated that the cost per km of dualling will be significantly cheaper than that estimated for the A9(T). Despite this, it is still prudent to consider the A9(T) example as a maximum cost range.

As a comparator, Transport Scotland reports that 9km of Balmedie to Tipperty dualling will cost £92 million, which represents just over £10million per km. While this figure is significantly less than the A9(T) example, it also includes construction of numerous junctions. There is an argument to suggest that an intervention within the study area may cost less to deliver, however, without evidence available, the Balmedie to Tipperty dualling scheme has been considered at the lower end of the cost band.

Using these schemes as a proxy, dualling approximately 57km of route within the study area could cost between £570 million and £1.3 billion. Detailed appraisal, feasibility, and design would allow for more accurate costings. Regardless, a total cost anywhere in the range of £570 million to £1.2 billion would represent a significant financial undertaking.

The option considers phased dualling of the A90(T) and A952. Table 7.1 illustrates an indicative range of costs based on figures taken from other projects and presented for each section of route which could be included as a phase.

Table 7.1 : Option 1 Approximate Cost Range

Approximate Cost

Approximate Cost based upon Cost based upon Section Distance £10m per km £22.5m per km Ellon – Toll of 5km £50 million £112.5 million Birness (A90)

Toll of Birness - 18km £180 million £405.0 million Peterhead (A90)

Toll of Birness - 34km £340 million £765 million Fraserburgh (A952)

Total of A90(T) and 57km £570 million £1.3 billion A952 routes

Page 126 of 184 21 March 2016

In addition, junction improvement works, which may include potential grade separation at Toll of Birness, and other at-grade junction improvements elsewhere, are assumed to be approximately £50million.

As the scheme feasibility appears to be reasonable, with regard to optimism bias, any cost or time over-runs are likely to be within anticipated margins and will not present significant challenges to the scheme.

It is assumed that both routes would remain the responsibility of their current operators, Transport Scotland and Aberdeenshire Council respectively. Operating and maintenance costs will be higher than the current situation given the additional carriageway and would represent an additional financial commitment from the operator.

Transport Scotland currently has no funds set aside for investigating or delivering this scheme which would make funding problematic. Potentially there will be scope to gather some private finance contribution as the route will run through areas of significant planned commercial and residential development, and it will serve major businesses across the study area. While private finance cannot be guaranteed, it should be further investigated, however, it should be noted that the anticipated level of private finance contribution is unlikely to be sufficient to cover more than a minor proportion of the infrastructure costs.

7.2.3 Public Acceptability

The scheme is likely to be highly acceptable to the public.

There is a current local interest campaign with both public and political support for providing dual carriageway north of Ellon. The campaign Why Stop At Ellon? is campaigning for a dual carriageway from Ellon to Peterhead and has a popular Facebook page with over 2,500 ‘likes’ with the campaign also supported by the local press.

As part of the Pre-Appraisal engagement process, a public survey was carried out which generated over 2,500 responses. Key issues noted in the survey were slow moving vehicles (HGVs and agricultural vehicles) on the road network in the study area combined with single carriageway routes and a lack of overtaking opportunities leading to journey delay, driver frustration, and dangerous overtaking manoeuvres. Linked to these were concerns about accidents and suggestions that the A90(T) and A952 routes should be dualled from Ellon to Peterhead and Fraserburgh. The public survey also asked for views on priorities for transport improvements. Road based improvements came a very close second to the reintroduction of a railway line.

The public events undertaken towards the end of the Part 1 Appraisal stage, the responses and feedback from which is discussed in detail in Appendix F, also highlighted support for the option with:  89% of respondents considering the option likely to have a positive benefit with benefits noted as:  Increased road capacity reduced congestion  Improved road safety and accidents rates  Improved journey times for both car and bus  Increase attractiveness of the area to investors and employees  Ease the commute of students and workers

Page 127 of 184 21 March 2016

Some respondents believed this option will have negative impacts because it will encourage car and lorry use, speed up traffic and endanger cyclists and increase carbon emissions.

It should be noted that during construction there would likely be road delays and a certain amount of noise which local residents and users of the route may object to.

Support for the option from the local business community is also anticipated to be high. Engagement during the Pre-Appraisal stage of the study encompassed consultation with a number of key businesses in the area both through one to one meetings, phone calls, emails and through an on-line business survey. The general consensus from businesses was that road improvements were needed to support the economy of the area and enable business growth and improved operating efficiency. The business survey asked for views on priorities for transport improvements with road based improvements the most chosen measure for implementation above any other type of intervention.

There may be environmental groups and individuals who may contest road construction, however, considering these, overall there is likely there will be large amount of public support for this option.

Page 128 of 184 21 March 2016

7.3 Option 2 Overtaking lanes and junction improvements on the A90(T) and A952(T)

7.3.1 Feasibility

The scheme construction involved would be well within the bounds of standard civil engineering experience for similar road schemes, and it is not anticipated that major technical issues would be presented. While it is possible that site-specific difficulties might emerge during detailed design and subsequent construction, these are not foreseen at this stage and therefore should not be used to discount or favour this option over another.

Similarly to Option 1, the environmental appraisal has identified the potential for indirect effects of construction, permanent development and operation on one or more Natura 2000 sites (sites of European nature conservation importance designated under EU Bird and Habitats Directives). Where there is a likely significant effect on these sites from a development proposal then a Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA) needs to be carried out in accordance with the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations 1994 (as amended). Provided that any HRA confirms that the option can be designed and implemented (with appropriate environmental mitigation) without a predicted adverse impact on the integrity of any Natura site then the proposals are likely to be feasible from an environmental regulatory perspective, however, if it was not possible to demonstrate that there would be no adverse impacts on the integrity of any site through HRA then there may be issues for the feasibility of the proposals and other, less impacting, options may need to be developed. Option 2 would have potential connectivity with the following three sites (depending on the location of widening works): the Ythan Estuary, Sands of Forvie, and Meikle Loch Special Protection Area (SPA) within 700m of the A90(T) at Ellon and the Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA and Buchan Ness to Collieston Special Area of Conservation (SAC) within 100m of the A90 near Boddam (also see Appendix A.2.1). The potential for likely significant effects on these sites would have to be considered under the Habitats Regulations.

Construction of junction improvements and overtaking lanes would be the subject of the usual statutory procedures for road schemes in Scotland. In the case of the A90(T) the promoter would be Transport Scotland/Scottish Government, while Aberdeenshire Council would assume responsibly for the A952. Subject to following the correct procedures both Transport Scotland and Aberdeenshire Council has the necessary powers to promote the schemes.

There may be many stakeholders and land owners involved in planning, design and implementation of the option which increases the complexity of delivery and consent risk. Taking account of engineering feasibility, complexity of delivery, consent and funding risks, the option is awarded an overall medium risk for deliverability.

Page 129 of 184 21 March 2016

7.3.2 Affordability

This option significantly differs from Option 1, in that overtaking lanes will be provided at key points on the A90(T) and A952 routes and not for the full length of the dualled route, which would be the case in Option 1. It is assumed that overtaking points will only be provided at appropriate, non-technically challenging locations. Using the costs calculated for Option 1 in Section 7.2.2 we would anticipate that each 1km section of overtaking lane provided (single side of route) would cost in the region of £5 million to £11.5 million. At this stage of the appraisal, the potential number of overtaking lane sections to be implemented has been assumed as:  Three overtaking lanes provided in each direction on the A90(T) between Ellon and Peterhead  Two overtaking lanes provided in each direction on the A952, between the Toll of Birness and Mintlaw, and between Mintlaw and Cortes junction on the A90(T)  One overtaking lane provided in each direction the A90(T) between Cortes junction and Fraserburgh

A total of 6 overtaking sections in both directions equates to a total of 12 overtaking sections. Assuming a cost per section as above, and under the assumption of a length of 1km for each section, the total capital cost for over-taking lane implementation would be in the region of £60million - £138 million. Any junction improvement costs, for instance at the Toll of Birness or Cortes junction, would be in addition to this, dependant on the scale of the improvement, but could in the region of £50million.

As actual cost examples of road building schemes have been used, then risk is somewhat reduced, however, in line with Transport Scotland guidance, an element of optimism bias should be included as not all risks will be mitigated ahead of construction.

Transport Scotland currently has no committed funds set aside for investigating or delivering this scheme which would make funding challenging within current budgets, however, the smaller capital expenditure would be easier to appropriate than the full dualling option. Potentially there will be scope to gather private finance as the route will run through areas of planned development, and it will serve major businesses across the study area. While private finance cannot be guaranteed, it should be further investigated.

Page 130 of 184 21 March 2016

7.3.3 Public Acceptability

There was a general feeling amongst respondents that the option would only be a short-term solution and would not be not as effective as Option 1. These concerns were also shared by respondents who mentioned this option would have negative benefits mainly because of concerns related to the adverse impact of overtaking lanes on road safety, i.e. cause drivers to take additional risks to pass slow moving traffic.

