STAG Report

Access to

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 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 ...... 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 to 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 ’s National Transport Strategy ...... 5-6 5.3.4 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 – 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 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 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

. Introduction The A90 trunk road is the main strategic link between Aberdeen and Dundee and was upgraded to dual carriageway in the 1980s. Laurencekirk is located on the A90 corridor, approximately 15km north of Brechin and 19km south of Stonehaven. There are three junctions with the A90 that give access to Laurencekirk, namely 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 the A937 south junction, where the staggered southern leg gives access to the A937 and Montrose area. Laurencekirk has seen its population increase by 60% in 10 years since 2001 and the Aberdeen City and Shire Strategic Development Plan identifies Laurencekirk as a strategic growth area with future development allocated within the town in Aberdeenshire Council’s Local Development Plan (LDP) 2012. The current LDP contains an allocation within Laurencekirk for 220 houses carried forward from the previous plan, with a new allowance for a further 885 houses and 11 hectares of employment land in the period to 2023, along with 16 acres of strategic reserve employment land for the period 2024 to 2030. The three A90 at grade junctions at Laurencekirk have presented issues relating to safety and delay, and the junctions have been subject to a range of measures aimed at reducing accident frequency and severity. Safety improvements were undertaken in 2005 on the A90 on the approaches to the south junction with the A937, which included the introduction of a 50mph speed limit and the installation of speed cameras. However, a long running campaign, led by the local community, resulted in a petition to the Scottish Government being lodged in February 2009 seeking the construction of a grade separated junction at the A90/A937 southern junction. In December 2013, CH2M was appointed by NESTRANS, the Regional Transport Partnership for Aberdeen City and Shire, to undertake a transport appraisal of access to Laurencekirk. Together with NESTRANS, a client steering group consisting of Transport Scotland, Aberdeenshire Council and Tactran, with participation from Angus Council, was established to ensure the direction of the study met with the overall aim. The Access to Laurencekirk study has been carried out in accordance with Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance (STAG), to identify the problems, issues, constraints and opportunities associated with current and future access to the town and to establish Transport Planning Objectives (TPO) that address these problems. A range of improvement options were then generated and assessed in relation to their ability to meet these TPOs. This report includes both STAG Part 1 Initial Appraisal and STAG Part 2 Detailed Appraisal of options emerging, with clear rationale for selection or rejection. It summarises packages of options that are suggested for further examination. The location of the core study area is shown within Figure 1-1.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 1-1 SECTION INTRODUCTION

N

Figure 1-1 – Study Area . Scope of the Study The Study Brief issued by NESTRANS identified the following main objective:

“Develop a robust evidence case for a preferred solution for access between the A90 Trunk Road and Laurencekirk and Montrose that is cost effective, improves road safety, allows the efficient operation of Laurencekirk High Street and meets the needs of local businesses and residents. This should give cognisance to the potential for traffic growth through future development within Laurencekirk and Angus and on the A90 Trunk Road network”. The Access to Laurencekirk study has been undertaken in accordance with STAG and also satisfies the relevant sections of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Stage 1 Assessment requirements. This report presents the study findings and provides the following: • An understanding of what the transport problems are within the study area based on evidence gathered; • An understanding of what transport interventions may be needed; • An objective-led analysis of these interventions, taking into account future development proposals and changes to the transport network in the area; • An appraisal of the impacts of proposed interventions in terms of the five key STAG appraisal topics, these being Environment, Economy, Accessibility, Integration and Safety; and • Presentation of the key findings of the appraisal, in terms of transport interventions, and their respective priority for delivery. . Structure of Report The report is structured to include the following chapters and is in accordance with STAG: • Section 2 – Methodology; • Section 3 – Existing and Future Conditions; • Section 4 – Understanding the Problems, Issues, Opportunities and Constraints;

1-2 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• Section 5 – Setting the Transport Planning Objectives; • Section 6 – Option Generation, Sifting and Development; • Section 7 – STAG Part 1 - Initial Appraisal; • Section 8 – STAG Part 2 - Introduction to Detailed Appraisal; • Section 9 – Detailed Appraisal - Transport Planning Objectives; • Section 10 – Detailed Appraisal - Appraisal Against STAG Criteria; • Section 11 – Detailed Appraisal - Appraisal Against Implementability; • Section 12 – Cost to Government; • Section 13 – Risk and Uncertainty; • Section 14 – Monitoring and Evaluation; and • Section 15 – Summary and Conclusions.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 1-3

SECTION 2 Methodology

. Introduction to the Guidance The Pre-Appraisal process was the starting point for the study and set the rationale behind the undertaking of a STAG-led study 1 and included tasks such as: • Analysis of Problems, Issues, Constraints and Opportunities; • Objective Setting; and • Option Generation, Sifting and Development. The Pre-Appraisal, Part 1 Initial Appraisal and Part 2 Detailed Appraisal process followed the requirements of STAG, whilst, where relevant, meeting with the requirement of a DMRB Stage 1 Assessment. . Existing and Future Conditions The Pre-Appraisal stage of collecting relevant data and insight into the problems, opportunities, issues and constraints has, when deemed relevant and appropriate, been supported by the robust process of constraints mapping undertaken during a DMRB Stage 1 assessment. The Pre-Appraisal has taken consideration of current and future conditions within the study area. The collation of data and the assessment and analysis of it has identified the context and setting for the Access to Laurencekirk Study. It formed part of an evidence base which is considered satisfactory to support the basis of problems, opportunities, issues and constraints, such that Transport Planning Objectives (TPOs) for the study were developed. . The Role of Consultation The study followed the principles identified within STAG and, as such, participation and consultation were deemed as critical elements to achieving a successful outcome. Consultation with key stakeholders, including the local community, assisted in understanding, at an early stage, the problems and opportunities, and ensured the views of all those with an interest in the study have had their views considered. A range of stakeholders were consulted during the appraisal process, including statutory stakeholders, the local community and other relevant bodies, as agreed with the client steering group. Consultation included face to face meetings, telephone conversations, email correspondence, promotional material, open-days, focused workshops and drop-in events. . Problems, Issues, Opportunities and Constraints The identification of “Problems”, “Issues”, “Opportunities” and “Constraints” and evidence to confirm whether these are ‘actual’ or ‘perceived’ was intrinsic to the rationale for the study. The analysis of problems and opportunities sought to explore their root causes and consequences for the transport system, as well as considering the wider context of the transport network outwith the core study area. The problems, issues, opportunities, and constraints have been recorded to ensure a complete picture of the study area has been defined and this has been facilitated by an iterative process of stakeholder consultation. A series of large maps showing existing constraints and transport network operational data were produced and presented at initial workshops with stakeholders, statutory bodies and local interest groups during February and March 2014 and details can be found within Appendix A of this report. The information presented was used as a baseline during the workshops to allow attendees to elaborate on the current situation in and around Laurencekirk, as well as encouraging attendees to identify further opportunities.

1 STAG Technical Database: STAG Process

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 2-1 SECTION METHODOLOGY

The workshops sought to agree key problems/opportunities. Some 20 stakeholders attended the pre- appraisal workshops and approximately 60 attended a subsequent pre-appraisal open day. . Objectives Establishing the objectives for a study are essential to ensure the overall quality of the appraisal of transport options and their ultimate results 2. The development of the TPOs as part of this study was informed by consideration of the problems, issues, opportunities and constraints identified throughout the pre-appraisal stage, together with attention to the wider transport and land use planning context that impacts on the study area. The objectives were developed with key stakeholders during the first workshops in February 2014. The Transport Appraisal process requires such objectives to be Specific, Measureable, Attainable, Relevant and Timed (SMART) and Figure 2-1 outlines the core aspects which feed into the development of objectives.

Figure 2-1 – Setting Smart Objectives

In addition to being considered SMART, the objectives for the study have been developed to provide a clear focus for the appraisal in line with NESTRANS’ overarching aims for the study. The draft TPOs were validated and refined during and following the first workshops. . Option Generation The purpose of the option generation, sifting and development stage was to derive a range of potential interventions that meet the TPOs and alleviate the problems or address the opportunities identified. An initial list of individual options was derived through consultation with NESTRANS, Transport Scotland, Aberdeenshire Council and a range of stakeholders, including members of the local public with an interest in the study. The generation of the options was informed as a direct result of extensive desktop research and a consultation and engagement exercise undertaken as part of the Pre-Appraisal stage of the study. A range of options also emerged directly from previous studies and local groups.

2 STAG Technical Database: Objective Setting

2-2 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION METHODOLOGY

The appraisal process allowed for option sifting to be undertaken, which is particularly relevant in circumstances where the option generation stage brings forward a large number of options. For this study, options which it was considered could not be delivered have then been sifted out early in the process. A matrix was developed of initial problems, issues, constraints and opportunities against the initial options generated. This ensured that, at an early stage, no gaps were apparent. For each option, following an initial sift, further development work was undertaken with regard to ‘feasibility, deliverability and affordability’ and to ensure the options comply with the TPOs as the study progresses. . STAG Part Initial Appraisal Following the initial sift, the remaining options were subject to STAG Part 1 Initial Appraisal, which considered a wide range of impacts and policies, both local and national, alongside the specific TPOs. The STAG criteria are used in every STAG based study, whereas project-specific TPOs should be formulated to express the outcomes for the transport system in the study area, describing how the evidenced-based problems and opportunities identified will be addressed. Part 1 was an initial assessment of the generated potential options and mainly involved a qualitative appraisal of the likelihood of such options being able to meet the TPOs. Part 1 provided the rationale or justification for progression to the STAG Part 2 Detailed Appraisal stage. . STAG Part Detailed Appraisal For those options recommended be taken forward to Part 2 Detailed Appraisal, they are then subject to a more detailed Appraisal, being both qualitative and quantitative, where such evidence is available. The Part 2 Detailed Appraisal included analysis of an option’s performance against: • TPOs; • STAG Criteria; • Implementability; • Cost to Government; and • Risk and Uncertainty.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 2-3

SECTION 3 Existing and Future Conditions

. Introduction This chapter presents a review and analysis of the data collected as part of the study, together with a summary of previous reports and data sources which were considered relevant to the appraisal. This chapter seeks to provide the wider evidence base for the appraisal of identified problems, issues, opportunities and constraints. . Previous Studies .. Introduction A number of previous studies have been undertaken and these assisted in informing the evidence case surrounding access to Laurencekirk. Previous studies reviewed include: • Strategic Transport Projects Review –Transport Scotland (October 2009); • A90 Laurencekirk Road Safety Review – BEAR – (June 2009); • Laurencekirk Expansion – A90(T) Appraisal of Aberdeenshire Council Local Development Plan Main Issues Report – JMP – (March 2010); • A90 Laurencekirk Junctions – Cost Refinement Exercise for Grade Separation Associated with Future Development – URS Scott Wilson – ( August 2011); • A90 (T) Laurencekirk Junctions – NESTRANS – (October 2012); and • A90 Laurencekirk Road Safety Scheme Monitoring Study – BEAR - (March 2014). A summary is provided below. .. Strategic Transport Projects Review In overarching terms, the Scottish Government seeks to identify and deliver transport improvements that benefit the country and contribute to achievement of the Government’s Purpose. This means identifying measures that can support sustainable economic growth, whilst respecting environmental constraints and providing equality of opportunity for all communities and people. In order to support this process, the Scottish Government initiated the Strategic Transport Projects Review (STPR). STPR recommends a total of 29 transport interventions. No specific scheme recommendations in STPR were identified for the A90 in the vicinity of Laurencekirk, however, Route Management on the A90 in “Aberdeen and North East Scotland” was included as one of the major investment priorities in the STPR. This includes network optimisation through route management and targeted investment in relatively local interventions. No strategic issues relating to network performance were identified, however there is an ongoing need to maintain and operate the network safely. This will be addressed through an existing programme of “route action plans”. The Strategic Transport Projects Review (STPR) appraisal process gave specific consideration to the case for the grade separation of the Laurencekirk/Marykirk junction. Further to the road safety measures introduced in 2005 (and the further measures in October 2007 and late 2008) which resulted in improved accident statistics at this location, it was not considered that grade separation was necessary at that time. The Review concluded that it would not address or make a significant contribution to the STPR objective established for the corridor of a “continual reduction in accident rates and severity rates across the strategic transport network” and the safety record at this junction continues to be monitored. .. A Laurencekirk Road Safety Review The A90 Laurencekirk Road Safety Review was produced by BEAR Scotland. Some consultation was undertaken by BEAR Scotland, as part of the A90 Laurencekirk Road Safety Review. The former Grampian Police had a concern with the levels of speeding detected by cameras at the south junction, although

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 3-1 SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS speed or late braking were not considered contributory to accidents occurring since 2005, with careless manoeuvres by side road drivers the main cause of accidents at this location. The review highlighted that the Police would support engineering measures to improve safety of the centre junction, but not extending the 50mph speed limit. There were no concerns with the current operation of the north junction. The Report states that the North East Safety Camera Partnership (NESCAMP) will continue to enforce this section of the A90 through the safety camera provision. NESCAMP were of the opinion that this section of the A90 is not visually different from national speed limit sections, so the cameras are having a significant impact. However, the report states that speeds appeared to have levelled out and numbers of offenders are likely to remain static without further intervention. Aberdeenshire Council had no significant concerns over the current operation of the junctions, although delays to side road traffic at the south junction were noted since the 50mph speed limit was introduced. The report states that accidents involving right-turn movements from both the A90 and side roads are the most prevalent, to which a number of engineering options were considered to address this accident type: a) Closure of Central Reserve Gaps – would improve road safety but not considered feasible in this case as no suitable alternative routes available. b) Closure of Central Reserve Gaps with Grade Separation Provision – addresses right turn moves and alternative routes. But this was not in STPR, so funding was not guaranteed. The £4million cost estimate gives a first year return of 4.7%, which is not best value. c) Closure of Central Reserve Gaps with Provision of Roundabout - addresses right turn moves and alternative routes. £1million cost gives a first year return of 18.1%. Would introduce delay to trunk road traffic, which is against National Transport Strategy (NTS) policy. d) Closure of Central Reserve Gaps with Signalisation of Junction - addresses right turn moves and alternative routes. £600k cost gives a first year return of 30.2%. Would introduce delay to trunk road traffic, which is against NTS policy. e) Installation of Vehicle Activated Signing – installing signage at the middle and north junctions will raise junction awareness. Not proposed for the south junction as existing signage is extensive. May lose effectiveness during peak hours, due to heavy right turn flows. f) Street Lighting at Middle Junction – lighting provision investigated, but appraisal does not justify it in terms of limited benefits against cost of installation. g) Visibility Enhancement at Middle Junction – existing visibility to the south from the west junction mouth can be improved by cutting back existing vegetation. h) Surface Treatment – low SCRIM readings noted at middle and north junctions, so recommend undertaking some carriageway treatments to improve skid resistance at these junctions. i) General Road Safety – other potential measures include (i) lower speed limits at middle and north junctions to 50mph, but the assessment suggests existing national speed limit is suitable for these junctions. Injury accidents are still occurring at the south junction, suggesting a speed restriction will not necessarily completely remove an accident problem, especially if speed is not a contributory factor. “SLOW DOWN” signage might be of benefit; (ii) the middle junction would benefit from additional road markings to reduce instances of vehicles sitting side-by-side in the central reserve – hatching and red screed; and (iii) renew all road markings at the three junctions and replace existing road studs with new high visibility studs. .. Laurencekirk Expansion – A (T) Appraisal of Aberdeenshire Council Local Development Plan Main Issues Report The Laurencekirk Expansion – A90 (T) Appraisal Report was undertaken by JMP, on behalf of Transport Scotland, and is dated March 2010. The report sets out the appraisal that was undertaken of development allocations proposed in Aberdeenshire Council’s Local Development Plan Main Issues Report (MIR), to assess the implications they may have on the strategic transport network. The appraisal has a particular focus on the A90 in the vicinity of Laurencekirk and seeks to help inform a suitable access strategy for that route. The report concluded that:

3-2 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

• Development located to the north results in a traffic flow increase of approximately 16% at the north junction and approximately 4% at the south junction; • Development located to the middle results in a traffic flow increase of approximately 11% at the north junction and approximately 6% at the south junction; • Development located to the south results in least traffic flow increase at the north junction and an approximately 12% increase at the south junction; • Irrespective of the development location, both north and south junctions will experience increases in traffic flow and for certain movements these will exceed junction capacity; and • Transport Scotland has safety concerns with regard to any increased flow at the junctions associated with development. From the assessment, significant mitigation measures were found to be required to support major developments at Laurencekirk. Transport Scotland’s preferred option was: • Provision of grade separation (some hybrid arrangement is acceptable) at both north and south junctions, with closure of the Laurencekirk access at the middle junction. Cost estimate is £15million. Transport Scotland will consider an alternative option if further analysis shows it is acceptable: • Grade separation of the south junction, northbound merge lane at the north junction with closure of the central reserve gap, closure of the Laurencekirk access at the middle junction. Cost estimate is £8million. The Laurencekirk Expansion – A90 (T) Appraisal Report demonstrated that the development proposals for Laurencekirk will result in traffic increases at both the north and south junction, with minor impact on the middle junction. This was the outcome for all three proposed development areas. The report was also subject to a review by NESTRANS. .. A Laurencekirk Junctions – Cost Refinement Exercise for Grade Separation Associated with Future Development The A90 Laurencekirk Junctions – Cost Refinement Exercise for Grade Separation Associated with Future Development Report was prepared by URS Scott Wilson, on behalf of Transport Scotland, and is dated August 2011. The report sought to provide updated cost estimates for a number of improvement options, in relation to grade separation of the A90 Laurencekirk junctions. The report provides updated cost estimates for a number of improvement options, which included measures at all three junctions. Some additional measures are included, arising from impacts on other access points. Full grade separation of both the north and south junctions has the highest cost range of £25.2m - £28.8m. Full grade separation of the south junction and left in/left out only at the north junction has the lowest cost range of £13.5m - £17.1m. The latter is commonly reported within the media. It should be noted that the year of this cost is not specifically mentioned within the report, although it is anticipated to be prior to the report’s publication date of 2011. .. A (T) Laurencekirk Junctions The A90 (T) Laurencekirk Junctions Report was prepared by NESTRANS and is dated October 2012. The report is the result of a meeting between Nigel Don MSP, Aberdeenshire Council, Angus Council and NESTRANS in January 2012 to discuss safety concerns at the A90 Laurencekirk junctions. NESTRANS agreed to undertake a review of previous studies and identify any additional information that could be submitted to Transport Scotland for consideration. The report considers a number of previous reports, summarising factual information from those reports and making a number of comments and observations. A section of the report considers the potential scale of further trip generation in the Laurencekirk area, together with the wider south Aberdeenshire and north Angus areas, in future years that could impact on the existing junctions.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 3-3 SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

The report demonstrated that previous studies underestimated future traffic levels in the Laurencekirk area that would use the three junctions and that this growth is not solely attributed to development within the town. It is noted that Transport Scotland advised NESTRANS that the 50mph speed limit Order that came into force on the A90 Trunk Road in 2005 at the A937 Laurencekirk/Marykirk junction will remain in force for the foreseeable future. Transport Scotland further advised that should the junction layout be significantly amended, then this should be designed in accordance with DMRB standards, using a design speed of 120kph (75mph) for the A90. .. A Laurencekirk Road Safety Scheme Monitoring Study The A90 Laurencekirk Road Safety Monitoring Study was undertaken by BEAR Scotland, on behalf of Transport Scotland, as a follow up study of the three A90 junctions serving Laurencekirk, approximately three years after the installation of road safety measures. The study compared injury and non-injury collision statistics both pre and post construction and noted any changes. The measures which had been introduced include: • Installation of vehicle activated signing on the A90 northbound and southbound approaches to the centre junction, warning of local road traffic on the B9120 waiting to cross; • Installation of ‘Cross with Care’ signs opposite both legs at the centre junction; • Surface treatment measures on both A90 carriageways at the centre and A937 north junctions; • Relocation of the existing northbound advance direction sign for the centre junction; • Upgrading of the existing pedestrian warning signs and installation of a new safety camera sign at the centre junction; and • Refreshing road markings and studs with high visibility alternatives at all junctions. The study concludes that the installed measures have substantially improved safety in the area, with all junctions recording reductions in injury collision numbers since the works were completed. The study did, however, note that whilst there had been a significant reduction in personal injury accidents there had been a 28% increase in non-injury accidents following installation of the measures. . Laurencekirk in Context .. Population Growth Laurencekirk had a population of 2,925 as of the 2011 Census, living within 1,171 households. This represents a 61% increase from the 2001 Census results that identified a total of 1,808 people being resident in Laurencekirk. This is in contrast to a 5% increase in population nationally and a 12% increase in population in Aberdeenshire over the same 10-year period since the 2001 Census. Given the proposed land allocations for Laurencekirk, this trend in population growth has the potential to continue. The age demographic for Laurencekirk has remained broadly consistent with that in 2001, however the town has seen an increase in children under the age of 4, which by 2011 is some 85% higher than in 2001, and substantially higher than the respective 16% increase in this age group for Aberdeenshire as a whole. This may be indicative of the residence of young families in the area. Table 3-1 provides an outline of population by age for Laurencekirk and puts this in the context of Aberdeenshire and Scotland.

3-4 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

Table 3-1 – Population by Age Resident Population Laurencekirk Aberdeenshire Scotland Total Population 2,925 252,937 5,295,403 % 0-4 year old 6.32 5.98 5.53 % 5-15 year old 13.33 12.75 11.77 % 16-29 year old 13.88 15.24 18.47 % 30-44 year old 22.09 20.58 19.95 % 45-59 year old 19.18 22.45 21.11 % 60-74 year old 14.94 15.85 15.45 % 75 and over 10.26 7.15 7.72 * Source: Table QS103SC – 2011 Scottish Census results .. Employment Characteristics Laurencekirk has seen an increase of over 60% in working age population since the 2001 Census. However, when compared to Aberdeenshire as a whole, Laurencekirk has a higher proportion of retired people. Laurencekirk has a noticeably lower proportion of permanently sick/disabled people than both Aberdeenshire and Scotland. Table 3-2 highlights economic activity within the study area and in the context of regional and national economic activity statistics. Table 3-2 – Economic Activity Economic Status Laurencekirk Aberdeenshire Scotland All persons aged 16-74 2,050 187,492 4,162,317 Economically active: % Employees – Part time 13.90 15.15 13.34 Economically active: % Employees – Full time 48.15 44.09 39.63 Economically active: % Self-employed 8.49 10.22 7.50 Economically active: % Unemployed 2.24 2.55 4.77 Economically active: % Full-time student 2.78 2.88 3.74 Economically inactive: % Retired 15.46 13.62 14.90 Economically inactive: % Student 2.78 3.13 5.50 Economically inactive: % Looking after home/family 3.46 4.20 3.56 Economically inactive: % Permanently sick/disabled 1.41 2.73 5.14 Economically inactive: % other 1.32 1.43 1.91 * Source: Table KS601SC – 2011 Scottish Census results

Laurencekirk has a high rate of employment, particularly those within full time employment and this is significantly higher than the Scottish average. In addition, Laurencekirk has a lower proportion of economically inactive population than both Aberdeenshire and Scotland. Managers, directors and senior professional as an occupation within Laurencekirk is slightly lower than that of Aberdeenshire, however the town has a higher level of skilled trade occupations than the Scottish average. Caring, leisure and other service occupations are also higher than both the regional and national average. Table 3-3 highlights the occupation groups for those living within Laurencekirk, Aberdeenshire and Scotland.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 3-5 SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

Table 3-3 – Occupation Occupation Laurencekirk Aberdeenshire Scotland Managers, directors and senior professionals 8.82% 9.04% 8.38% Professional occupations 17.31% 16.21% 16.75% Associate professional and technical 11.97% 12.49% 12.65% occupations Administrative and secretarial occupations 10.29% 10.67% 11.37% Skilled trades occupations 15.78% 17.33% 12.52% Caring, leisure and other service occupations 10.70% 8.54% 9.71% Sales and customer service occupations 6.28% 6.65% 9.31% Process, plant and machine operatives 10.16% 8.75% 7.69% Elementary occupations 8.69% 10.31% 11.61% * Source: Table KS608SC – 2011 Scottish Census results

.. Travel Characteristics The destinations of those in employment living within Laurencekirk has been sourced from the 2001 Census, as data from the most recent 2011 Census was not available at the time of initial consideration and, to date, is still not available to the same level of detail. The destinations of employed people residing within Mearns Central, to which Laurencekirk is the main settlement was analysed. A summary of employment destinations is provided within Table 3-4. A map showing Laurencekirk in the context of the Aberdeenshire and Angus areas is shown in Appendix A. Table 3-4 – Employment Destinations Destination Council Area Origin (Mearns Central) Aberdeenshire 63.21% Aberdeen City 26.16% Angus 8.86% Other 1.76% * Source: 2001 Census - UK travel flows (ward)

2011 Census data in relation to the mode used to travel to work was available. Of those people residing within Laurencekirk and travelling to work, walking is the second most popular travel mode, behind driving in a car or van. The proportion of people travelling by train is in line with that for Scotland as a whole. Travel by train in 2011 has increased significantly since the 2001 Census, following the re-opening of the Laurencekirk rail station in 2009. Table 3-5 provides details of the travel to work mode share for Laurencekirk in the context of regional and national data. It should be noted that many people living in Aberdeenshire do not have access to a local rail station, therefore there is a tendency for Laurencekirk to have a higher rail modal split than Aberdeenshire as a whole.

3-6 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

Table 3-5 – Travel to Work Mode Share Travel mode Laurencekirk Aberdeenshire Scotland On foot 22.68% 14.94% 18.48% Bicycle 0.56% 0.79% 1.30% Motorcycle, scooter or moped 0.05% 0.26% 0.22% Bus, minibus or coach 2.60% 9.63% 13.39% Train 3.73% 0.97% 3.48% Taxi or minicab 0.72% 0.85% 0.70% Driving a car or van 50.82% 49.66% 40.92% Passenger in a car or van 7.00% 8.91% 9.01% Other 11.85% 13.98% 12.50% * Source: Table QS701SC - 2011 Scottish Census Results

Laurencekirk has seen a reduction in walking as a travel to work mode in recent years, with the proportion of those walking to work reducing from 34% in 2001 to just under 23% in 2011, a reduction of some 9%. It should be noted that the walking mode share for trips to work still remains higher within Laurencekirk than the Scottish average. Increases in public transport usage have occurred from the 2001 Census, with an expected increase in rail travel as a result of the station re-opening in May 2009. There has also been an increase in travel by bus between 2001 and 2011 to 2.6%, up from around 1% in 2001. Bus based public transport still remains very low in Laurencekirk as of the 2011 Census, and significantly lower than Aberdeenshire as a whole and indeed the Scottish average. The changes in travel modes would suggest that many of the new residents in Laurencekirk who are employed work outwith the town and are commuting to other destinations. .. Montrose and Brechin The nearby towns of Montrose and Brechin generate trips that impact on the A90 and the three Laurencekirk junctions. In particular, traffic travelling to and from Montrose use the south junction. Montrose has seen its population grow by approximately 10% from 10,845 in 2001 to 11,955 in 2011, which is higher than the national average of 5%. Error! Reference source not found. Table 3-6 gives a summary of employment destinations from Montrose. Table 3-6 – Employment Destinations (Montrose) Destination Council Area Origin (Montrose) Aberdeenshire 5% Aberdeen City 9% Dundee 3% Means Central 1% Montrose & Angus area 81% Other 1% Source: 2001 Census - UK travel flows (ward)

Table 3-7 provides information on the main travel to work mode share for Montrose in the context of regional and national data.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 3-7 SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

Table 3-7 – Travel to Work Mode Share (Montrose) Travel mode Montrose On foot 18% Bus, minibus or coach 3% Train 4% Car or van 60% Other 7% Work from home 8% Source: 2011 Scottish Census Results

Table 3-6 and Table 3-7 show that, whilst the majority of employed Montrose residents work within Montrose or the Angus area, there are others who travel to other destinations. Given that the majority of people travel by car or van, it is reasonable to assume there will be a direct impact on the A90 and its junctions, especially the A90/A937 south junction. Brechin has seen its population grow by approximately 4% from 7,199 in 2001 to 7,481 in 2011, which is similar to the national average of 5%. Table 3-8 gives a summary of employment destinations from Brechin. Table 3-8 – Employment Destinations (Brechin) Destination Council Area Origin (Brechin) Aberdeenshire 3% Aberdeen City 8% Dundee 5% Means Central 1% Brechin & Angus area 79% Other 4% Source: 2001 Census - UK travel flows (ward)

Table 3-9 provides information on the main travel to work mode share for Brechin in the context of regional and national data. Table 3-9 – Travel to Work Mode Share (Brechin) Travel mode Brechin On foot 15% Bus, minibus or coach 4% Train 1% Car or van 69% Other 4% Work from home 7% Source: 2011 Scottish Census Results

Table 3-8 and Table 3-9 show that, whilst the majority of employed Brechin residents work within Brechin or the Angus area, there are others who travel to other destinations. Given that the majority of people travel by car or van, it is reasonable to assume there will be a direct impact on the A90 and its junctions, by increasing traffic flows on the trunk road.

