STAG Report
Access to Laurencekirk
Prepared for
June 2015
City Park 368 Alexandra Parade Glasgow G31 3AU Tel: 0141 552 2000 www.ch2m.com
I
Contents
Section Page Executive Summary ...... i Introduction ...... 1-1 1.1 Introduction ...... 1-1 1.2 Scope of the Study ...... 1-2 1.3 Structure of Report ...... 1-2 Methodology...... 2-1 2.1 Introduction to the Guidance ...... 2-1 2.2 Existing and Future Conditions ...... 2-1 2.3 The Role of Consultation ...... 2-1 2.4 Problems, Issues, Opportunities and Constraints ...... 2-1 2.5 Objectives ...... 2-2 2.6 Option Generation ...... 2-2 2.7 STAG Part 1 Initial Appraisal ...... 2-3 2.8 STAG Part 2 Detailed Appraisal ...... 2-3 Existing and Future Conditions ...... 3-1 3.1 Introduction ...... 3-1 3.2 Previous Studies ...... 3-1 3.2.1 Introduction ...... 3-1 3.2.2 Strategic Transport Projects Review 2009 ...... 3-1 3.2.3 A90 Laurencekirk Road Safety Review 2009 ...... 3-1 3.2.4 Laurencekirk Expansion – A90 (T) Appraisal of Aberdeenshire Council Local Development Plan Main Issues Report 2010 ...... 3-2 3.2.5 A90 Laurencekirk Junctions – Cost Refinement Exercise for Grade Separation Associated with Future Development 2011 ...... 3-3 3.2.6 A90 (T) Laurencekirk Junctions 2012...... 3-3 3.2.7 A90 Laurencekirk Road Safety Scheme Monitoring Study 2014 ...... 3-4 3.3 Laurencekirk in Context ...... 3-4 3.3.1 Population Growth ...... 3-4 3.3.2 Employment Characteristics ...... 3-5 3.3.3 Travel Characteristics ...... 3-6 3.3.4 Montrose and Brechin ...... 3-7 3.3.5 Accessibility ...... 3-9 3.4 Environmental and Engineering Constraints ...... 3-16 3.4.1 BP Forties Pipeline ...... 3-16 3.4.2 Dundee to Aberdeen Railway Line ...... 3-16 3.4.3 Laurencekirk Cemetery ...... 3-17 3.4.4 Trunk Road Junction Spacing...... 3-17 3.4.5 Flooding ...... 3-17 3.5 Baseline Data ...... 3-17 3.5.1 Traffic Flows ...... 3-17 3.5.2 Network Operation ...... 3-31 3.5.3 Traffic Speeds ...... 3-38 3.5.4 Vehicle Composition ...... 3-42 3.5.5 Laurencekirk Parking Study ...... 3-44 3.6 Safety and Accidents ...... 3-51 3.6.1 A90/A937 North Junction ...... 3-51 3.6.2 A90/B9120 Centre Junction ...... 3-52 3.6.3 A90/A937 South Junction ...... 3-53
II CONTENTS, CONTINUED
3.6.4 Accident Summary ...... 3-54 3.6.5 A90 and A937 Accident Analysis ...... 3-54 3.7 Future Conditions ...... 3-55 3.7.1 Introduction ...... 3-55 3.7.2 Aberdeenshire Local Development Plan ...... 3-55 3.7.3 Aberdeen Local Development Plan – Report of Examination 2012 ...... 3-57 3.7.4 Angus Local Development Plan...... 3-58 Understanding the Problems, Issues, Opportunities and Constraints ...... 4-1 4.1 Introduction ...... 4-1 4.2 Consultation ...... 4-1 4.3 Problems and Opportunities ...... 4-2 4.3.1 Safety ...... 4-2 4.3.2 Driver Behaviour ...... 4-3 4.3.3 Efficiency of the Network and Economic Development ...... 4-4 4.3.4 Sustainable Travel ...... 4-7 4.4 Issues and Constraints ...... 4-8 4.5 Rationale for Intervention ...... 4-11 Setting the Transport Planning Objectives ...... 5-1 5.1 Introduction ...... 5-1 5.2 Transport Planning Objectives ...... 5-1 5.2.1 Objective Themes ...... 5-1 5.3 Links to STAG Criteria and other Established Policy Directives ...... 5-4 5.3.1 STAG Criteria ...... 5-4 5.3.2 Government Economic Strategy ...... 5-4 5.3.3 Scotland’s National Transport Strategy ...... 5-6 5.3.4 NESTRANS Regional Transport Strategy ...... 