As with Option 1, it should be noted that during construction there would likely be road delays and a certain amount of noise which local residents and users of the route may object to, although to a lesser extent than with the phased dualling considered in Option 1.

Again it is noted that there may be environmental groups and individuals who may object to road construction, however, considering the above, it is likely there will be large amount of public support for this option. It should be noted, however, that the public may view this option as an intervention which although welcomed, will not provide adequate relief from the issues of slow moving traffic and unpredictable journey times. Considering the campaign to provide dual carriageway on the A90(T) from Ellon to Peterhead, we anticipate there will be an element of disappointment that this option does not deliver the sought after improvements.

Page 131 of 184 21 March 2016

7.4 Option 3 Safety improvements on the A90(T) and A952(T)

7.4.1 Feasibility

The construction involved would be well within the bounds of standard civil engineering experience for similar road schemes, and it is not anticipated that major technical issues would be presented.

The environmental appraisal has identified the potential for indirect effects of construction, permanent development and operation on one or more Natura 2000 sites (sites of European nature conservation importance designated under EU Bird and Habitats Directives). Where there is a likely significant effect on these sites from a development proposal then a Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA) needs to be carried out in accordance with the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations 1994 (as amended). Provided that any HRA confirms that the option can be designed and implemented (with appropriate environmental mitigation) without a predicted adverse impact on the integrity of any Natura site then the proposals are likely to be feasible from an environmental regulatory perspective, however, however, if it was not possible to demonstrate that there would be no adverse impacts on the integrity of any site through HRA then there may be issues for the feasibility of the proposals and other, less impacting, options may need to be developed. Option 3 would have potential connectivity with the following three sites (depending on the location and scale of safety works): the Ythan Estuary, Sands of Forvie and Meikle Loch Special Protection Area (SPA) within 700m of the A90(T) at Ellon and the Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA and Buchan Ness to Collieston Special Area of Conservation (SAC) within 100m of the A90 near Boddam (also see Appendix A.3.1). The potential for likely significant effects on these sites would have to be considered under the Habitats Regulations

All road construction measures would be the subject of the usual statutory procedures for road schemes in Scotland. In the case of the A90(T) the promoter would be the Transport Scotland/Scottish Government, while Aberdeenshire Council would assume responsibly for the A952. Subject to following the correct procedures both Transport Scotland and Aberdeenshire Council has the necessary powers to promote the schemes.

Taking account of engineering feasibility, complexity of delivery, consent and funding risks, the option is awarded an overall medium risk for deliverability, predominantly given the issues around funding potential and consent risk.

Page 132 of 184 21 March 2016

7.4.2 Affordability

As noted Section 7.2.2, DMRB guidance on construction costs for roads has been withdrawn, which makes the task of cost estimation difficult to undertake.

Transport Scotland has advised that a traditional Route Accident Reduction Plan (RARP) treatment usually costs in the region of £100k. The option being considered will include a larger investment in accident prevention and it is estimated the scale of capital expenditure to be somewhere between £50 million and £100 million. A by-pass of Mintlaw could be in the region of £30million.

It would be expected that there would be a requirement to find additional sources of finance (outwith that set aside for the RARP) should this option be taken forward.

It is assumed that both routes would remain the responsibility of their current operators, Transport Scotland and Aberdeenshire Council respectively. Operating and maintenance costs will be higher than the current situation and would represent an additional burden on the operator.

7.4.3 Public Acceptability

As discussed for Option 1, there is current public and political support for road improvements north of Ellon and engagement undertaken during both the Pre- and Part 1 Appraisal stages of this study have further highlighted support from both the public and business communities. In particular the issue of road safety was strongly highlighted during engagement and, as such, road safety improvements are likely to be welcomed.

The public events undertaken towards the end of the Part 1 Appraisal stage, the responses and feedback from which is discussed in detail in Appendix F, also highlighted support for the option with:  73% of respondents considering the option likely to have a positive benefit especially for the Toll of Birness junction which is currently thought to be poorly lit and hard to see at night by some drivers, and also very busy in the mornings and evenings.

Whilst there was generally support for this option, there were a significant number of responses noting that improving safety aspects will do nothing to solve the issues of traffic congestion, and slow and unreliable journey times. This highlights that while the public may view this option as an intervention which would be welcomed, it may not be considered to provide adequate relief from the issues of slow moving traffic and unpredictable journey times which have been highlighted as a key problem. Considering the Why stop at Ellon? campaign to provide dual carriageway on the A90(T) from Ellon to Peterhead which has significant public support, we anticipate there will be an element of disappointment that this option provides more minor benefits and does not deliver the more significant sought after improvements.

Page 133 of 184 21 March 2016

7.5 Option 4 Bus service improvements including new direct and increased express services between the study and key employment, health, and social facilities in the Aberdeen conurbation

7.5.1 Feasibility

This option assumes no additional infrastructure will be required, and any associated costs would be in relation to the purchase and running costs of additional public transport vehicles required to operate the service.

There will be operational issues regarding timetabling with services needing to be planned both around the existing network and to integrate with other bus timetables to allow joined up journeys. Any services which call near Dyce rail station should also consider the rail timetable.

While service vehicles will be run by a private operator, it has been assumed that these will have to be supported, at least initially by Nestrans, in which case, standard specification and procurement procedures are already in place. It is envisaged at this stage that the current main service operator, Stagecoach Bluebird, would be keen to become involved, however, this cannot be taken as fact.

Taking account of engineering feasibility, complexity of delivery, consent and funding risks, the option is awarded an overall low risk for deliverability.

7.5.2 Affordability

It is assumed that to allow a suitable step change in services, including the introduction of direct and express services, at least four new bus/coaches will be required to adequately deliver service improvements. While varying standards of vehicles could be used, initially it has also been assumed that high quality coaches would be provided to attract maximum use. These coaches can cost in the region of £175k to £275k. As such, capital expenditure for four coaches could be in excess of £1million initially. Coaches will have to be replaced every five years which suggests a capital expenditure of around £12 million over the 60 year appraisal period.

In terms of operating costs, there are two elements which will require to be considered:  Operator Subsidies  Running costs.

Stagecoach Bluebird is the main operator across Aberdeenshire and currently runs its own flagship services on the ‘Buchan Link’ which covers the study area. While there are some limited express services operating between Fraserburgh, Peterhead and Aberdeen, the proposal includes new direct services and increased express services. It has been assumed that, as a Private Operator, Stagecoach has undertaken a review of the market and had there been enough demand to justify such services, would have introduced them themselves. In the absence of these services, there will probably be a requirement for Aberdeenshire Council to subsidise any services which arise as a result of this proposal. At this stage, the availability and scale of subsidy is an unknown and should not be considered until detailed appraisal.

Page 134 of 184 21 March 2016

Running costs should also be considered and include staff wages (drivers), maintenance, and upkeep of vehicles, while these elements are noted individually, the majority of running costs will be paid for by subsidies awarded for running services.

It is assumed that if subsidies are available, there would be interest from private operators in the area to deliver the services.

7.5.3 Public Acceptability

Aberdeen Chamber of Commerce produced a Barriers to Bus Use Report in 2015, which explored key issues surrounding bus use and availability in the North-East. The study found one of the key barriers to bus use was the belief that the bus takes too long and journey times are unreliable. The barrier was associated with a number of other factors that influence bus journey times including the number of stops and availability of direct routes.

The public survey undertaken during the Pre-Appraisal stage of the study, found that the main reasons why the majority of respondents choose not to travel by bus within the study area are long journey times, high fares and lack of direct buses. The public survey also asked for views on priorities for transport improvements, road based improvements were the second most chosen measure for implementation behind the reintroduction of a railway line. While the public, and especially those who rely on public transport services would be happy to receive bus service improvements as per this option, there may be an element of disappointment.

However, 32% believed it might have no impact or said they did not know what the impact would be, and some raised concerns that the proposed option may not provide enough improvement, or it may not work at all.

Key themes which emerged from analysis of the consultation feedback included the thought that while this option would improve links to Aberdeen City Centre itself, there will still be the requirement to interchange for onward journeys, and that while the option would improve services from key points, it would do nothing for populations living outwith Fraserburgh and Peterhead or service points on the route.

Considering this, there is likely to be reasonable public support for this option, but with an element of disappointment that a larger scale road or rail intervention is not being progressed.

Page 135 of 184 21 March 2016

7.6 Option 5 Bus service improvements (as Option 4) accompanied by priority infrastructure and Park & Ride improvements (new sections of dedicated bus lanes, extended operating hours, development of Park & Ride Strategy)

7.6.1 Feasibility

This option requires a reallocation of road space to allow for physical and operational bus priority measures. This can be accomplished through standard Traffic Regulation Orders and presents no unknown challenges. In addition, there will be costs in relation to the purchase and running costs of additional public transport vehicles required to operate the service.

Nestrans and Aberdeenshire Council have introduced, and are currently involved in the development of, numerous large and mini Park & Ride sites in recent years and are familiar with the procedures for their introduction.

There will be operational issues regarding timetabling, with services needing to be planned both around the existing network and to integrate with other bus timetables to allow joined up journeys. Any services which call near Dyce rail station should also consider the rail timetable.