3-8 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS .. Accessibility ... Introduction Accessibility is described within STAG as a broad concept that defines the ability of people and businesses to access goods, services, people and opportunities3. Drawing upon the outcomes of the consultation stage of the study, the existing transport system and levels of accessibility in and around Laurencekirk have been assessed in terms of the following: • a general information assessment - providing an insight to the facilities available for all transport users around Laurencekirk and the surrounding area; • sustainable mode facility assessment – providing a better understanding of the needs and facilities for cyclist and pedestrians; and • public transport facilities assessment – providing a better understanding of the needs and requirements of public transport users. A site visit was undertaken in January 2014 to undertake a visual inspection of the current infrastructure within the local transport system. ... Walking and Cycling The functional network for pedestrians in and around Laurencekirk consists primarily of footways, which, on the whole, are generally in average condition, and equipped with dropped kerbs at typical crossing locations. Walking and cycling isochrones, together with a drawing showing the core path network in and around Laurencekirk, are provided within Appendix A of this report. Local residences are located principally along the High Street and to the north west and south east of the High Street, with a mixture of older type dwellings and newer residential properties. Footways are present throughout Laurencekirk, however those leading to the older type properties tend to be narrow in places as shown in Figure 3-1, whilst those in and around the modern properties are of a standard width in excess of 1.5m. A number of small local businesses are located along the High Street, with access taken via footways on each side of the carriageway. There are other community facilities, such as post office, sport and leisure destinations (including the campus of the ), which tend to be located to the Figure 3-1 - Narrow footway on High Street northern end of the town, as shown on an accessibility map in Appendix A. During a number of site visits, the High Street did not exhibit high levels of traffic. The relatively low vehicle flow outwith the peak periods was confirmed by the results of temporary Automatic Traffic Counter data collected in 2014, which showed weekday two way hourly flows to fluctuate around 200 vehicles during the day. Traffic volume was, therefore, not considered to present a significant barrier to pedestrian movement. However, it was noted that parked vehicles performed a traffic calming function, which at certain locations, presented a barrier to pedestrian visibility when crossing. The new Mearns Academy Community Campus (high school) is a key generator of people trips in and around Laurencekirk, and is located at the north end of the town. The school has recently relocated to a new campus located on the west side of the A937 Aberdeen Road, north west of the former school site. It benefits from a direct footway link to the town and, during peak school times, a 20mph speed limit is in force along the A937 Aberdeen Road at the school.

3 http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/report/j324550-11.htm

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 3-9 SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

Whilst the school roll will not increase immediately, it will have capacity to increase in size, should there be a need in the future. Mearns Academy has a large catchment area and draws in pupils from , and Marykirk, as well as a number of other small settlements and so demand exists for school pupils to travel both west of Laurencekirk and east across the A90. The vast majority of pupils living outside Laurencekirk benefit from school transport provision, with a total of 13 buses presently crossing the A90 to serve the school. The new campus includes community-based facilities, which are likely to increase trips to the north end of Laurencekirk. A primary school also exists in Laurencekirk and is located at the southern end of the town. It is accessible via Frain Drive, which has a well paved link to the residential areas and town centre. Laurencekirk and its surrounding area benefit from a designated core path network, which provides a number of recreational and functional paths. A map outlining the core paths and other sustainable travel infrastructure and routes is provided within Appendix A. These mainly off road paths allow access to Denlethen Wood from the A937 High Street, Muir of Blackiemuir and Laurencekirk Cemetery. Wider network paths extend from the A90 to Howe of the Mearns and Johnson Mains and remain traffic free routes. Dedicated cycling provision is limited in and around Laurencekirk, however National Cycle Route (NCR) 1 travels down the east coast of Scotland from Shetland passing through Aberdeen, Stonehaven, and Montrose heading south all the way south to Dover on England’s south east coast. NCR1 does not include a direct traffic free link to Laurencekirk. Therefore, bicycle users wishing to access it from Laurencekirk have to travel along the B9120 on road, crossing the A90 at the centre junction and accessing the NCR1 between and St Cyrus. There is a local recreational cycling route known as the Laurencekirk-Fettercairn Circular. This 15-mile route leads from Laurencekirk High Street traveling along the B9120 towards Fettercairn passing the villages of Thornton and West Burnside. The route joins the B974 passing through Strathywell and Craigmoston and turns at Gallow Hill, travelling back towards Laurencekirk. The route is described as ‘easy to moderate’ although the route does climb towards Fettercairn. The route is not traffic-free, although it does not cross the A90 and is mostly along B class roads with low traffic volumes. From the centre of Laurencekirk, much of the town is within a 10-minute walk, whilst a 20-minute walking time covers the whole town and further afield, so the town is reasonably accessible by most pedestrians. In addition, the whole of Laurencekirk is well within a 10-minute cycle time. Walking and cycling isochrones are shown in Appendix A. For pedestrians and cyclists that have to cross the A90 at the three junctions there is a general lack of facilities. At the south junction, whilst the west section of the A937 is a designated on-road core path, it has no footway on its approach to the A90 junction and there is no pedestrian crossing facility provided. At the A90 central junction, a pedestrian crossing facility is provided to connect with the designated on- road core path on the east section of the B9120. However, the pedestrian crossing has no dropped kerbs and is an at-grade facility. At the A90 north junction, there is no footway provided on the side road approach and no pedestrian crossing facility. The west section of Frain Drive in the town is part of the wider core paths network and there is an existing vehicular underpass that pedestrians and cyclists can use to avoid having to cross the A90 carriageway. This is located between the south and centre A90 junctions. ... Bus Accessibility Aberdeen City Council, Aberdeenshire Council, NESTRANS, First Group and Stagecoach operate a Quality Bus Partnership (QBP), which has been recognised as best practice. The QBP is a key element of Aberdeenshire Council’s Local Transport Strategy, which seeks to enhance the availability and quality of bus services. Measures undertaken as part of this strategy include the provision of illuminated bus shelters, modern numbered bus stop flags, improved roadside information and raised/dropped kerbs at interchange points to assist the boarding and alighting of passengers. The main interchange point in Laurencekirk is on the High Street. For northbound services, a brick constructed bus shelter has been equipped with lighting, modern seating and bus passenger information.

3-10 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

The southbound interchange stop is located near Alma Place and has no shelter due to the narrower width of the footway. The bus stop does, however, incorporate raised kerbs and bus passenger information. Bus services in Laurencekirk are operated by a number of operators, including Stagecoach and MW Nicoll. These service providers also operate in and around Stonehaven and the wider community of Brechin and Montrose. Laurencekirk lies outwith the main corridor route between Stonehaven and Montrose although the main service 8/9 is routed through the interchange stop on the High Street. Figure 3-2 shows the bus network serving Laurencekirk and the immediate surrounding area, including Montrose and Stonehaven.

N

Figure 3-2– Bus Routes Map (Source: Aberdeenshire Council)

The frequency of bus services in Laurencekirk to surrounding areas varies throughout the week. A number of services provide access to facilities such as the schools in Laurencekirk and Stonehaven from Brechin and the surrounding area. Services to Aberdeen are limited to only two return journeys per day in the AM and PM, which, given the high proportion of commuting northwards to Aberdeen, presents a potential opportunity for increasing both patronage and, in turn, service frequency. A local dial-a-bus service, wholly operated by Aberdeenshire Council, runs on Thursdays on a fortnightly basis serving (Asda), users must be registered before booking journeys. It is noted that all services, apart from service 8/9, are currently wholly subsidised by Aberdeenshire Council. Service 8/9 is partially subsidised by Aberdeenshire Council. Table 3-10 highlights the range of services and frequency currently available in Laurencekirk. The majority of the bus services that serve Laurencekirk have to negotiate the A90 junctions, as do most of the school buses travelling to and from Mearns Academy. Table 3-10 – Local Bus Services and Frequency in Laurencekirk Service Route Monday to Friday Saturday Sunday

Peak Daytime Evening Daytime 8/9 Laurencekirk (Interchange Farquhar Approximately Approximately 1 Approximately 4 Street) - Marykirk (Smithy Croft) - Craigo every 50 every 60 Journey every 60 Journeys Road End - Craigo (Village) - Hillside - minutes minutes Per Day minutes Per Day Borrowfield Newhame Road - Montrose (High Street) - Montrose (Western Road) 24 Stonehaven (Mackie Academy) - 2 Journeys Per 3 Journeys Per - 2 Journeys Per - Stonehaven (Interchange Barclay Street) Day Day Day - (Rolland Road) - A90

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 3-11 SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

Service Route Monday to Friday Saturday Sunday

Peak Daytime Evening Daytime - Laurencekirk (Interchange Farquhar Street) - (Main Street) - Stracathro Hospital - Brechin (South Esk Street) - Brechin (Castle Garden Centre) 29/29A Laurencekirk (Mearns Academy) - 1 Journey Per 1 Journey Per - - - Laurencekirk (Farquhar Street) – Day Day Fettercairn (Park View) – Woods (Halsey Drive) – B966 Langstrath Road – Edzell (Panmure Arms) - Brechin Mackie Motors 102 Stonehaven - – Laurencekirk - 1 Journey Per - - - via Barclay Street - Turners Court - Day on Fridays Village - Kirkburn - Arbuthnott (Post Office) - Old Aberdeen Road - Farquhar Street - Kinnear Square 103 Aberdeen (Greyfriars House) - Aberdeen 1 Journey Per 1 Journey Per - 2 Journeys - (Bus Station) - Aberdeen (Holburn Day Day Per Day Junction) - Aberdeen (Leggart Terrace) - Banchory Devenick (Crossroads) - Burnhead - Sunnyside - Netherley - Stonehaven (Barclay Street) - Church - Road End - Stonehaven (Station Hotel) - Drumlithie (Rolland Road) - Church - Market Square - Fourdoun (Coffee Pot) - Laurencekirk (Farquhar Street) - Laurencekirk (Kinnear Square) R5 Laurencekirk – Portlethen(Asda) – door - 1 Journey Per - - - to door transport service Day * Source: Aberdeenshire Council

... Rail Access Laurencekirk station, which is located on the East Coast Main Line (ECML), was re-opened in May 2009, and is operated by Abellio, as of 4 April 2015. The station provides direct links to Aberdeen, Dundee, Perth, and Glasgow. A number of local destinations can be accessed from the station, including Stonehaven, Montrose and , depending on the stopping patterns of each service. A greater range of destinations can be reached by interchange at Aberdeen (for services to ), Arbroath and Dundee (ECML services to Newcastle and London, Cross Country Services to the Midlands) and Edinburgh (West Coast Main Line services to Manchester, Birmingham and London). Car parking provision is available for around 70 vehicles and 5 disabled spaces are also provided and linked to the station by a fully accessible footbridge. A weekday parking survey, undertaken as part of the study, has shown the available parking at the station is not fully utilised, with a number of spaces remaining empty. The majority of vehicles parked at the station do so for in excess of 5 hours, indicating its use for commuting. The station itself is located at the northern end of Laurencekirk nestled within the industrial estate located to the north west of the A937 Aberdeen Road, which requires a short walk from most of the residential areas of Laurencekirk to reach. Taxi facilities are provided at the station and a 500m walk is required to access bus links on the High Street, which currently presents a challenge in respect of interchange between transport modes. Cycle access at the station is provided and there is a total of 24 cycle spaces, which are in a covered storage area. The nearest alternative rail stations are located at Montrose, approximately 11 miles to the south, and Stonehaven, approximately 15 miles to the north.

3-12 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

Prior to the re-opening, the initial passenger figures for Laurencekirk were estimated at 36,000 customers per year 4. However, in May 2010, a year following re-opening, Transport Minister Stewart Stevenson reported the station had served some 64,000 passengers. During the year 2012/13, a total of 92,470 trips were made via Laurencekirk Rail Station, whilst demand is reported as 102,770 in the latest ORR dataset for the station in 2013/14. Whilst there is no information on journey type, ticket sales information show that 33% and 37% of tickets are for full fare and season tickets respectively. Taking these as a crude proxy for peak/commuter travel, this suggests around 70% of demand is for commuting purposes. Table 3-11 highlights the scheduled rail departures from Laurencekirk Station. Table 3-11 – Scheduled Rail Departures from Laurencekirk Station Mon-Sat Mon-Sat Sunday Sunday

NB Destination SB Destination NB Destination SB Destination 6:36 Inverness 5:59 Glasgow 11:59 Aberdeen 9:55 Glasgow 7:37 Aberdeen 7:34 Edinburgh 15:17 Aberdeen 13:20 Edinburgh 8:08 9:35 Edinburgh 17:52 Aberdeen 15:58 Glasgow 10:21 Inverurie 11:34 Edinburgh 19:55 Aberdeen 18:18 Glasgow 11:58 Aberdeen 13:10 Glasgow 21:52 Aberdeen 20:47 Edinburgh 13:44 Aberdeen 14:34 Edinburgh 22:59 Perth 15:52 Aberdeen 16:32 Edinburgh 17:20 Inverurie 17:39 Edinburgh 18:21 Inverurie 18:06 Glasgow 20:02 Aberdeen 19:40 Edinburgh 21:42 Aberdeen 21:35 Edinburgh 23:52 Aberdeen 22:59 Perth * Source: National Rail Enquiries (May 2015 – December 2015 timetable)

Passengers have a range of options regarding mode choice to get to the station to access the 12 services a day, Monday to Saturday, in each direction – walking, parking, passenger drop-off and cycling. The reintroduction of the station has significantly enhanced the sustainable travel options both to and from Laurencekirk. ... Strategic Road Network The A90 trunk road is the principal strategic route in the vicinity of Laurencekirk and passes to the east of the town. There are three junctions on the A90 that enable vehicular access to and from Laurencekirk. The A90 is dual carriageway between Dundee and Aberdeen and is a significant strategic route in the north east. It carries in excess of 20,000 vehicles per day. This is a greater volume of traffic than on other sections of the strategic road network at a similar distance from Aberdeen. The A9 (north of Pitlochry to Aviemore) carries 8,500 vehicles daily whilst the A96 (between Inverurie and Fochabers) carries less than 7,000 vehicles daily. Within the study area, access from Laurencekirk onto the strategic road network is via a choice of three at grade junctions that serve the town. However, vehicles can also route via a number of unclassified routes to the west and access the A90 at the Brechin grade separated junction (GSJ). On the rural A90 south of Aberdeen, there is only one other junction with an A class road that is not grade separated, which is the A928 from Glamis. Figure 3-3 shows the network of both local and strategic roads within vicinity of Laurencekirk. Further detailed engineering characteristics (road geometry, structures, road drainage, local geology, utilities and junction details) of the network are set out within the Engineering Characteristics section contained in

4 Office of Rail regulation – Estimates of Station Usage

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 3-13 SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

Appendix C, with engineering plans of the A90, including the three Laurencekirk junctions, contained in Appendix F.

N

Figure 3-3 – Road Network within Vicinity of Laurencekirk

The A90 at Laurencekirk is a dual 2 lane carriageway with nearside and offside kerbs. The carriageway varies in width between approximately 6.5m and 7.5m. In addition, nominal nearside and offside hardstrips of approximately 200mm to 300mm are provided. The verges and central reserve vary in width for visibility requirements. On average, the verges are approximately 2m to 3m wide and the central reserve is approximately 4m to 5m wide. The north A90 junction is an at-grade priority junction that connects the A90 with Laurencekirk High Street via the A937 Aberdeen Road. There is a right hand turning lane on the southbound A90, allowing right- turn manoeuvres from the north, and a left-turn deceleration lane for left-turn manoeuvres from the south. For traffic turning left from the A937 onto the A90 northbound, there has been a recent upgrade to the road layout in 2012 and an acceleration lane has been constructed. On the eastern side of the junction there is a private access to Keilburn Farm. Engineering characteristics drawing 488086-STAG-014, within Appendix F, provides further details on the A90/A937 north junction. This includes the following approximate dimensions relating to the DMRB TD42/95 design criteria (not including the access road to Keilburn Farm): • Direct taper length varies approximately 23-33m (DMRB TD42/95 requires 30m), noting the southbound right turn lane taper length is sub-standard at 23m; • Deceleration length varies approximately 105-109m (DMRB TD42/95 requires 110m plus a possible requirement for a reservoir queuing length to accommodate such vehicles). Table 3-20 shows that the queue recorded at the central reserve peaks at 7 vehicles (approximately 45m). With this length of queue, the available deceleration space in the central reserve would be approximately 60m, significantly short of the 110m requirement stated in DMRB TD42/95. Currently the southbound right turn lane deceleration lane is sub-standard at 105m;

3-14 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

• Physical island width approximately 10m (DMRB TD42/95 notes that this should be 14m for large articulated vehicles and 16.5m for drawbar trailers); • As existing side road exiting left turn traffic flows is more than 600 vehicles AADT (average annual daily total), acceleration lanes are mandatory and a northbound facility was recently installed; and • Central reserve opening approximately 20m (DMRB TD42/95 requires 15m). The centre junction is a staggered priority junction that connects the A90 with the B9120 (Garvock Road on the Laurencekirk side of the junction). Right-hand turn lanes are provided on the A90 to enable the right-turn manoeuvres from the north and from the south. The junction has left-turn deceleration lanes for left-turn manoeuvres from the north and from the south, however, there is no acceleration lane from Garvock Road for northbound traffic joining the A90. In addition, there is no acceleration lane from the east section of the B9120 to assist side road traffic join the A90 southbound. From Laurencekirk, the B9120 heads eastwards from the A90 to join with the A92 Stonehaven to Montrose road. Engineering characteristics drawing 488086-STAG-013, within Appendix F, provides further details on the A90/B9120 centre junction. This includes the following approximate dimensions relating to the DMRB TD42/95 design criteria: • Direct taper length varies approximately 21-30m (DMRB TD42/95 requires 30m); • Deceleration length varies approximately 96-102m (DMRB TD42/95 requires 110m plus a reservoir queuing length to accommodate such vehicles), noting the southbound right turn lane deceleration lane is sub-standard at 103m; • Physical island width approximately 10m (DMRB TD42/95 notes that this should be 14m for large articulated vehicles and 16.5m for drawbar trailers); • As existing side road exiting left turn traffic flows are less than 600 vehicles AADT (average annual daily total), acceleration lanes are not mandatory; and • Central reserve opening approximately 15m (DMRB TD42/95 requires 15m). The south junction is also a staggered priority junction and this connects the A90 with the A937. Right- hand turn lanes are provided on the A90 to enable the right-turn manoeuvres from the north and from the south. The junction has left-turn deceleration lanes for left-turn manoeuvres from the north and from the south. There are no left turn acceleration lanes from the A937 onto the A90. The southern A90 junction differs from the other two junctions, as the speed limit on the A90 has been lowered from 70mph to 50mph at this location to improve safety. In addition to a reduced speed limit on the A90 at the south junction, speed cameras have been introduced on both the northbound and southbound carriageways. Engineering characteristics drawing 488086-STAG-012, within Appendix F, provides further details on the A90/A937 South Junction. This includes the following approximate dimensions relating to the DMRB TD42/95 design criteria: • Direct taper length varies approximately 23-31m (DMRB TD42/95 requires 30m when the mainline speed limit is 70mph) noting the northbound right turn lane taper length is 25m, which is acceptable for a 50mph speed limit but sub-standard for a 70mph speed limit; • Deceleration length varies approximately 100-116m (DMRB TD42/95 requires 110m when the mainline speed limit is 70mph, plus a reservoir queuing length to accommodate such vehicles), noting the southbound right turn lane deceleration lane is 100m, which is acceptable for a 50mph speed limit but sub-standard for a 70mph speed limit; • Physical island width approximately 10m (DMRB TD42/95 notes that this should be 14m for large articulated vehicles and 16.5m for drawbar trailers); • As existing side road exiting left turn traffic flows are less than 600 vehicles AADT (average annual daily total), acceleration lanes are not mandatory; and • Central reserve opening approximately 15m (DMRB TD42/95 requires 15m).

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 3-15 SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

A detailed layout of the network, and junctions and existing features (such as signage and utilities) is provided in Appendix F to accompany the Engineering Characteristics Report provided within Appendix C of this report. In terms of junction spacing, the north junction is sited approximately 1.41km north of the centre junction, which is sited approximately 1.33km north of the south junction. DMRBTD42/95 requires a minimum spacing of 1.0km. In summary, in terms of current DMRB standards, the existing junction arrangements have a number of sub-standard dimensions:- • Right turn taper lengths too short in a number of locations; • Central reserve right turn deceleration lane lengths too short in a number of locations; • Insufficient physical island width to accommodate large articulated vehicles; and • South junction layout suitable for 50mph speed limit but sub-standard for 70mph speed limit. ... Local Road Network The local road network within the vicinity of Laurencekirk includes the A937, which connects Montrose to Laurencekirk. The B9120 between St Cyrus and Laurencekirk is also a well-used route. Both the A937 and B9120 are divided by the A90 trunk road. The A92 connects Montrose to Stonehaven and can be used as an alternative to the A937 and A90. The A92 is the signposted route for HGVs between Montrose and Stonehaven. However, anecdotal evidence and survey data indicate that some goods vehicles ignore this and route via the A937 and A90 instead of using the signposted route. The local road network also provides alternative route choices to various locations. Consultation feedback suggested some residents prefer to use these routes to travel to Brechin or Stonehaven rather than negotiate the A90 Laurencekirk junctions. A plan of alternative routes is shown in Appendix A. In the town centre, the road network is constrained by its narrow High Street, however, car parking is available along the majority of the High Street. Parking restrictions, in the form of double yellow lines, are in place at the junctions of Blackiemuir Avenue, Farquhar Street, Charter Lane and Alma Place to protect sightlines. In practice, the High Street operates with the characteristics of a single track road with passing places, due to the nature of existing parking. Free off-street parking, provided by Aberdeenshire Council, is available at High Street (north end) with capacity for 15 vehicles, and at Charter Lane where there are no official marked bays, together with parking at the Masonic Hall, Robson Car Park and at the rail station. Both of the schools have ample staff parking and there appears to be a drop off area at the Primary School. Laurencekirk Business Park is located at the northern end of the town and is home to a mix of industrial and office based businesses. Each of these premises has an allocation of parking within their respective grounds. . Environmental and Engineering Constraints .. BP Forties Pipeline Initial consultation was undertaken with BP regarding the Forties Pipeline, given its proximity to the study area. The location of the pipeline is shown on the constraints map provided within Appendix A. Advice has shown that whilst the pipeline was completed in the 1970’s with a 25 year design life, ongoing inspection and maintenance has meant that the pipeline will be in place for the foreseeable future. The pipeline is identified as being of key significance to the UK economy, distributing some 1.1 million barrels of oil a day. BP advised there is a 7m wide exclusion zone for the pipeline which, in terms of proximity to the A90, runs closest to the centre junction. It should be noted that, given the sensitivity of the pipeline, it is unlikely any construction works would be insurable against damage, which is a major risk factor. .. Dundee to Aberdeen Railway Line Laurencekirk is constrained to the northwest by the Dundee to Aberdeen Railway, as shown within the engineering characteristics drawing within Appendix C. The line moves closer to the A90 to the north of the north junction and crosses the A90 to the south of the south junction.

3-16 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS .. Laurencekirk Cemetery Laurencekirk cemetery presents a significant constraint as it is located adjacent to the A90, to the west of the centre junction. .. Trunk Road Junction Spacing The layout of trunk roads in the UK have to comply with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridgeworks (DMRB). One design requirement relates to junction spacing that requires a minimum distance of 1km is required between main junctions to avoid conflicting weaving movements. .. Flooding A review of SEPA Flood Maps 5 has identified existing areas at risk of river flooding and surface water flooding within the study area. Areas either side of Luther Water within the study area are at High, Medium and Low risk of river flooding, as shown on the environmental constraints map in Appendix A. These areas do not extend to the A90 and, therefore, the A90 carriageway and the A937 are both considered to be located outside of the floodplain of Luther Water. The floodplains of the smaller watercourses are not shown on SEPA’s flood maps. This does not mean there is no flood risk, as all watercourses naturally come out of bank and will have an associated floodplain, to some extent. There are some areas identified on SEPA’s online flood maps as being at high risk of surface water flooding: • On the A90 carriageway where Gaugers Burn crosses the A90; and • On the A90 carriageway where the un-named watercourse which originates near St James’s Loch and crosses the A90 near Conveth Mains at NGR NO 72599 71990 and NO 72616 72047. Data on SEPA’s online flood maps show that there are no current flood defences within the study area. . Baseline Data .. Traffic Flows Traffic flows within the core study area were surveyed through automatic traffic counters (ATCs), temporary ATCs, existing junction turning count data and new data collected as part of this study during March, April and May 2014. This included journey time surveys, temporary automatic traffic counters, delay analysis, turning counts and queue length surveys. The focus of the flow data was the A90 adjacent to Laurencekirk, the A937 between Montrose and the A90, and Laurencekirk High Street. ... Junction Turning Counts Junction turning count surveys were undertaken in March 2014 to quantify the volume of traffic using the road network in the vicinity of Laurencekirk. The traffic surveys were undertaken between 06:00 and 19:00. From this data, the peak in traffic volumes was identified to occur between 07:00-08:00 in the AM and 17:00-18:00 in the PM. Figure 3-4 indicates the surveyed junction turn counts in vehicles for the AM peak hour of 07:00-08:00.

5 SEPA’s Indicative River and Coastal Flood Map - http://map.sepa.org.uk/floodmap/map.htm

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 3-17 SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

Figure 3-4 – 2014 AM Peak Hour (07:00-8:00) Surveyed Turn Count Data (Vehicles)

Figure 3-4 indicates that the main flow on the A90 during the AM peak is northbound towards Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire. The largest turning movement at the A90 south junction in the AM peak is the right turn from the A937 to the A90 northbound. At the north junction, the main turning movements in the AM period are the left turn from Laurencekirk to the north and the corresponding right turn for the opposite movement. Low flows were recorded for the other turning movements at the north junction. The turning volumes at the centre junction are lower than for the south and north junctions. The turning movement to and from Laurencekirk is slightly higher than the flow to and from the B9120. Figure 3-5 indicates the surveyed junction turn counts in vehicles for the PM peak hour of 17:00-18:00.

3-18 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

Figure 3-5 – 2014 PM Peak Hour (17:00-18:00) Surveyed Turn Count Data (Vehicles)

In the PM peak, the main direction of travel on the A90 is southbound. Turning patterns at the junctions on the A90 are similar to the AM period, but are reversed at the north junction. At the south junction, the largest turning flow is for the left turn movement from the A90 to the A937 southbound towards Montrose. In the PM peak, the second largest turning movement recorded during the turn count surveys is at the north junction. This is for the right turn from the A90 north into Laurencekirk. The turning flows surveyed at the centre junction are lower than for the south and north junctions. The turning movement to and from Laurencekirk is higher than the flow to and from the B9120. ... A Adjacent to Laurencekirk Long term traffic flow information was sourced from a permanent ATC on the A90 located to the north east of Laurencekirk (JTC00057), being sited approximately halfway between the centre and north junctions. Table 3-12 displays the 24hr and 12hr annual average daily traffic (AADT) flow by direction for the A90 ATC. The raw hourly data was sourced from Transport Scotland and analysed to exclude those days which data appeared inaccurate or included blank entries to ensure a robust sample was analysed.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 3-19 SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

Table 3-12 – A90 Annual Average Daily Traffic Volumes Year Northbound Southbound Two – Way Northbound Southbound Two – Way 24HR AADT 24HR AADT 24 HR AADT 12HR AADT 12HR AADT 12 HR AADT 2009 9758 9802 19560 7307 8360 15667 2010 9775 9688 19463 7319 8249 15568 2011 9811 9704 19515 7333 8270 15604 2012 10169 9825 19994 7542 8390 15933 2013 10844 10771 21615 7929 9168 17097 %age change 2009-10 0.2% -1.2% -0.5% 0.2% -1.3% -0.6% %age change 2010-11 0.4% 0.2% 0.3% 0.2% 0.3% 0.2% %age change 2011-12 3.7% 1.2% 2.5% 2.8% 1.5% 2.1% %age change 2012-13 6.6% 9.6% 8.1% 5.1% 9.3% 7.3% %age change 2009-13 11.1% 9.9% 10.5% 8.5% 9.7% 9.1% Average Annual %age 2.2% 2.0% 2.1% 1.7% 1.9% 1.8% change

Table 3-8 shows that vehicle flow on the A90 at Laurencekirk has increased over the last five years, with an increase in 24hr Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) of over 10% between 2009 and 2013. The majority of this growth, however, occurred between 2012 and 2013, with growth between 2009 and 2011 being static, and only slight growth in 2012. In terms of 12hr AADT, an increase of over 9% was seen between 2009 and 2013. To place the A90 change in flow in a historical context, the 24hr AADT flow between 1999 and 2013 has been presented within Figure 3-6.