5-7 5.3.5 Aberdeenshire Local Transport Strategy ...... 5-8 5.3.6 Summary ...... 5-10 Option Generation, Sifting and Development ...... 6-1 6.1 Introduction ...... 6-1 6.2 Methodology...... 6-1 6.3 Initial Long List of Options ...... 6-1 6.4 Option Packaging and Refinement ...... 6-10 STAG Part 1 - Initial Appraisal ...... 7-1 7.1 Introduction ...... 7-1 7.2 Proposed Approach ...... 7-1 7.3 Option Appraisal ...... 7-1 7.3.1 Appraisal Criteria ...... 7-1 7.3.2 Transport Planning Objectives ...... 7-1 7.3.3 STAG Criteria ...... 7-9 7.3.4 Deliverability Appraisal ...... 7-14 7.3.5 Appraisal Results ...... 7-16 7.4 Summary ...... 7-23 STAG Part 2 - Introduction to Detailed Appraisal ...... 8-1 8.1 Introduction ...... 8-1 8.2 Option Appraisal Modelling Outcomes ...... 8-2 8.2.1 Traffic Modelling Assumptions ...... 8-2 8.2.2 Do-minimum Operation ...... 8-5 8.2.3 Package 2 ...... 8-7 8.2.4 Package 3b ...... 8-10 8.2.5 Package 4 ...... 8-13 CONTENTS, CONTINUED
8.2.6 Package 5b ...... 8-16 8.2.7 Package 6 ...... 8-19 8.2.8 Package 7 ...... 8-22 Detailed Appraisal - Transport Planning Objectives ...... 9-1 9.1 Introduction ...... 9-1 9.1.1 Summary of TPO Scoring ...... 9-16 Detailed Appraisal - STAG Criteria ...... 10-1 10.1 Environment ...... 10-1 10.1.1 Introduction ...... 10-1 10.1.2 Principles of Assessing Impacts for STAG ...... 10-1 10.1.3 Sub-criteria Environmental Baseline Summary ...... 10-2 10.2 Safety ...... 10-7 10.2.1 Introduction ...... 10-7 10.3 Economy ...... 10-10 10.3.1 TEE ...... 10-11 10.3.2 EALI ...... 10-13 10.3.3 Summary ...... 10-15 10.4 Accessibility and Social Inclusion ...... 10-16 10.4.1 Introduction ...... 10-16 10.4.2 Community Accessibility ...... 10-16 10.4.3 Comparative Accessibility...... 10-17 10.4.4 Equality Impact Assessment subsection under Comparative Accessibility ..... 10-19 10.4.5 Summary ...... 10-19 10.5 Integration ...... 10-20 10.5.1 Introduction ...... 10-20 10.5.2 Transport Integration ...... 10-20 10.5.3 Land Use Transport Integration ...... 10-21 10.5.4 Policy Integration ...... 10-22 10.5.5 Summary ...... 10-23 Detailed Appraisal - Implementability ...... 11-1 11.1 Introduction ...... 11-1 11.1.1 Technical ...... 11-1 11.1.2 Operational...... 11-2 11.1.3 Affordability ...... 11-2 11.1.4 Public Acceptability ...... 11-2 11.1.5 Summary ...... 11-3 Cost to Government ...... 12-1 12.1 Economic Appraisal ...... 12-1 12.2 Summary ...... 12-2 Risk and Uncertainty ...... 13-1 13.1 Sensitivity Tests ...... 13-1 13.1.1 Uncertainty of Future Year Demand ...... 13-1 13.1.2 Uncertainty on Future Development and Build out Rates ...... 13-2 13.1.3 Uncertainty on Rerouting from B974 to A937 ...... 13-4 13.1.4 Sensitivity to Development at North End of Laurencekirk ...... 13-4 13.1.5 Sensitivity to Travel Speed Changes on the High Street ...... 13-5 13.1.6 Sensitivity to Inclusion of Western Distributor Road ...... 13-6 13.2 Risk Register ...... 13-7 Monitoring and Evaluation ...... 14-1 14.1 Introduction ...... 14-1 14.2 Monitoring and Evaluation ...... 14-1 CONTENTS, CONTINUED
14.3 Summary ...... 14-2 Summary and Conclusions ...... 15-1 15.1 Introduction ...... 15-1 15.2 Existing and Future Conditions ...... 15-1 15.2.1 Access...... 15-1 15.2.2 Constraints ...... 15-2 15.3 Problems and Issues ...... 15-3 15.4 Transport Planning Objectives ...... 15-4 15.5 Option Generation, Sifting and Development ...... 15-4 15.6 Part 1 Initial Appraisal ...... 15-5 15.7 Part 2 Detailed Appraisal ...... 15-6 15.8 Costs ...... 15-8 15.9 Option Summary Tables...... 15-9 15.10 Conclusions and Next Steps ...... 15-22