While service vehicles will be run by a private operator, it has been assumed that these will have to be supported, at least initially by Nestrans, in which case, standard specification and procurement procedures are already in place. It is envisaged at this stage that current main service operator, Stagecoach, would be keen to become involved, however, this cannot be taken as fact.

Taking account of engineering feasibility, complexity of delivery, consent and funding risks, the option is awarded an overall low risk for deliverability.

7.6.2 Affordability

This option is similar in scale to Option 4 in that there is a requirement for the purchase of four high quality vehicles, and associated running costs. As such, the costs noted for Option 4 for new bus/coaches can also be assumed for Option 5.

This option additionally includes capital investment in priority infrastructure improvements with potential bus priority measures as well as extended bus lane operating hours. In the current financial climate the majority of local authorities use conventional lining to define bus lanes thus providing cost savings. An approximate cost of £1million is assumed for bus lane/bus priority measure. In addition to priority infrastructure improvements, there is also the requirement to consider the roll out of a Park & Ride strategy with additional ‘mini’ Park & Ride sites at appropriate locations within the study area. Nestrans and Aberdeenshire Council have been introducing sites in recent years. Approximate costs for the implementation of a Park & Ride site similar to that at Ellon, with shelters, lighting, etc. would be approximately £10million per site. On-going upkeep and maintenance costs would also need to be considered.

It could be the case that this capital investment could enable a partnership between local authorities/Nestrans and operators whereby they would invest in rolling stock and operate commercial services with minimal subsidy.

Page 136 of 184 21 March 2016

7.6.3 Public Acceptability

Similarly to Option 4, there is likely to be reasonable public support for this option, however, when considering this option it is important to consider the effects of proposals to extend the length of and operating hours of bus only lanes. Presently, there are high degrees of dissatisfaction with congestion and delay on the approach to Aberdeen from the study area. Reallocation of road space would make this problem worse for non-bus road users, and it will likely be seen to be taking away from the benefits of the implementation of the Balmedie to Tipperty dualling.

However, 35% believed it might have no impact or said they did not know what the impact would be.

Key themes which emerged from analysis of the consultation feedback included concerns about the cost of bus travel and the impact buses can cause on the road network. ·There did seem to be support for Park and Ride improvements amongst the responses, with respondents noting the success of current Park & Ride arrangements at Ellon, and the ease this provides.

Considering this, it is highly likely there will be reasonable public support from current bus users for this option, however this could potentially impact upon car drivers and the freight industry if proposals result in any reduction of road space and hence increased congestion and delay for non-bus transport modes. Again, as noted for Option 4, the public survey (undertaken during the Pre-Appraisal stage) highlighted the public view that rail and road improvements are the most preferred improvement measures and while there will be support for bus service improvements, there will be an element of disappointment. As such, an overall high risk for public acceptability is assumed.

Page 137 of 184 21 March 2016

7.7 Option 6 Phased reinstatement on existing railway alignments, via Dyce, including examining options for light rail or tram (Dyce to Ellon, Ellon to Maud/Peterhead, Maud to Fraserburgh)

7.7.1 Feasibility

Option 6 considers the reinstatement of a heavy rail, tram or light rail services on the alignment of the Formartine & Buchan Way.

It should be noted at the outset that rail, tram and light rail are designed and suitable for very specific purposes. Compared to tram and light rail, conventional heavy rail services boast higher top speeds of around 70 miles per hour and higher carrying capacity, however, there are time constraints related to acceleration and deceleration which influence distances between stops/stations to maximise efficiency. Due to infrastructure, heavy rail is usually shared with long distance and freight traffic which can reduce the availability of service frequency. Essentially conventional heavy rail is most suited to traversing longer distances, with reasonable distance between stops allowing vehicles to reach top speed.

Light rail or tramways are smaller, lighter vehicles which operate on dedicated tracks and are suitable for accessing city centre streets. Due to its size, light rail can accelerate to top speeds faster than conventional rail making it more suitable for traversing short distances between stations/stops. Normal station spacing for such systems in an urban setting in the UK is around 300 – 500m thus providing good access while maintaining reasonable overall operating speeds. Typical average overall speeds for express transit light rail routes operating primarily over public streets may range from 10 – 20 mph, increasing to 30 mph over exclusive dedicated track systems which do not share public street space.

Considering this, it should be noted at the outset that whilst tram/light rail implementation would be a suitable option for accessing the City Centre from Aberdeen Airport or potentially Ellon, it would not be suitable for longer distances as proposed to Fraserburgh and Peterhead which could only realistically be served by heavy rail.

Despite the limitations, tram/train technology which is currently employed in various European settings may offer a reasonable solution. Tram/train allows faster vehicles to operate on both street style settings when in the urban environment and then on conventional railway infrastructure when moving into the inter-urban setting. Tram/train is an accepted technology, however there are no current UK examples in operation although Sheffield Supertram is due to open a Tram/Train line in 2017, and proposals being considered as part of Glasgow and Clyde Valley City Deal include the possibility of running Tram/Trains between Glasgow City Centre and Glasgow Airport.

Considering the above, only heavy rail and tram/train technologies would be suitable to access Fraserburgh and Peterhead from Aberdeen.

While most of the previous rail alignment exists, there are sections which pass through developed land, and a number of overpasses span the route. At the present time the majority of the previous railway line embankment remains and is used as a long distance cycle route, however, a number of bridges have been removed, creating “breaks” in the route. An approximate estimate by Aberdeenshire Council showed that 80% of the permanent way substructure is in place, however, it is likely that this will require substantial upgrading to bring it to current standards.

Page 138 of 184 21 March 2016

Despite this, construction involved would be well within the bounds of standard civil engineering experience. It should be noted that the recently opened Borders Railway is provided on a similar former railway alignment. While there will be technical challenges, it is not anticipated that major technical issues would be presented. While it is possible that site-specific difficulties might emerge during detailed design and subsequent construction, these cannot and are not foreseen at this stage and therefore should not be used to discount or favour this option over another.

The sections of disused line that are still in use as a cycleway are in the ownership, or under the control, of Aberdeenshire Council. This should ease issues relating to required land purchase.

Construction of the new railway would be the subject of the usual statutory procedures for rail schemes in Scotland. Transport Scotland/Scottish Government, and Network Rail would be the scheme promoters; while ScotRail would assume responsibility for operating services on construction. Subject to following the correct procedures both Transport Scotland and Network Rail have the necessary powers to promote the schemes, and statutes are in place to allow Transport Scotland to amend the ScotRail franchise to incorporate new services and routes.

Operationally, there are a number of challenges which will have to be overcome to properly integrate with the current and future rail network, as Aberdeen Rail Station and the surrounding network is currently operating at capacity.

Network Rail’s (NR) Draft Scotland Route Study (SRS) was published for consultation on 10 December 2015. This SRS is the first stage of a three year process which will lead to the decisions on which rail projects will be funded in Control Period Six (CP6), which runs from 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2024. The 1 April 2019 is also the start of the second half of Abellio’s ScotRail franchise, so this is a key time for introducing change, as this is a clear break point in the franchise.

The process of deciding what is to be funded for CP6 will start in earnest with NR’s publication of the Initial Industry Plan (IIP) in September 2016. This plan will take output from the final version of the Scotland Route Plan (published in July 2016), plus ongoing developments to create a “shopping list” of possible outputs and enhancements that the Scottish Government might wish to buy from the railway in Scotland. It will be interpreting Scottish Government requirements and desires, as well as those of wider stakeholders and the train operators.

In July 2017 the Scottish Government, through Transport Scotland (TS), will publish its High Level Output Specification (HLOS) setting out what it requires from the railway in Scotland over CP6. These requirements will range from the levels of punctuality and performance through to the required outputs from upgrades on selected routes. Specification is in the form of outputs rather than inputs, as it is for the railway industry to decide what is required to deliver the outputs. A Statement of Funds Available (SOFA) will also be published at the same time, setting out what the Government can afford. This will already have been informed by both the IIP and ongoing dialogue with the Office of Road and Rail (ORR), the Regulator for the railway industry.

In January 2018 NR will publish their Strategic Business Plan (SBP) setting out what they can deliver – which may not be all that is specified. Once accepted and agreed by TS,and ORR, a Delivery Plan will be finalised by NR for April 2019.

Page 139 of 184 21 March 2016

The Scotland Route Study does not look at the aspirations of non-railway stakeholders, so does not include any new stations or routes other than reference to HS2, which is included as a rail industry aspiration. As the former Buchan line (now the Formartine & Buchan Way route) is not operational it does feature in the SRS.

The study looks at two timeframes: the long term in 2043 and the requirements for the next two five year Control Periods (CP6 & CP7) which run from 2019 to 2029.