Figure 3-6 – A90 24hr Annual Average Daily Traffic Flow (AADTF) (ATC JTC00057 – north east of centre junction)

Between 1999 and 2013, flows on the A90 have increased by over 30%. The AADT flow increased gradually between 2000 and 2004, then decreased during 2005 before climbing until 2008. It then became relatively static until 2012, followed by a significant increase in flow in 2013. It is assumed that the static nature of the flows between 2008 and 2011 was a result of the global recession.

3-20 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

Between 1999 and 2013, the growth in vehicle flow exhibited on the A90 at Laurencekirk was high, and shows a similar trend to population in the town, which has seen an increase over a similar period. Whilst flow has fluctuated, the overall trend is growth and this is likely to continue, due to the significant residential and employment development aspirations in the area. Figure 3-7 shows the seasonality for the A90 at Laurencekirk during 2009-2013. This indicates that 2013 saw a steep rise throughout all months except February and October, with July exhibiting the largest increase in flows.

Figure 3-7 - A90 24hr Annual Average Daily Traffic Flow (AADTF) by Month

Flow data from the ATC on the A90 at Laurencekirk site was analysed to provide some insight to the daily flow profiles, both during weekdays and over the weekend. The analysis included a seasonality component examining the average daily profiles by month, where data was available in the most recent full year i.e. 2013. Figure 3-8 displays the average weekday daily profile for the A90 at Laurencekirk by month for 2013. The daily profile from the A90 permanent ATC indicates the peak periods as being 07:00-08:00 for the AM peak and the PM peak being 16:00-17:00 with an almost equally high period between 17:00 and 18:00, the latter being the typical trunk road PM peak hour.

Figure 3-8 – A90 Average Annual Weekday Traffic Flow Profile Flow by Month (2013)

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 3-21 SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

The weekday profile of traffic remains fairly consistent between months with higher peak flows exhibited later in the year, during the months of August, September and October. Figure 3-9 displays the average annual weekend profile for the A90 at Laurencekirk.

Figure 3-9 – A90 Average Annual Weekend Traffic Flow Profile by Month (2013)

The weekend profile shows traffic increases steadily between 6:00am until around 12:00, drops slightly and rises again between 17:00 and 19:00 before reducing to less than 200 vehicles after midnight. The profile remains consistent throughout the months of available data, with slightly higher flow in the summer months of July and August. The weekday daily variation in flow was considered with the average annual daily profile presented for each weekday in Figure 3-10.

3-22 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

Figure 3-10 - A90 Average Annual Traffic Flow Profile by Day (2013)

The daily flow profile throughout the weekday period is consistent on the neutral days of Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. However on Monday the spike of the AM peak is somewhat higher than on a neutral day, in the range of 100 vehicles, to which this spike on a Monday is solely associated with northbound traffic. Equally on a Friday the PM peak has the highest flow and the flow is also considerably higher from 11:00 onwards, which is associated with southbound traffic. The annual average weekday peak periods were analysed to understand the level, and whether any changes in the peak flow have been experienced over the past 5 years. Traffic volumes for both the AM and PM peak periods are presented within Table 3-13 and shows the changes annually and between the years of 2009 and 2013. Table 3-13 – A90 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Year Northbound Southbound Two – Way AM Northbound Southbound Two – Way PM AM Peak AM Peak Peak PM Peak PM Peak Peak 2009 1222 403 1625 575 1211 1786 2010 1231 415 1646 577 1201 1778 2011 1262 421 1683 568 1224 1792 2012 1335 415 1750 568 1290 1858 2013 1415 426 1841 575 1422 1996 %age change 2009-10 0.7% 2.9% 1.3% 0.3% -0.8% -0.4% %age change 2010-11 2.5% 1.4% 2.2% -1.6% 1.9% 0.8% %age change 2011-12 5.7% -1.3% 4% 0.1% 5.3% 3.7% %age change 2012-13 6.0% 2.6% 5.2% 1.2% 10.2% 7.5% %age change 2009-13 15.7% 5.7% 13.2% -0.1% 17.4% 11.8% Average Annual %age change 3.1% 1.1% 2.6% 0% 3.5% 2.4%

The two-way peak hour volumes have increased between 2009 and 2013 with the largest increase seen in the AM Peak period. Notably, northbound during the PM peak has remained relatively unchanged since

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 3-23 SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

2009. It is recognised that the dominant flow increase is seen northbound during the AM peak, which confirms that there is a significant commuting pattern to and from Aberdeen. Census ‘journey to work’ data suggests a similar commuting pattern, with Aberdeenshire and indeed Aberdeen City being the principal employment centres for actively employed people in and around Laurencekirk. Only limited information with regard to historic vehicle composition was available from the permanent traffic counter on the A90 at Laurencekirk and so further details regarding the composition of vehicles were analysed from additional data collected as part of this study. ... A to Montrose The A937 does not benefit from a permanent traffic counter, however temporary counters were installed as part of this study and a counter location plan is contained in Appendix A. An analysis of vehicle flow over 7 days surveyed was undertaken and Figure 3-11 shows the northbound daily profile for the A937, just north of Marykirk.

Figure 3-11 - A937 North of Marykirk – Northbound Daily Profiles (May 2014)

The northbound flow data presented in Figure 3-11 provides insight into the vehicle flow characteristics of the A937 and it can be clearly seen that the route has a weekday peak between 06:00 and 07:00, with traffic flows building from just after 05:00. This is just ahead of the peak flow on the A90 northbound. Between 07:00 and 08:00 the flow reduces slightly until it levels and remains consistent until 09:00. Once 10:00 is reached the flow levels and remains at or near 100 vehicles per hour. The peak hour between 06:00 and 07:00 on the week surveyed in May exhibited the highest flow on Tuesday and Wednesday, with approximately 200 vehicles per hour. When considering in relation to the commuting pattern of the A90, and the high AM peak northbound flow, both the A937 and A90 appear to peak at similar periods which appears to be a root cause of the delay experienced on approach to the A90 at this location. This is examined further within this chapter through the analysis of the vehicle delays encountered for those travelling north on the A937 and then onto and/or crossing the A90 During Saturday and Sunday, the A937 traffic flow rises throughout the day with the highest flows occurring between 12:00 and 18:00, with approximately 100 vehicles per hour. Figure 3-12 displays the southbound daily flow profiles.

3-24 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

Figure 3-12 - A937 North of Marykirk – Southbound Daily Profiles (May 2014)

The significance of such a difference in flow and the availability of alterative routing choices was examined further and Table 3-14 presents a comparison of the turning movements at the A937/A90 junction located to the south of Laurencekirk. Table 3-14 – Turning Movement Comparison (Vehicles) Junction Turning Movement 13 Hour 0600-1900 AM Peak 0700-0800 PM Peak 1630-1730 A90/ A937 South Right Turn from the A937 to the 1,051 122 72 Junction A90 northbound Left Turn from the A90 to the 1,443 76 296 A937 southbound A90/ Landends/ Right Turn to the A90 northbound 133 45 5 Unnamed Road Left Turn from the A90 46 5 7 southbound A90/ B974 Right Turn to the A90 northbound 120 44 5 Left Turn from the A90 25 9 1 southbound A92 at B9120 Northbound 1,978 227 178 Southbound 1,902 111 330 Total Flows Across To North 3,282 438 260 Screenline From North 3,416 201 634 Difference 134 -237 374

The flow difference shown in Table 3-14 and the routing of traffic is presented graphically in Figure 3-13. Note that the traffic flow on the A92 in Figure 3-13 represents the difference between northbound and southbound flow over the 13 hour (06:00-19:00) survey period. Whilst it is not possible to arrive at definitive conclusions in relation to vehicle route choice from turning count data alone, it has been possible to understand some potential routing behaviour. The 13-hour turn counts show that the number of vehicles turning left from the southbound A90 onto the A937 is around 400 higher than the number that makes the corresponding right turn on to the northbound A90. If it was assumed that the 1,443 vehicles recorded making the left turn represents part of a two-way trip, up to around 400 vehicles may be rerouting to avoid making the right turn from the A937 to the A90.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 3-25 SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

This suggests that of traffic travelling south to north, approximately 400 vehicles over the 13-hour period are avoiding the right turn onto the northbound A90 from the A937. The 400 vehicles is equivalent to around 25-30% of the volume of vehicles making the corresponding left turn. This suggests that a relatively high proportion of vehicles that could be using the A937 to turn right onto the A90 may be avoiding it. The surveyed turning counts also indicate a higher right than left turn for the 13-hour period at the A90 junctions to the south of the A90/ A937 Laurencekirk south junction. This indicates that of the 400 vehicles avoiding the right turn at the A937/ A90 junction, around 250 of these drivers could be using the two local at grade junctions located to the south: • A90/ Landends/ Unnamed Road (at North Water Bridge); and • A90/ B974. In addition, the northbound flow on the A92 is around 80 vehicles higher than the southbound direction over the 13-hour survey period. This could account for another 80 of the 400 vehicles that may be avoiding the right turn. It is noted 134 vehicles are unaccounted for in the calculation contained in Table 3-14. It is important to note that this remaining difference in vehicle numbers could have been caused in several ways, including one or more of the following reasons: • Surveys cover 13-hour period, not the full day, and would therefore not capture all two-way trips; • Gap in survey screenline; • Vehicles not making a return trip during that particular day; • Vehicles making outward or return trips via routes not covered by the survey data; and • Margin of error in survey.

3-26 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

Figure 3-13 – Traffic Routing between North Angus and Aberdeenshire

Traffic data from the ATC survey to the north of Marykirk has been analysed in order to understand if the difference in flow on the northbound approach to the south junction occurs throughout the week. ATC data for each day of the week at the count location to the north of Marykirk is shown in Figure 3-14.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 3-27 SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

Figure 3-14 - A937 North of Marykirk – Southbound Daily Profiles (May 2014)

Figure 3-14 shows that a difference in northbound and southbound flows occurs on each of the surveyed weekdays. This indicates that traffic may be consistently rerouting to avoid the right turn at the A937/A90 junction between Mondays and Fridays. There is little difference in the northbound and southbound flows on Saturdays and Sundays, this suggests a relatively low level of traffic may be rerouting to avoid the right turn at the A937/A90 south junction at weekends. This may reflect the lower level of delay for traffic entering the A90 at the weekend. The lower level of delay being a result of the lower level of traffic flows at the weekend. Table 3-16 presents the traffic flow data numerically for the ATC data to the north of Marykirk. The data in Table 3-15 shows that the northbound flow on the A937 is between 220 and 380 vehicles lower than the southbound flow on weekdays between Monday and Friday. The 400 vehicles identified as potentially rerouting based on the turn count analysis is at the upper end of this spread of data. There are several reasons why this could be the case, this includes: • The turn count data represents a 13 hour period (06:00-19:00). The AADT data may suggest that some southbound return trips are made following 19:00. Thus the turn count data suggests a higher level of rerouting than is actually occurring; and • The turn count data represents a relatively high level of rerouting within the daily variation in traffic flows.

3-28 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

Table 3-15 – Traffic Flows on A937 (North of Marykirk) Flow in Vehicles AADT AADT Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday (All (Weekday) Days) A937 (North of Marykirk) 1590 1750 1740 1640 1650 1290 1070 1670 1530 Northbound AADT A937 (North of Marykirk) 1900 1970 2010 2020 1980 1380 1050 1980 1760 Southbound AADT Difference between Northbound -310 -220 -270 -380 -330 -90 20 -310 -230 and Southbound AADT A937 (North of Marykirk) 3490 3720 3750 3660 3630 2670 2120 3650 3290 Two - Way AADT

In summary, the review of traffic data indicates that on average, more than 300 vehicles may be rerouting each day between Monday and Friday in order to avoid the right turn from the A937 northbound to the A90 at the south junction. Historic flow data for the A937 has shown that between 2011 and 2014 the route has seen two way traffic flow increase by over 10% when considered across a 7-day week. Considering solely the weekdays, the increase between 2011 and 2014 is approximately 6%. Despite the opportunities to re-route, traffic flow on the A937 continues to grow. Development in north Angus is likely to be a contributory factor, which, given the future allocations, will continue to influence the growth in vehicle flow on the A937 and, therefore, traffic using the A90/A937 junction. ... Laurencekirk High Street The High Street in Laurencekirk carries mostly local traffic accessing residential areas, local shops and facilities, the high school and employment; as well as providing access to the A90. The vehicle flows for the High Street are typical in respect of daily fluctuations, with traffic peaking during the weekdays in the AM and PM, whilst on a Saturday flows peak around lunchtime. The location of the temporary traffic counter is shown in Appendix A, being on the High Street and close to its junction with Garvock Road. Figure 3-15 shows northbound traffic flows on the High Street throughout a full 7-day period in March 2014. The northbound flows exhibit a peak both in the AM and PM during weekdays, suggesting a high proportion of commuting traffic route northbound along the High Street.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 3-29 SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

Figure 3-15 – Laurencekirk High Street – Northbound Daily Profile (March 2014)

The flows northbound on the High Street peak at around 200 vehicles in the AM weekday peak. Figure 3-16 shows the southbound flow.

Figure 3-16 – Laurencekirk High Street – Southbound Daily Profile (March 2014)

The flow southbound does not appear to peak during the weekday AM, however peaks in the weekday PM peak at around 250 vehicles between 17:00 and 18:00. The flow on a Saturday travelling southbound is very similar to that northbound. Figure 3-17 shows the average weekday and 7-day two way flow on the High Street during the last week in March 2014.

3-30 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

Figure 3-17 - Laurencekirk High Street – Two-Way Average Hourly Profile (May 2014)

The High Street average two-way flow peaks at over 350 vehicles as shown within Figure 3-15 above. Table 3-16 shows the 12hr and 24hr average flow on the High Street, which highlights the volume of traffic utilising the High Street. Table 3-16 - Laurencekirk High Street - Temporary ATC Flow Data Weekday (Mon-Fri) Neutral W/D (Tues-Thurs) Weekend (Sat – Sun)

12hr 24hr 12hr 24hr 12hr 24hr Northbound 1,600 1,991 1,596 1,991 1,304 1,548 Southbound 1,655 1,991 1,662 2,001 1,254 1,500 Two Way 3,255 3,982 3,258 3,992 2,558 3,047

The High Street carries slightly less than 4,000 vehicles over a 24hr period during the weekdays, whilst total two way flow reduced to just over 3,000 vehicles over 24hrs at the weekend. Information relating to ‘through’ traffic is not available. .. Network Operation ... Queue Analysis In addition to calculating delays, the build-up of queues can be an effective method of understanding network efficiency, together with the collection of journey time information. Both queue length and journey time surveys were undertaken as part of the study and the information was analysed to understand the current operational efficiency of the network. Queue length surveys were undertaken at the junctions within the study area. At the A90 junctions near to Laurencekirk, the three longest recorded queues are indicated by Figure 3-18, Figure 3-19 and Figure 3-20. The longest queues were recorded at the south and north junctions. No significant queues were recorded at the centre junction. Figure 3-18 shows the queue length at the right turn filter on the A90 southbound carriageway at the Laurencekirk north junction, which peaks at 7 vehicles at around 16:40. Continued population increases in Laurencekirk are likely to see this movement, and hence queues, increase, which would impact on the effective operation of the deceleration lane.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 3-31 SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

Figure 3-18 – A90 Southbound Right Turn Queue into Laurencekirk – North Junction

Figure 3-19 shows the queue length on the A937 northbound approach to the A90/ A937 south junction, which peaks at 18 vehicles at around 06:30. The average queue during the AM period (06:00-09:00) is 9 vehicles, during the PM period (16:00-19:00) it is 5 vehicles. A queue was evident throughout the AM period of 06:00-09:00. This indicates that the A937 northbound approach to the A90 has little to no capacity to accommodate an increase in traffic demand during the AM peak period without further queueing.

Figure 3-19 – A937 Queue Length – Northbound Approach from Montrose/Marykirk

3-32 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

Figure 3-20 shows the queue length on the A937 southbound approach to the A90/A937 south junction which peaks at 17 vehicles at around 17:20. The average queue during the AM period (06:00-09:00) is 2 vehicles and during the PM period (16:00-19:00) it is 4 vehicles.

Figure 3-20 – A937 Queue Length – Southbound Approach from Laurencekirk

The survey data indicates that the maximum queue length at the south junction exceeds 15 vehicles in length at times of peak traffic demand. In the context of a rural setting, these queues particularly on the A937 northbound approach to the A90 in the AM peak and the southbound A937 from Laurencekirk in the PM peak may be considered excessive by local residents. Any continued population increases in Laurencekirk and Montrose are likely to see these queues increase. ... Delay Analysis Delay on the road network accessing Laurencekirk and the A90 was a key theme of the consultation stages of the study. As such, an assessment of delay at the two critical locations has been undertaken, namely the A90 Laurencekirk north and south junctions. Delay at the junctions was considered in two elements, first the approach road delay and then the delay experienced within the central reserve. Delay assessment involved recording the total delay time experienced on the approach and within the central reserve for every fifth vehicle crossing or turning right at each of the junction during a typical weekday. Delay data was collected as part of this study between March and May 2014. Consideration was given to those recorded vehicles making each movement within the following tables, with the mean average and maximum delay represented. It should be noted that delay was insignificant at the north junction during the periods surveyed and, as such, solely the south junction delay has been reported within the tables overleaf. The following delay summary tables also include the total vehicles recorded making each movement within the given time reported.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 3-33 SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

Table 3-17 displays the delay associated with the right turn movement from the A937 onto the A90. Table 3-17 - Delay Per Vehicle – A937 South to A90 North Turning Movement Time Periods Central Reserve Only Cumulative Delay at Veh/hr Side Arm Give Way and Central Reserve

Average Maximum Average Maximum Delay Delay Delay Delay (mm:ss) (mm:ss) (mm:ss) (mm:ss) A937 Southern Arm to A90 Eastern 06:00-07:00 00:15 02:05 01:19 02:46 158 Arm (Right Turn Movement onto the 07:00-08:00 00:30 01:23 02:37 05:07 111 A90) 08:00-09:00 00:09 00:44 01:34 03:06 111 06:00-09:00 00:18 02:05 01:47 05:07 380 16:00-17:00 00:03 00:17 01:18 03:59 47 17:00-18:00 00:03 00:12 01:06 02:37 75 18:00-19:00 00:02 00:12 00:24 00:43 44 16:00-19:00 00:03 00:17 00:59 03:59 166

The movement from the A937 northbound onto the A90 during the AM peak period exhibits a high level of delay, with vehicles taking on average 2.5 minutes between 07:00 and 08:00, whilst some vehicles experienced as much as a 5-minute delay at the junction. Delay whilst waiting in the central reserve tended to be longer during the AM peak period than during the PM peak period, with an average of 30 seconds between 07:00 and 08:00 but with some vehicles delayed for over 2 minutes between 06:00 and 07:00. The variation in delay is linked to the reduction in A90 northbound traffic in the PM. Table 3-18 displays the delay associated with the straight through movement from the A937 towards Laurencekirk. Table 3-18 - Delay Per Vehicle – A937 South To A937 North Turning Movement Time Central Reserve Only Cumulative Delay at Veh/hr Periods Side Arm Give Way and Central Reserve

Average Maximum Average Maximum Delay Delay Delay Delay (mm:ss) (mm:ss) (mm:ss) (mm:ss) A937 Southern Arm to A937 Northern 06:00- 00:18 01:25 01:51 02:47 16 Arm (Straight Through Movement to 07:00 Laurencekirk) 07:00- 00:19 00:47 03:02 03:48 38 08:00 08:00- 00:09 00:21 01:15 02:12 41 09:00 06:00- 00:15 01:25 01:59 03:48 95 09:00 16:00- 00:06 00:18 01:25 03:20 32 17:00 17:00- 00:05 00:11 00:39 03:39 32 18:00 18:00- 00:03 00:10 00:25 00:41 34 19:00 16:00- 00:04 00:18 00:51 03:39 98 19:00

3-34 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

In addition to the high level of delay experienced for vehicles turning right onto the A90, those vehicles crossing the A90 to reach Laurencekirk also encounter a high level of delay, with average delay exceeding 3 minutes between 07:00 and 08:00. Maximum delay is not as high, nor is the number of vehicles choosing to make this manoeuvre compared with those entering the A90 northbound. Delay associated with waiting in the central reserve was quite variable, with an average of just 15 seconds between 06:00 and 09:00 but a maximum delay of almost 1.5 minutes experienced by some vehicles. The variation in delay is linked to the reduction in A90 northbound traffic in the PM. Table 3-19 displays the delay associated with the right turn movement from Laurencekirk travelling southbound on the A90. Table 3-19 - Delay Per Vehicle – A937 North to A90 South Turning Movement Time Central Reserve Only Cumulative Delay at Veh/hr Periods Side Arm Give Way and Central Reserve

Average Maximum Average Maximum Delay Delay Delay Delay (mm:ss) (mm:ss) (mm:ss) (mm:ss) A937 Northern Arm to A90 Southern Arm 06:00-07:00 00:00 00:00 00:46 02:03 14 (Right Turn Movement onto A90) 07:00-08:00 00:02 00:10 00:44 01:40 28 08:00-09:00 00:12 00:59 00:25 01:17 32 06:00-09:00 00:06 00:59 00:37 02:03 71 16:00-17:00 00:10 00:28 01:01 03:32 54 17:00-18:00 00:35 01:42 01:12 02:13 55 18:00-19:00 00:03 00:12 00:10 00:19 33 16:00-19:00 00:16 01:42 00:49 03:32 142

The movement exiting Laurencekirk and turning right onto the A90 southbound does exhibit some delay, with average delay around 1 minute between 16:00 and 18:00. This coincides with the higher PM southbound flow on the A90. Whilst the average delay is not as significant on this movement as others at the junction, the maximum delay, particularly between 16:00 and 17:00 is over 3.5 minutes. Delay waiting in the central reserve was variable. Whilst the average delay was just 16 seconds between 16:00 and 19:00, some vehicles were delayed by up to 1.7 minutes. Table 3-20 displays the delay associated with the ahead movement from Laurencekirk travelling southbound on the A937. Table 3-20 - Delay Per Vehicle – A937 North to A937 South Turning Movement Time Periods Central Reserve Only Cumulative Delay at Side Veh/hr Arm Give Way and Central Reserve

Average Maximum Average Maximum Delay Delay Delay Delay (mm:ss) (mm:ss) (mm:ss) (mm:ss) A937 Northern Arm to A937 06:00-07:00 00:00 00:00 00:21 00:37 8 Southern Arm (Straight Through 07:00-08:00 00:05 00:20 00:15 00:28 22 Movement to Laurencekirk) 08:00-09:00 00:04 00:10 00:30 01:19 39 06:00-09:00 00:04 00:20 00:23 01:19 69 16:00-17:00 00:24 01:24 00:43 01:37 42 17:00-18:00 00:21 00:46 01:15 03:00 49 18:00-19:00 00:06 00:25 00:13 00:28 53

16:00-19:00 00:17 01:24 00:46 03:00 144

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 3-35 SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

The movement exiting Laurencekirk and heading south on the A937 towards Marykirk and onto Montrose does experience delay, with the period 16:00-17:00 being the worst with average delay in excess of 1 minute and maximum delay of 3 minutes. This is linked to with high southbound traffic flows on the A90 in the PM peak. Again, delay waiting in the central reserve was variable. Whilst the average delay was just 17 seconds between 16:00 and 19:00, some vehicles were delayed by almost 1.5 minutes. Whilst the total vehicle movements at the south junction are not significantly high, the survey assessment shows that vehicles experience consistent delay throughout the morning and evening weekday period, with some instances of delay exceeding 5 minutes. Traffic flow on the A90, during a typical AM peak hour, reaches in excess of 1,400 vehicles travelling northbound and in excess of 450 vehicles travelling southbound, with corresponding PM peak hour A90 flows in excess of 1,700 vehicles travelling southbound and 490 vehicles travelling northbound. The high flows on the A90, together with its continued growth, will exacerbate the delay problem highlighted above. In addition, examination of video footage at the A90 Laurencekirk south junction shows a narrow vehicle headway for vehicles travelling northbound during the peak periods, which is contributing to the delay experienced by right turning vehicles crossing and entering the northbound carriageway from the A937. At the south junction, it should be noted that A90 southbound traffic turning right into the A937 northern arm is very low, with less than 5 vehicles recorded in either the AM or PM peak periods. ... Driver Behaviour Issues associated with vehicles stacking within the central reserve were highlighted during the study consultation. Figure 3-21 shows an example of multiple vehicle stacking within the central reserve at the south junction. Four instances per day of multiple vehicle stacking were witnessed during a review of the survey footage collected, however this is still considered a road safety risk and one which has been reported on historically.

Figure 3-21 – A90 Laurencekirk South Junction – Vehicle stacking within central reserve

In addition, footage has demonstrated the potential conflicts occurring when long vehicles, such as buses and HGVs, are attempting to cross the A90 and they overhang the main A90 carriageway whilst waiting in the central reserve. Although this occurred only once in the video footage collected, and at the north junction, each occurrence carries a risk of accidents and potential serious injuries or fatalities. The physical island width at all three junctions is approximately 10m and whilst DMRB TD42/95 does say 10m is sufficient to accommodate general good vehicles, a minimum width of 14m is recommended for large articulated vehicles. Most notably, vehicles were observed entering the A90 from the central reserve directly into the offside lane on over 100 occasions daily during the video surveys undertaken. On the Wednesday of the survey week, this nearly tripled to almost 300 occasions. Consideration has been given to the legality of such a manoeuvre, to which there is no specific statute in law that prevents this. In some instances, should this manoeuvre cause another road user to brake sharply or alter their speed or direction or results in a collision, it could be construed as dangerous or careless driving. Notwithstanding the road safety issues, vehicles overhanging the central reserve or pulling out into the offside lane of the A90 can cause mainline traffic to have to slow down, thereby introducing delay and affecting the efficiency of the network.

3-36 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

... Journey Time Analysis Journey time surveys were undertaken within the core and the wider study areas to gain an understanding of journey time reliability. Journey time data was collected using the ‘moving observer’ method where a vehicle was driven along a defined route at the same speed as the traffic on that route. A total of nine journey time routes were undertaken during May 2014 extending to the following: • Route 1 - A937, High Street and A90; • Route 2 - A927, B974 and A90; • Route 3 – A90 Stonehaven to Laurencekirk; • Route 4 – A937 Marykirk to A92 Johnshaven; • Route 5 – A92 Johnshaven to Stonehaven; • Route 6 – A92 to Laurencekirk High Street; • Route 7 – Stonehaven to Laurencekirk via B966; • Route 8 – Laurencekirk to Brechin via Edzell on B966; and • Route 9 – Brechin to Montrose. Figure 3-22 highlights the routes surveyed.

N

Figure 3-22 – Journey Time Survey – Route Plan

The use of journey time data was helpful in providing a basis of understanding of the potential for route choice, and the use of alternative routes such as for trips routing via the A937 and A90, or via the A92 when heading northbound from Montrose. Surveyed journey times on these two main routes between Montrose and Stonehaven are shown in Table 3-21. The data demonstrates that the northbound journey times via the A937-A90 and A92 are similar. In ‘free-flow’ conditions (06:00-07:00), the survey data suggests that travelling via the A937-A90 route is around 2 to 3 minutes quicker than travelling via the A92. The addition of delays on the A937-A90 during the peak hour (07:00-08:00) results in northbound journey times via the two routes being within 1 minute

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 3-37 SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS of each other. This suggests that both routes would be attractive for journeys between Montrose and the north. Table 3-21 – Surveyed Journey Times between Montrose and Stonehaven via A937-A90 and A92 Difference between A937-90 and A937-A90 A92 Time Period A92 (seconds) Northbound Southbound Northbound Southbound Northbound Southbound 06:00-07:00 0:25:15 0:24:32 00:27:02 00:25:59 00:01:47 00:01:27 07:00-08:00 0:27:49 0:24:30 00:27:45 00:27:15 00:00:04 00:02:45 08:00-09:00 0:27:32 0:25:15 00:27:58 00:27:56 00:00:26 00:00:41 16:00-17:00 0:27:18 0:26:34 00:26:37 00:27:28 00:00:41 00:00:54 17:00-18:00 0:27:05 0:27:07 00:26:45 00:26:28 00:00:20 00:00:39 18:00-19:00 0:25:41 0:25:41 00:25:45 00:26:01 00:00:04 00:00:20

As noted above, journey times were collected on a number of routes out with the core study area. Whilst the core routes of A937, A92 and A90 were critical to establishing the impact of delay at the A90 Laurencekirk south junction, other routes outwith the core study area were surveyed to appreciate the journey times on alternative routes. During consultation, local residents named the following routes as alternatives to using the A90 at grade junctions near to Laurencekirk in addition to the A92 including: • B966 between Laurencekirk and Stonehaven; and • B966 between Laurencekirk and Brechin. Table 3-22 summarises the journey time along these alternative routes and an alternative route map is provided within Appendix A. Table 3-22 - Surveyed Journey Times on Alternative Routes between Brechin and Stonehaven B966 – Laurencekirk to Stonehaven B966 – Laurencekirk to Brechin Time Period Northbound Southbound Northbound Southbound 06:00-07:00 0:27:25 0:25:34 0:23:07 0:21:54 07:00-08:00 0:25:20 0:26:11 0:22:52 0:21:59 08:00-09:00 0:26:02 0:25:50 0:24:09 0:22:10 16:00-17:00 0:25:14 0:25:50 0:23:47 0:21:34 17:00-18:00 0:24:50 0:24:40 0:23:08 0:21:24 18:00-19:00 0:25:12 0:25:15 0:23:16 0:21:43

As can be seen within the above table, journey time on the routes were very reliable, due to the rural nature of the routes and free flowing conditions. These conditions, coupled with low vehicle flows (<500 veh/day) on these routes, suggests that these routes are not being utilised significantly as an alternative to the A90. .. Traffic Speeds ... A Speeds Traffic speed information was examined for the A90 to provide an insight into the typical vehicle speeds on the road. The speed data was collected via a permanent ATC (JTC00058) which is located over three miles south of Laurencekirk. Whilst this does not provide insight as to the speeds between the Laurencekirk junctions, it did give the context of the route for this study. Average vehicle speeds were analysed and are presented within Figure 3-23 showing the average vehicle speeds throughout a typical weekday.