Appendix Sections Appendix A Supporting Information Appendix B Consultation Appendix C Engineering Characteristics Appendix D Environmental Baseline Appendix E Appraisal Summary Tables Appendix F Drawings Appendix G Traffic Modelling Appendix H Turn Count Survey Diagrams Appendix I Policy Appraisal Framework Appendix J Transport Planning Objective Tables Appendix K Scheme Costs Appendix L Risk Register Appendix M EALI Report
List of Figures Figure 1-1 – Study Area Figure 2-1 – Setting Smart Objectives Figure 3-1 - Narrow footway on High Street Figure 3-2– Bus Routes Map (Source: Aberdeenshire Council) Figure 3-3 – Road Network within Vicinity of Laurencekirk Figure 3-4 – 2014 AM Peak Hour (07:00-8:00) Surveyed Turn Count Data (Vehicles) Figure 3-5 – 2014 PM Peak Hour (17:00-18:00) Surveyed Turn Count Data (Vehicles) Figure 3-6 – A90 24hr Annual Average Daily Traffic Flow (AADTF) (ATC JTC00057 – north east of centre junction) Figure 3-7 - A90 24hr Annual Average Daily Traffic Flow (AADTF) by Month Figure 3-8 – A90 Average Annual Weekday Traffic Flow Profile Flow by Month (2013) Figure 3-9 – A90 Average Annual Weekend Traffic Flow Profile by Month (2013) Figure 3-10 - A90 Average Annual Traffic Flow Profile by Day (2013) Figure 3-11 - A937 North of Marykirk – Northbound Daily Profiles (May 2014) Figure 3-12 - A937 North of Marykirk – Southbound Daily Profiles (May 2014) Figure 3-13 – Traffic Routing between North Angus and Aberdeenshire Figure 3-14 - A937 North of Marykirk – Southbound Daily Profiles (May 2014) Figure 3-15 – Laurencekirk High Street – Northbound Daily Profile (March 2014) Figure 3-16 – Laurencekirk High Street – Southbound Daily Profile (March 2014) Figure 3-17 - Laurencekirk High Street – Two-Way Average Hourly Profile (May 2014) Figure 3-18 – A90 Southbound Right Turn Queue into Laurencekirk – North Junction Figure 3-19 – A937 Queue Length – Northbound Approach from Montrose/Marykirk CONTENTS, CONTINUED
Figure 3-20 – A937 Queue Length – Southbound Approach from Laurencekirk Figure 3-21 – A90 Laurencekirk South Junction – Vehicle stacking within central reserve Figure 3-22 – Journey Time Survey – Route Plan Figure 3-23 - A90 Two Way Average Daily Speed Profile (2013) Figure 3-24 - A937 North of Marykirk – Northbound Vehicle Speeds (2014) Figure 3-25 - A937 North Of Marykirk – Southbound Vehicle Speeds (2014) Figure 3-26 - Laurencekirk High Street – Northbound Vehicle Speeds (2014) Figure 3-27 - Laurencekirk High Street – Southbound Vehicle Speeds (2014) Figure 3-28 - A90 – Vehicle Composition Figure 3-29 - A937 North Of Marykirk – Vehicle Composition Figure 3-30 - Laurencekirk High Street – Vehicle Composition Figure 3-31 – Car Park Locations Surveyed Figure 3-32 - Laurencekirk High Street – Parking Occupancy Summary Figure 3-33 – Off-Street Parking Occupancy Figure 3-34 - Charter Lane – Parking Occupancy Figure 3-35 - Masonic Hall – Parking Occupancy Figure 3-36 - High Street (North) – Parking Occupancy Figure 3-37 - Railway Station – Parking Occupancy Figure 3-38 - Robson Street – Parking Occupancy Figure 3-39 – A90 Laurencekirk North Junction Accidents Figure 3-40 – A90 