The Aberdeen area features in two sections of the SRS:  Glasgow Queen Street High Level to Aberdeen and Inverness: which includes Capacity and Capability of Aberdeen Station as a Key Strategic Constraint.  Aberdeen to Inverness: which reiterates the expectations from Phase 2 of the Aberdeen – Inverness upgrade

The SRS shows:  That the rail commuting market is less mature in Aberdeen than Glasgow, which is probably an understatement as significant rail commuting into Aberdeen has only been happening for the past 15 or so years.  The number of out of centre non- rail accessible employment areas and the impending growth in road infrastructure are two critical points.  Modelling is not so accurate as in the Central Belt because the Aberdeen area zones used by Transport Model for Scotland (TMfS) are larger so that relatively small changes in travel costs can have disproportionately large impacts on forecast rail demand compared with Edinburgh and Glasgow.  High morning peak (07 00 – 10 00) growth to 2043 on the Inverurie rail corridor, noticeably higher than from the south of Aberdeen suggesting that high peak (0800 – 09 00) trains will be seriously crowded. Additional Buchan line trains from Dyce into Aberdeen may help alleviate some of the peak loads.  Demand growth for Interurban Section for Aberdeen–Inverness and Inverness – Aberdeen (Off peak 10 00 – 16 00) show massive load factor increases -64% and 54% respectively now, rising to 261% & 139% in 2023 and 401% & 246% respectively in 2043. The high speed trains arriving in 2018 will provide significantly more capacity to cater for this growth, but in turn the service improvement will stimulate more growth. These load factors are the highest for any interurban route and the growth is amongst the highest.  The route from Dundee to Aberdeen is being proposed for electrification in CP8 (2029 – 34), but electrification beyond Aberdeen to Inverurie has been specifically rejected when considered for CP9.  There is also a proposal for CP7 (2024 – 2029) to restore platform 8 as a through platform with related changes to the Clayhills Depot train wash plant.  Redoubling Aberdeen – Kittybrewster with lower slab track through the tunnels was considered for CP8 but rejected with the risk of loss of freight gauge.  No further upgrades are proposed to the Aberdeen – Inverurie section, except possibly Line Speed Improvements, as the conditional outputs are looking for faster journey times on this section.

Page 140 of 184 21 March 2016

The 2043 Indicative Train Service Specification (ITSS) shows:  All long distance Scottish Interurban or Anglo Scottish services terminating in Aberdeen with no through services to Inverurie  One Aberdeen – Inverness train per hour  One Aberdeen – Keith train per hour  One Montrose – Inverurie train per hour  One Stonehaven – Inverurie train per hour

This service pattern will offer four trains per hour Aberdeen – Inverurie and five trains per hour Aberdeen – Stonehaven.

It is anticipated that the 2043 Conditional Outputs will cater for the projected demand.

Eight trains per hour (four each way) plus some freight trains may use all the capacity on the single line Aberdeen – Kittybrewster section. This would then require redoubling in the event of the Buchan line (Option 6) going forward.

The key issue for Option 6 will be the location of the single to double track points. If they are located at the north portal of Hutcheon St Tunnel, then the distance to the north end throat points is likely to be well under a mile, which might prove satisfactory. If they are located for engineering convenience and cost saving at the Waterloo branch junction at Kittybrewster then that distance will be closer to two miles. Line and train speed will also be important as it is the time the single line section is occupied not its length that is critical, although clearly the two are related.

The double track from Dyce to Kittybrewster will be adequate, but there may be a need for more signals, probably three aspect signalling to accommodate additional Buchan line trains.

The provision of a new through platform will probably enable Aberdeen station to function adequately as there are only two through trains an hour in each direction planned plus occasional freights. With the Buchan line bringing another two trains per hour, making four terminating trains per hour into the north end of the station another bay platform or possibly two may be required.

There may be many contractors, stakeholders and land owners involved in the options implementation which increases the complexity of delivery and consent risk.

Taking account of engineering feasibility, complexity of delivery, consent and funding risks, the option is awarded an overall high risk for deliverability, predominantly given the issues around funding potential, complexity of delivery and consent risk, given the scale of the intervention.

Page 141 of 184 21 March 2016

7.7.2 Affordability

Capital Costs

With regards to heavy rail, during an engagement meeting with Transport Scotland and Network Rail it was explained that the Borders Rail website provides information on construction costs, track lengths, and constraints which had to be overcome to build the new line between the Scottish Borders and Edinburgh. Transport Scotland and Network Rail advised that this information could provide useful evidence to inform a high-level cost estimate of the proposed option alignment into Aberdeen.

The Borders Rail website reveals the Borders Rail scheme cost of £294 million with the route spanning 48km. This equates to £6.125 million per km. This appears a relatively low cost but likely reflects the fact that the new line has been built on an existing alignment, therefore, preventing the need for significant construction works, as would be the case for Option 6. At this stage, it is unknown if the figure of £294 million presented by Transport Scotland is an outturn cost or a latest estimate, but assuming a similar construction cost per kilometre a rail line over the full 87km length of the Formartine & Buchan Way (Dyce – Maud, Maud – Peterhead and Maud – Fraserburgh) would cost in the region of £530 million.

In addition, the scheme cost in relation to the Airdrie-Bathgate railway line has also been considered to provide an alternative costs estimate for rail implementation. The overall project costs for the 24km (15mile) stretch of rail route was approximately £300million, which included double-tracking, three new stations and upgrades to existing stations, electrification, and upgrades to existing stations. While it is not proposed here to electrify the route, the overall cost associated with the of the Airdrie-Bathgate link implementation does provide a further indication of likely scheme costs, potentially at the higher end of the cost spectrum. The £300million cost for 24km of route equates to £12.5million per km (including station construction). Assuming a similar construction cost per kilometre a rail line over over the full 87km length of the Formartine & Buchan Way (Dyce – Maud, Maud – Peterhead, and Maud – Fraserburgh) would cost in the region of £1.1billion.

While the headline figures presented above, this cover the full route which was removed as part of the Beeching Cuts. The proposal for this option however suggests a phased reintroduction of the railway along the route. Table 7.2 illustrates indicative range of costs based upon figures presented for each section of route which could be included as a phase.

Page 142 of 184 21 March 2016

Table 7.2 : Option 6 Approximate Capital Costs

Approximate Capital Cost (in millions)

Based upon Based upon Borders Rail Airdire-Bathgate scheme of scheme of Approximate £6.125 million £12.5 million per Section Distance (km) per km km Dyce to Ellon 21 £130 £260 Ellon to Maud 19 £120 £240 Maud to Peterhead 21 £130 £260 Maud to Fraserburgh 26 £160 £330 Total 87 £530 £1,090

It should also be noted that this cost does not include for any of the works that may be required to accommodate the Buchan line trains on the Aberdeen-Inverness line, i.e. to accommodate the trains between Dyce and Aberdeen. These additional works, as discussed in Section 7.7.1 may include:  A requirement for doubling of the tunnels between Dyce and Aberdeen that is likely to be the most expensive and disruptive work required to deliver Buchan line trains into Aberdeen  More signals on the Dyce-Aberdeen line section  Another bay platform, or possibly two, may be required at Aberdeen Rail Station

There are a number of variants proposed as part of this option, including heavy rail, light rail, and tramways. Light rail and trams are generally believed to be less expensive to construct and operate, however, evidence suggests otherwise when compared against Borders Rail.

The DfT provides costs for the construction of tramway information within the 2011 publication, ‘Green Light for Light Rail’[1] which documents capital costs of eight phased tramways in England and notes the average cost per km to be £12.2 million, equating to a cost of approximately £330million to provide a tramway route to Ellon. It should, however, be noted that the majority of these schemes operate within major conurbations and, while Option 6 will need to access Aberdeen City centre, the majority of the route will be outside the city which should help to lower costs. The publication does not however consider the experience of the Edinburgh example; which was beset by financial and management issues. It would, therefore, be prudent to build in significant Optimism Bias into any Light Rail scheme given the cost over-runs experienced within Edinburgh.

Operationally, a tramway differs significantly from the rail network, with a number of operational models available. Edinburgh Trams for example is an arm’s length organisation which is owned by the City of Edinburgh Council. Edinburgh Trams operates both the tram vehicles and route. Manchester Metrolink by contrast owns the network and infrastructure,

[1] DfT Green Light for Rail 2011

Page 143 of 184 21 March 2016 but tenders the operation of the system out to private operators. Various options will be available to operate a tramway and should be considered as part of a detailed appraisal.

In term of capital costs, full route or phased introduction of sections represent a significant investment. Transport Scotland currently has no funds set aside for investigating or delivering this scheme which would make funding difficult.

It should also be noted that the business survey undertaken as part of the engagement process uncovered little support for a railway line from the business community, making the case for private finance harder to develop, however, rail access to Aberdeen for a number of potential residential developments could make these significantly more attractive to potential buyers and encourage contributions from house builders. At the moment this has not been explored in any detail.

Operating Costs

Estimated operating costs for a heavy rail reinstatement have been calculated for the full route reinstatement. The assumptions that have been made in estimating this cost are detailed in Appendix C.