3-38 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

Figure 3-23 - A90 Two Way Average Daily Speed Profile (2013)

The average speed on the A90 northbound ranges between 62 and 66mph. The A90 southbound speed is higher, fluctuating around 70mph, with average speed during the AM peak period exceeding the 70mph speed limit. Overall, there is little variation in the weekday traffic speeds on the A90, other than an increase in average speeds in the peak periods. Safety cameras are located on both the northbound and southbound carriageways on the approach to the A90 Laurencekirk south junction, to enforce the 50mph speed limit at this point. Limitations in respect of the data which can be extracted from the permanent traffic counter at Laurencekirk require the use of a permanent speed recording site some way south of the camera. Data from the speed cameras positioned on the A90 at the 50mph section was used to inform this study and shows that typically less than 1% of total daily traffic exceeds the speed limit by 20%. NESCAMP arrange for vehicle speed surveys on the A90 for approximately 1 week of each year and have done since 2006. The data highlights that northbound average speed is higher than southbound, with southbound average speed ranging between 43mph and 47mph, over 3 years to the end of 2013. Northbound average speed has ranged from 47mph to 53mph over 3 years to the end of 2013. During 2013, 3% of vehicles exceeded the 50mph speed limit northbound and 15% exceeded the speed limit southbound. Examination of the data back to 2006 shows that the proportion travelling in excess of the 50mph speed limit was far greater, however data shows a trend of increasing adherence to the 50mph limit since its introduction. ... A to Montrose As part of the data collection exercise for the study, a temporary ATC was situated on the A937 north of Marykirk during March 2014. The speed data was analysed to determine the typical vehicle speeds on the A937. Figure 3-24 shows mean average and 85 percentile (%ile) northbound vehicle speeds on the A937.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 3-39 SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

Figure 3-24 - A937 North of Marykirk – Northbound Vehicle Speeds (2014)

The average vehicle speed on the A937 rests below the 60mph speed limit, with the 85%ile speeds exceeding the 60mph limit throughout the week surveyed. Figure 3-25 shows average and 85%ile southbound vehicle speeds on the A937.

Figure 3-25 - A937 North Of Marykirk – Southbound Vehicle Speeds (2014)

Southbound on the A937 shows a similar picture to that of northbound traffic, in that the average speed rests below the 60mph speed limit, whereas the 85%ile exceeds 60mph. The number of vehicles exceeding the 60mph limit is relatively high at just under 25% of vehicles travelling northbound and approximately 30% of vehicles travelling southbound. The interrelationship between vehicle flow and speed was

3-40 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS considered and suggested that as flow increases the instances of speeding also increases, but not in direct proportion. ... Laurencekirk High Street As part of the data collection exercise for the study, a temporary ATC was situated on Laurencekirk High Street during March 2014, which collected flow, composition and speed data. The speed data was analysed to determine the typical vehicle speeds on the High Street. Figure 3-26 shows average and 85%ile speed northbound on the High Street.

Figure 3-26 - Laurencekirk High Street – Northbound Vehicle Speeds (2014)

For northbound traffic, the average speed on the High Street was at or around 20mph for the week surveyed. The 85%ile speed, whilst remaining below the 30mph speed limit, increased by around 5mph on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, indicating that more vehicles tend to drive closer to 30mph on these three days than the other four days. Figure 3-27 shows average and 85%ile speed southbound on the High Street.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 3-41 SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

Figure 3-27 - Laurencekirk High Street – Southbound Vehicle Speeds (2014)

For southbound traffic, the average speeds are at or near 20mph at the point of speed measurement. The average speed does appear to be marginally higher at weekends, although by less than 5mph. The 85%ile speed remains higher at the weekends for vehicles travelling southbound, but instead of a Friday exhibiting higher speeds, it is the Monday. The nature of the High Street is such that parking is permitted on both sides of the carriageway, which can reduce the speed of through movements, due to vehicles having to slow and often stop when passing at certain points along its length. Speeds during peak periods on the High Street are, on average, low at the point of measurement, with a mean of approximately 20mph and the 85%ile below 30mph in both directions suggesting the High Street does not suffer any particular problem with speeding traffic. .. Vehicle Composition A number of manual classified counts (MCC’s) were undertaken within the study area to gather sufficient data to firstly inform the pre-appraisal stage of the study, and subsequently support the development of traffic modelling. The classified counts, whilst providing details of the turning movements at key junctions, provide a classification of vehicles on the key routes in the study area. ... A Adjacent to Laurencekirk The A90 carries over 20,000 vehicles per day as it passes Laurencekirk. Figure 3-28 and Figure 3-29 displays the proportion of each vehicle type using the route.

3-42 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

Figure 3-28 - A90 – Vehicle Composition

The vehicle proportions for the A90 were calculated based on manual classified counts undertaken during a weekday in March 2014. As anticipated, cars make up the highest proportion of vehicles on the route, accounting for some 71.7%, followed by 17.3% light goods vehicles. Buses on the A90, which includes both service coaches, private hire coaches and local service buses, constitute a very low proportion of the traffic flow, being only 0.6%. ... A to Montrose The A937 carries around 2,700 vehicles per day, to which Figure 3-29 shows the proportion of each vehicle type.

Figure 3-29 - A937 North Of Marykirk – Vehicle Composition

The vehicle proportions for the A937 were calculated based on manual classified counts undertaken during a weekday in March 2014. As anticipated, cars make up the highest proportion of vehicles on the route accounting for some 81.9%, followed by 13.9% light goods vehicles. ... Laurencekirk High Street Laurencekirk High Street carries around 3,800 vehicles per day, to which Figure 3-30 shows the proportion of each vehicle type.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 3-43 SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

Figure 3-30 - Laurencekirk High Street – Vehicle Composition

The vehicle proportions for Laurencekirk High Street were calculated based on manual classified counts undertaken during a weekday in March 2014. As anticipated, cars make up the highest proportion of vehicles on the route accounting for some 83%, followed by 12.7% light goods vehicles. .. Laurencekirk Parking Study During the study, stakeholders highlighted the usefulness of parking on Laurencekirk High Street in performing a traffic calming role. Stakeholders also highlighted the influence that parking has on causing delay along the High Street. In this regard, further understanding was required on the characteristics of the High Street and off street parking during a typical day. A parking beat survey was undertaken on Wednesday 26 March 2014 to collect data on the availability of parking, occupancy and duration of vehicles parked. The following locations were included within the survey, with Figure 3-31 showing locations of the off-street parking: • Laurencekirk High Street (between the south western end of end of Laurencekirk and Station Road); • Charter Lane (High Street); • Masonic Hall (High Street); • High Street (North); • Railway Station; and • Robson Car Park.

3-44 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

Figure 3-31 – Car Park Locations Surveyed Parking beats were undertaken at 15-minute intervals noting the vehicles parked between the hours of 07:00 and 19:00. On the High Street, the road classification was categorised as follows: • Unclassified parking; • Parking at a dropped kerb; • Parking at a bus stop; • Parking on double yellow lines; and • Parking on white I bars. Parking on Laurencekirk High Street is not formalised, however there are restrictions in place at specific locations, such as double yellow line markings. Figure 3-32 provides a summary of parking occupancy at each recorded classification point. It should be noted the overall capacity of on-street parking on Laurencekirk High Street is estimated to be 240 vehicles.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 3-45 SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

Figure 3-32 - Laurencekirk High Street – Parking Occupancy Summary

On those areas of unclassified parking, the most common duration of stay was less than an hour, suggesting that short stay parking is common, with local services likely to be utilised. There was also a proportion of long stay parking on unclassified areas, to which 12.3% of the vehicles noted were parked in excess of 5 hours. Instances of illegal parking are also occurring along the High Street with a total of 73 vehicles noted to be parked on double yellow lines during the survey. Notably, approximately 80% of those vehicles illegally parked were for less than 1 hour. Throughout the 13-hour survey period, a total of 565 vehicles were noted as parked along the High Street, with some 79.1% being positioned on unclassified areas. 12.9% of vehicles were parked on double yellow lines, whilst the remaining vehicles were parked on either I-Bars, at dropped kerbs, in disabled bays or at bus stops. Some locations of potential parking along the High Street appeared not to be used or had low use. Whilst this varied along the High Street, lower use tended to occur towards the south end. Higher use of parking and more frequent turnover tended to occur at or near facilities, such as shops, mostly located at the north end of the High Street. Quite high turnover was noted in the vicinity of Mearns Community Centre, which is further south from the majority of the shops. A total of 5 off-street car parks were included in the surveys to which Table 3-23 highlights the noted characteristics of each car park. Table 3-23 – Summary Capacity – Laurencekirk Off-Street Car Parks Charter Lane Masonic Hall High Street Railway Station Robson car park Total General Bays 12 10 18 67 14 121 Disabled Bays 0 0 2 5 1 8 Parent & Child 0 0 1 2 0 3 Total 12 10 21 74 15 132

3-46 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

Figure 3-33 provides a graphical summary of the off-street parking occupancy against capacity which shows that across all off-street car parks, there is sufficient capacity to meet demand.

Figure 3-33 – Off-Street Parking Occupancy

Figure 3-34 shows the occupancy of the Charter Lane car park throughout the survey period. The car park has space for 12 vehicles.

Figure 3-34 - Charter Lane – Parking Occupancy

The Charter Lane car park did reach capacity for a short time at around 11:00, having built up gradually from around 07:00. The majority of vehicles parked at this location stayed in excess of 1 hour, with average occupancy of approximately 6 hours.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 3-47 SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

Figure 3-35 shows the occupancy of the Masonic Hall car park throughout the survey period. The car park has space for 10 vehicles.

Figure 3-35 - Masonic Hall – Parking Occupancy

The Masonic Hall car park exceeded its capacity at around lunch time on the survey day, with vehicles parking outwith the space allocated for parking. The average duration of stay was just less than 4 hours, with a range of parking duration witnessed from just over an hour to over 8 hours. Figure 3-36 shows the occupancy of the High Street (North) car park throughout the survey period. The car park has space for 21 vehicles.

Figure 3-36 - High Street (North) – Parking Occupancy

3-48 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

The High Street (north) car park, during the survey period had an average duration of stay of approximately 5 ½ hours. The duration range of vehicles was from a minimum of 15 minutes through to a maximum of over 13 hours. At no time was the capacity of the car park exceeded, although it became almost full during late morning. Figure 3-37 shows the occupancy of the Rail Station car park throughout the survey period. The car park has space for 74 vehicles.

Figure 3-37 - Railway Station – Parking Occupancy

The railway station car park appears to be mostly used by commuters, with 55% of vehicles parked for more than 7 hours. Over 30% of vehicles using the station did not exceed a 1 hour duration, suggesting that the car park is also used for drop-offs and pick-ups.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 3-49 SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

Figure 3-38 shows the occupancy of the Robson Street car park throughout the survey period. The car park has space for 15 vehicles.

Figure 3-38 - Robson Street – Parking Occupancy

The Robson Street car park did not reach full capacity during the day surveyed, however during mid- morning the occupancy peaked at 14 vehicles. The duration of stay ranged from a short stay of up to 15 minutes to vehicles being present for the entire 13-hour parking beat survey. The average duration of stay was just over 4 hours. Table 3-24 places in context the duration of stay at each of the car parks. Table 3-24 – Laurencekirk Car Parks – Duration Greater Than 1 Hour Car Park No. Stays % < 1 hour % > 1 hour < 7 hours % > 7 hours 1 – Charter Lane (High Street) 23 35% 35% 30% 2 – Masonic Hall (High Street) 23 22% 65% 13% 3 – High Street (North) 53 57% 23% 21% 4 – Railway Station 82 33% 12% 55% 5 – Robson Car Park 30 50% 34% 17% Total 211 - - -

Short term stays, of less than an hour, are more likely to be shopping trips. The above data indicates that at all car parks there were a noticeable number of short term stays, but stays over one hour tended to be more common. However, at car park 2 (Masonic Hall), only a small minority of vehicles, about 22%, were short term stays. Car park 3 was the only car park where short term stays were the majority. Stays of over 7 hours indicate a greater likelihood that the car park is being used by commuters. It is notable that the majority of stays at the railway station are over 7 hours, suggesting that commuters are using this facility. At all other car parks, stays lasting over 7 hours were in the minority.

3-50 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS . Safety and Accidents Following two fatal accidents in 2001 at the A90 Laurencekirk south junction, the local community has been actively seeking grade separation at the junction. In the years following these two fatal accidents, a number of measures have been undertaken to reduce the level of accidents and improve safety, which most notably have included the introduction of the 50mph speed limit in 2005 on the A90 as it passes the southern junction. This speed restriction remains in place and there are currently no plans to remove it. Further measures at the junctions have taken place including: • Installation of vehicle activated signing on the A90 northbound and southbound approaches to the centre junction, warning of local road traffic on the B9120 waiting to cross; • Installation of ‘Cross with Care’ signs opposite both legs at the A90/B9120 junction; • Surface treatment measures on both A90 carriageways at the B9120 centre and A937 north junctions; • Relocation of the existing northbound advance direction sign for the A90/B9120 junction; • Upgrading of the existing pedestrian warning signs and installation of a new safety camera sign at the A90/B9120 centre junction; • Refreshing road markings and studs with high visibility alternatives at all junctions; and • Extension of the northbound merge at north junction. To accompany these measures, BEAR Scotland, the Trunk Road Operating Company for the A90 has undertaken road safety monitoring, producing a number of ‘before and after’ monitoring reports, to review the effectiveness of these measures. In terms of reducing the number of injury accidents, the measures have been deemed to be successful, with a reduced number of personal injury accidents subsequently occurring at the junctions. However, it should be noted that since the introduction of the 50mph speed limit at this section, there has been an increase in the number of non-injury accidents. The consultation outcomes of this current Access to Laurencekirk study have clearly defined safety as a perceived problem. The data provided below assesses the accident statistics over three years, between 2011 and 2013. Accident statistics from 2014 and 2015 were not available at the time of these analyses and are therefore not included in this report. The analysis considered accidents within a 50 metre radius of each junction, whilst accident rates were examined for both the A90 as it passes Laurencekirk and the A937 from the A90 south junction to Hillside. .. A/A North Junction No personal injury accidents have occurred at the A90 Laurencekirk north junction during the three years between 2011 and 2013. To fully understand the accidents at the north junction, non-injury accidents have been included and Figure 3-39 shows the total non-injury accident numbers between the years 2011 and 2013. Non-injury accidents presented within the tables within this section have been sourced from Aberdeenshire Council, and may or may not include each and every instance of a non-injury accident.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 3-51 SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

Figure 3-39 – A90 Laurencekirk North Junction Accidents

The accident results for the north junction appears to be one of relatively static accident occurrence, being few in number, with no personal injury accidents recorded between 2011 and 2013. Measures to increase the northbound merge and right turn storage were undertaken in 2011 and are likely to be having some influence on the accident numbers and severity. .. A/B Centre Junction A total of two personal injury accidents have occurred at the A90 Laurencekirk centre junction between 2011 and 2013. Both these accidents were classed as “serious” and resulted in a total of two casualties. Table 3-25 provides a summary of the accidents, together with key contributory factors as noted within the STATS 19 data. Table 3-25 – Centre Junction Accident Summary Ref Date No. of Casualties Accident Severity Veh Type Contributory Factor 1100432 26/01/2011 1 Serious Car Failed to look properly (D/R) 1304126 28/12/2013 1 Serious Car Poor turn or manoeuvre

The STATS 19 data suggests that failing to look properly was a contributory factor. Both accidents occurred when the vehicle was making the right turn manoeuvre exiting Laurencekirk to travel south on the A90, suggesting that the visibility splay southwards may place restriction on the availability of acceptable gaps. In addition, both accidents occurred during winter, in the months of December and January, when the road surface was wet or damp. To understand the full picture of accidents at the junction, non-injury accidents are included in Figure 3-40. Non-injury accident data has been provided by Aberdeenshire Council.

3-52 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

Figure 3-40 – A90 Laurencekirk Centre Junction Accidents

The centre junction, whilst having two serious accidents between 2011 and 2013, has also had a total of five non-injury accidents during this time. This accident history should be considered in relation to the centre junction’s main traffic turning movement (i.e. that which hosts the majority of traffic throughout a typical neutral weekday) which is the right turn southwards out of Laurencekirk, which comprised approximately 450 vehicles during the 13-hour 06:00 – 19:00 surveyed period. Right turn movements from the B9120 (East) to the northbound A90 are lower. By comparison with the south and north junctions, the centre junction is currently used by a relatively low number of vehicles, but has more injury and non-injury accidents. .. A/A South Junction At the A90 Laurencekirk south junction, no personal injury accidents have occurred between 2011 and 2013. To fully consider the accidents at the junction and the perception of poor safety as a result, non-injury accidents have also been examined. Figure 3-41 shows the total number of accidents at the A90 Laurencekirk south junction, with non-injury accidents also included.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 3-53 SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

Figure 3-41 - A90 Laurencekirk South Junction Accidents

Whilst Figure 3-41 above shows accident numbers for only the last 3 full years which does not allow for a full appreciation of historic accident trends, it highlights that only non-injury accidents have occurred at the south junction in the 3 year period from 2011 until 2013. .. Accident Summary A summary of the findings of the analysis of available accident data has been provided within Table 3-26. Table 3-26 – A90 Laurencekirk Junction Accident Summary Year Location Fatal Serious Slight Non-Injury Total 2011 North Junction - - - 1 1 Centre Junction - 1 - 3 4 South Junction - - - - 0 2012 North Junction - - - 2 2 Centre Junction - - - 1 1 South Junction - - - 2 2 2013 North Junction - - - - 0 Centre Junction - 1 - 1 2 South Junction - - - 1 1

.. A and A Accident Analysis As part of the analysis of accidents relevant to the study, accidents were examined in 100m sections along the A90 as it passes Laurencekirk and the A937 from the A90 to Hillside at the north of Montrose. This is consistent with the moving cursor programme methodology. The methodology sought to establish whether, within any 100m section, 3 or more personal injury accidents with commonality in causation occurred within the most recent full 3 year period of available data. Throughout the core study area on these routes, no single cluster of accidents was identified between the years 2011, 2012 and 2013.

3-54 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

Table 3-27 – A937 Accident Summary Year Location Fatal Serious Slight Total 2011 A90 junction to Hillside - 2 3 5 A90 junction to A92 junction - 4 4 8 2012 A90 junction to Hillside - 2 - 2 A90 junction to A92 junction - 2 - 2 2013 A90 junction to Hillside - 1 3 4 A90 junction to A92 junction - 1 4 5

It is accepted, however, that the A937 does have accidents occurring, as summarised in Table 3-27, as might be associated with a rural single carriageway of this nature containing two significant junctions (A90 and A92). The Road Safety Foundation’s European Road Assessment Programme (EuroRAP) has examined the serious and fatal accidents relative to the traffic flow on the route of the A937 and noted that in comparison to other A class roads, traffic flows on the A937 are relatively low. Nevertheless, the EuroRAP 2014 report notes the A937 is one of the “persistently higher risk” roads in the UK and assigns the A937 a risk rating being 3rd highest of all the UK routes examined. Based on analysis that demonstrates a lack of accident clusters, neither Angus nor Aberdeenshire Council has identified the requirement for Accident Investigation and Prevention (AIP) measures, and are not currently planning remedial actions. . Future Conditions .. Introduction The study area is identified within the Aberdeen City and Shire Strategic Development Plan as a strategic growth area and this has significant implications in terms of potential future localised growth. This is documented within the Aberdeenshire Local Development Plan, which has significant land allocations within the northern part of Laurencekirk. These allocations, together with those identified within Angus Local Development Plan, are documented below. .. Aberdeenshire Local Development Plan The current Aberdeenshire Local Development Plan (LDP) was published in 2012 and covers the period to 2023. Aberdeenshire Council is reviewing the LDP, with the aim being to have a revised adopted plan ready for use at the beginning of 2017. The proposed new Aberdeenshire LDP was published in March 2015. The overall objective of the current LDP, according to Aberdeenshire Council, is to make the area an attractive place to live, visit and do business in. The current LDP states that this will be achieved by delivering economic growth whilst addressing sustainable development and climate change. On this basis, the current LDP reflects national economic, spatial and transport policy. The aims for the current LDP are to: • Grow and diversify the economy; • Take on the challenges of sustainable development and climate change; • Make sure the area has enough development land to provide for people, homes and jobs to support services and facilities; • Protect and improve assets and resources; • Promote sustainable mixed communities with the highest standards of design; and • Make efficient use of the transport network – proposals promote development that helps us develop a long-term framework for the transport and communications network while recognising the role that cars have in rural areas.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 3-55 SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

The current LDP reinforces the Strategic Development Plan (SDP) by identifying three types of area for planning purposes. Within this framework, Laurencekirk is included within the strategic growth area. This area is to be the focus for growth and new development. It encompasses three strategic growth corridors, which mirror the strategic transport network, between Aberdeen and Huntly (A96), Aberdeen and (A90 north), and Aberdeen and Laurencekirk (A90 south). These areas are designated to accommodate over 75% of all growth within the Structure Plan area. With regard to the future development of Laurencekirk, the following Key Planning Objectives have been set: • Meet the demand for new housing in the strategic growth area; • Sustain existing services; • Provide opportunity for employment; and • Relieve town centre congestion through the provision of a distributor road. An allocation of 1,105 new residential units across two sites by 2023, has been made for Laurencekirk. 11 Ha of land is designated for employment by 2023, with a strategic reserve of 16 hectares to 2030. A new primary school, secondary school (recently opened), open space requirements and an extended health centre are to be delivered in conjunction with the residential units. The level of growth planned in Laurencekirk reflects its Strategic Area planning status within the current LDP. The mixed nature of development proposed for Laurencekirk reflects the aim to deliver a service centre for the local area. The principal development allocations for residential dwellings has been focused to the north of the town. The current LDP also details land allocations for a number of settlements in the wider area that could result in travel demands to and from Laurencekirk. This includes access to services, education, employment and access to the rail station. Maps showing the location of development allocations in Laurencekirk and the wider area are contained in Appendix A. A summary is set out in Table 3-28. Table 3-28 – Local Development Plan Land Allocations To 2023 Settlement Residential Other Laurencekirk 1,105 houses 11 hectares employment, primary school, secondary school, extension to existing health centre Edzell Woods 300 houses LDP states ‘Mixed Use’ St Cyrus 140 houses Local retail and employment Fettercairn 30 houses - Luthermuir 75 houses Local retail and employment Marykirk 49 houses Local retail and employment

Aberdeenshire Council published a Main Issues Report (MIR) in October 2013, in preparation for an updated LDP that is due to be adopted for use at the beginning of 2017. The proposed LDP was published in March 2015. The new LDP aims to be consistent with the Aberdeen City and Shire SDP in setting out a spatial plan for the area. The objectives from the existing LDP have been carried forward to the renewed version of the plan. Overall, there are no additional sites in the Kincardine and Mearns area recommended for inclusion within the updated LDP. The Planning Objectives for Laurencekirk have been retained from the preceding LDP, as have the existing land allocations. The Aberdeenshire Council MIR stated that there is a sufficient supply of land in Laurencekirk already and, therefore, no new sites have currently been allocated in Laurencekirk. Sites have been allocated for 109

3-56 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS residential units, and are designated as a preference by Council planning officers, if additional housing land is required. The proposed LDP notes that development has been concentrated in Laurencekirk to provide a critical mass to derive developer funding for infrastructure improvements. This will reinforce the role of Laurencekirk as the main service centre in this part of Aberdeenshire and help to deliver required infrastructure. This includes a proposal for a new distributor road on the western side of Laurencekirk. This new link road would provide an alternative route to the High Street in the town centre and also provide access to new development. The Aberdeenshire Council MIR for the LDP notes that improving access to the A90 is also an important issue to be addressed with regard to Laurencekirk. In terms of the current status of development in Laurencekirk, a number of sites are considered to be at the planning stage including: • 21 residential units – full planning permission granted; • 210 residential units – approved in 2010, but no further progression (site EH1); and • 77 residential units – application granted, subject to legal and local roads agreements; and a planning condition requiring a grade separated south junction to be in place prior to the start of construction. Land allocations for Laurencekirk, as set out in the proposed LDP, would generate additional levels of vehicular traffic that would impact on the A90 and the three Laurencekirk junctions. In addition, the proposed land allocations for the surrounding settlements would also result in some additional traffic using the A90 and the junctions. This increased traffic is likely to exacerbate existing problems and would have some detrimental impact on the effective operation of the three junctions and the A90. To accommodate the proposed LDP development allocations, especially within Laurencekirk, it is envisaged some improvement to access to and from the A90 would be required. However, Aberdeenshire Council is estimating a build out rate of approximately 20 – 25 units per year in Laurencekirk for site EH1, which will have limited impact initially, but its cumulative impact will affect the A90 junctions. .. Aberdeen Local Development Plan – Report of Examination Prior to its publication, the Aberdeen LDP was subject to examination by a Scottish Government appointed reporter. The Local Development Plan Examination Report was published on 9 March 2012 and provided the reporter’s recommendations for inclusion within the finalised LDP. The allocation of sites at Laurencekirk was considered, in the context of meeting the needs of the Structure Plan aspirations. The recommendations supported site M1, highlighting it is more than capable of accommodating the significant mixed use development. The report noted the site is directly accessible from the A90, is adjacent to a number of key amenities, including Mearns Community Campus and the rail station. The site has no constraints to development. The Report also highlights that to facilitate the development of site M1, a section of distributor road is required to the west of Laurencekirk in order to relieve traffic in the High Street and Blackiemuir Avenue. The Report states that site M1 should not proceed without the Council bringing forward a strategy of junction improvements, including grade separation of the A90 trunk road junctions to the north and south of the town. The Report states that ‘the respondent questions the deliverability of the allocation, transportation infrastructure will require to be provided’. Of most relevance to the Access to Laurencekirk study is the reporter’s commentary which states ‘there are substantial infrastructure improvements required in Laurencekirk for any significant development to occur at all, including a distributor road involving a new link over the railway, upgrade of the A90 junctions, contribution to a replacement Academy and water infrastructure’.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 3-57 SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

The Report also states that whilst a distributor road will be required to serve site M1, the development of site M1 will not facilitate the distributor road around the west of the settlement, but will provide the first section between the A90 and Fordoun Road. With regard to deliverability, the Report states that Laurencekirk requires substantial infrastructure provision for development to occur, whilst the A90 junctions are specifically highlighted as a significant constraint to any major expansion of the town. .. Angus Local Development Plan The Angus LDP is in the process of development. A Proposed LDP was published on 27 February 2015 and was subject to a 9-week representation period, prior to adoption. The LDP, once approved, will replace the current Angus Local Plan Review adopted in 2009. The Angus MIR, a consultation document for the preparation of the new LDP has been produced and was published in November 2012. The provision of a generous supply of housing land across Angus has been highlighted as an issue within the Angus MIR. The identification of land within the emerging LDP for new housing development will provide certainty to local communities, developers and infrastructure providers on where new homes could and should be built during the ten-year period from 2014 to 2024. The Angus MIR suggests that as the emerging Angus LDP is to be a relatively far-sighted document, the Council believes that it would be appropriate to phase the release of housing land over two five-year periods, being: • 2014/15-2018/19; and • 2019/20-2023/24. The demand for housing land varies across Angus because of the influence of proximity to both Dundee and Aberdeen. Some consideration has been given to those forthcoming allocations that are of relevance to the Laurencekirk Study, which is provided as a summary within Table 3-29. Table 3-29 – Angus Proposed LDP Land Allocations to 2023 (Angus MIR 2014) Settlement Residential Brechin – Western side 400 houses Montrose – Sunnyside hospital estate and Brechin Road 600 houses North Angus area estimate for completion 2012 /13 & 2013/14 = 135. Approximate number of homes 825 houses required 2014-2024

The housing totals for Angus MIR to 2024 suggest new development in north Angus is concentrated within the main settlements of Montrose and Brechin. There are also employment allocations proposed for Montrose and Brechin. In accordance with TAYplan, and because of the general success of the current development strategy, the LDP will focus on directing the majority of new development to the principal settlements of Angus. The Angus MIR further states that this will mean that the seven main towns will continue to be preferred locations for the majority of new housing and employment-related development, together with the majority of associated new infrastructure. The Angus MIR suggests that the existing housing land allocation at Brechin Road (Site M1, Angus Local Plan Review (ALPR)), has come forward slower than anticipated, whilst no development has occurred to date on the employment land allocation at Montrose Airfield (Site M5 ALPR) or the opportunity site at Sunnyside Hospital (Site M4, ALPR). The Angus LDP provides an opportunity to review whether these sites should continue to be promoted for the development of new homes, business premises and (in the case of Sunnyside Hospital) other appropriate uses.