Laurencekirk Centre Junction Accidents Figure 3-41 - A90 Laurencekirk South Junction Accidents Figure 6-1 – Option Categorisation Figure 8-1 - S-Paramics Model Network Coverage Figure 8-2 – Do-minimum - 2033 AM (06:00-09:00) Turning Counts Figure 8-3 – Do-minimum - 2033 PM (16:00-19:00) Turning Counts Figure 8-4 - Package 2 Sketch Figure 8-5 – Package 2 - 2033 AM (06:00-09:00) Turning Counts Figure 8-6 – Package 2 - 2033 PM (16:00-19:00) Turning Counts Figure 8-7 – Package 3b Sketch Figure 8-8 – Package 3b - 2033 AM (06:00-09:00) Turning Counts Figure 8-9 – Package 3b - 2033 PM (16:00-19:00) Turning Counts Figure 8-10 – Package 4 Sketch Figure 8-11 – Package 4 - 2033 AM (06:00-09:00) Turning Counts Figure 8-12 – Package 4 - 2033 PM (16:00-19:00) Turning Counts Figure 8-13 – Package 5b Sketch Figure 8-14 – Package 5b - 2033 AM (06:00-09:00) Turning Counts Figure 8-15 – Package 5b - 2033 PM (16:00-19:00) Turning Counts Figure 8-16 – Package 6 Sketch Figure 8-17 – Package 6 - 2033 AM (06:00-09:00) Turning Counts Figure 8-18 – Package 6 - 2033 PM (16:00-19:00) Turning Counts Figure 8-19 – Package 7 Sketch Figure 8-20 – Package 7 - 2033 AM (06:00-09:00) Turning Counts Figure 8-21 – Package 7 - 2033 PM (16:00-19:00) Turning Counts Figure 9-1 - South Junction – A937 South Arm Maximum Queue - 2033 AM (06:00-09:00) Figure 9-2- South Junction – A937 South Arm Maximum Queue - 2033 PM (16:00-19:00) Figure 9-3 - South Junction – A937 North Arm Maximum Queue - 2033 PM (16:00-19:00) Figure 9-4 – North Junction – Central Reserve Maximum Queue - 2033 AM (06:00-09:00) Figure 9-5 - North Junction – Central Reserve Maximum Queue - 2033 PM (16:00-19:00) Figure 9-6 – South Junction - A937 Northbound Journey Time – 2033 – AM Period (06:00-09:00) Figure 9-7– South Junction - A937 Northbound Journey Time – 2033 – PM Period (16:00-19:00) Figure 9-8 - South Junction – Laurencekirk to A937 Southbound Journey Time – 2033 – AM Period (06:00- 09:00) CONTENTS, CONTINUED
Figure 9-9 - South Junction – Laurencekirk to A937 Southbound Journey Time – 2033 – PM Period (16:00- 19:00) Figure 9-10 - A90 Southbound Journey Time – 2033 – AM Period (06:00-09:00) Figure 9-11 - A90 Northbound Journey Time – 2033 – AM Period (06:00-09:00) Figure 10-1 – Buffer Zones around Packages
List of Tables Table 1-1 – Summary of Problems, Issues, Opportunities and TPOs Table 1-2 – Intervention Packages Table 3-1 – Population by Age Table 3-2 – Economic Activity Table 3-3 – Occupation Table 3-4 – Employment Destinations Table 3-5 – Travel to Work Mode Share Table 3-6 – Employment Destinations (Montrose) Table 3-7 – Travel to Work Mode Share (Montrose) Table 3-8 – Employment Destinations (Brechin) Table 3-9 – Travel to Work Mode Share (Brechin) Table 3-10 – Local Bus Services and Frequency in Laurencekirk Table 3-11 – Scheduled Rail Departures from Laurencekirk Station Table 3-12 – A90 Annual Average Daily Traffic Volumes Table 3-13 – A90 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Table 3-14 – Turning Movement Comparison (Vehicles) Table 3-15 – Traffic Flows on A937 (North of Marykirk) Table 3-16 - Laurencekirk High Street - Temporary ATC Flow Data Table 3-17 - Delay Per Vehicle – A937 South to A90 North Table 3-18 - Delay Per Vehicle – A937 South To A937 North Table 3-19 - Delay Per Vehicle – A937 North to A90 South Table 3-20 - Delay Per Vehicle – A937 