Based on the assumptions stated in Appendix C. operating costs (including track access fees, fuel costs, maintenance, wages and rolling stock leasing etc.) are estimated at:  £4.2million, for the full rail route to Peterhead and Fraserburgh  £2.2million, for the part route to Ellon only

In terms of operating costs, service provision for any railway line would have to be considered and written into franchise documentation at which point ScotRail, and ultimately Transport Scotland, would likely assume responsibility for services.

Transport Scotland has recently purchased rolling stock and ScotRail has also invested in stock, bypassing the need for Rolling Stock Operating and leasing Companies. Transport Scotland has advised that as more of the line becomes electrified, there will be a greater availability of diesel engines across the network that could be used on new routes. Transport Scotland and Network Rail suggest if a rail option was to proceed beyond initial appraisal, it would be extremely beneficial to have a discussion between Transport Scotland Rolling Stock team and ScotRail at detailed appraisal stage to establish the opportunities and limitations of the existing rolling stock within the network.

Revenue

A high level estimate of the potential patronage for the rail route, and subsequently potential revenue, has been undertaken for line if it extended to Peterhead and Fraserburgh, and if it extended only as far north as Ellon.

Two different methodologies for estimating rail patronage and hence revenue have been undertaken:  Method 1 considers a rough catchment area for each station and estimates patronage based on national figures for the proportion of people working, commuting levels to Aberdeen and Dyce, and the ratio of commuters to other users on the rail network. Daily revenue is then estimated by applying a distance based fare to the estimated daily patronage, with the figure annualised to provide an annual revenue estimate.

Page 144 of 184 21 March 2016

 Method 2 considers the latest (2014 – 2015) Office for Rail and Road figures for the entries and exits at Aberdeenshire stations. A ratio of trip rate per head population by distance of each station from Aberdeen is then calculated. This ratio is then applied to the new stations based on their distance from Aberdeen and population. Similarly to Method 1, daily revenue is then estimated by applying a distance based fare to the estimated daily patronage, with the figure annualised to provide an annual revenue estimate.

Full details of the assumptions made and the steps followed to estimate patronage and revenue are presented in Appendix D. The patronage and revenue calculations for the part route to Ellon includes a number of sensitivity tests which consider varying levels of demand from locations north of Ellon. The tests consider 30%, 50%, and 80% of the demand (utilising the stations north of Ellon when the full route is in place) transferring to Ellon and utilising the Ellon Park & Ride site.

The analysis presented in Appendix D is summarised in Table 7.3 (for Method 1) and Table 7.4 (for Method 2).

Fare calculations have been based on distance, by considering existing fares between Aberdeen and a number of regional towns and the distance between the stations. This estimation means that the further the distance travelled, the higher the fare. Consequently, a more direct rail route (as in Option 7), with shorter distances and quicker trips between stations and, as such, lower fares, equates to a lower overall revenue. This is counter-intuitive, as it would be expected that a quicker trip between stations would attract a higher patronage. To take account of this, the fares calculated for similar stations in Option 7 (the more direct routeing) have additionally been applied to Option 6, and are presented in Option 6 and included in Table 7.3.

Table 7.3 and Table 7.4 show, with the assumptions made:  Method 1 annual revenue minus annual operating costs are negative in all the cases considered. For the full route the difference between annual revenue and operating costs is nearly over -£1million.  Method 2 annual revenue minus annual operating costs are positive in all the cases considered, given the higher patronage estimated through the second methodology. For the full route the difference between annual revenue and operating costs is nearly £7million.

The SRS suggests that the rail commuting market is less mature in Aberdeen than Glasgow, which is probably an understatement as significant rail commuting into Aberdeen has only been happening for the past 15 or so years. MOIRA estimates that rail growth has regularly exceeded 10% per annum since 2010 on the Inverurie corridor. The SRS demand forecasts predict increases of 52% 2012 to 2023 and 151% between 2012 to 2043 with the incremental rail demand being a function of market share rather than market size. Figures in the SRS suggest that many high peak (0800 – 09 00) trains on the Inveruruie corridor will be seriously crowded in the future. Additional Buchan line trains from Dyce into Aberdeen make help alleviate some of the peak loads.

Page 145 of 184 21 March 2016

Page 146 of 184 21 March 2016

Table 7.3 : Option 6 Revenue Summary: Method 1

Difference Revenue minus Annual Rail Annual Revenue Annual Operating operating costs Option 6 Patronage (million) Costs (million) (million) Full Route Aberdeen to Peterhead and Fraserburgh 235,423 £3.10 £4.22 -£1.12 Full Route (with fare as per Option 7) Aberdeen to Peterhead and Fraserburgh 235,423 £2.45 £4.22 -£1.77 Part Route to Ellon Aberdeen to Ellon (30% transfer) 159,720 £1.27 £2.19 -£0.92 (considering demand transfer from stations north Aberdeen to Ellon (50% transfer) 181,349 £1.47 £2.19 -£0.72 of Ellon to Ellon1) Aberdeen to Ellon (80% transfer) 213,793 £1.76 £2.19 -£0.43 1 Demand at Ellon and Newmachar assumed for full route remains at 100%

Page 147 of 184 21 March 2016

Table 7.4 : Option 6 Revenue Summary: Method 2

Difference Revenue minus Annual Rail Annual Revenue Annual Operating operating costs Option 6 Patronage (million) Costs (million) (million) Full Route Aberdeen to Peterhead and Fraserburgh 737,684 £11.19 £4.22 £6.97 Full Route (with fare as per Option 7) Aberdeen to Peterhead and Fraserburgh 737,684 £8.80 £4.22 £4.58 Part Route to Ellon Aberdeen to Ellon (30% transfer) 433,570 £3.59 £2.19 £1.40 (considering demand transfer from stations north Aberdeen to Ellon (50% transfer) 520,460 £4.38 £2.19 £2.19 of Ellon to Ellon1) Aberdeen to Ellon (80% transfer) 650,795 £5.56 £2.19 £3.37 1 Demand at Ellon and Newmachar assumed for full route remains at 100%

Page 148 of 184 21 March 2016

7.7.3 Public Acceptability

The rail route on the Formartine & Buchan Way was originally removed as part of the Beeching cuts. Since then there have been numerous campaigns to re-establish the line. Campaigns are currently supported by local politicians, Rail Future Scotland and the local media in the North-East. There was strong support during consultation on the RTS Refresh in 2014 to examine the costs and benefits of re-opening the Formartine & Buchan railway line which has been the catalyst for this study.

The public survey, undertaken during the Pre-Appraisal stage of the study identified the establishment of a rail line to be chosen transport improvement respondents would like implemented, however, current active travel users on the Formartine & Buchan Way are likely to strongly object to the removal of the long distance route, used by recreational walkers, cyclists, and horse-riders, as well as larger number using it for commuting purposes over the southern section between Newmachar and Dyce.

The public events undertaken towards the end of the Part 1 Appraisal stage, the responses and feedback from which, is discussed in detail in Appendix F, also highlighted support for the option with:  86% of respondents considering the option likely to have a positive benefit with benefits noted to be:  Journey times reductions  The opportunity to remove freight from the road  Rail would be more reliable than road based measures  A general feeling that an investment in rail would provide economic benefits for the region as a whole

However, concerns were raised about the proposed alignment including:  The high capital and operational investment required  The loss of the Formartine & Buchan Way for recreational purposes  The circuitous nature of the rail route

It should be noted that during construction there would likely be road delays where rail crossings and new infrastructure were required as well as a certain amount of noise which local residents and current users of the road routes would object to.

Considering this, there can be confidence that there will be large amounts of public support for this option, however, there may be concerns that simply reinstating a rail line on the previous alignment does not support new large developments in the area which will not be served by the route and the indirect route via Maud, particularly form Peterhead, may take away from its attractiveness. Additionally, any loss of bus services as a result of loss of commercial viability due to rail or tram implementation would directly impact on bus users who were unable to easily access a tram/rail stop/station and as such may not fully support the proposals.

Page 149 of 184 21 March 2016

7.8 Option 7 Phased implementation of a new railway alignment, via the Bridge of Don, including examining options for light rail or tram

7.8.1 Feasibility

The Option 7 proposals are for the implementation of a heavy rail or tram/light rail service on a new railway alignment via the Bridge of Don.

The new railway alignment would pass through mixed areas of developed, agricultural and residential land, in addition to areas where future development has been proposed. Despite this, construction involved would be well within the bounds of standard civil engineering experience. Scotland has now introduced numerous rail lines and extensions in the last 20 years, building up a wealth of skills and experience. While there will be technical challenges, due to alignment (specifically in terms of the infrastructure required to cross the River Don and within the urban areas of Aberdeen City) and land availability, it is not anticipated that major technical issues would be presented. While it is possible that site-specific difficulties might emerge during detailed design and subsequent construction, these cannot and are not foreseen at this stage and, therefore, should not be used to discount or favour any this option over another.