3-58 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

The Angus MIR includes a number of issues affecting the future development of Montrose, Ferryden and Hillside which extend to: • The need to provide long-term development opportunities for economic growth, including any incoming businesses associated with offshore renewable energy development; • The need to establish a sustainable future for the existing building and grounds of Sunnyside Hospital; and • The need to retain and if possible increase the range of shops and services available in the town centre, whilst protecting and enhancing the historic environment. The proposed LDP land allocations, both in terms of housing and employment, for North Angus suggest some additional 825 houses could be developed, focused on Brechin and Montrose. It is envisaged these developments would generate additional traffic, some of which would use the A90, increasing existing traffic levels on the trunk road. In particular, it is likely that development in and around Montrose would generate additional traffic that would seek to use the A90/A937 south junction, thereby exacerbating existing problems that are occurring at the junction.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 3-59

SECTION 4 Understanding the Problems, Issues, Opportunities and Constraints

. Introduction Information gathering was undertaken and driven principally from the consultation outcomes and findings of previous studies. This information gathering and analysis exercise sought to derive the key themes around the problems and issues in the study area and to seek out and identify the key problems. This chapter provides a summary of what the key problems and issues are within the study area, together with the opportunities and the evidence basis gathered for each. There was extensive analysis and assessment of information to substantiate the consultation outcomes and local views. This was to ensure, that where possible, existing problems were confirmed and evidenced, issues were taken into consideration and constraints highlighted. It should be noted that the subsequent analysis of problems and opportunities, and the objective setting stage, was an iterative process. . Consultation As mentioned in Chapter 2, stakeholder consultation and engagement was undertaken to help inform the study. Consultation activity was carried out in two stages: • At pre-appraisal stage, to capture and confirm the views of people and organisations about current problems, potential opportunities, issues and constraints; and • At detailed appraisal stage, to explain the work that had been carried out and the resulting packages of interventions; and to provide the opportunity for comment. A range of stakeholders were consulted during the pre-appraisal stage. These included: • Angus Council officers; • Representatives from Laurencekirk Development Trust and the Villages in Control Action Group; • Representatives from Mearns Area Partnership; • Representatives from Laurencekirk Business Club; • SBC Consultants Ltd; • Local representative organisations, in the form of a workshop; • The client steering group and other public sector organisations, in the form of a workshop; • A public open day / ‘drop in session’; and • Representatives from BP (British Petroleum). A promotional leaflet was developed to ensure local awareness of the study, together with a dedicated email-box to gather comments and feedback. Throughout the consultation process, evidence was documented, including minutes of meetings, records of telephone conversations and notes from workshop sessions. Details of the pre-appraisal consultation events and key themes emerging are reported in Appendix B. Workshops with stakeholders were undertaken to provide an introduction to the background of the study and to help identify the problems, issues, constraints and opportunities within the study area. The workshops also assisted in confirming those problems and issues identified previously as part of the early baseline assessment. The workshops were also used to help inform the development of study objectives and gauge opinion and acceptability of existing options.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 4-1 SECTION UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEMS, ISSUES, OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS

Two workshops were held at The Crown Inn, located on Laurencekirk High Street, on the following dates: • Workshop 1 – Saturday 22 February 2014; and • Workshop 2 – Thursday 27 February 2014. In addition to the two workshops held in February 2014, an open-day/drop in session was undertaken on 6 March 2014, which was open to anyone with an interest in the study. The open day/drop in session held at the Laurencekirk Masonic Hall was attended by over 60 people throughout the day, and views and opinions were captured. The initial consultation stage for the study gathered the views of all those with an interest in access to Laurencekirk. A large number of comments were received, many being similar in nature, and, to best inform the study, these were grouped into five emerging key themes of: • Safety; • Driver behaviour; • Efficiency of the network and economic development; • Sustainable travel; and • Laurencekirk High Street. Together with the review of previous studies and reports, and with discussions with the client steering group, the consultation feedback helped identify existing and future problems and opportunities. These are discussed in the following sections. . Problems and Opportunities The following summarises each problem and/or opportunity, including reference to the evidence case and the significance of the problem. .. Safety

Problem - Personal-Injury and Non-Injury accidents at centre junction Description A review of accident data shows that only non-injury accidents have occurred at the north and south junctions between 2011 and 2013. Three accidents were reported at the centre junction in 2011, reducing to one per annum in 2012 and 2013. However, the 2013 accident and one of those in 2011 was a personal injury accident of serious severity. Consultation feedback suggests that not all non-injury accidents are being recorded. Figure 3-40 highlights the accident numbers and severity at the centre junction. The injury accidents are associated with the right turn movement out of Laurencekirk. Evidence Source Quantitative - Accident statistics from STATS19 database and non-injury data from Aberdeenshire Council. Significance Personal injury accident numbers have reduced at the south junction, since a number of accident investigation and prevention measures have been implemented. Injury accidents continue to occur at the centre junction, which in future may increase if more side road traffic were to use the junction or if growth in A90 traffic causes further delay and more risky driver behaviour.

4-2 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEMS, ISSUES, OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS

Problem - Large vehicles overhang the central reserve, causing obstruction to trunk road through movements Description At the A90 Laurencekirk junctions, there is a difficulty for larger vehicles to negotiate crossing movements due to the width of the central reserve refuges. The problem occurs when large vehicles emerging from a side road cannot cross both carriageways in a single manoeuvre, and instead wait in the central reserve. This causes part of the waiting vehicle to extend onto the offside lane of the A90. The frequency at which vehicles overhang the central reserve is sporadic. Video footage collected at the north and south junctions as part of this study in March and May 2014 has shown that buses typically wait until a sufficient gap exists such that the vehicle can enter or cross both carriageways of the A90 in a single movement. This behaviour was observed for buses including those travelling to and from the High School in Laurencekirk. This issue was raised during consultation and the study was also made aware of several occurrences of the problem, including service buses, which were noted in local press and on social media. However, during the week-long survey, video footage showed this occurred on less than five occasions per day and did not include any buses. The central island width at all three junctions is 10m and the current DMRB standard (TD42/95) recommends a 14m width to accommodate large articulated vehicles. Long vehicles are using all three junctions. Evidence Source Quantitative - Video Survey Data. Significance The frequency of occurrence at present is low, however as vehicle flow on both the A90 and more importantly on adjoining side roads, is increasing year on year, the problem will continue. An overhanging vehicle can cause mainline traffic to slow down, affecting network efficiency, and also presents a serious accident risk. .. Driver Behaviour

Problem - Speeding on the A90 through 50mph section Description Whilst the proportion of vehicles exceeding the speed limit has reduced since the 50mph limit was introduced, instances of exceedance remains a problem on the A90, as data suggests the number of vehicles exceeding the speed limit is now relatively constant. Speed data obtained from the NESCAMP has shown that around less than 1% of total daily vehicles travelling on the A90 at the south junction exceed the speed limit by 20% or more, but the instances of speeding in excess of 20% of the speed limit rises to approximately 10% of AM and PM peak traffic levels. Evidence Quantitative - Automatic traffic Counter data and speeding data for A90 at this section. Significance The A90 50mph section slows vehicles, however instances of the speed limit being exceeded influence the perception of poor safety for drivers crossing and merging at the south junction.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 4-3 SECTION UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEMS, ISSUES, OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS

Problem - Poor Driver Behaviour Description Poor driver behaviour has been evidenced as a problem, particularly at the north and south junctions. Instances of poor driver behaviour have been quantified using seven days of video footage obtained as part of the surveys for the study. Section 3.5.2.3 presents the findings of the analysis into poor driver behaviour at the junctions. The survey found that in excess of 100 vehicles per day merge directly into the offside lane from the central reserve, however on the Wednesday of the survey week, the occurrence of this nearly tripled. Multiple vehicle parallel stacking and instances of large vehicles overhanging the carriageway occurred on less than five occasions daily. Evidence Source Quantitative - Video evidence Significance Vehicles merging directly into the offside lane from the central reserve. It is anticipated that this will continue and occurrences increase as A90 mainline and side road flows grow.

Perceived Problem – Platooning due to 50mph speed limit section on the A90 Description The 50mph speed limit on the section of the A90, which covers the south junction, was introduced in 2005 as a low-cost short-term measure to address road safety concerns relating to accidents at that location. It introduced a 50mph speed limit on a 1.35km section of dual carriageway that has a 70mph speed limit on either side. Consultation feedback showed that some in the local community considered the reduced speed limit has had the effect of more “platooning” of A90 mainline traffic. This has resulted in in fewer gaps to allow side road crossing and merging movements, thereby generating delay and leading to driver frustration. Evidence Qualitative - Anecdotally an issue raised by some respondents during consultation. The study has been unable to verify this through quantitative data and its analysis. Significance If platooning were leading to side-road delay, any driver frustration associated with these delays may be exacerbated as a result of any increase in traffic flows.

.. Efficiency of the Network and Economic Development

Problem - Stop line delays within the central reserve on the A90 and A937 approach at the south junction Description The south junction is the busiest of the three junctions, with higher flows of side arm traffic, resulting in longer delays compared to the other junctions. Evidence Source Quantitative – Queue, delay and journey time surveys. Significance Survey evidence shows that there are major delays at the south junction.

4-4 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEMS, ISSUES, OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS

Problem - Delay experienced by vehicles using south junction to travel north from the A937 Description Delay to vehicles routing via the south junction has been evidenced by delay analysis surveys, undertaken to support the study. The data is summarised within Tables 3-17 and 3-18 for each movement at the junction and establishes that delay is most significant for movements turning right from the A937 wishing to travel north on the A90, with average delay in excess of 2.5 minutes during the AM peak period and maximum delay exceeding 5 minutes. Delay is experienced on all crossing movements both from the A937 south and north side approaches. Evidence Source Quantitative - Delay Analysis Survey Significance Continued growth in north Angus will add to the problem. As traffic volume also increases on the A90, the level and frequency of delay will increase, leading to likely increases in driver frustration and risk taking. There may also be a higher likelihood of vehicle re-routing away from this junction.

Problem – Development constrained due to limitations of current infrastructure Description The limitations of the existing at-grade junctions in Laurencekirk are a problem which will potentially restrict future planned development in south Aberdeenshire and north Angus. This is particularly the case at the south junction. Survey data indicates that a queue on the A937 northbound approach to the south junction occurs throughout the AM period of 06:00-09:00. This indicates that the A937 northbound approach to the A90 has little to no capacity to accommodate an increase in traffic demand during the AM peak period without further queueing. During the PM peak, a queue of up to 15 vehicles was noted on the A937 southbound approach to the south junction. This queue was recorded for 15 to 20 minutes shortly after 17:00. The queues on the side arms occur as the heavy flow of traffic on the A90 reduces the available gaps for traffic to pull onto the main carriageway. Survey data indicates that there is a queue in the north junction central reserve for right turning traffic from the A90 southbound into Laurencekirk. Section 3.7.2 outlines the future development allocations for the Kincardine and Mearns area of Aberdeenshire, including significant allocations at Laurencekirk, whilst the Aberdeenshire Strategic Development Plan identifies Laurencekirk as a Strategic growth area. Current allocations within the adopted LDP for Aberdeenshire propose a critical mass in the north of Laurencekirk. This has been driven by the proximity of the rail station and school, together with Aberdeenshire Council’s aspiration to seek financial contribution towards a scheme of mitigation at the north junction. A planning application for 77 residential units at the south end of Laurencekirk has been granted subject to legal and local roads agreements; and includes a planning condition requiring a grade separated south junction to be in place prior to the start of construction. Evidence Source The Aberdeenshire LDP provides an evidence basis for this problem, together with the March 2010 Laurencekirk Expansion Report produced by JMP Consultants Ltd. Significance The limitations on future development within Laurencekirk are considerable, in that regardless of the location of development in the town, a material impact would occur for at least one of the existing A90 junctions. A step change in junction infrastructure from the existing situation would be needed to support current development aspirations. Given the scale of junction improvement that might be required, relative to

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 4-5 SECTION UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEMS, ISSUES, OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS development size and predicted build out rates, this could place a significant financial burden that may deter new developments from progressing.

Problem – Impact of A90 Trunk Road growth Description The A90 is displaying a high level of growth, which presents a problem for access to or crossing it in the Laurencekirk area. Historic traffic growth and trends are provided within section 3.5.1.2 which identifies 2 way 24hr AADT growth on the A90 at over 10% between 2009 and 2013, with steep increases seen in very recent years. Evidence Source Permanent automatic traffic counters on the A90 provide a quantitative evidence base. Significance Continued growth on the A90 will increase the stop line delays currently experienced at the south junction, and will likely lead to increased driver frustration.

Problem – Impact of Continued Growth in North of Angus Description Aspirational development in the north of Angus, as identified within section 3.7.4, together with a range of committed developments, will have an impact on the south junction. This is likely to exacerbate the ongoing AM peak hour delay experienced by road users joining the A90 from the A937 Traffic growth on the A937 has been evidenced as an issue within section 3.5.1.3. Comparing the 2014 survey data with historic flow data for the A937 has shown that, between 2011 and 2014, the route has seen two way traffic flow increased by over 10% when considered across a 7-day week. When focusing only on weekdays, the increase between 2011 and 2014 is just approximately 6%. In addition, historic data shows a 9.5% increase on the A937 between 2006 and 2011, which is consistent with the 10% population growth in Montrose between 2001 and 2011. Despite the indication that some vehicles travelling north on the A937 in the AM period are re-routing to avoid the south junction, traffic flow on the road continues to increase at a high rate. Development in north Angus is certain to be a key influence on A937 traffic growth due to the future allocations, whilst Transport Scotland now requests that developments coming forward within Angus, which will increase turning movements at the A90 / A937 junction, will have conditions placed on them in relation to the requirement to upgrade that junction. Evidence Source The Angus LDP provides an evidence base, together with recent planning applications which have had conditions attached requiring upgrade of the south junction. A similar planning condition is proposed for development proposals at the former Montrose Airfield. At the time of writing this report, this application was still to be determined. Significance The delay experienced at the Laurencekirk A90 south junction is most notable on the A937 northbound approach during the AM Peak Period and on the A937 southbound approach during the PM Peak. The north of Angus contributes to the level of traffic demand at the south junction. If further development were to take place within north Angus, this could lead to increased traffic demand and therefore delays at the south junction.

4-6 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEMS, ISSUES, OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS

Problem – 50mph speed limit on the A90 Description In 2005, a 50mph speed limit was introduced on the A90 in the vicinity of the south junction. This has led to an increase in journey times for vehicles that use this section of the A90. Evidence Source Quantitative – Site visit and traffic survey data Significance Relative to the 70mph speed limit that it replaced, the 50mph limit leads to an increase in journey time of around 10 to 15 seconds for through vehicles on this section of the A90. As indicated by Table 3.7, the AADT on the A90 to the south of Laurencekirk is in excess of 20,000 vehicles.

Perceived Problem - Re-routing of vehicles Description Evidence of re-routing due to both delay and a perception of poor safety at the south junction was found through the examination of vehicle turning counts undertaken as part of the study. Whilst this does not provide a definitive conclusion in relation to vehicle route choice, it has been possible to understand some potential routing behaviour. Section 3.5.1.2 and Table 3-14 identify that potentially up 400 vehicles may be re-routing to avoid the right turn from the northbound A937 on to the A90. These 400 vehicles are equivalent to approximately 25-30% of the volume making the corresponding left turn. This suggests that a relatively high proportion of vehicles that could be using the A937 to turn right onto the A90 may be avoiding it. Anecdotally, re-routing occurs most frequently during the AM peak period. Evidence Source Qualitative - Junction count data supports re-routing, however the root cause is only supported anecdotally in pre-appraisal consultation. Anecdotal evidence suggests that vehicles re-route due to perceptions of poor safety and to avoid delay on the A937 northbound. Significance Analysis of turn count data indicates that vehicle re-routing may be taking place, particularly in relation to traffic from the Montrose area heading to the northbound A90. This behaviour could be caused by a combination of safety concerns and delay at the A937/A90 junction to the south of Laurencekirk. Vehicles opting for alternative routes will place pressure on other routes which may not be entirely suitable or better than the existing A937 south junction. .. Sustainable Travel

Perceived Problem - A90 Severance influencing Quality of Life for Local People Description Whilst not directly evidenced by quantifiable data, the influence that crossing of the A90 has on local people’s quality of life was an identified theme and one which, given the frequency and repetition of this statement, supports and merits the issue being considered as relevant in the context of the study. Increasing flow on the A90, as shown within Figure 3-6, is likely to continue to exacerbate the problem, together with an increasing elderly population who, from local consultation appear to be most affected. The problem also relates to walking and cycling, as well as travel by vehicular mode. Pedestrians and cyclists presently have to cross the three junctions at grade and only the central junction has a pedestrian crossing route (albeit with no dropped kerbs). This can make walking and cycling between the east and west sides of the A90 unattractive for local residents, including the elderly and the young. There is an underpass available for walkers and cyclists on Frain Drive (close to the centre junction). The underpass does not link into an extensive pedestrian network on the eastern side of the A90 however. Whilst the problem is likely to be exacerbated during the AM and PM peak periods, it may also be a problem for some people at other times, due to the speed of A90 traffic.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 4-7 SECTION UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEMS, ISSUES, OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS

Evidence Source Qualitative - Anecdotally an issue and the volume of respondents and consultees re-iterate this. Significance The local population, as well as traffic on the A90, have grown significantly over the past 10 years and are likely to continue growing. Increasing numbers of local people are therefore likely to cross the A90 at grade, so the quality of life issue is likely to continue and potentially become more important. The issue of community severance by the A90 is recognised as a perceived problem, due to the complexities of evidencing.

Opportunity - Sustainable Travel Description Measures that might improve bus service access to Laurencekirk and journey times are desirable. At present, buses are delayed when using the junctions. As part of the study, video footage was reviewed at the A90 Laurencekirk junctions. This showed between five and ten cyclists using the junctions to cross the A90 during a typical day. It is evident from the information presented within section 3.3.5.2 that there is attractive cycling infrastructure located to the east of Laurencekirk in the form of NCR1. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the NCR1 is not well used as a local recreation route, due to the barriers in reaching it from Laurencekirk, including the crossing of the A90. Measures to address this issue present an opportunity, combined with opportunities for encouraging more pupils within the Mearns Academy catchment to cycle to school, which presently is not encouraged. A number of existing bus services use the junctions to serve Laurencekirk and this include school buses. These vehicles currently suffer regular delay when turning at the junctions. Reduction in delays to general traffic should improve bus journey time reliability, which may stimulate demand for public transport. Evidence Source Quantitative evidence from video footage and anecdotal commentary from consultation and engagement exercise. Significance Greater population in Laurencekirk associated with future housing occupation, together with any improvements in trunk road access may also give opportunities for enhanced bus services, particularly in terms of improving journey times. . Issues and Constraints In delivering any transport intervention in the study area, it is imperative that any critical issues and constraints are noted.

Constraint – BP Forties Pipeline presents a constraint within the study area Description The BP Forties Pipeline is of key significance to the UK economy, distributing 1.1 million barrels of oil per day. The pipeline runs along the east side of the A90, approximately parallel to the road. The precise location is shown on the ‘Constraints’ map in Appendix A. Evidence Source Quantitative - Consultation with BP (Minutes from the consultation meeting with BP are contained within Appendix B) Significance The presence of the pipeline limits the scope of any physical transport intervention within proximity to the pipeline. An exclusion zone is in place surrounding the pipeline as follows: • BP wayleave covers 7m corridor i.e. 3m either side of 1m wide pipeline; • BP should be consulted if any works are within 50m either side of the pipeline; and

4-8 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEMS, ISSUES, OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS

• BP suggested that it would be advisable to have new road infrastructure associated with Laurencekirk outwith 20m either side of the pipeline. However any future proposals would be looked at on a case by case basis. It is unlikely any construction works that directly affected the pipeline would be insurable, which would be a significant risk. The proximity of the pipeline to the centre junction means that any proposal for a grade separated junction at or near this location would be very challenging to design or construct.

Constraint - Existing junction provision Description Development allocations in Laurencekirk, together with those in north Angus, are large. The current format of the A90 junctions is such that the trip generation associated with development will require a step change in existing infrastructure. Additional traffic, generated by development in the Aberdeenshire and Angus Council areas which already has planning consent but which are still to be built, will impact on the A90 and the junctions in the vicinity of Laurencekirk. However, the majority of these consented developments are not obliged to contribute to improvements at the Laurencekirk junctions. The existing at grade south junction is a constraint to safely and efficiently accommodating development proposals in Laurencekirk and north Angus. The existing at grade north junction is a constraint to accommodating the demand from a proposed mixed used development at the M1 site in close proximity to the north junction. Evidence Source Quantitative - Delay at south junction and LDP conditions on infrastructure. For the consented (subject to completion of a legal agreement) application for 77 residential units at a site to the south of Laurencekirk High Street, there is a planning condition relating to the upgrade of the south junction – “That no development shall take place unless there has been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Planning Authority a scheme to upgrade the existing staggered T-junction of the A90 (T) / A937 Montrose Road to a grade separated junction and unless the approval (sic) scheme has been implemented. In assessing the proposed junction improvements, the Planning Authority shall consult with Transport Scotland Trunk Road Network and Bus Operations Directorate”. Transport Scotland has recommended a similar condition be attached to any planning consent which increases traffic flows at the A90/A937 junction. Therefore, this would apply to the proposed redevelopment of the Montrose Airfield site, which, at time of writing this report, was yet to be determined by Angus Council. Significance Existing junction provision and layouts are a constraint to further development, particularly in Laurencekirk. Only 20-25 residential units are anticipated annually, which will add pressure to the existing network, especially cumulatively, but undoubtedly not generating sufficient funds within a timescale which is likely to be required. It is also likely to be a constraint to further development in north Angus, especially in and around Montrose. The potential impact of these developments on the wider road network will need to be considered through the planning process. Constraint - Laurencekirk High Street Parking Description Parking on the High Street is an issue due to its influence on the trips routing via each A90 junction. The existing layout and arrangements have the following features: • The width of the road effectively allows for two running lanes and one side of parking, or two sides of parking and one running lane; • The High Street used to form the main A90 route, but volumes are now low, especially outwith the weekday AM and PM peak periods;

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 4-9 SECTION UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEMS, ISSUES, OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS

• Parking is an important function of the High Street, due to residential properties, shops and offices; • Demand for parking varies along different parts of the High Street, as the uses of the buildings vary; • Where two sides of parking occurs, this acts as informal traffic calming, slowing vehicles down. However, two sides of parking causes some delay to vehicles using the High Street – effectively operating as a single track with passing places; • Whilst not considered to be a major problem now, any increased traffic demand may increase delay, congestion and driver frustration at times when demand in parking coincides with peak traffic flows (e.g. PM peak); and • Parking vehicles affect pedestrian crossing visibility in some instances and the narrowed road space does increase conflict between vehicles and cyclists. Given the relatively low traffic flows, it is recognised that current issues are not causing significant delays to traffic or leading to any accident problem. Indeed, the High Street operates like many other traditional high streets, having a number of functions, such as provision of access to services and acting as a through route, which can cause some conflicting activities. Evidence Source Qualitative - Parking Survey data and site visits Significance Significant new development within Laurencekirk has the potential to lead to an increase in traffic flows on the High Street. The location of vehicles parked creates pinch points and reduces visibility to pedestrians crossing. However, it is recognised that parking on the High Street performs a function in terms of providing access to shops, businesses, community facilities and residential properties, which may need managed as part of any transport intervention brought forward. Constraint - Railway Line Description The position of the railway line limits opportunities for physical improvements at the north junction, particularly in regard to locating it further north of the existing junction. The proposed new western distributor road (WDR), as included in the LDP to support the expansion of the town, to the west of Laurencekirk, would require to cross the railway line twice. Evidence Source Quantitative - Engineering baseline study Significance The presence of the railway line and potentially crossing it may place a significant cost on any emerging transport interventions. Constraint – provision of options relating to online roundabout or traffic signals on A90 Description The introduction of intermediate intervention such as roundabouts, and/or traffic signals on the A90 would delay through traffic and is therefore limited by the constraints national policy presents in this regard. Evidence Source Quantitative - National Transport Strategy Significance The provision of roundabouts or traffic signals does not sit well with national policy regarding the objective to reduce journey times on inter-urban links. Therefore, future options will need to involve a step change in infrastructure.

4-10 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEMS, ISSUES, OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS

Constraint – Laurencekirk Cemetery Description The cemetery is located immediately to the west of the A90 at the centre junction. Evidence Source Quantitative – Engineering baseline study Significance The presence of the cemetery limits the scope of any physical transport intervention in that area.

Constraint – A90 Junction Spacing Description DMRB requires a minimum spacing of 1km between main junctions, to avoid weaving movements that may cause road safety issues. Evidence Source Quantitative – Engineering baseline study Significance The spacing between the south – centre junctions and centre – north junctions is approximately 1.35 km in both instances. Hence, the minimum junction spacing requirements would restrict the siting of any proposed new junction and also impacts upon the design of a grade separated junction. This requirement limits the scope of any physical transport intervention within proximity of the existing three junctions.

Constraint – Impact on Strategic Traffic Journey Times Description The National Transport Strategy has a key objective of improving connectivity between cities and main towns and improving journey times for strategic traffic. This feeds into Transport Scotland’s objective of maintaining the efficiency of Scotland’s trunk road network. Evidence Source Quantitative - National Transport Strategy Significance The requirement to maintain the efficiency of the strategic trunk road network cemetery limits the scope of any physical transport intervention that may result in a detrimental impact on existing journey times for A90 traffic.