North to A937 South Table 3-21 – Surveyed Journey Times between Montrose and Stonehaven via A937-A90 and A92 Table 3-22 - Surveyed Journey Times on Alternative Routes between Brechin and Stonehaven Table 3-23 – Summary Capacity – Laurencekirk Off-Street Car Parks Table 3-24 – Laurencekirk Car Parks – Duration Greater Than 1 Hour Table 3-25 – Centre Junction Accident Summary Table 3-26 – A90 Laurencekirk Junction Accident Summary Table 3-27 – A937 Accident Summary Table 3-28 – Local Development Plan Land Allocations To 2023 Table 3-29 – Angus Proposed LDP Land Allocations to 2023 (Angus MIR 2014) Table 5-1 – Recommended Transport Planning Objectives Table 5-2 – Links to Stag Criteria Table 5-3 – Links to GES Priorities for Rural Areas Table 5-4 – Links to National Transport Strategic Outcomes Table 5-5 – Links to Regional Transport Strategy Objectives Table 5-6 – Links to Aberdeenshire Local Transport Strategy Priorities Table 6-1 – Long List of Options Table 6-2 – Option Packages Table 7-1 – Performance against TPOs Table 7-2– STAG Key Criteria Appraisal Results Table 7-3 – Deliverability Appraisal Results Table 7-4 – Initial Appraisal Results Table 8-1 – Package Testing Summary Table 8-2 - Laurencekirk S-Paramics Traffic Model Overall Trip Numbers Table 9-1 - Smartening Of Transport Planning Objectives CONTENTS, CONTINUED
Table 9-2 - A90 Crossing Points Table 9-3 - Reduction in Accident Numbers (60 Year Appraisal Period) Table 9-4 - TPO 1 Scoring Summary Table 9-5– TPO 2 Scoring Summary Table 9-6 – TPO 3 Scoring Summary Table 9-7 – TPO 4 Scoring Summary Table 9-8 – TPO 5 Scoring Summary Table 9-9 – Summary of TPO Scoring Table 10-1 – Visual Receptors Table 10-2 – CO2 Emissions (tonnes) Table 10-3 – Review of Noise Impacts Table 10-4 - Environmental value (or sensitivity) and typical descriptors Table 10-5 – Environment Summary Appraisal Results Table 10-6 – Monetised Accident Benefits Table 10-7 – Casualty Severity Table 10-8 – Safety Summary Appraisal Results Table 10-9 – Present Value of Benefits (£M) Table 10-10 – Proposed development sites constrained by A90 junctions Table 10-11 – Economy Summary Appraisal Results Table 10-12 - SIMD Rankings Sample Comparison Table 10-13 – Accessibility and Social Inclusion Summary Appraisal Results Table 10-14 – Integration Summary Appraisal Results Table 11-1 – Consultation feedback Table 12-1 - Costs to Government (£Ms) 2014 Prices Table 12-2 – PEARS Assessment Results (£M) Table 13-1 – -Future Year Scenario S-Paramics Trip Numbers – AM Period (06:00 – 09:00) Table 13-2 – Future Year Scenario S-Paramics Trip Numbers – PM Period (16:00 – 19:00) Table 13-3 – Package 2 Sensitivity Test Results Table 13-4 – B974 Rerouting Sensitivity Test Results Table 13-5 –Sensitivity to Development at North End of Laurencekirk Test Results Table 13-6 – High Street Parking Sensitivity Test Results Table 13-7 – Western Distributor Road Sensitivity Test Results Table 13-8 – Western Distributor Road Traffic Flows – FYS 1 Table 14-1 - Monitoring and Evaluation Framework Table 15-1 - Costs to Government (£Ms) 2014 Prices Table 15-2 – PEARS Assessment Results (£M)
Document History
This report has been prepared in accordance with the instructions of the client, NESTRANS, for the client’s sole and specific use. Any other persons who use any information contained herein do so at their own risk.