The environmental appraisal has identified the potential for indirect effects of construction, permanent development and operation on one or more Natura 2000 sites (sites of European nature conservation importance designated under EU Bird and Habitats Directives). Where there is a likely significant effect on these sites from a development proposal then a Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA) needs to be carried out in accordance with the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations 1994 (as amended). Provided that any HRA confirms that the option can be designed and implemented (with appropriate environmental mitigation) without a predicted adverse impact on the integrity of any Natura site then the proposals are likely to be feasible from an environmental regulatory perspective, however, if it was not possible to demonstrate that there would be no adverse impacts on the integrity of any site through HRA then there may be issues for the feasibility of the proposals and other, less impacting, options may need to be developed. Option 7 would have potential connectivity with the following three sites (depending on the final railway/tram alignment): the Ythan Estuary, Sands of Forvie and Meikle Loch Special Protection Area (SPA) within 700m of the A90(T) at Ellon and the Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA and Buchan Ness to Collieston Special Area of Conservation (SAC) within 100m of the A90 near Boddam (also see Appendix A.7.1). The potential for likely significant effects on these sites would have to be considered under the Habitats Regulations.

Construction of the rail alignment would be the subject of the usual statutory procedures for rail schemes in Scotland. Transport Scotland/Scottish Government, and Network Rail would be the scheme promoters while ScotRail would assume responsibility for operating services on construction. Subject to following the correct procedures, both Transport Scotland and Network Rail have the necessary powers to promote the schemes, and statutes are in place to allow Transport Scotland to amend the ScotRail franchise to incorporate new services and routes.

Operationally, there are a number of challenges which will have to be overcome to properly integrate with the current rail network, especially if a heavy rail route were to be provided from the north of the city, across the River Don into the rail station, where there is currently no existing rail infrastructure. Aberdeen Rail Station and the surrounding network is currently operating at capacity and mitigation will have to be undertaken in conjunction with timetabling to release capacity and ensure suitable slots are available for services to link into the network.

Page 150 of 184 21 March 2016

At this stage it is impossible to estimate the scale of the intervention required which will have to be explored further at detailed appraisal.

If a tramway were to be provided this would reduce some of the engineering challenges of providing heavy rail infrastructure over the River Don and through the city centre. A promoter would need to be identified, this could be Transport Scotland, Nestrans or following the Edinburgh Trams example, a separate agency could be set up. Trams could bypass capacity issues on the rail network but would have to be routed through city centre streets. This option is tried and tested, but will have to be designed in conjunction with proposals for the Aberdeen City Centre Masterplan.

There may be many contractors, stakeholders and land owners involved in the options implementation which increases the complexity of delivery and consent risk Taking account of engineering feasibility, complexity of delivery, consent and funding risks, the option is awarded an overall high risk for deliverability, predominantly given the issues around funding potential, complexity of delivery and consent risk, given the scale of the intervention.

7.8.2 Affordability

Capital Costs

As noted for Option 6, it is difficult to calculate costs at this stage as costs for a rail line will be significantly different from those of light rail and tram ways.

As explained with regards Option 6 in Section 7.7, the Borders Rail scheme cost of approximately £6.125 million per km, and the Airdrie-Bathgate scheme cost of £12.5million per km have been used to provide an indication of the potential cost range for rail implementation. Assuming similar construction costs to both these rail routes, the introduction of a new railway line, as per Option 7, would be:  Approximately £580 million - £1.2billion to introduce a railway line over the 95km route from Aberdeen to Ellon, Peterhead, and Fraserburgh (assuming two branch lines from Ellon; one to Peterhead, and one to Fraserburgh)  Approximately £490 million - £1.0billion to introduce a railway line over the 80km route from Aberdeen to Ellon then Peterhead and continuing on to Fraserburgh

This option, however, introduces a new alignment and as such, costs can be anticipated to exceed the lower end of this range, which is based on the Borders Rail estimates.

While the headline figures above cover the full route from Aberdeen to Peterhead and Fraserburgh. The proposal for this option, however suggests a phased reintroduction of the railway along the route. Table 7.5 illustrates indicative range of costs based upon figures presented above for each section of route which could be included as a phase.

Page 151 of 184 21 March 2016

Table 7.5 : Option 7 Approximate Capital Costs

Approximate Capital Cost (in millions)

Based upon Based upon Borders Rail Airdire-Bathgate scheme of scheme of Approximate £6.125 million £12.5 million per Section Distance (km) per km km

Aberdeen to Ellon 26 £160 £330

Ellon to Peterhead 27 £170 £340

Ellon To Fraserburgh 42 £260 £530

Peterhead to 27 £170 £340 Fraserburgh

Total (assuming two 95 £580 £1,190 branch lines from Ellon)

Total (assuming one line Ellon-Peterhead- 80 £490 £1,000 Fraserburgh)

Further works may be required at Aberdeen Rail Station to accommodate new platforms.

As discussed for Option 6, there are a number of variants proposed as part of this option, including heavy rail, light rail and tramways. Light rail and trams are generally believed to be less expensive to construct and operate, however, evidence suggests otherwise when compared against Borders Rail.

As discussed for Option 6, assuming an average cost per km for the introduction of a tramway to be £12.2 million, this would equate to a cost of approximately £320million to provide a tramway route to Ellon on the Option 7 alignment.

In term of capital costs, full route or phased introduction of heavy rail or light rail/tram, represent a significant investment. Transport Scotland currently has no funds set aside for investigating or delivering this scheme which would make funding difficult.

Page 152 of 184 21 March 2016

Operating Costs

Estimated operating costs for the heavy rail line have been calculated for the full route from Aberdeen to Peterhead and Fraserburgh considering both branch lines from Ellon to Peterhead and Fraserburgh, and a continuous line through Peterhead and on to Fraserburgh. The assumptions that have been made in estimating this cost are the same as those detailed in Appendix 0 for Option 6.

Based on the assumptions stated in Appendix 0, operating costs (including track access fee, fuel costs, maintenance, wages, and rolling stock leasing. etc.) are presented in full in Appendix 0, and are estimated at approximately:  £3.7million, for the full rail route to Peterhead and Fraserburgh with branch line routes from Ellon  £4.5million, for the full rail route to Peterhead and Fraserburgh with a continuous rail route to Peterhead and on to Fraserburgh  £2.0, for the part route to Ellon only

Revenue

As with Option 6, two different methodologies for estimating rail patronage and hence revenue have been undertaken. The assumptions made and the steps followed to estimate patronage and demand are the same as those presented in Appendix D for Option 6 and discussed in Section 7.7.2. Similarly to Option 6, the patronage and revenue calculations for the part route to Ellon includes a number of sensitivity tests which consider varying levels of demand (30%, 50%, and 80%) from locations north of Ellon.

Page 153 of 184 21 March 2016

The analysis presented in Appendix D is summarised in Table 7.6 (for Method 1) and Table 7.7 (Method 2) and shows that:  Method 1 annual revenue minus annual operating costs are negative in all the cases considered. For the full route the difference between annual revenue and operating costs is -£1.7million for the branch line and -£2.6million for the continuous route.  Method 2 annual revenue minus annual operating costs are positive in all the cases considered, given the higher patronage estimated through the second methodology. For the full route the difference between annual revenue and operating costs is nearly £7.2million.

As noted for Option 6, the SRS suggests that the rail commuting market is less mature in Aberdeen than Glasgow, which is probably an understatement as significant rail commuting into Aberdeen has only been happening for the past 15 or so years. MOIRA estimates that rail growth has regularly exceeded 10% per annum since 2010 on the Inverurie corridor. Given this, there is the potential for demand on the route to be significantly greater than that predicted hereand, as such, annual revenue is likely to be higher.

Transport Scotland currently has no funds set aside for investigating or delivering this scheme which would make funding difficult. Indeed, the potential for funding is likely to be even more limited given the higher magnitude of costs associated with this option.

Costs for the construction of tramways remain consistent, with information presented in Option 6, as will potential operating models.

Page 154 of 184 21 March 2016

Table 7.6 : Option 7 Revenue Summary: Method 1

Difference Revenue minus Annual Rail Annual Revenue Annual Operating operating costs Option 7 Patronage (million) Costs (million) (million) Full Route - Branch line Aberdeen to Peterhead and Fraserburgh 240,777 £2.02 £3.72 -£1.70 Full Route - Continuous line Aberdeen to Peterhead and Fraserburgh 240,777 £1.91 £4.48 -£2.57 Part Route to Ellon Aberdeen to Ellon (30%1) 173,284 £0.83 £1.95 -£1.12 (considering demand transfer from stations Aberdeen to Ellon (50%1) 192,568 £0.97 £1.95 -£0.98 1 north of Ellon to Ellon 1 Aberdeen to Ellon (80% ) 221,493 £1.18 £1.95 -£0.77 1 Demand at Ellon, Balmedie, Blackdog and Bridge of Don assumed for full route remains at 100%

Page 155 of 184 21 March 2016

Table 7.7 : Option 7 Revenue Summary: Method 2

Difference Revenue minus Annual Rail Annual Revenue Annual Operating operating costs Option 7 Patronage (million) Costs (million) (million) Full Route - Branch line Aberdeen to Peterhead and Fraserburgh 1,030,267 £10.87 £3.72 £7.15 Full Route - Continuous line Aberdeen to Peterhead and Fraserburgh 992,144 £10.41 £4.48 £5.93 Part Route to Ellon Aberdeen to Ellon (30%1) 644,890 £3.57 £1.95 £1.62 (considering demand transfer from stations Aberdeen to Ellon (50%1) 758,205 £4.40 £1.95 £2.45 1 north of Ellon to Ellon 1 Aberdeen to Ellon (80% ) 928,178 £5.63 £1.95 £3.68 1 Demand at Ellon, Balmedie, Blackdog and Bridge of Don assumed for full route remains at 100%

Page 156 of 184 21 March 2016

7.8.3 Public Acceptability

As noted for Option 6, campaigns are currently supported by local politicians, Rail Future Scotland and the local media in the North-East and there was strong support during consultation on the RTS Refresh in 2014 to examine the costs and benefits of re-opening the Formartine & Buchan railway line which has been the catalyst for this study.