Issue – A937 Low Bridge Description There is an existing low bridge, with a 4.2m height restriction, on the A937 at Hillside that prevents high sided vehicles using this route to and from the south junction. Evidence Source Quantitative – Baseline data collection Qualitative – anecdotal feedback from stakeholders, but no supporting traffic data Significance The presence of the low bridge prevents the A937 being used by high sided vehicles to access the south junction. . Rationale for Intervention A number of Problems, Issues, Opportunities and Constraints have been identified and validated through desktop research, consultation and surveys. These are summarised below and have been grouped together with regard to the key themes that have emerged:

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 4-11 SECTION UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEMS, ISSUES, OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS

Safety • Between 2011 and 2013, 2 serious injury accidents occurred at the centre junction; • Non-injury accidents occur at the north, centre and south junctions; • Long vehicles (including school buses) can overhang the central reserve into the main carriageway; • Geometric parameters of the A90 junctions do not meet DMRB requirements at the central reserves and some of the acceleration and deceleration lanes; and • Forecast increases in traffic will place further pressure on the existing A90 junction layouts, in particular the adequacy of the length of the acceleration and deceleration lanes. Driver Behaviour • Delay at the south junction contributes to frustration and increased risk taking behaviour by drivers; • A reduction in visibility occurs for some drivers when turning onto the A90 due to multiple stacking of vehicles in the central reserve; and • Forecast increases in traffic will increase delay, this could in turn lead to increased driver frustration and risk taking or inconsiderate behavior. Network Efficiency • Some traffic reroutes due to perceptions of poor safety and excessive delay at the A90 Laurencekirk junctions; • The 50mph speed limit on the A90 increases journey times for strategic traffic; and • There are significant delays for traffic approaching the south junction on the A937. • Increasing traffic demand on the A90 would have a detrimental impact on the operation of the south, centre and north junctions; and • Planned development in Laurencekirk and north Angus is being constrained due to the cost of delivering an appropriate intervention at the south and north junctions. This is due to the potential scale of intervention required in comparison to the planned development and the lack of a developer funding protocol having been developed by the planning authorities. Sustainable Travel • Lack of suitable crossing opportunities on the A90 is impacting the on quality of life in the Mearns area. This is because pedestrians, cyclists and older drivers are discouraged from making trips; and • Delay at the south and north junctions has a negative impact on bus journey times and reliability. A number of constraints have been identified that should be considered during the identification and development of potential transport interventions within the study area: • The BP Forties Pipeline and the surrounding exclusion zone will limit the scope of physical changes to the transport network, particularly at the centre junction; • The railway line limits the potential to make changes to the surrounding transport network. This includes altering the location or increasing the footprint of the north junction; • The location of the cemetery will limit the scope of physical changes at the centre junction; • Limits on the minimum distance between junctions on the A90 should be considered with regard to proposals for any new access points onto this route; • The impact on journey times for A90 traffic should be considered with regard to any physical changes to the A90 junctions; and The ability of the High Street to maintain a range of functions for motorised and non-motorised modes of travel should be considered with regard to the impact of any proposed interventions. The Problems,

4-12 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEMS, ISSUES, OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS

Issues, Opportunities and Constraints identified above form an evidence base that will guide the development of TPOs that will specify what nay intervention should seek to achieve.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 4-13

SECTION 5 Setting the Transport Planning Objectives

. Introduction The Access to Laurencekirk study has been undertaken in line with STAG procedures and has, therefore, followed an objective-led approach. In addition to the STAG criteria, a series of TPOs have been developed for the appraisal, which reflect both the issues and opportunities, together with established policy directives and the Scottish Government’s overarching aim of encouraging strategic economic growth. Initial draft TPOs were informed directly by the problems, issues, constraints and opportunities within the study. The objectives were then discussed and developed with key stakeholders via two Objective and Option Generation Workshops held in Laurencekirk. The importance of objectives in adding value to the study is echoed throughout STAG and as such there is a need for TPOs to be SMART: • Specific – it will say in precise terms what is sought; • Measurable – there will exist means to establish to stakeholders’ satisfaction whether or not the objective has been achieved; • Attainable – there is general agreement that the objectives set can be reached; • Realistic – the objective is a sensible indicator or proxy for the change which is sought; and • Timed – the objective will be associated with an agreed point by which it will have been met. Following the development of the draft TPOs, these were refined to ensure adherence to being ‘SMART’ and then subject to further consultation with NESTRANS, Transport Scotland, Aberdeenshire Council, Tactran and Angus Council, thereby allowing the objectives to be agreed and finalised. The finalised TPOs then provide a framework for which emerging options can be appraised in a logical and consistent manner. An opportunity exists at the detailed appraisal stage to further ‘SMARTen’ the TPOs if required. . Transport Planning Objectives .. Objective Themes The study team held an internal workshop following initial stakeholder consultation and identified a number of potential early objectives/themes that were emerging. At that stage in the development of objectives, a total of eight objective themes were identified, being based on the consultation outcomes and the problems specified above. The objective themes were as follows: • Safety; • Attitude to safety – driver behaviour; • Efficiency of the network; • Sustainable travel; • Laurencekirk High Street; • Economic development; • Accessibility; and • Journey time efficiency. Consultation with NESTRANS, Transport Scotland, Aberdeenshire Council, Tactran and Angus Council supported the further refinement of the objectives. A set of five TPOs were defined for the scheme. Table 5-1 sets out the TPOs, together with proposed indicators and associated problem, issue, constraint or opportunity.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 5-1 SECTION SETTING THE TRANSPORT PLANNING OBJECTIVES

Table 5-1 – Recommended Transport Planning Objectives No Transport Planning Objective Proposed Indicator Associated Problem, Issue, Opportunity or Constraint 1 Safety • Change in Accident Numbers/Severity • Problem - Speeding through the 50mph section of the A90 To achieve a reduction in accidents at the (STATS 19)/ Accident description • Problem - Large vehicles overhang the central reserve causing obstruction A90 Laurencekirk Junctions as a result of to trunk road through movements traffic turning or crossing at the junctions. • Perceived Problems - Re-routing of vehicles due to delay and perception of poor safety; • Problem – Lack of availability of safe gaps to enable traffic to route onto and across the A90 causing stop line delays at the south junction • Problem - Poor driver behaviour regarding merging onto A90 • Problem – Accidents occurring at the centre junction • Problem - Speeding on the A937 north of Marykirk 2 Driver behaviour • Compliance to speed limits on A90 • Problem - Large vehicles overhang the central reserve causing obstruction To achieve a significant improvement in the • Variance in delay in seconds to stop to trunk road through movements attitude towards safety at the A90 line on A90 side arms at Laurencekirk • Perceived Problem - Re-routing of vehicles due to delay and perception of Laurencekirk junctions by reducing the junctions poor safety delay and improving the opportunities to • Change in attitude towards safety at • Problem – Lack of availability of safe gaps to enable traffic to route onto cross the A90. the A90 junctions - community and across the A90 causing stop line delays at the south junction feedback • Problem - Poor driver behaviour regarding merging onto A90 3 Efficiency of the network and economic • Change in total junction delays for • Problem - Delay experienced by vehicles adopting the south junction to development side-road traffic at A90 Laurencekirk travel north from the A937 To achieve an improvement in network junctions • Problem - Large vehicles overhang the central reserve causing obstruction efficiency experienced by traffic travelling • Change in vehicle hours on A90 for to trunk road through movements on the A90 and accessing and crossing the strategic traffic against 2014 observed • Perceived Problem - Platooning on the A90 at the south junction limits the A90 at the Laurencekirk junctions in order • Change in vehicle km due to trip availability of safe gaps to enable traffic to route onto and across the A90 to support sustainable economic growth in diversions against 2014 observed (as • Issue - Continued growth in A90 and A937 traffic volume is an issue which the south of Aberdeenshire and the north proxy for change in carbon footprint) will exacerbate the existing problems of Angus. • Problem - Poor driver behaviour regarding merging onto A90 • Problem – Re-routing of vehicles

5-2 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION SETTING THE TRANSPORT PLANNING OBJECTIVES

No Transport Planning Objective Proposed Indicator Associated Problem, Issue, Opportunity or Constraint 4 Sustainable travel • Increase in movements by sustainable • Perceived Problem - Quality of life for local people in Laurencekirk being To enable safe crossing of the A90 by modes across A90 against 2014 influenced by the barrier presented by the A90 sustainable modes. observed • Opportunity - Sustainable travel, including cycle crossing of A90 • Accessing recreational areas • Cycling to school • Mode of travel 5 Laurencekirk High Street • Change in through trips on High • Issue - Parking on the High Street is an issue due to its influence on To contribute to the High Street’s role as a Street determining whether trips route via which A90 junction. It is also an issue central place for the continued vitality of • Increased footfall in relation to its ability to influence the localised economy of shops. It is the Laurencekirk community. recognised that the High Street’s ability to serve the community will likely need managed as part of any emerging transport intervention

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 5-3 SECTION SETTING THE TRANSPORT PLANNING OBJECTIVES . Links to STAG Criteria and other Established Policy Directives It is essential to draw on the linkages between the TPOs and both STAG criteria and other established policy directives. The following section identifies and sets out concisely whether the recommended TPOs contribute to or present any conflict to STAG criteria and/ or established policy directives within the following policies: • Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance Criteria; • Scottish Government’s Economic Strategy; • Scotland’s National Transport Strategy; • NESTRANS Regional Transport Strategy; and • Aberdeenshire Local Transport Strategy. .. STAG Criteria Table 5-2 demonstrates that it is considered that the recommended TPOs for the study clearly link the STAG criteria to local conditions. Table 5-2 – Links to Stag Criteria Transport Planning Objectives STAG Criteria

Environment Safety Economy Integration Accessibility and Social Inclusion To achieve a reduction in accidents at the A90 Laurencekirk Junctions as a result of      traffic turning or crossing at the junctions. To achieve a significant improvement in the attitude towards safety at the A90 Laurencekirk junctions by reducing the      delay and improving the opportunities to cross the A90. To achieve an improvement in network efficiency experienced by traffic travelling on the A90 and accessing and crossing the A90 at the Laurencekirk junctions in order      to support sustainable economic growth in the south of Aberdeenshire and the north of Angus. To enable safe crossing of the A90 by      sustainable modes. To contribute to the High Street’s role as a central place for the continued vitality of      the Laurencekirk community. Key:  Strong Linkage  Weaker Linkage  No Impact

.. Government Economic Strategy The Government Economic Strategy (GES) was published in 2011 and places an emphasis on delivering economic recovery and improved employment levels. The GES emphasises that the overarching purpose of the Scottish Government is ‘ to create a more successful country, with opportunities for all of Scotland to flourish, through increasing sustainable economic growth ’. This is stated to be the top priority of the Government and ‘ all efforts and actions ’ should be directed towards this purpose.

5-4 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION SETTING THE TRANSPORT PLANNING OBJECTIVES

The GES sets out six Strategic Priorities which are to be used to focus efforts on delivering sustainable economic growth. These are: • Supportive Business Environment; • Transition to a Low Carbon Economy; • Learning, Skills and Well-being; • Infrastructure Development and Place; • Effective Government; and • Equity. Within these six strategic priorities, the Government emphasises that infrastructure spending should aim to maximise the benefit to the economy and employment. Transport spending also has the opportunity to directly contribute to delivering a supportive business environment and support the transition to a low carbon economy. The GES describes an efficient transport system as one of the main drivers of sustainable economic growth. This is through increased access to markets, labour pools and enhanced competitiveness. With regard to transport investment, the GES states that investment will be focused on achieving the following:

“Supporting cities and their regions will be a central goal with regard to the delivery of infrastructure spending. The GES highlights that cities are particularly important in stimulating sustainable economic growth as they contain a concentration of assets including a business base, universities and connectivity”. The GES also states that a planning system that support the growth of places and the built environment, whilst protecting the natural environment is essential in delivering sustainable economic growth. With regard to rural areas, the GES states that actions should be directed towards maximising the ability of local communities and economies to grow and also to safeguard their viability. An efficient transport system is considered to be a key driver of increasing productivity and sustainable growth. Improving the transport system is seen as a means of opening up new markets and access to employment. Investment in the transport network should be focused on improving journey times, safety and reliability. Transport links to rural communities should be safeguarded and improved public transport provision would encourage the move to a low carbon economy. Table 5-3 provides a summary of the linkages between the TPOs and GES priorities for rural areas.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 5-5 SECTION SETTING THE TRANSPORT PLANNING OBJECTIVES

Table 5-3 – Links to GES Priorities for Rural Areas Transport Planning Objectives GES and Rural Area Priorities

Maximising the Improving the Transport links to rural ability of local transport system is communities should be communities and seen as a means of safeguarded and economics to grow opening up new improved public and to safeguard markets and access transport provision their viability to employment would encourage the move to a low carbon economy To achieve a reduction in accidents at the A90 Laurencekirk Junctions as a result of traffic turning or    crossing at the junctions. To achieve a significant improvement in the attitude towards safety at the A90 Laurencekirk Junctions by    reducing the delay and improving the opportunities to cross the A90. To achieve an improvement in network efficiency experienced by traffic travelling on the A90 and accessing and crossing the A90 at the Laurencekirk    junctions in order to support sustainable economic growth in the south of Aberdeenshire and the north of Angus. To enable safe crossing of the A90 by sustainable modes.    To contribute to the High Street’s role as a central place for the continued vitality of the Laurencekirk    community. Key:  Strong Linkage  Weaker Linkage  No Impact

.. Scotland’s National Transport Strategy The National Transport Strategy (NTS) reiterates that the central aim of the Scottish Government is to deliver sustainable economic growth. The Scottish Government seeks to achieve this within the overall framework of a transition to a low carbon economy. However, the NTS recognises that there is a carbon footprint inherent to some transport schemes and this should be weighed up against potential benefits. The NTS highlights transport’s key role in facilitating economic growth and in improving the quality of life of everyone in Scotland. Five high level objectives for have been set by the government following a consultation process. These are to: • Promote economic growth by building, enhancing, managing and maintaining transport services, infrastructure and networks to maximise their efficiency; • Promote social inclusion by connecting remote and disadvantaged communities and increasing the accessibility of the transport network; • Protect our environment and improve health by building and investing in public transport and other types of efficient and sustainable transport which minimise emissions and consumption of resources and energy; and • Improve safety of journeys by reducing accidents and enhancing the personal safety of pedestrians, drivers, passengers and staff; • Improve Integration by making journey planning and ticketing easier and working to ensure smooth connection between different forms of transport. It is clear, therefore, that proposed transport interventions should seek to promote economic growth whilst being mindful of the requirement to transition to a low carbon economy. The distribution of benefits from any transport improvements should be on an equitable basis.

5-6 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION SETTING THE TRANSPORT PLANNING OBJECTIVES

In addition to setting objectives for the direction of change in the transport network, the NTS states three key strategic outcomes, as follows: • Improve journey times and connections, to tackle congestion and the lack of integration and connections in transport which impact on our high level objectives for economic growth, social inclusion, integration and safety; • Reduce emissions, to tackle the issues of climate change, air quality and health improvement which impact on our high level objective for protecting the environment and improving health; and • Improve quality, accessibility and affordability, to give people a choice of public transport, where availability means better quality transport services and value for money or an alternative to the car. The Scottish Government considers that achievement of these strategic objectives will contribute to other key priorities including health, social inclusion and regeneration. Table 5-4 provides a summary of the linkages between the TPOs and National Transport Strategy Strategic Outcomes. Table 5-4 – Links to National Transport Strategic Outcomes Transport Planning Objectives National Transport Strategy Strategic Outcomes

Improve journey Reduce emissions, to Improve quality, times and tackle the issues of accessibility and connections, to climate change, air affordability, to give tackle congestion quality and health people a choice of and the lack of improvement which public transport, integration and impact on our high where availability connections in level objective for means better quality transport protecting the transport services environment and and value for money improving health or an alternative to the car To achieve a reduction in accidents at the A90 Laurencekirk Junctions as a result of traffic    turning or crossing at the junctions. To achieve a significant improvement in the attitude towards safety at the A90 Laurencekirk    Junctions by reducing the delay and improving the opportunities to cross the A90. To achieve an improvement in network efficiency experienced by traffic travelling on the A90 and accessing and crossing the A90 at the    Laurencekirk junctions in order to support sustainable economic growth in the south of Aberdeenshire and the north of Angus. To enable safe crossing of the A90 by sustainable    modes. To contribute to the High Street’s role as a central place for the continued vitality of the    Laurencekirk community. Key:  Strong Linkage  Weaker Linkage  No Impact

.. NESTRANS Regional Transport Strategy NESTRANS prepared a Regional Transport Strategy (RTS) for the north-east, which was published in 2008. The original RTS has been refreshed in 2014 to respond to the changing policy context associated with new structure and local development plans. The main vision for the RTS is to deliver ‘ A transport system for the north east of Scotland which enables a more economically competitive, sustainable and socially inclusive society’ .

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 5-7 SECTION SETTING THE TRANSPORT PLANNING OBJECTIVES

The RTS identifies transport interventions for the period to 2035. The A90 at Laurencekirk is mentioned as part of the strategy for internal connections in the north-east within the RTS. Sub-strategy 2: The internal connections strategy also highlights improving road safety as a key objective of the RTS. The RTS indicates that NESTRANS will seek to promote the delivery of more grade-separated junctions at key locations, such as Laurencekirk, in addition to the provision of improved alignments and reduced central-reserve crossings. It is noted that this and other strategic road network improvements will need to be delivered in partnership with Transport Scotland and Aberdeenshire Council. Table 5-5 provides a summary of the linkages between the TPOs and NESTRANS Regional Transport Strategy Objectives. Table 5-5 – Links to Regional Transport Strategy Objectives Transport Planning Objectives Regional Transport Strategy

To enhance To enhance choice, To conserve and To support and exploit accessibility and enhance the transport the north safety of transport north east’s integration east’s for all in the north natural and and a strong, competitiv east, particularly built vibrant and e economy for disadvantaged environment dynamic city and vulnerable and heritage centre and members of society and reduce the town centres and those living in effects of across the areas where transport on north east. transport options climate, noise are limited. and air quality. To achieve a reduction in accidents at the A90 Laurencekirk junctions as a result of     traffic turning or crossing at the junctions. To achieve a significant improvement in the attitude towards safety at the A90 Laurencekirk Junctions by reducing the delay     and improving the opportunities to cross the A90. To achieve an improvement in network efficiency experienced by traffic travelling on the A90 and accessing and crossing the A90 at the Laurencekirk junctions in order to     support sustainable economic growth in the south of Aberdeenshire and the north of Angus. To enable safe crossing of the A90 by     sustainable modes. To contribute to the High Street’s role as a central place for the continued vitality of the     Laurencekirk community. Key:  Strong Linkage  Weaker Linkage  No Impact

.. Aberdeenshire Local Transport Strategy The main aims of the Aberdeenshire Local Transport Strategy (LTS) are to address the issues of congestion, climate change, physical inactivity and finite fuel supply. The LTS also recognises that an efficient transport network is necessary for continued growth and economic prosperity in Aberdeenshire. The LTS mirrors national policy in terms of aiming to stimulate economic growth, whilst managing carbon emissions.

5-8 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION SETTING THE TRANSPORT PLANNING OBJECTIVES

To deliver these aims, whilst maximising the efficiency of available resources, the LTS has a focus on changing behaviour and will encourage a hierarchy of change that aims to encourage people to travel less, more actively and more effectively. The development of the LTS has been informed by extensive consultation with stakeholders in Aberdeenshire. Consultees during the LTS identified the following priorities: • Road network improvements; • Improved network provision; and • Greater opportunities to undertake sustainable journeys. The aims of the LTS are to: • Reduce non-sustainable journeys; • Increase active travel; • Make travel more effective; • Improve health; and • Reduce carbon emissions from transport. The LTS recognises that Aberdeenshire is a predominantly rural area with an ageing demographic and this presents challenges with regard to access to services. The LTS states that both car and public transport will continue to be important modes of travel for residents of the area. Reduction in road casualties is a main priority of the LTS. Consultation undertaken during the development of the LTS indicated that safety was of key importance to respondents. The preferred means of addressing road safety concerns were road improvements, education of road users and network maintenance. The LTS states that town centres in Aberdeenshire are vital in sustaining a vibrant community and local economy. It is recommended that the focus for accessibility to town centres should be to encourage active travel and public transport. This can lead to public realm improvements and other benefits such as improved health and decreased road congestion. The LTS therefore supports measures that reduce the need for vehicular traffic to travel through town centres. Action A11 in the LTS states that an Active Travel Plan will be prepared for one town each year in Aberdeenshire. The implementation of a plan for Laurencekirk would provide an opportunity to promote a change in behaviour within the town. Table 5-6 provides a summary of the linkages between the TPOs and Aberdeenshire’s Local Transport Strategy Priorities.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 5-9 SECTION SETTING THE TRANSPORT PLANNING OBJECTIVES

Table 5-6 – Links to Aberdeenshire Local Transport Strategy Priorities Transport Planning Objectives Local Transport Strategy Priorities

Road Network Improved Greater Improvements network opportunities to provision undertake sustainable journeys To achieve a reduction in accidents at the A90 Laurencekirk Junctions as a result of traffic turning or    crossing at the junctions. To achieve a significant improvement in the attitude towards safety at the A90 Laurencekirk Junctions by    reducing the delay and improving the opportunities to cross the A90. To achieve an improvement in network efficiency experienced by traffic travelling on the A90 and accessing and crossing the A90 at the Laurencekirk    junctions in order to support sustainable economic growth in the south of Aberdeenshire and the north of Angus. To enable safe crossing of the A90 by sustainable modes.    To contribute to the High Street’s role as a central place    for the continued vitality of the Laurencekirk community. Key:  Strong Linkage  Weaker Linkage  No Impact

.. Summary The alignment of the TPOs with five key policies has been demonstrated above. Each of the TPOs has a strong fit with the policies. As a result, using the TPOs in appraising the options emerging as part of the study should also demonstrate alignment with national, regional and local policies.

5-10 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION 6 Option Generation, Sifting and Development

. Introduction The purpose of the option generation, sifting and development stage is to derive a range of potential interventions which best meet the Transport Planning Objectives (TPOs) and therefore be successful in alleviating the problems and issues with access to Laurencekirk. The development of options has been informed by an all-encompassing consultation exercise which has included an open day, stakeholder workshops, face to face meetings, emails and calls with those with an interest in access to Laurencekirk. Consideration of the key objectives of the study, together with options identified through previous studies and assessments, has been important. . Methodology The generation of options has been a result of consideration of problems and issues identified from a number of sources and exercises including: • Previous studies; • Consultation feedback; • Professional judgment; • Assessment of known problems; • Public open day; and • Stakeholder workshops. Existing options, generated by previous studies, were presented at both a public open day and stakeholder workshops, to highlight those that have previously been developed and to gauge the acceptability of each option or combination of options. Stakeholders were encouraged to feed into the generation of options through their own suggestions. It was imperative that all possible options were identified at this stage to ensure as many as possible were provided. The options identified were then analysed to ensure all possibilities had been given due consideration. The analysis process allowed for option sifting to be undertaken. Early option sifting at Pre Appraisal is particularly relevant in circumstances where an unmanageable number of options have been generated and/or where enough evidence is available at an early stage to allow general consensus that a particular option will not address the problems and/or opportunities identified or achieve the TPOs of the study. In respect of the options seeking to address the problems, issues and constraints associated with access to Laurencekirk, the list of options was extensive and therefore a hierarchical structure, which allowed for the categorisation options, was considered appropriate. . Initial Long List of Options The outcome of the option generation stage derived a list of 36 individual options. The options were assessed and appropriately categorised to determine if they should be taken forward and in what form should they progress to STAG Part 1 Initial Appraisal. The long list of options, together with their rationale for selection and categorisation or indeed their rejection at this stage has been provided within Table 6-1.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 6-1 SECTION OPTION GENERATION, SIFTING AND DEVELOPMENT

The categorisation of options is such that a ‘core option’ is considered fundamental to address the main problems and issues with access to Laurencekirk. ‘Complementary’ options may provide additional benefits and/or limit the wider negative impact that a core option could have on the transport network outwith the main study area. Considered alone, ‘complementary’ options would not significantly address the main problems, nor contribute to the objectives of the study.

6-2 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION OPTION GENERATION, SIFTING AND DEVELOPMENT

Table 6-1 – Long List of Options Option Name Description TPOs it Core Option / Rationale No/ID relates to Complementary (ref Table 5.1) (Supportive) / Sifted Out 1 Rationalise Parking on the High Formalise parking on Laurencekirk High This is a complementary option, anticipated to be Street Street in a manner which would best to help maintain the characteristics of the High complement the streetscape Street, should there be future development or environment, utilising space such that 5 Complementary transport interventions which significantly impact the speed of vehicles could be the characteristic of the High Street. controlled, whilst avoiding unnecessary pinch points. 2 Pedestrian Crossings on High The provision of a pedestrian crossing This is a complementary option, which in isolation Street on the High Street. The location and has limited benefits when considered in regard to type at this stage are not determined. 5 Complementary the TPOs, however it would support a core option which provoked higher traffic volumes on Laurencekirk High Street. 3 Grade Separated Provision of a through route, including This option will directly benefit sustainable travel Pedestrian/Cycle Link across the clean-up of the existing underpass choices and the ability of people to cross the A90. the A90 Utilising Existing to a standard suitable for use, together However the strength of the benefit that this option 4 Complementary Underpass and with a pedestrian/cycle connection of could bring in isolation, in relation to the problems pedestrian/cycle connection to the east side of the A90. and issues faced in relation to access to east Laurencekirk, is limited. 4 Improved Pedestrian Facilities Improve facilities for pedestrians, This is a complementary option, anticipated to aid at High Street/Alma including improved footway provision safe pedestrian movement on the High Street at a Place/Conveth Place and the integration of some form of junction which presently has narrow footways. The crossing and/or dropped kerb provision. 4 Complementary option in isolation has limited benefits when considered in regard to the TPOs, however it would support a core option which provoked higher traffic volumes on Laurencekirk High Street.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 6-3 SECTION OPTION GENERATION, SIFTING AND DEVELOPMENT

Option Name Description TPOs it Core Option / Rationale No/ID relates to Complementary (ref Table 5.1) (Supportive) / Sifted Out 5 Extend A90 50 mph zone to Extend the 50mph speed limit zone Whilst this option is contrary to the strategic cover the three A90 junctions from south of Laurencekirk to a point outcome of the National Transport Strategy at Laurencekirk not yet determined, beyond the north (reducing journey times), it may be an affordable 1, 3 Complementary junction on the A90 trunk road. option to reduce perceived and actual stop line delays at side roads and limit the severity of any collisions. 6 Average Speed Cameras Installation of automatic number plate This option is anticipated to gain improved recognition cameras positioned on the adherence to the speed limit, but in isolation does appropriate northbound and not merit progression. Considered to be 1 Complementary southbound sections of the A90 to complementary in nature, should an extension to monitor average vehicle speed through the existing 50mph be introduced. the existing 50mph speed limit section. 7 Street Lighting at north The provision of street lighting at the This option would be complementary, as in isolation junction north junction. 1 Complementary it fails to provide notable benefit against the TPOs, STAG and deliverability criteria 8 Street Lighting at centre The provision of street lighting at the This option would be complementary, as it is junction central junction. considered to be supportive to other improvements 1 Complementary at the junction. In isolation it fails to provide notable benefit against the TPOs, STAG and deliverability criteria. 9 Street Lighting at south The provision of street lighting at the This option would be complementary, as considered junction south junction. to be supportive to other improvement at the 1 Complementary junction as in isolation fails to provide notable benefit to the TPOs. 10 Add/Extend Merge/Diverge The provision of merge and diverge This option is anticipated to be complementary, as Lanes at north junction lanes at the north junction to DMRB in isolation it fails to benefit the TPOs, as it does not (including diverges within standard. The option would also include address the core issue of crossing conflicts. 1, 3 Complementary central reserve) provision of a longer diverge lane within the central reserve for southbound vehicles turning into Laurencekirk.

6-4 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION OPTION GENERATION, SIFTING AND DEVELOPMENT

Option Name Description TPOs it Core Option / Rationale No/ID relates to Complementary (ref Table 5.1) (Supportive) / Sifted Out 11 Add/Extend Merge/Diverge The provision of merge and diverge This option is anticipated to be complementary, as Lanes at centre junction lanes at the centre junction to DMRB in isolation it fails to benefit the TPOs, as it does not (including diverges within standard. The option would also include address the core issue of crossing conflicts. central reserve) provision of a longer diverge lane within 1, 3 Complementary the central reserve for southbound vehicles turning into Laurencekirk and northbound vehicles turning onto the B9120. 12 Add/extend merge/diverge The provision of merge and diverge This option is anticipated to be complementary, as Lanes at south junction lanes at the south junction to DMRB in isolation it fails to benefit the TPOs, nor does it (including diverges within standard. The option would also include address the core issue of crossing conflicts. central reserve) provision of a longer diverge lane within 1, 3 Complementary the central reserve for southbound vehicles turning into Laurencekirk and northbound vehicles turning onto the A937. 13 Signal Control at north junction Traffic signals being introduced at the Contrary to national policy, as it reduces current north junction. efficiency of strategic network and would be a 1 Sifted Out departure from standard due to speed limit, therefore has been sifted out at this stage. 14 Signal Control at centre Traffic signals being introduced at the Contrary to national policy, as it reduces current junction centre junction. efficiency of strategic network and would be a 1 Sifted Out departure from standard due to speed limit, therefore has been sifted out at this stage. 15 Signal Control at south junction Traffic signals being introduced at the Contrary to national policy, as it reduces current south junction. efficiency of strategic network and would be a 1 Sifted Out departure from standard due to speed limit, therefore has been sifted out at this stage.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 6-5 SECTION OPTION GENERATION, SIFTING AND DEVELOPMENT

Option Name Description TPOs it Core Option / Rationale No/ID relates to Complementary (ref Table 5.1) (Supportive) / Sifted Out

16 Roundabout at north junction A roundabout being introduced at the Contrary to national policy, as it reduces current north junction. efficiency of strategic network and would be a 1 Sifted Out departure from standard due to speed limit, therefore has been sifted out at this stage. 17 Roundabout at centre junction A roundabout being introduced at the Contrary to national policy, as it reduces current centre junction. efficiency of strategic network and would be a 1 Sifted Out departure from standard due to speed limit, therefore has been sifted out at this stage. 18 Roundabout at south junction A roundabout being introduced at the Contrary to national policy, it as reduces current south junction. 1 Sifted Out efficiency of strategic network, therefore has been sifted out at this stage. 19 Grade Separation at north The construction of a grade separated This option would remove the crossing conflict junction junction at the north junction. 1, 2 & 3 Core Option movements and would support the TPOs, STAG and deliverability criteria. 20 Grade Separation at centre The construction of a grade separated The constraints presented by the cemetery and, junction junction at the centre junction. most significantly, the BP Forties Pipeline would 1, 2 & 3 Sifted Out restrict and indeed provide limitations to the construction of a grade separated junction. 21 Grade Separation at south The construction of a grade separated This option would remove the crossing conflict junction junction at the south junction. 1, 2 & 3 Core Option movements and address the delay issues faced on the A937 approach to the A90 from north Angus. 22 Bridge at A90 centre junction The construction of a bridge over the The constraints presented by the cemetery and A90 at the location of the centre most significantly the BP Pipeline would restrict and 1, 2 & 3 Sifted Out junction. indeed provide limitations to the construction of an over bridge.