Version Date Description Created by Verified by Approved by 1.0 09/06/2015 Final Draft AF/DA/IA/RB/CB D.Crockett D.Bell
Executive Summary
Introduction CH2M was commissioned by Nestrans in December 2013 to develop a robust evidence case for a preferred solution for access between the A90 trunk road and Laurencekirk and the north of Angus that is cost effective, improves road safety, allows the efficient operation of Laurencekirk High Street and meets the needs of local businesses and residents. The study was also required to give cognisance to the potential for traffic growth through future development within Laurencekirk and Angus and on the A90 trunk toad corridor. The Client Steering Group for the study consisted of Nestrans, Transport Scotland, Aberdeenshire Council and Tactran, with participation from Angus Council. The study has shown that there is a strong case for intervention to improve the efficiency of the road network, support economic growth and reduce the risk of accidents. Background The A90 trunk road was upgraded to dual carriageway standard in the 1980s and is the main strategic link between Aberdeen and Dundee. The settlement of Laurencekirk is approximately 40km south of Aberdeen and is bypassed to the south east by the trunk road. There are three at-grade junctions on the A90 that give access to Laurencekirk. These are: • the A937 north junction, which also has a staggered access to Keilburn farm; • the central B9120 staggered junction that gives access to St Cyrus and Garvock Hill; and • the A937 south junction, where a staggered southern leg gives access to Marykirk, the A92 and Montrose area. There are also a number of minor accesses to the A90 in the vicinity of Laurencekirk. The nearest grade separated junctions on the A90 are 10km south of the Laurencekirk south junction at Stracathro, and 21km north of the A937 north junction at Stonehaven. The A90/A937 south junction is the busiest of the three Laurencekirk junctions and safety improvements were undertaken in 2005 and 2010 on the A90 on the approaches to this junction. These included the introduction of a 50mph speed limit and the installation of speed cameras. Although there have been no injury accidents at this location in recent years, there is still a strong perception that it is a dangerous junction. The local community is highly engaged and has expressed the strength of their feeling throughout this study. A petition is currently lodged with the Scottish Government, which calls for the construction of a grade separated junction at this location. Study Methodology This study has been undertaken in accordance with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Stage 1 and Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance (STAG) methodologies. This required identification of the key transport problems, issues, opportunities and constraints on the corridor, which was informed through a review of previous studies and stakeholder engagement. It was evidenced where possible through traffic count and data collection. Rationale for Intervention Problems, issues and opportunities within the study area were identified and validated following extensive desktop research, surveys and consultation. This provided an evidence base for the development of Transport Planning Objectives (TPOs) to specify what any transport intervention should seek to achieve. The objectives then provided a framework for appraising alternative options. Each TPO is shown in Table 1-1, along with a summary of the key problems, issues and opportunities they are seeking to address:
ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 1-1 – Summary of Problems, Issues, Opportunities and TPOs Key Associated Problem, Issue or Opportunity Transport Planning Objective • Two serious accidents at the A90 Laurencekirk centre junction between Safety 2011 and 2013. To achieve a reduction in accidents at or on • Large vehicles observed overhanging the central reserve, causing immediate approach to the A90 obstruction to trunk road through movements and creating risk of a Laurencekirk junctions and as a result of serious accident. traffic turning or crossing at the junctions. • Speeding on the A90 through the 50mph section and growth trends on the A90 are likely to exacerbate existing problems. • Re-routing of vehicles to avoid the A90 Laurencekirk junctions due to Driver Behaviour delay and perception of poor safety. To achieve a significant improvement in • Poor driver behaviour when merging onto or crossing the A90. the attitude towards safety at the A90 Laurencekirk junctions by reducing the delay and improving the opportunities to cross the A90. • Delay to vehicles on the A90 as a result of the 50mph speed constraint. Efficiency of the Network and • Delay to vehicles on the A937, especially in peak periods, approaching Economic Development the A90 south junction from the south and north. To achieve an improvement in network • Traffic growth trends on the A90 and further development likely to lead efficiency experienced by traffic travelling to increased congestion, delays and queuing at the A90/Laurencekirk on the A90 and accessing and crossing the junctions. A90 at the Laurencekirk junctions in order • Development in Laurencekirk and north Angus would require to support sustainable economic growth in improvements to transport infrastructure. the south of Aberdeenshire and the north of Angus. • Opportunities to improve sustainable travel. Sustainable Travel • Quality of life for local people in Laurencekirk being influenced by the To enable safe crossing of the A90 by barrier presented by the A90. sustainable modes. • Parking is an important function on the High Street, but can affect Laurencekirk High Street pedestrian crossing visibility and cause delay to vehicles. To contribute to the High Street’s role as a • Significant increases in traffic volumes could lead to delay and central place for the continued vitality of congestion in peak periods. the Laurencekirk community.