In addition, the public survey undertaken during the Pre-Appraisal stage of the study, identified the establishment of a rail line to be most popular transport improvement respondents would like to see.

The public events undertaken towards the end of the Part 1 Appraisal stage, the responses and feedback from which is discussed in detail in Appendix F, also highlighted support for the option with:  81% of respondents considering the option likely to have a positive benefit with benefits as per Option 6, and additionally:  Improve commuting for travellers in Bridge of Don and Ellon area  Provide better links into Aberdeen  Increase revenue through additional use of railway for transporting goods  Relieve issues with infrastructure on the roads and reduce traffic and traffic emission

As with Option 6, concerns were raised about the proposed alignment including:  The high capital and operational investment required  The challenges of building the rail line

While trams may be an attractive and cost effective option, they may result in road reallocation and construction delays within Aberdeen City centre, consistent with those observed in Edinburgh, which the public may have concerns about.

Considering all of the above, there can be confidence that there will be large amounts of public support for this option.

Page 157 of 184 21 March 2016

7.9 Feasibility, Affordability, and Public Acceptability Summary

7.9.1 Feasibility and Public Acceptability Summary

The outcomes of the appraisal of the feasibility and public acceptability and overall deliverability risks of the options is summarised in Table 7.8 with elements associated with a Low, Medium, or High risk weighting.

Table 7.8 : Feasibility and Public Acceptability Summary

Option

Risks Dualling 1: Road 2: Overtaking Lanes Improvements3: Safety 4: Improvedbus services 5: Improvedbus services & priority infrastructure (via Dyce) 6: Rail of Don) (via Bridge 7: Rail Feasibility Enginnering Feasibility Risk Medium Medium Medium Low Low Medium Medium

Deliverability Risk High Medium Medium Low Low High High

Public Acceptability Risk Low Low Low Low Medium Medium Medium

Page 158 of 184 21 March 2016

7.9.2 Affordability Summary

Table 7.9 (Options 1 – 5), Table 7.10 (Option 6) and Table 7.11 summarise the capital costs (and operating and revenue costs for Options 6 and 7) associated with all the options.

Page 159 of 184 21 March 2016

Page 160 of 184 21 March 2016

Table 7.9 : Affordability Summary Options 1 – 5

Operating Option Capital Costs Costs Revenue Assumptions 1 Road dualling £620million - Not £0 Cost range based on cost per kilometer as taken from A9(T) dualling (£22.5million per km) £1.3billion estimated and Balmedie to Tipperty scheme (£10million per km) costs. but likely to Junction improvement costs (with possible grade seperation at Toll of Birness) is be low estimated at at approximately £50million.

Page 161 of 184 21 March 2016

Table 7.10 : Affordability Summary Option 6

Operating Option Capital Costs Costs Revenue Assumptions 6 Rail line to Peterhead and £530million - £4.2million £3.1milllion - £11.2million • Capital cost based on cost per Fraserburgh (via Ellon) £1.1billion kilometer as taken from Borders Rail £2.5million - £8.8million (when equivalent fares scheme (£6.125million per km) and used based on Option 7 distances for fairer Airdrie-Bathgate rail scheme comparison) (£12.5million per km) Rail line to Ellon only £130million - £2.2million • £1.3million - £3.6million (30% demand tranfer to • Operating costs based on Edinburgh- £260million Ellon from station further north) Dunbar-Newcastle STAG study, assuming running half hourly service (£330million • £1.5million - £4.4million (50% demand tranfer to from Aberdeen. for tramway) Ellon from station further north)

• No account taken for assoicated demand from future development

• Operating costs take account of fuel, maintenance, wages, track accesss fees etc.

Page 162 of 184 21 March 2016

Table 7.11 : Affordability Summary Option 7

Operating Option Capital Costs Costs Revenue Assumptions 7 Rail line to Peterhead and £580million - £3.7million £2.0million - £10.9million • Capital cost based on cost per Fraserburgh - Branch lines £1.2billlion kilometer as taken from Borders Rail from Ellon scheme (£6.125million per km) and Airdrie-Bathgate rail scheme Rail line to Peterhead and £490.0million - £4.5million £1.9million - £10.4million (£12.5million per km) Fraserburgh - Continuous £1.0billion lines from Ellon • Operating costs based on Edinburgh- Dunbar-Newcastle STAG study, assuming running half hourly service Rail line to Ellon only £160million - £2.0million • £0.8million - £3.6million (30% demand tranfer to from Aberdeen. £330million Ellon from station further north)

• Operating costs take account of fuel, maintenance, wages, track accesss fees etc.

Page 163 of 184 21 March 2016

Page 164 of 184 21 March 2016

Elements relating to affordability are further summarised for all options in Table 7.13 with a Low, Medium, or High weighting relating to funding potential or an associated cost or revenue colour banding using the banding as shown in Table 7.12.

Table 7.12 : Affordability CAPEX, OPEX and Revenue implications cost banding

Specification of costs Revenue Implications CAPEX OPEX > £1bn > £50m > £50m £500m <£1bn £10m <£50m £10m < £500m £200m < £500m £5m < £10m £5m < £10m £50m < £200m £2m < £5m £2m < £5m £10m < £50m £1m < £2m £1m < £2m £5m < £10m £0.5m < £1m £0.5m < £1m < £5m < £0.5m < £0.5m

Page 165 of 184 21 March 2016

Table 7.13 : Affordability Summary

Affordability and Financial Option Sustainability 1234567 Value for Money Benefit Cost Ratio Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Low Low

Affordability and CAPEX £50m < £50m < £10m < £50m < > £1bn > £1bn > £1bn Financial £200m £200m £50m £200m Sustainability OPEX per annum £0.5m < £0.5m < £2m < £2m < < £0.5m < £0.5m < £0.5m £1m £1m £5m £5m Revenue £5m < £5m < implications per < £0.5m < £0.5m < £0.5m < £0.5m < £0.5m £10m £10m annum Funding potential within TS budget Low Low Medium Low Low Low Low

Funding potential with private finance, e.g. via S75, securitisation Low Low Low Low Low Low Low of revenue, and SG

Timescales Timescale for delivering the Long Medium Medium Short Short Long Long changes

Programme risk High Medium Medium Low Low High High

Page 166 of 184 21 March 2016

8 APPRAISAL SUMMARY AND OPTION SELECTION, REJECTION, AND PACKAGING

8.1 Introduction

A Part 2 Appraisal requires a more detailed appraisal of options taken forward from Part 1. This Report does not seek to make recommendations about the options which should be selected or rejected at the end of the Part 1 Appraisal stage but instead presents the appraisal for decision makers such that they can make an informed choice as to which options to progress if desired.

8.2 Appraisal Summary

The results of the Part 1 Appraisal are presented clearly and concisely in the Appraisal Summary Tables in Appendix G, with the scores awarded to each option from their appraisal against the TPOs, STAG criteria, and Feasibility, Affordability, and Public Acceptability criteria summarised in Table 8.1 and the key advantages and disadvantages of all seven options presented in Table 8.2, Table 8.3, and Table 8.4.