6-6 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION OPTION GENERATION, SIFTING AND DEVELOPMENT

Option Name Description TPOs it Core Option / Rationale No/ID relates to Complementary (ref Table 5.1) (Supportive) / Sifted Out

23 Flyover at south junction The construction of a bridge over the This intervention is similar to a grade separated A90 at the location of the south junction. Unlikely to be a cost-effective solution junction, excluding any adjoining without supporting infrastructure of a grade 1 Sifted Out junction to A90. separated junction, therefore considered to be covered by option 21 (grade separation of south junction) and sifted out at this stage. 24 Close Central Reserve at north Close the central reserve at the north This option is anticipated to achieve benefit when junction junction, therefore restricting combined with a grade separated junction option, as 1 Complementary movements to left in, and left out from it would increase right turn movements at the the Aberdeen Road Laurencekirk arm. centre and south junctions. 25 Close Central Reserve at centre Close the central reservation at the This option would remove the crossing conflict and, junction and stop up west centre junction, therefore restricting if combined with a grade separated junction option, approach road, leaving left movements to left in and left out from 1 Complementary would provide opportunities locally to re-route, if in/out on the B9120 from east. both the B9120 east and west of the vehicles wished to travel north on the A90 or into A90. Laurencekirk. 26 Close Central Reserve at south Close the central reservation at the Whilst this option would remove the crossing junction south junction, therefore restricting conflict, it would not be appropriate given the 1 Sifted Out movements to left in and left out from volume of traffic making the crossing and right turn both the A937 east and west of the A90. movements north. 27 New grade separated junction The construction of a grade separated This option would increase journey time and not on A90 near to Laurencekirk junction on the A90 near Laurencekirk, directly address the conflict movements at the the junction would sit independently current Laurencekirk junctions. from the existing A90 Laurencekirk A new junction to the north of the existing north junctions. 1, 2 & 3 Sifted Out junction would be constrained by the existing railway line. A new junction between the centre and north junction would be constrained by the oil pipeline and not meet DMRB junction spacing requirements.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 6-7 SECTION OPTION GENERATION, SIFTING AND DEVELOPMENT

Option Name Description TPOs it Core Option / Rationale No/ID relates to Complementary (ref Table 5.1) (Supportive) / Sifted Out 28 Western Distributor Road at The construction of a western This option in isolation would not aid in achieving Laurencekirk distributor road at Laurencekirk, which In isolation the TPOs. It may, however, provide benefit, should it would provide a route from the south of does not be provided to support a core option by limiting any Complementary Laurencekirk bypassing the town to the contribute adverse impacts on the wider road network around west and joining existing road to TPOs Laurencekirk. carriageway to the north of the town. 29 Increase Public Transport Efforts made to increase public As part of a package of measures this would be Awareness - Travel Behaviour awareness of the sustainable travel appropriate, however it would not provide sufficient 4 Complementary Change (Smarter Choices) options available in Laurencekirk. benefit in relation to the TPOs without the combination of physical improvement/ intervention. 30 Driver Behaviour Awareness/ A campaign which is specifically directed The public perception/acceptance of this option is Education at drivers utilising the A90 Laurencekirk likely to be low, whilst without supporting junctions in order to promote safe 2 Sifted Out infrastructure, the option would fall short of driving. improving the existing situation and addressing the fundamental problems and issues. 31 A937 Safety Improvements Various accident prevention measures These improvements do not deliver against the (e.g. advisory speed signs, introduced on the A937 including the Does not TPOs. warning signs, enforcement, provision of advisory speed signs, contribute Sifted Out safety barrier, visibility warning signs, safety barriers and to TPOs improvements) improvements to the visibility. 32 A92 Safety Improvements (e.g. Various accident prevention measures This option does not meet any of the TPOs and is advisory speed signs, warning introduced on the A92 including the Does not unlikely to add any benefit within a package of signs, enforcement, safety provision of advisory speed signs, contribute Sifted Out options. barrier, visibility warning signs, safety barriers and to TPOs improvements) improvements to the visibility. 33 Add/extend merge/diverge and Extended merge and diverge provision This option does not address the core problems and widen central reserve at A90 commensurate with DMRB standards, constraints in the study area. junctions to south of with the inclusion of widening at the 1 Sifted Out Laurencekirk central reserve at A90 junctions to the south of Laurencekirk.

6-8 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION OPTION GENERATION, SIFTING AND DEVELOPMENT

Option Name Description TPOs it Core Option / Rationale No/ID relates to Complementary (ref Table 5.1) (Supportive) / Sifted Out 34 Close central reserve at A90 The option would see the closure of This option does not present any benefit in isolation, junctions to the south of central reserve at A90 junctions to the 3 Complementary but as a complementary option would achieve the Laurencekirk south of Laurencekirk. TPOs, STAG and deliverability criteria. 35 Link Road between A937 and The option would involve the In isolation this would only spread the traffic flow B9120 construction of a link road between the such that delay would reduce at the south junction A937 and the B9120. and is likely to be introduced at the centre junction. 3 Complementary If implemented as part of a package, it would allow the closure of the central reserve at the centre junction, removing a conflict movement and benefiting the TPOs. 36 Close A90 centre junction Close the central reservation at the This option is anticipated to provide benefit when centre junction, therefore restricting combined with option 35 (Link road between A937 1 Complementary movements to left in and left out from and B9120). the B9120 east.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 6-9 SECTION OPTION GENERATION, SIFTING AND DEVELOPMENT . Option Packaging and Refinement As outlined above, each of the options have been categorised to determine what form they progress in to the STAG Part 1 Initial Appraisal. The option categorisation process is illustrated in Figure 6-1.

Figure 6-1 – Option Categorisation

Options were categorised into “core” options, which addressed the problems and issues central to the study, and the remaining options were considered to be “tier 1 complementary” and “tier 2 complementary”. Tier 1 complementary options such as Rationalisation of High Street parking were considered as potentially being necessary to mitigate wider impacts that may occur as a result of a core option. Tier 2 options were considered to be more minor in nature (such as street lighting) and tend to relate to aspects of any proposed enhancement or an existing junction layout. Tier 2 options are recommended for further consideration should the study progress to a DMRB Stage 2 Assessment and have not been considered further within the STAG process. The packages have been developed with a view to maximise the benefits of each combination. The focus of the problems and issues was around the south junction and so all packages, other than Package 1 and 8, included grade separation at the south junction. Added to this, these packages included combinations of options impacting at both the centre and north junctions. Each combination has both benefits, but also has impacts, which have been appraised in the following chapters.

6-10 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION OPTION GENERATION, SIFTING AND DEVELOPMENT

Table 6-2 outlines the package variants identified to be appraised at the Part 1 Initial Appraisal. Table 6-2 – Option Packages Package South Junction Centre Junction North Junction Tier 1 Complementary Options No./ID (options which could mitigate wider impacts of core options) 1 No Change No Change No Change Average Speed Cameras (6) and extend 50mph zone 2 Grade separation (21) No Change No Change with/without High St parking (1) 3 Grade separation (21) No Change Close central reserve with/without western (24) distributor road (28) 4 Grade separation (21) Close + Link Rd to A937 No Change with/without High St parking (1) (35+36) 5 Grade separation (21) Close + Link Rd to A937 Close central reserve with/without western (35+36) (24) distributor road (28) 6 Grade separation (21) No Change Grade Separation (19) 7 Grade separation (21) Close Laurencekirk access Grade separation (19) and central reserve, leaving left in/out on B9120 east (25) Sustainable Travel Package (supportive and could be applied to any of the Core Option Packages) 8 Pedestrian crossings on High Street + grade separated pedestrian/cycle link across the A90 utilising existing underpass with pedestrian/cycle connection to east + Improved pedestrian facilities at High Street/Alma Place/Conveth Place + Increase public transport awareness & travel behaviour change (Smarter Choices)

The following presents an outline of each package and the core variants, together with the rationale for inclusion of the Tier 1 complementary options. • Package 1 focuses on the extension of the 50mph zone at Laurencekirk on the A90 to include all three trunk road junctions, with the introduction of average speed cameras along its length. The context for the development of this package is one which is a low cost alternative to a major intervention, such as grade separation; • Package 2 includes the grade separation of the south junction and has, at this stage, been considered with and without the inclusion of the rationalisation of parking on Laurencekirk High Street. The south junction is the busiest of the three trunk road junctions which provide access to the town, and provides a critical link from the north of Angus to the A90 corridor. The junction also provides an alternative to the A92 for travel to Stonehaven and beyond from the north of Angus; • Package 3 includes the provision of a grade separated south junction, and also includes a central reserve closure at the north junction. Package 3 could include a complementary option of the western distributor road, which would link the south junction to the north of Laurencekirk. As the access to Laurencekirk from the southbound A90 would not be permitted at the north junction, vehicles would need to utilise either the existing centre junction or the grade separated south junction. Alternatively, traffic heading for the north of Laurencekirk could turn around at the south junction and head north up the A90, turning left at either the centre of north junctions, as required. If proposed developments to the north of Laurencekirk were realised, southbound traffic from these would need to, at some point, travel along Laurencekirk High Street, unless a western distributor road was present; • Package 4 is similar to Packages 2 and 3 and again includes the provision of grade separation at the south junction and closure of the central junction with an associated link road from the A937 to the B9120, either with or without the provision of a rationalisation of parking on Laurencekirk High Street; • Package 5 includes grade separation of the south junction and closure of the centre junction with an associated link road from the A937 to the B9120, with closure of the north junction centre reserve. This therefore limits entry to Laurencekirk from the north to using the south junction, with only left in/left out provision remaining at the north junction. It could include a western distributor road;

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 6-11 SECTION OPTION GENERATION, SIFTING AND DEVELOPMENT

• Package 6 includes the provision of grade separation at both the north and south junctions; • Package 7 is similar to package 6, as it includes the grade separation of the north and south junctions as core variants, however it also includes the closure of the Laurencekirk access and the central reserve at the centre junction, with left in/out only at the east approach; and • Package 8 has been categorised as a sustainable travel package, which includes pedestrian crossings on the High Street and improved pedestrian and cycle facilities, including the upgrade of the existing underpass of the A90 and associated cycle/pedestrian link to the east. It is considered that this package could be considered as a supportive package to enhance any of the junction improvement packages. Those refined option packages which are considered to achieve the TPOs most effectively will, following the STAG Part 1 Initial Appraisal, be recommended for progression to the STAG Part 2 Detailed Appraisal stage.

6-12 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION 7 STAG Part Initial Appraisal

. Introduction This chapter reports on the STAG Part 1 Initial Appraisal of the option packages detailed within Chapter 7. The STAG Part 1 Initial Appraisal was limited to a qualitative appraisal of the performance of each of the option packages, together with their rationale or justification for progression to the STAG Part 2 Detailed Appraisal stage. This chapter provides an appraisal of each combination of option packages and focuses on their ability to meet the Transport Planning Objectives (TPOs) for the study, STAG Criteria and Deliverability, whilst Appraisal Summary Tables (ASTs) within Appendix E will provide a summary of the appraisal of each option and option package against all criteria together with associated scoring. . Proposed Approach The approach taken to the STAG Part 1 Initial Appraisal was to consider the options grouped within current packages developed at the pre-appraisal option generation stage. The STAG Part 1 Initial Appraisal consisted of core options which included grade separation at the A90 north and/or south junction, which was tested with the addition of a combination of additional ‘complementary’ options. It was anticipated that further sequential testing would be undertaken at the STAG Part 2 Detailed Appraisal stage to ensure the best set of complementary options were chosen. The option categorisation is shown in Figure 8-1. Tier 2 options have not been considered further within the STAG process and instead will be revisited should the study progress to a DMRB Stage 2 Assessment. . Option Appraisal .. Appraisal Criteria As outlined above, the STAG Part 1 Initial Appraisal was solely qualitative, with options considered in the context of their ability to achieve the TPOs as well as consideration given against STAG Criteria, Established Policy Directives and Feasibility, Affordability and Public Acceptability. The STAG Transport Appraisal Guidance available at http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/scottish-transport-appraisal-guidance-stag provides a defined criteria for appraisal. As per STAG advice, the initial appraisal was based on a seven point scale as follows: 3 Major benefit -1 Small minor cost or negative impact 2 Moderate benefit -2 Moderate cost or negative impact 1 Minor benefit -3 Major cost or negative impacts 0 No benefit or impact

Provided within Appendix E supporting this Report, are a series of Part 1 ASTs which display a summary of the appraisal against each of the required criteria. ASTs have been provided for each of the options, both core and complementary, together with a summary appraisal of each of the option packages. .. Transport Planning Objectives ... Introduction This section presents a summary of the STAG Part 1 Initial Appraisal of the eight option packages, with the aim of considering how each performs against the TPOs for the study and the wider appraisal criteria: TPO 1 – Safety; TPO 2 - Driver behaviour; TPO 3 - Efficiency of the network and economic development; TPO 4 - Sustainable travel; and

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 7-1 SECTION STAG PART 1 - INITIAL APPRAISAL

TPO 5 - Laurencekirk High Street. The approach taken to the STAG Part 1 Initial Appraisal was to consider the eight option packages comparatively in terms of the benefits against the TPOs, STAG Criteria and draw on the strengths and weaknesses of each of the packages and, in particular, the introduction of Tier 1 complementary measures. ... Performance against TPOs The performance against the TPOs for the study has been provided within Table 7-1, which includes scoring together with relevant rationale and evidence where available. There is a degree of commonality between each of the packages, including the inclusion of a grade separated junction at the south junction and, as such, overlapping benefits can be achieved.

7-2 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION STAG PART 1 - INITIAL APPRAISAL

Table 7-1 – Performance against TPOs Package Tier 1 Testing TPO1 TPO2 TPO3 TPO4 TPO5 Qualitative Appraisal Results Safety Behaviour Efficiency Sustain High St 1 - Average Speed Cameras on the 1 0 -3 0 0 Package 1 contains extended elements which are in place on the A90 at Laurencekirk currently, which existing 50mph section of the A90 evidence has suggested are proving successful in reducing the severity of accidents. The intervention would and extend 50mph zone to cover not remove turning movements, so it is likely that the influence this package would have on TPO1 would be all three A90 Laurencekirk minor positive. junctions Reduced mainline traffic speeds would allow drivers to better gauge gaps and turning opportunities but not remove them. TPO2 is likely to remain neutral overall. Of most significance is the effect on TPO3 and the major negative impact that this package would have on the efficiency of the network. Whilst some efficiencies may be noted on the side roads, the added delay to A90 movements to such a volume of traffic on the A90, (in excess of 20,000 AADT) would impact significantly on strategic journey times, estimated to be approximately 40 seconds above current journey times. The intervention is considered to have neutral impact on TPO4, as pedestrians and cyclists would still need to cross at grade. Impact on the High Street is also considered to be neutral 2 - Grade With High 2 2 2 1 0 The safety benefits that the intervention would bring are related primarily to a likely reduction in non-injury separation of Street Parking only accidents at the south junction, as there have been no recent injury accidents at this location in the south junction Rationalisation reported three years 2011-13. However, the perception of safety for local road users is expected to be with significantly improved as a result. There will still be potential safety issues at north and centre junctions, as Without High 2 2 2 1 -1 rationalisation of Street Parking they are unchanged. parking on High Rationalisation A grade separated junction will reduce delays for side road traffic and right turn movements, thereby Street reducing driver frustration, so TPO2 will see a moderate positive impact. A reduction in delay will also improve the efficiency of the network to a noticeable extent that it has a moderate positive benefit. Grade separation would assist sustainable modes of transport to negotiate the south junction more quickly and safely to a minor positive extent. Any development proposals which increase demand on the existing south junction are very likely to have permission withheld or conditions applied. Grade separation would address these conditions. This package focuses on the benefits for vehicle crossing movements, however the combination of a complementary option for the High Street would aim to ensure that with new development at the north of the town, and a new junction at the south, that the character of the High Street remains consistent with how it is currently. It is therefore considered that the influence this option package on the High Street is likely to be neutral, assuming some rationalisation of existing High Street parking is undertaken. If rationalisation were not implemented, a potential change in traffic flows on the High Street would have a minor negative impact. There is likely to be a mix of support and objections to any parking rationalisation.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 7-3 SECTION STAG PART 1 - INITIAL APPRAISAL

Package Tier 1 Testing TPO1 TPO2 TPO3 TPO4 TPO5 Qualitative Appraisal Results Safety Behaviour Efficiency Sustain High St 3 - Closure of With Western 2 2 2 1 -1 This option would help to reduce accidents associated with crossing and turning movements at both the central reserve at Distributor Rd north and south junctions, although both currently have relatively low injury accident records, together with north junction Without 2 2 2 1 -1 maintaining the safety record on Laurencekirk High Street. The centre junction would remain in place as is and grade Western and so there may be increased usage following closure of the central reserve at the north junction. There separation at Distributor Rd may be a slight chance for an increase in accidents due to the additional section of road and greater mileage south junction due to vehicles re-routing, but this is envisaged to be nominal. with western It is considered traffic flows along Laurencekirk High Street would alter if the north junction central reserve distributor road was closed, because right turn manoeuvres from the north into Laurencekirk would be diverted to alternative junctions. Currently, the volume of traffic making the crossing movements at the north junction is around 250 in the pm peak period and likely to grow significantly if development aspirations at the north of Laurencekirk progress. This option is likely to have a noticeable positive impact on the attitude towards safety at the south junction by reducing waiting delay, thereby reducing driver frustration. Restricting movements at the north junction would influence driver behaviour and force drivers to route via the centre or south junction if travelling south and wishing to enter Laurencekirk. Rather than removing the problem, it may just relocate to the centre junction, although the centre junction does not have significant issues with turning delay. The impact on the High Street is likely to be one of increased delay due to its width and various pinch points along its length, which would be of minor disbenefit. The complementary measure of the introduction of a western distributor road is likely to present an alternative, but which would probably take longer to travel along than via the High Street, hence it has not been deemed to enhance the TPO scoring at this stage. Grade separation would assist sustainable modes of transport to negotiate the south junction more quickly and safely to a minor positive extent. Whilst limiting crossing movements at the north junction may increase journey times for commuting traffic returning to Laurencekirk, it is considered the overall benefits against the TPOs for Package 3 are moderately positive with the provision of a grade separated junction at the south. It is considered that inclusion of the western distributor road has little impact on the TPOs, as traffic affected by the closure of the central reserve at the north junction would probably re-route via the centre junction and High Street.

7-4 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION STAG PART 1 - INITIAL APPRAISAL

Package Tier 1 Testing TPO1 TPO2 TPO3 TPO4 TPO5 Qualitative Appraisal Results Safety Behaviour Efficiency Sustain High St 4 - No change at With High 2 2 1 1 0 The provision of Package 4 scores positively against four of the TPOs. north Junction. Street Parking This option would help to significantly reduce accidents associated with crossing and turning movements at Closure of central Rationalisation the south junction and reduce driver frustration with delays. But it should be noted the number of injury junction, with a Without High 2 2 1 1 -1 accidents occurring at the south junction is low, although the local community still have concerns with the link road to the Street Parking perception of road safety. The south junction could become more attractive to users and therefore create a A937 from the Rationalisation latent demand. The closure of the central junction, which has an accident history and issues with regard to B9120, grade visibility, would bring added benefits in respect of safety, further reducing conflicting at grade crossing separation at the movements. There may be a slight chance for new accidents due to the additional section of road and south junction greater mileage due to vehicle re-routing, but this is likely to be nominal. with High Street It is important to consider that the centre junction’s main traffic turning movement (i.e. that which hosts Parking the majority of traffic throughout a typical neutral weekday) is the right turn southwards out of Laurencekirk, which comprises approximately 30 vehicles, and from the B9120, the vehicle flows are even less. As a result of these low flows, its closure is considered to be feasible and would deliver immediate safety benefits. However, the option has been considered in the context of maintaining local access from the east by having an associated link road to allow very local re-distribution of traffic and therefore limit any wider impact on traffic re-routing. As noted, the critical movement at the centre junction is that from Laurencekirk and so if this package was implemented, this traffic would likely travel onto the A90 via the grade separated south junction, thus slightly increasing the traffic flow on Laurencekirk High Street. It should be noted that the proportion of HGVs was also noted to be low (less than 5%) for this movement and so the impact on the High Street is likely to be minor negative. Grade separation would assist sustainable modes of transport to negotiate the south junction more quickly and safely to a minor positive extent. Package 4, at this stage, also has the option for including the rationalisation of High Street parking. This is as a comparably low cost additional option, which would be complementary in nature which would address any negative impact, resulting in a neutral benefit on TPO5. There is likely to be a mix of support and objections to any parking rationalisation.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 7-5 SECTION STAG PART 1 - INITIAL APPRAISAL

Package Tier 1 Testing TPO1 TPO2 TPO3 TPO4 TPO5 Qualitative Appraisal Results Safety Behaviour Efficiency Sustain High St 5 - Closure of With Western 3 3 1 1 1 This option would eliminate the accident risk associated with at grade A90 crossing movements. It should be central reserve at Distributor Rd noted the no personal injury accidents occurred at the south and north junctions between 2011 and 2013 north junction Without 3 3 1 1 -1 inclusive. But the junction could become more attractive to users and therefore create a latent demand, and closure of Western particularly in regards to the western distributor road. The introduction of a western distributor road and central junction Distributor Rd also the A937/B9120 link road may increase the opportunity, chance etc. for local accidents due to with a new link additional section of road and greater mileage, although this is deemed to be nominal. road to the A937 This option is likely to have a noticeable positive impact in the attitude towards safety at the south junction from the B9120 by reducing waiting delay, thereby reducing driver frustration. The inclusion of restricting movements at the and grade north junction and closure of the centre junction would influence driver behaviour and force drivers to separation of the route via the south junction if travelling south and wishing to enter Laurencekirk. As a complementary south junction measure, the need for the western distributor road may be relevant in future years, should Laurencekirk see with western continued population growth, with development allocated to the north and west, as per the allocations distributor road within the adopted Aberdeenshire Local Development Plan. The western distributor road would allow traffic from the north of Laurencekirk to route to and from the grade separated junction at the south. If considered in isolation, the western distributor road is limited in its ability to perform well against the TPOs. Because of the potential future volume of traffic originating from the northern extent of Laurencekirk associated with future development aspirations, the western distributor could compensate for the lack of a grade separated junction at the north of Laurencekirk. It would allow for circular flow, (e.g. in respect of the tidal commuter flow to Aberdeen, as traffic could route northwards from the north junction, whilst when returning in the evening, could enter via the south junction). The full closure of the centre junction and closure of the central reserve at the north does present an impact in relation to increased journey times and additional mileage, due to traffic having to re-route to the south junction. However, it is considered the reductions in delay, as a result of the grade separated junction would be tend to offset some of this negative impact.

7-6 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION STAG PART 1 - INITIAL APPRAISAL

Package Tier 1 Testing TPO1 TPO2 TPO3 TPO4 TPO5 Qualitative Appraisal Results Safety Behaviour Efficiency Sustain High St 6 - Grade separation of the north 3 2 2 2 0 Package 6 provides benefits against 4 out of 5 of the TPOs, as it addresses the main conflict issues at the and south junction south and north junctions, although it does leave the centre junction open which does present some on- going safety risks due to recent accidents. To an extent, traffic flow patterns on the High Street are unlikely to change to any significant extent so its impact on TPO5 is deemed to be neutral A grade separated junction at the north would allow any future development located at the north of Laurencekirk to enter and leave via the A90, without impinging on the High Street. The provision of a grade separated junction at the south junction would allow traffic from the north of Angus access to the A90 without the need to cross at-grade, therefore improved driver behaviour and network efficiency. The provision of grade separated junctions to the north and south of the town would also allow public transport vehicles to enter and exit Laurencekirk safely. This is particularly relevant when considering the number of school buses which travel to the High School at the north end of Laurencekirk. It is likely that by having new junctions at both the north and south, any future traffic volumes associated with development at the north of Laurencekirk would have an alternative to the south junction, and achieve balanced traffic flows, so impact would be neutral. Grade separation would assist sustainable modes of transport to negotiate both the north and south junctions more quickly and safely to a moderate positive extent. 7 - Grade separation of the north 3 3 2 2 0 Package 7 achieves positive benefits against 4 out of 5 of the TPOS and south junctions, closure of the This package would eliminate all accidents associated with at grade A90 crossing movements. This package Laurencekirk access and central is likely to have a noticeable impact in the attitude towards safety at the north and south junctions by reserve at centre junction with left reducing waiting delay, thereby reducing driver frustration. Whilst some drivers using the centre junction in/out from the B9120 would have to undertake longer journeys to other junctions, these junctions would be safer and quickly to negotiate. However, flows at the centre junction are lower than at other junctions. This package would reduce delay for side road crossing movements and right turn movements by A90 traffic, thereby improving journey times and network efficiency experienced by traffic travelling on the A90 or using the A90 Laurencekirk junctions, except for the low traffic flows using the centre junction that would need to travel further. It would also reduce conflict between local and strategic traffic. The benefits of the improvement would be slightly reduced by the longer journey times experienced by displaced traffic that used the centre junction. Grade separation would assist sustainable modes of transport to negotiate both the north and south junctions more quickly and safely to a moderate positive extent. Grade separation at both junctions would help achieve a balanced flow through the High Street. The low levels of traffic affected by closure of movements at the centre junction would have no noticeable impact.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 7-7 SECTION STAG PART 1 - INITIAL APPRAISAL

Package Tier 1 Testing TPO1 TPO2 TPO3 TPO4 TPO5 Qualitative Appraisal Results Safety Behaviour Efficiency Sustain High St 8 - Pedestrian crossings on High 0 0 0 2 2 Package 8 is a relatively low cost intervention, which would deliver positive benefits in relation to the Street, upgrade of sustainable travel TPO, as it would allow improved crossing opportunities on the High Street and would pedestrian/cycle link under the reduce the severance caused by the A90 for travel on foot and bicycle. A90 with ped/cycle connection to Improvements to the High Street, in the form of pedestrian crossings and facilities, would have a moderate east, improved pedestrian facilities positive benefit on TPO5 by potentially helping to make the area more attractive for people to visit. on the High Street at Alma Place/Conveth Place and a travel behaviour change awareness campaign

7-8 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION STAG PART 1 - INITIAL APPRAISAL .. STAG Criteria ... Environment Appraisal against environmental factors has been considered on a broad basis for the STAG Part 1 Initial Appraisal, as the packages have not been developed in sufficient detail to assess any further at this stage. Baseline data has been recorded to provide the basis for appraisal and packages will be considered in more detail at the STAG Part 2 Detailed Appraisal stage. Within the Environment criterion of STAG there are a number of sub criteria including: • Noise and Vibration; • Global Air Quality; • Local Air Quality; • Water Quality, Drainage and Flood Defence; • Geology; • Biodiversity and Habitats; • Landscape; • Visual Amenity; • Agriculture and Soils; and • Cultural Heritage. Within this section, the option packages have been appraised in the context of the above disciplines, where deemed relevant, comparing how the packages perform as a result of the variants contained within them. Package 1 is considered to have a neutral environmental impact as it does not involve construction of infrastructure or re-routing of traffic. ... Noise and Vibration In regard to noise and vibration, Packages 6 and 7 both include the provision of a grade separated junction at the north junction, to which there are currently a number of sensitive receptors. The closest of these is some 230m south west of the existing north junction at Conveth Mains, hence the new junction is unlikely to result in any noticeable detrimental change to noise levels. At the centre junction, sensitive receptors in the form of residential dwellings are closer, at around 100m. Of the eight option packages being appraised, none involve any intervention which would exacerbate the noise levels, as Packages 4 and 5 close the centre junction and Package 7 only partially closes the centre junction, leaving a single left in/out on the eastern B9120 approach. Grade separation at the south junction has been included within Packages 2 through to 7 and this aspect would have a low impact on any sensitive receptors, as the closest identified, residential dwellings north west of the junction, lie over 500m away. Those packages which include a grade separated junction at the south, but exclude major intervention at both the north and centre junction would therefore have very limited impacts on noise receptors. ... Air Quality Several air pollutants can cause specific local problems if they occur at high concentrations. Substances that potentially have impacts on human health, flora and fauna include carbon dioxide, volatile organic compounds, nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter. At very short distances, heavy metals such as lead and cadmium may also be significant. Pollutant concentrations exceeding ambient air quality standards are normally directly adjacent to roads and airports. The key pollutants to be considered in STAG are nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter, which together are taken to account for local air quality. Local air quality may occasionally be affected during the construction period, however, this will be minimised by adopting and monitoring recognised ‘best practice methods’.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 7-9 SECTION STAG PART 1 - INITIAL APPRAISAL