A number of constraints have been identified that require to be considered in the development of any transport intervention. The BP Forties Pipeline lies to the east of the A90 and has a corridor of restriction for development. The exclusion zone for infrastructure either side of the pipeline is in the vicinity of the A90/B9120 central junction. The railway line and Laurencekirk Cemetery also limit the opportunity for physical improvements in their proximity. Constraints are also imposed on option generation due to the requirement to maintain accessibility for local users of the B9120 Garvock Road both north and south on the A90, as well as various farm properties at the north junction. This principally affects the combinations of central reservation closures that can be considered to be viable. Option Generation and Sifting A range of options was developed which was informed from previous studies, suggestions from the stakeholder workshops, an open day and professional knowledge. The long list of options was considered against the TPOs and a number sifted out that did not contribute to the TPOs, or were unlikely to be delivered due to constraints. The remaining options were categorised as either core or complementary options. Core options consist of those that address the problems and issues central to the study and these were formed into a series of packages for appraisal. The complementary options were insufficient in themselves to significantly address the study objectives Option Packages Appraisal A series of eight packages, as shown in Table 1-2, were developed for appraisal:
II ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 1-2 – Intervention Packages Package 1 – Minor transport interventions This was considered as a low cost alternative to a major intervention and consisted of extending the current 50mph speed restriction on the A90 at the A90/A937 south junction to include the central and north Laurencekirk junctions, with the introduction of average speed cameras. This package did not, however, fully address the study objectives and was rejected for further assessment. Packages 2 to 7 – Grade Separation Package 2 – grade separated junction at south Package 3 – grade separated junction at south and closure of central reserve at north junction Package 4 – grade separated junction at south, closure of centre junction and provision of link road between the B9120 and A937 to south of Laurencekirk Package 5 – grade separated junction at south, closure of central reserve at north junction, closure of centre junction and provision of link road between the B9120 and A937 to south of Laurencekirk Package 6 – grade separated junctions at south and north Package 7- grade separated junctions at south and north, with part closure of centre junction leaving left in/out from B9120 on the east side only Package 8 – Sustainable travel measures Includes improved pedestrian and cycling facilities. This could provide opportunity for increased pedestrian and cycling activity, improving health and wellbeing. Whilst this package does not address many of the objectives and was not fully assessed under the detailed appraisal, it could be considered as a supportive measure to enhance any of the junction improvement packages.