Page 167 of 184 21 March 2016

Page 168 of 184 21 March 2016

Table 8.1 : Selection or Rejection, Overall Appraisal Summary, Scores and Risk Ratings

Transport Planning Objectives TPO1 TPO2 TPO3 TPO4 TPO5 TPO6 STAG Criteria Risk Rating

Option Reduce journeytimes between North-East communities and the Aberdeen conurbation and time reliability journey Increase North-East between predictability communities and the Aberdeen conurbation Reduce accidents on theA90(T) and A952 between choice travel strategic Increase North-East communities and the Aberdeen conurbation connectivity transport public direct Increase betweenNorth-East the and communities Aberdeen attractors the trip within main conurbation Increase mode share for non-car based modes between North-East communitiesand the Aberdeen conurbation Environment Safety Economy Integration Inclusion Social & Accessibility Policy Directives Established Fit with National Feasibility Affordability Public Acceptability

1 3 3 3 1 1 0 -23321 1MediumHighLow

2 2 2 2 0 0 0 -12210 0MediumMediumLow

3 1 2 3 0 0 0 -13110 1MediumMediumLow

4 1 0 1 2 2 1 11122 1 LowLowMedium

5 2 1 1 2 2 1 -11122 1 LowLowHigh

6 1 2 1 3 3 2 -21222 1 HighHighLow

7 2 2 1 3 3 2 -31222 2 HighHighLow

Page 169 of 184 21 March 2016

Table 8.2 : Key Option Advantages and Disadvantages, Options 1 and 2

Page 170 of 184 21 March 2016

Table 8.3 : Key Option Advantages and Disadvantages, Options 3, 4, and 5 Op. Description Key Advantages Key Disadvantages 3 Safety improvements on: • Significant reduction in accidents on the A90(T) and A952 • Limited impact on connectivity between • A90(T) from Ellon to Peterhead would be expected Fraserburgh, Peterhead and Aberdeen • A952 and A90(T) Toll of Birness to • Reduced social cost of accidents • No opportunity for improved integration with Fraserburgh • Reduced economic impact to business of accident delays on other transport modes the road network • Limited environmental impact for construction • Lower financial cost and relative to other road-based options this option is more affordable

Page 171 of 184 21 March 2016

Table 8.4 : Key Option Advantages and Disadvantages, Options 6 and 7 Op. Description Key Advantages Key Disadvantages 6 Phased reinstatement • Increased travel choice between Fraserburgh, Peterhead, Ellon • Indirect routing (via Maud) on the existing Formartine on existing railway and Aberdeen & Buchan Way alignment could reduce use by those in alignments, via Dyce, • Increased accessibility to employment opportunities and Peterhead including examining regional healthcare and social facilities, particularly for those • The route on the existing alignment would not service options for light rail or without access, or with limited access to a car including direct key conurbations immediately north of Aberdeen where tram from: linkage to key employment centre at Dyce future development is planned (Blackdog, Balmedie etc.) • Dyce to Ellon • Potential shift from car to rail/tram use with environmental • Loss of Formartine & Buchan Way as strategic cycle • Ellon to benefits and walking route and wildlife corridor Maud/Peterhead • Opportunity for improved integration with walking and cycling • Rail capacity issues on the line between Dyce and • Maud to Fraserburgh • Improved image that the region is connected which may Aberdeen encourage inward investment • Potential negative impact on commercial viability of current bus services and withdrawal of services • High financial undertaking

Page 172 of 184 21 March 2016

8.3 Option Packaging

In agreement with the Client Group, no recommendation about which options should be selected or rejected is made in this Report, however, taking cognisance of the key advantages and disadvantages there are elements from the appraisal there is evidence to suggest that mixing and matching elements from different options would provide more viable options over any individual option on its own.

The packaging of options was discussed at a meeting with the Client Group in December 2015, and based on these discussions two possibilities for option ‘packaging’ were agreed. These packages are:  Package 1: Road & Bus  Package 2: Rail & Bus

The packages are shown diagrammatically in Figure 8.1 and Figure 8.2, with the rationale and benefits of each package set out in Table 8.5, Table 8.6 and Table 8.7 for Package 1 and in Table 8.8, Table 8.9, Table 8.10,and Table 8.11 for Package 2.

Page 173 of 184 21 March 2016

Figure 8.1 : Package 1: Road & Bus

Page 174 of 184 21 March 2016

Table 8.5 : Option Packaging, Package 1: Road & Bus (Table 1 of 3) Package 1 Package Description Rationale for packaging Road & Bus Road dualling on the A90(T) between Ellon and the • Dualling between Ellon and the Toll of Birness junction could be justified on the grounds Toll of Birness (from Option 1) of traffic volumes (traffic levels are already nearly in excess of that recommended for a single lane road)

• Road dualling between Ellon and the Toll of Birness would benefit traffic from to/from both Peterhead and Fraserburgh

Page 175 of 184 21 March 2016

Table 8.6 : Option Packaging, Package 1: Road & Bus (Table 2 of 3)

Page 176 of 184 21 March 2016

Table 8.7 : Option Packaging, Package 1: Road & Bus (Table 3 of 3) Package 1 Package Description Rationale for packaging Road & Bus Summary The packaged option would be more affordable than full phased road dualling north of the Toll of Birness and the bus improvements will capitalise on the road improvements for public transport users, with the packaged option providing benefit for all road users.

Estimated Capital Expenditure:

Page 177 of 184 21 March 2016

Page 178 of 184 21 March 2016

Figure 8.2 : Package 2: Rail & Bus

Page 179 of 184 21 March 2016

Page 180 of 184 21 March 2016

Table 8.8 : Option Packaging, Package 2: Rail & Bus (Table 1 of 4) Package 2 Package Description Rationale for packaging Rail & Bus Introduction of heavy rail service, via Dyce: • The railway line into Dyce (and then into the existing rail network) would allow for • Between Dyce and Ellon on the existing connections from the study area to the key employment opportunities in the Dyce area alignment of the Formartine & Buchan Way (from as well as the airport, and the City Centre Option 6) • The assessment of affordability shows that a rail line to Ellon (served by express bus services from Fraserburgh and Peterhead) would have revenue costs (estimated at between £1.3million- 5.6million per annum) potentially higher than operating costs (estimated at £2.2million) indicating a potentail annual net profit in operational terms. However, this estimate does take account of any demand from future development, or take account of trips between intermediate stations i.e. Ellon to Newmachar etc.) which would increase revenue. • The capital costs of the railway line to Ellon only is estimated at between £130million - £260million. • An expanded Park & ride site at Ellon station alongside new Park & Ride sites at Fraserburgh Peterhead and Mintlaw would allow the demand for rail access to Aberdeen from Peterhead and Fraserburgh to be captured. • Estimation of journey time savings shows that future 2023 journey times from Ellon to A • 4 minutes quicker by rail than road southbound in the morning peak • 17 minutes quicker by rail than road northbound in the evening peak • Just 4 and a half minutes slower by rail than road northbound in the morning peak a

Page 181 of 184 21 March 2016

Table 8.9 : Option Packaging, Package 2: Rail & Bus (Table 2 of 4) Package 2 Package Description Rationale for packaging Rail & Bus Potential future introduction of heavy rail service, • North of Ellon, a future rail alignment on a new route would allow for more direct between Ellon and Peterhead on a new rail routeing and provide journey times more competitive with the car, specifically for access alignment (from Option 7) to/from Peterhead for which the Option 6 alignment via Maud on the existing alignment is indirect • Estimation of journey time savings shows that 2023 journey times from Peterhead to Aberdeen centre would be around: • 3 and a half minutes quicker by rail than road southbound in the morning peak • 18 minutes quicker by rail than road northbound in the evening peak • Just 6 minutes slower by rail than road northbound in the morning peak and just 5 minutes slower by rail than road southbound in the evening peak

If an extended line were introduced from Peterhead, rail travel time from Fraserburgh to Aberdeen would only be quicker for trips northbound in the evening peak.

Page 182 of 184 21 March 2016

Table 8.10 : Option Packaging, Package 2: Rail & Bus (Table 3 of 4) Package 2 Package Description Rationale for packaging Rail & Bus Bus priority infrastructure and Park & Ride • The bus proposals included within this package are those proposed for Option 5 and improvements (from Option 5) including: will capitalise on the proposed road improvement measures. • New sections of dedicated bus lanes on the • Analysis shows that bus journey times could be reduced by around 50 minutes to approaches to junctions on the A90(T) to allow locations such as Dyce, if direct services were provided. Coupled with the road buses to bypass queues improvements, and express services, this journey time saving is likely to be greater, • Extending operating hours for bus priority lanes making the bus more attractive. between Aberdeen City centre and Ellon on the • The Park & Ride sites would enable connections between the railway and bus A956 and A90(T) network, in the shorter term, enabling those north of Ellon to easier access the rail • Development of a Park & Ride Strategy for the network at Ellon and allowing for full length public transport trips between Fraserburgh, study corridor including new mini Park & Ride sites Peterhead and Dyce/Aberdeen. at Mintlaw, Peterhead and Fraserburgh which would service the Ellon Park & Ride site and enable connections between the railway and bus network

Page 183 of 184 21 March 2016

Table 8.11 : Option Packaging, Package 2: Rail & Bus (Table 4 of 4) Package 2 Package Description Rationale for packaging Rail & Bus Summary The introduction of rail in the shorter term between Dyce and Ellon would provide rail access to Dyce and Aberdeen from the study area, and coupled with bus improvements including Park & Ride sites would allow accessibility to the rail network for those north of Ellon. Estimates of affordability show that annual rail revenue costs (£1.3million - £5.6million) could be more than operating costs (£2.2million) for the route between Aberdeen and Ellon, however a level of subsidy may be required. The analysis does not take account of any future development in the area, and as such it is likely this would increase revenue, and subsequently reduce any required subsidy.

In the longer term, dependant on the success of the rail line to Ellon, further consideration could be made on extending the rail line north of Ellon.

Page 184 of 184 21 March 2016