An S-Paramics micro-simulation model of Laurencekirk and the surrounding road network was developed to test the traffic related performance of packages Packages 2 to 7. Future year forecasts of traffic demands for a design year of 2033 were informed from the strategic Aberdeen Sub Area Model and based upon background traffic growth trends and committed developments, excluding those that are conditioned on the provision of an upgrade to the A90/A937 south junction. Packages 2 to 7 all contain a proposal to grade separate the A90/A937 south junction. The detailed appraisal has shown the significant benefit this would bring. The removal of at-grade crossing movements would provide safer crossing opportunities for all modes and enable the removal of the 50mph speed restriction on the A90 that was introduced as a road safety measure. This provides a positive benefit to cost ratio for the upgrade by reducing journey time, improving network efficiency on the trunk road and removing queuing on the A937 from both Montrose and Laurencekirk. The upgraded south junction would safely accommodate increased traffic levels at the south junction generated by planned development in Laurencekirk and north Angus and therefore help enable economic growth. Upgrade of the south junction alone, does not however, reduce the risk of accidents at the north or centre junctions. Appraisal to date suggests that there is benefit in closing the central reserve at the north junction to improve safety and remove the queue of southbound vehicles on the A90 waiting to turn right into Laurencekirk in the PM period. In future years these are predicted to exceed the stacking and deceleration lane capacity. The optimum arrangement of any further combination of closures or access restrictions will, however, require to be determined in subsequent work. Provision of a second grade separated junction at the A90/A937 north junction does not provide a significant level of additional benefit with only committed development (ie those developments which have been granted planning permission). Risk and Uncertainty Testing A number of tests were undertaken to assess the impact of risk on the option appraisal, given that some outcomes cannot, at this stage, be predicted with any certainty. A sensitivity test was undertaken to test the impact should vehicles that are reported to be diverting from using the A90/A937 south junction transfer to an upgraded junction. The results indicated that a grade separated junction would safely accommodate any traffic attracted back to this junction that is currently re-routing due to safety concerns and delays. This would give the opportunity to further improve safety,
ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ III EXECUTIVE SUMMARY by allowing consideration to be given to the closure of the central reserves at the at grade junctions to the south of the A937, such as the A90/Landends/Unnamed road and the A90/B974. The performance of the various packages has been tested under a 2033 future year scenario that was based upon background traffic growth forecasts and committed developments. As there is uncertainty over the rate that future development, as allocated in Local Development Plans, may be progressed, a number of sensitivity scenarios were tested. This indicated there would be benefit in providing a grade separated junction at the A90/A937 north junction, in addition to grade separation of the south junction, should the M1 development allocated in the Local Development Plan for Laurencekirk be fully progressed. The requirement for this upgrade is related to potential future levels of development in Laurencekirk and should therefore be developer led. This study has not sought to determine at what level of development it becomes necessary to provide an upgrade to the A90/A937 north junction. This will have to be determined through the planning process. It is recognised, however, that the low build rates in this area may affect the viability of development within Laurencekirk to meet the costs of a significant junction upgrade, along with other local infrastructure requirements, such as education, water and waste water within the current Strategic Development Plan period. Access Around Laurencekirk Any changes in access between Laurencekirk and the A90 have the potential to change traffic flow levels on the High Street in Laurencekirk. Rationalisation of parking on the High Street would provide a clearer road layout for all users and improve the environment and safety for pedestrians. Although current parking availability would be altered, parking surveys have shown there is parking availability on the High Street and side streets. There is a risk that removal of pinch points may lead to increased speed, but traffic management could enable any changes to be better accommodated on the High Street. Constructing a western distributor road between the A90/A937 south and north junction was shown to reduce benefits. This was due to the significant increase in trip length and journey time that would be involved for those using the route and hence it is unlikely to attract traffic from the High Street. The high cost of this route, which would require two rail crossings, would reduce value for money and cannot be justified. The appraisal has identified that no immediate measures are required to address any changes in traffic flows on the High Street as a result of any improvements on the A90. Aberdeenshire Council should, however, monitor any impact on the vitality of the High Street in Laurencekirk and consider local traffic management measures, such as rationalisation of parking, if required in the future. Summary of Key Findings In conclusion, a viable case has been made for intervention at the A90/A937 south junction to address current problems. Upgrade of this junction would improve network efficiency, driver behaviour and safety, and enable economic development that is currently being constrained to proceed. It could also provide the opportunity to improve safety through closures or access restrictions at nearby junctions, although the optimum arrangement will require to be determined through further appraisal. The public consultation that has been undertaken has revealed a very clear preference for junction improvement strategies that include grade separation of the A90/A937 south junction. Further development of these proposals in accordance with the DMRB Stages 2 and 3 will be required. In the longer term, there may be a requirement to upgrade the A90/A937 north junction to be grade separated, but this requirement is associated with potential future levels of development within Laurencekirk and would be determined through the planning process.
IV ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION 1 Introduction