At or near Laurencekirk, no Local Air Quality Management Areas have been identified, however baseline evidence has shown that only the centre junction has sensitive receptors within the 200m threshold, whereby exposure to temporary dust nuisance during any construction phases could be an issue. In terms of permanent impact, a total of 25 residential dwellings were identified within this threshold, however none of the option packages would impact on these receptors. Packages 3 and 5 may include a Tier 1 complementary option, subject to further quantitative appraisal, including a western distributor road, which during construction would have sensitive receptors within 200m. The alignment of a western distributor would require to pass to the east of Dunlethen woods, so it would be within 50m of sensitive receptors. Hence, the impacts on air quality will be more significant from Packages 3 and 5 , should these progress with the inclusion of a western distributor road. ... Water Quality, Drainage and Flood Defence Water quality is a particular consideration for Packages 2 through to 7 due to the physical interventions proposed on the network. A range of watercourses were identified as part of the environmental baselines study and it is anticipated that each of these packages which involve physical construction activities. These may impact on watercourses, possibly requiring appropriate culverting, alteration or diversion and indirectly should they receive road runoff from the A90. Flood mapping was examined within the environmental baseline study. Some areas were identified as being at risk within the study area, these are, however, not near the north, centre or south Laurencekirk junctions. Packages 3 and 5 do include the possibility of inclusion of the western distributor road, which may come within proximity of areas of potential flooding to the west of the town, however the general alignment is likely to be closer to Laurencekirk and unlikely to be within a risk area. ... Biodiversity and Habitats Some semi-natural and replanted ancient woodland was identified within 2km, being located to the south west of Laurencekirk. Whilst Packages 2 through to 7 propose intervention in the form of grade separation at the south junction, any forthcoming design is unlikely to be within proximity of this woodland. Packages 3 and 5 , however, have the potential for the inclusion of the western distributor road, the alignment of which may impact negatively on this woodland. Consideration of the alignment of such an option would therefore be required to limit any potential impacts. No habitat assessments have been undertaken as part of this study, however aerial photography has been examined to understand the likely habitats which could be impacted by each package of interventions. The areas around the Laurencekirk junctions including the area for a western distributor road and a link road between the B9120 and A937 is dominated by semi-natural and plantation woodland, arable fields, scattered trees, semi–natural grassland and tall ruderal herbs. At this stage, the study has not been informed by a species survey, although records have shown that badgers have been present within 1km of the proposals. The supporting environmental baseline is provided within Appendix D of this report and has identified no International, National or Local Statutory designated sites within a 2km proximity of the core study area. ... Visual Amenity The visual impact on the landscape is an aspect which Packages 2 through to 7 will all have some influence. This is due to the inclusion of new grade separated junctions, together with possible distributor and link roads. The landscape character of the area around Laurencekirk, particularly around the existing junctions and to the west of the town, consist of both flat and rolling countryside and any aspect of long uninterrupted views would be sensitive to intrusive elements such as those within the option packages. None of the option packages impact on any designated landscape sites. The provision of a grade separated junction is contained as part of Packages 2 through to 7 , and the visual amenity value of the area will be impacted as a result. Packages 3 and 5 include an option for the western distributor road which would also have an impact on the visual impact of the landscape. There are two nearby viewpoints identified in the Aberdeenshire Local Development Plan as having valued views which include the A90 at Laurencekirk. These are:

7-10 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION STAG PART 1 - INITIAL APPRAISAL

• The view of Johnston Tower from the Cairn O’Mount Viewpoint; and • The view of Strathfinella/Cairn O’Mount from Garvock Hill. It is unlikely that the physical intrusion of new junctions and link road will limit these views, however, the new features would be present within these views. The land required for the packages to materialise would be principally agricultural land. Packages 2 through to 7 involve grade separation of the south junction, which is surrounded by class 3.2 land (land capable of producing a moderate range of crops). Packages 3 and 5 could include the western distributor road as a complementary measure. The western distributor road would impact on agricultural land to the west of Laurencekirk graded at 3.2. Packages 4 and 5 include the provision of a link road from the B9120 following closure of the centre junction and, as such, would impact on agricultural land graded at 3.2. The agricultural land quality to the northwest of Laurencekirk improves, however, the land quality remains at 3.2 grade at those areas covered by the proposals. There are no Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) within the Laurencekirk area. ... Safety The Safety criterion includes two sub-criteria: Accidents and Security. In the STAG Part 1 Initial Appraisal, impacts against both sub-criteria involve: • Identifying for accidents which, if any, user groups may be affected and develop projections of what will be the likely impact of each option; and • Considering whether each option has any material impact on security for the users. Accident analysis was undertaken as part of the baseline assessment within the study area and presented within Chapter 4 of this report. At this stage, only a qualitative assessment of accident projections has been undertaken, with quantitative appraisal of any option packages progressing to STAG Part 2 Detailed Appraisal being subject to an assessment using Network Evaluation from Surveys and Assignment (NESA) economic software. This is used to calculate any potential accident benefit or dis-benefit associated with option packages. No personal injury accidents occurred at the south junction in the three year period 2011-2013, however a number of non-injury accidents are known to have occurred, some of which have been recorded by Aberdeenshire and others which have been reported on social media as part of local safety campaigns. The upgrade of the south junction in Packages 2 to 7 would include additional road space, such as roundabouts or priority junctions for traffic to join the A90 from the A937, as well as an overbridge. So whilst high speed conflict points would be significantly reduced, there will still remain potential conflicts which could result in slight or non-injury accidents (e.g. approaches to a roundabout on a grade separated junction). In the instances such as Package 6 and 7, where upgrades of both north and south junctions are proposed, the safety benefits will be enhanced, as currently at the north, vehicles are required to cross mainline A90 traffic moving at speeds of up to 70mph. Package 1 does not eliminate any crossing conflicts, although it would reduce speeds on the A90. It therefore does not have as high a safety benefit as Packages 2 to 7. Packages 4, 5 and 7 all include either closure or restriction of movements at the centre junction and this will positively influence safety. The provision of an associated link road, as defined within Packages 4 and 5, will result in some additional vehicle mileage and a potential associated accident rate. These aspects are not relevant to packages, such as 2 and 3 , which propose to leave the centre junction in its current state. Package 5 does, however, eliminate all at grade crossings of the A90. This therefore addresses a major concern of the local community. A similar scenario of additional mileage is relevant when considering both Package 3 and 5 , whereby a western distributor road is proposed for inclusion. Whilst this new road will potentially reduce trips along Laurencekirk High Street, it will result in increased mileage on the network, with an associated accident rate, which on options which exclude this new route, would not exist.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 7-11 SECTION STAG PART 1 - INITIAL APPRAISAL

As there is a significant concern in the local community about using the junctions within the vicinity of Laurencekirk, Packages 1 to 7 would, to varying degrees, help improve their feeling of security. Packages 2 to 7 include at least one grade separated junction and therefore provide a safe location for crossing the A90. With regard to security, the groups most likely to be negatively affected in the existing situation due to the difficulties crossing the A90 are: • Pedestrians; • Cyclists; • Public transport users; and • New/ elderly motorists. ... Economy The appraisal in respect of the STAG Economy criterion at this stage is purely qualitative, and will focus on the positive and negative impacts of the option packages. The impact on the local economy of Laurencekirk, through anecdotal evidence gathered as part of the Pre- Appraisal process, has been influenced by the absence of a grade separated junction on the A90. The absence of such a junction has impacts across the local population, particularly for both new drivers and the elderly. School transport, together with public transport, has been impacted, in that they are often delayed when negotiating the existing south junction. Commuters travelling from Montrose along the A937 and those travelling south from Laurencekirk joining the A90 at the southern junction have been impacted by the absence of grade separation. All of the option packages will impact on the local community. Package 1 would lower speeds on the A90 past the town, which will increase journey times for vehicles on the route. Packages 2 to 7 all include grade separation at the south junction, which during the AM peak period will undoubtedly reduce delay for northbound commuters travelling on the A937 and southbound commuters leaving Laurencekirk in the PM peak. However, it is likely that of most significance with those packages that include a grade separated junction at the south, is the ability to increase the speed on the A90 from the current 50mph to 70mph, thus reducing journey time for many thousands of A90 users. Whilst Packages 2 to 7 all include grade separation of the south junction, Packages 6 and 7 also include grade separation of the north junction. This will reduce delay in the future for the increasing number of vehicles turning into Laurencekirk from the north, associated with future development aspirations for the town, but these packages involve significant additional cost of implementation. As discussed previously, Packages 3 and 5 both have the option of including a western distributor road, which, when considering future scenarios with increased traffic associated with development at the north end of Laurencekirk, is potentially required to limit the impacts of increasing traffic flow on Laurencekirk High Street but adds a significant cost to each package. Packages 4 and 5 include the closure of the centre junction, this would impact on vehicle routing. This would also have an associated additional mileage with corresponding increases in journey time for a number of users not able to turn right into Laurencekirk from the north, at either the north or centre junctions. It is evident that, based on the qualitative appraisal of packages, in terms of the local economic benefit will be either neutral or positive in the case of Packages 2 to 7 , with the principal positive benefit likely to be seen from the inclusion of the south junction upgrade, associated speed limit increase and delay reduction at this location. For some packages, it is not clear if benefits would outweigh the cost of implementation. The wider benefits of these packages would also be felt within north Angus, where any development proposal that requires an upgrade of the south junction to be in place prior to occupation would then be able to progress. Laurencekirk has a critical mass of allocated development to the north end of the town, with land outlined for 885 residential units and associated employment land. Packages 6 and 7 , which include provision of a grade separated junction at the north, would therefore aid the delivery of

7-12 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION STAG PART 1 - INITIAL APPRAISAL development aspirations within the town at the north without potentially adding pressure on the High Street. ... Integration A qualitative appraisal of integration has been undertaken at this stage to which consideration of three sub-criteria has been given, including: • Transport Integration; • Transport and Land-Use Integration; and • Policy Integration – The Policy Assessment Framework (PAF) was undertaken to facilitate the assessment of Policy Integration. The PAF chart outputs are presented in Appendix I. Package 1 includes an extension to the existing 50mph speed limit on the A90 at the south junction to include the centre and north junctions and includes the introduction of average speed cameras. This package would integrate well within the current infrastructure, as there is a section of 50mph limit on the A90 currently and the extension of the reduced speed limit has the potential for a minor benefit in terms of accident risk. However this option does not fit with the strategic outcomes of the National Transport Strategy, such as improving journey times and connections. Packages 2 to 7 all include grade separation of one or more junctions and so contribute to the improvement of journey times and address the priorities of the Aberdeenshire Local Transport Strategy, in terms of road network improvements and improved network provision, together with greater opportunities to undertake sustainable and safer journeys. It should be noted however, that Packages 3 and 5 in particular, if they include the western distributor road at Laurencekirk, do not fit as well with environmental objectives on landscape. Both Packages 6 and 7 include the upgrade of the north junction and, therefore, fit well with the Aberdeenshire Local Development Plan which specifies improvement being required at this location to facilitate development. Package 8 is particularly beneficial for integration for sustainable modes, by increasing crossing opportunities of the A90 and Laurencekirk High Street, therefore reducing severance. This fits well with Aberdeenshire Council’s Local Transport Strategy priorities for greater opportunities for sustainable and safer journeys. Packages 2 to 7 all include some form of junction upgrade which will enhance the opportunities for vulnerable members of society, such as the elderly. Anecdotal evidence suggests these road users are either not undertaking journeys which cross the A90, or are limiting these journeys as a result of the perception of poor safety associated with the current provision of at grade junctions. Packages 6 and 7 are considered to offer the opportunity for enhanced local bus service provision, with the option for larger buses to route via Laurencekirk via grade separated south and north junctions. This, in turn, could influence further rail patronage and integrating modes, due to the opportunities for safer and swifter bus journeys to interchange points, such as Laurencekirk rail station. ... Accessibility and Social Inclusion A qualitative appraisal of accessibility and social inclusion has been undertaken at this stage and consideration has been given to two sub-criteria: • Community Accessibility; and • Comparative Accessibility. Package 1 does not impact on community accessibility and, in general, does not offer improvement to existing accessibility. Packages 2 to 7 all include grade separation of the south junction and so provide opportunities to travel across the A90 from north Angus to Laurencekirk and would have associated improvements to merge and diverges at the junction. Whilst the junction upgrade would facilitate motorised journeys, the removal of at grade crossing of the A90 will allow non-motorised users an opportunity to access Laurencekirk from the south.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 7-13 SECTION STAG PART 1 - INITIAL APPRAISAL

Packages 3 to 7 all include additional combinations of options within them, including improvements to the north junction and closures and link roads at the centre junction. Packages 3 and 5 could include the western distributor road as a complementary measure. Packages 6 and 7 provide enhanced opportunities for accessibility for all users at the north and south junctions. Packages 2 to 7 would also improve accessibility, due to the opportunities at the south junction which would help link local communities such as Marykirk and Montrose, as opposed to only linking Laurencekirk with the strategic road network and settlements further afield. Package 8 performs well in relation to accessibility for sustainable modes and if combined with other packages, such as 6 or 7 , would significantly improve accessibility for all sectors of the community. Feedback from early stakeholder consultation suggested that the lack of a grade separated junction on the A90 at Laurencekirk has limited the success of small businesses, particularly small retail outlets based in the town. It was suggested this is because local people living in Marykirk would travel southward to Montrose, rather than across the A90 into Laurencekirk, resulting in a restriction in retail activity in the town. Whilst shops in Laurencekirk would welcome increased patronage, there is no evidence the current south junction layout is a major inhibitor to their current viability. An examination of the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation was undertaken to inform the study, and Laurencekirk ranks within the 30% least deprived data zones within Scotland. The northern section of Laurencekirk is ranked among the top 15% least deprived zones in Scotland, in terms of both employment and health. Those data zones covering Laurencekirk are of a similar ranking with alternative zones throughout Aberdeenshire, and this is indicative that Laurencekirk is a relatively affluent area, with little sign of deprivation. ... Summary Appraisal against the five key STAG criteria has been considered on a broad basis for the STAG Part 1 Initial Appraisal. Table 7-2 provides a summary of the scoring. Table 7-2– STAG Key Criteria Appraisal Results Package Criteria 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Environment 0 -2 -3 -2 -3 -2 -3 0 Safety 0 0 -1 -1 -1 0 1 0 Economy -3 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 Integration -1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 Accessibility & Social 0 1 1 1 1 2 -1 1 Inclusion

.. Deliverability Appraisal ... Feasibility, Affordability and Public Acceptability A qualitative review of the deliverability of each of the option packages has been undertaken. The option packages have been considered comparatively, with the results of an appraisal against feasibility, affordability and public acceptability provided below. Package 1 which extends the A90 50 mph limit and provides additional speed cameras would be easily deliverable and affordable. It is, however, unlikely to be acceptable to the local community, as it will not address their key concerns. In addition, there may be concern from A90 users as it would increase journey times. Packages 2 through to 7 include grade separation at the south junction. A new grade separated south junction would be relatively straightforward to construct due to the open ground available on both sides of the A90. In addition, it would have no impact on the BP Forties pipeline or other significant utilities.

7-14 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION STAG PART 1 - INITIAL APPRAISAL

Closure of the minor accesses immediately south and north of the south junction would be required i.e. Oatyhill and Johnston Lodge. It is anticipated that alternative routes could be provided through the upgrade of existing tracks. The majority of the works for a new grade separated south junction could be carried out offline, with potentially all lanes of the A90 operational under traffic management. Some elements of the works, such as closure of existing A90 central reserve, new slip road tie-ins and A937 tie-ins would require lane closures and associated traffic management and temporary diversions. The works are likely to be over a limited duration. As a new grade separated south junction would be relatively straightforward to construct, the cost should be normal for a scheme of this nature. Similar junctions are in place along the A90 and across the trunk road network, therefore, cost certainty should be medium to high. The type of grade separated junction would need to be confirmed with Transport Scotland Standards Branch, whilst, at this stage, ground investigation also still needs to be carried out. Packages 6 and 7 also include grade separation of the north junction. A new grade separated north junction would be more complex to construct than at the south junction, due to a number of constraints, including a gas pipeline, watercourses and the proximity to the BP pipeline. The inclusion of a grade separated north junction would allow for access to be maintained for Burnside and Keilburn, the majority of the works could be carried out offline, with potentially all lanes of the A90 operational and under traffic management. It is likely that the duration of the construction period would be longer than the proposal at the south. Closure of existing minor accesses immediately north would be required, including Mains of Haulkerton road and Middleton. New access roads to junction could be provided, but would incur associated additional cost, however alternative diversion routes could be required. A new grade separated north junction would result in a significant cost, in addition to that which would be considered for the south, principally due to the adjacent constraints. Whilst it is not anticipated that a new grade separated north junction would cross the Forties pipeline, BP would still need to be consulted. With grade separation at both the north and south junctions, topographical surveys have not been undertaken at this stage, but would be required at a later date. At this stage, Packages 2 and 4 have the option for inclusion of a rationalisation of High Street parking. Rationalisation of parking on the High Street would be feasible to implement. However, slight disruption to the High Street would occur during construction. Operation of the High Street is likely to change as a result of the rationalisation of parking, so it could accommodate additional traffic flow without detrimental impact. Whilst there may be some support for such rationalisation, there are also likely to be objections to change. Packages 3 and 5 have the option for the inclusion of a western distributor road. A western distributor road would be feasible to construct, however the railway line would be a significant constraint and would need to be crossed at two locations. The inclusion of the western distributor road will involve the provision of approximately 4km of new single carriageway. This would result in significant additional costs associated with the two railway crossings, land acquisition and consultation with Network Rail. Including the western distributor road would have a greater footprint for Packages 3 and 5 and a correspondingly greater level of consultation with parties such as SEPA. Both Packages 3 and 5 also include the closure of the central reserve at the north junction, which would involve lane closures and associated traffic management to implement. However, works are likely to be over a limited duration. Closure of the central reserve at the north junction will impact on access to Burnside and Keilburn and diversion routes will be required. Landowner agreement is also a factor which would need further consideration. Packages 4 and 5 include closure of the central junction, with provision of an associated link road to the A937 from the B9120. This should be relatively straightforward to construct, although there would be a requirement for some land acquisition. The closure of the centre junction would allow safer access to the A90 gained via a grade separated south junction and provide direct access to Johnston Lodge. However, the inclusion of closure of the centre junction, with a link road to the A937 from the B9120, will have

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 7-15 SECTION STAG PART 1 - INITIAL APPRAISAL additional associated costs. The proximity of the link road to the Forties pipeline at the centre junction will require consultation with BP, but as the link road would not cross the pipeline, it is anticipated that any impacts would be minimal. Packages 2 to 7 all include the provision of a south grade separated junction, with Packages 6 and 7 also providing a north grade separated junction. Appendix C notes the existing spacing between the three junctions. Whilst there are slight differences between southbound slip roads and northbound slip roads, the south junction is approximately 1.33km from the centre junction, which in turn is approximately 1.41km from the north junction. DMRB TD42/95 requires a minimum junction spacing of 1.00km between a grade separated junction and an at grade junction. The current sketch design for the south grade separated junction should be able to comply with this standard. However, the current sketch design for the north grade separated junction may not comply with the standards and may need a redesign or consideration of closure of the centre junction. The north junction cannot be moved north to any significant extent, as the railway line becomes an engineering constraint, unless extensive and expensive structures were incorporated. It should be noted that any proposal for a new junction to be constructed in between two of the existing junctions would require those two existing junctions to be closed, in order to meet DMRB requirements. In addition, it would be sited close to the oil pipeline which is a major engineering constraint. Packages 2 to 7 will all result in some delay to both A90 and local road traffic during the construction period. This would be exacerbated for Packages 6 and 7 , as two junctions would be constructed. Package 8 involves provision of pedestrian crossings on the High Street, upgrade of pedestrian/cycle link under the A90 with a pedestrian/cycle connection to east, improved pedestrian facilities on the High Street at Alma Place/Conveth Place and a travel behaviour change awareness campaign. The package would be easily deliverable and affordable. Consultation with local people has shown a desire for pedestrian improvements on the High Street and improvements to the existing underpass of the A90. It is, therefore, considered the option would gain public acceptability if delivered as support to another option. Table 7-3 provides a summary of the appraisal scoring for the deliverability appraisal. Table 7-3 – Deliverability Appraisal Results Package Criteria 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Feasibility 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 3 Affordability 2 -2 -3 -2 -3 -3 -3 3 Public Acceptability -2 3 2 3 3 2 2 2

.. Appraisal Results At the Pre-Appraisal option development stage of this study, a series of option packages were developed. These were firstly to identify the core option combinations which demonstrated the best performance against the TPOs for the study and, secondly, to identify the combination of complementary options which would be most beneficial to each of the core packages. The packages developed at the Pre-Appraisal stage and appraised during the STAG Part 1 Initial Appraisal have also sought primarily to demonstrate which combination of options at the Laurencekirk junctions best address the problems and issues with access to the town. The qualitative-based appraisal results, presented above, demonstrates there is a clear case for upgrade of the south junction and this appears to have been accurately reflected in the build-up of packages at the Pre-Appraisal stage. The combination of associated options, such as a grade separated north junction and closures at the centre junction, all perform well against the TPOs. However, it is considered that, due to such commonality between packages, further testing is required at the STAG Part 2 Appraisal stage to demonstrate clear package winners, in terms of the assessment criteria.

7-16 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION STAG PART 1 - INITIAL APPRAISAL

The effectiveness and need for options, such as the western distributor road and the B9120/A937 link road, will require to be tested further, as it remains unclear if these options are needed. In addition to the appraisal presented above, the associated scoring against STAG Objectives and deliverability is contained within the appraisal summary tables (ASTs) which are provided within Appendix E. The ASTs help provide further clarity in respect of those packages which address the problems and issues within the study area. Similarly, the results of the policy assessment framework (PAF) undertaken to facilitate the assessment of Policy Integration are provided as charts within Appendix I. Table 7-4 highlights each of the packages and includes the rationale for progression of a package to the STAG Part 2 Detailed Appraisal, or rejection at this stage. As stated above, the TPOs for the study are: TPO 1 – Safety; TPO 2 - Driver behaviour; TPO 3 - Efficiency of the network and economic development; TPO 4 - Sustainable travel; and TPO 5 - Laurencekirk High Street.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 7-17 SECTION STAG PART 1 - INITIAL APPRAISAL

Table 7-4 – Initial Appraisal Results Package Description Results of Initial Appraisal Selection/Rejection No./ID 1 Package 1 is focused on a lower The package does not fully address the delay issues at the south junction and The package does not perform well in relation to the TPOs for cost intervention which may crossing conflicts at all three Laurencekirk junctions and would increase delay for the study, as it would not address the perception of safety or address the problems and issues strategic traffic on the A90 mainline. delay at the southern junction. with respect to access to Evidence was considered in relation to the relative success of the existing 50mph The package would introduce further delay to the A90 mainline Laurencekirk. It excludes grade zone on the A90 at the south junction in reducing accidents. Consultation has, traffic, which is currently in excess of 20,000 vehicles per day, separation of any of the A90 however, shown that whilst accident severity has reduced, the perceived safety and so would be contrary to the strategic outcomes of the Laurencekirk junctions. and driver behaviour problems remain at the forefront of concerns. National Transport Strategy in respect of improving journey times. This Package should be rejected for further appraisal. 2 Package 2 consists of grade The provision of a grade separated south junction scored well against the TPOs The package performs well against the TPOs for the study, as it separation of the south junction for the study. addresses the key problems and issues with access to and considered the merits of Traffic demand at the south junction is likely to continue to increase with Laurencekirk. inclusion of a rationalisation of developments in north Angus. In addition to the package addressing the delay The package would address current problems and issues, as well parking on Laurencekirk High issues currently experienced at the existing junction, it would accommodate as providing the grade separated junction which is currently a Street. committed development and associated travel demands. It however will not planning condition on proposed development impacting the provide an improvement at the north junction to accommodate future local plan south junction. This would facilitate the progress of development aspirations, which may affect the A90 due to potential queueing on developments in the north of Angus and Laurencekirk. the southbound right turn to Laurencekirk. The construction of a new grade separated junction does have The cost of the package was high due to the provision of a new grade separated environmental impacts in relation to visual intrusion and junction. changes in traffic flows may have impact on noises, vibration As a complementary option, the inclusion of a rationalisation of High Street and air quality. parking was considered. It was deemed to be an appropriate supporting option, In addition, there are journey time benefits from the ability to given the relatively low cost to implement. increase the A90 speed limit back to 70mph The package should be selected for a more detailed appraisal, with the inclusion of rationalisation of parking on Laurencekirk High Street.

7-18 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION STAG PART 1 - INITIAL APPRAISAL

Package Description Results of Initial Appraisal Selection/Rejection No./ID 3 Package 3 consists of grade This package was positive, as much like Package 2, it removed the need for The package performs well against the TPOs, however with the separation of the south junction crossing at grade and would remove delay and the perception of poor safety at inclusion of the western distributor road, the cost of the and closure of the central the south junction. package becomes higher than for those packages that do not reserve at the north junction. In addition to the core options outlined for Package 2, this Package includes the include this complementary measure. The package included the option closure of the central reserve at the north junction which further removes a The western distributor road adds significant cost, but does not for inclusion of a western crossing conflict. It would increase right turn demand at the centre junction and appear to add any further benefit to the core variants of grade distributor road. use of the new grade separated south junctions caused by traffic travelling into separation at the south junction and closure of the central Laurencekirk from the north, (Approximately 1300 veh/day). reserve at the north junction. With the closure of the central reserve at the north junction all A90 crossing The inclusion of the western distributor road is considered to traffic will need to re-route to the south or centre junction. have no particular positive contribution to the TPOs. The cost of the package was high due to the provision of a new grade separated The package would address current problems and issues, as well junction, and would be further increased if the western distributor was included. as providing the grade separated junction which is currently a The benefits of the western distributor remain unclear following a qualitative planning condition on proposed development impacting the appraisal and the perceived benefit of including such an option appears to be south junction. This would facilitate the progress of focused on public acceptability. The western distributor road in isolation does not developments in the north of Angus and Laurencekirk. contribute positively to any of the TPOs for the study. The construction of a new grade separated junction does have environmental impacts in relation to visual intrusion and changes in traffic flows may have impact on noise, vibration and air quality. With the inclusion of the western distributor road there would be a greater environmental impact due to the extensive new infrastructure on greenfield land. In addition, there are journey time benefits from the ability to increase the A90 speed limit back to 70mph. The package would be selected for progression to detailed appraisal, without the inclusion of a western distributor road in the core option, but which can be tested and modelled as an option.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 7-19 SECTION STAG PART 1 - INITIAL APPRAISAL

Package Description Results of Initial Appraisal Selection/Rejection No./ID 4 Package 4 consists of grade This package, similarly to Packages 2 and 3 scores well against the study’s TPOs, The package performs well against the TPOs. separation of the south junction principally because of the provision of a grade separated south junction. The package would address current problems and issues, as well and closure of the centre Consideration of the traffic routing at the centre junction, visibility issues and two as providing the grade separated junction which is currently a junction and provision of an serious injury accidents in the last three years all emphasised the feasibility of planning condition on proposed development impacting the associated link road between closing the centre junction. The closure of the centre junction has been south junction. This would facilitate the progress of the B9120 and A937. considered in the context of a new link road from the B9120 to the A937, which developments in the north of Angus and Laurencekirk. The Package included the option would seek to improve public acceptability and limit any traffic redistribution The construction of a new grade separated junction does have for inclusion of the impacts on the wider road network. environmental impacts in relation to visual intrusion. There rationalisation of High Street The package considered the inclusion of the rationalisation of the High Street. would be additional journey time for traffic traditionally using parking. Due to the complementary nature of the parking option in allowing the removal the centre junction to enter or leave Laurencekirk, however the of pinch points on the High Street, it would gain further public acceptability and is traffic movements at the junction were shown to be low. There a low cost addition to the package. will also be an additional impact due to the link road due to the Costs of this package will be higher than those of Packages 2 and 3 (assuming removal of agricultural land. Package 3 does not include a western distributor road) due to the inclusion of the In addition, there are journey time benefits from the ability to B9120 / A937 link road. increase the A90 speed limit back to 70mph. On this basis the package is selected for progression to a detailed appraisal stage, with the inclusion of a rationalisation of High Street parking. 5 Package 5 consists of grade This package presents a combination of options which address each of the three The package performs well against the TPOs as it removes separation of the south junction, junctions, including grade separation of the south junction, closure of the centre crossing conflicts at all three junctions. With the inclusion of the closure of the centre junction junction and associated link road and closure of the central reserve at the north western distributor road, the cost of the package would become and provision of an associated junction, together with the option for a western distributor road. notably higher than for those packages that do not include this link road between the B9120 Package 5 would place more pressure on the south junction than those packages complementary measure. and A937 and closure of the which would not close the centre junction, nor restrict movements at the north The construction of a new grade separated junction will have a central reserve at the north junction. It would however, remove the possibility of future development in have environmental impacts in relation to visual intrusion and junction. Laurencekirk affecting the A90 due to potential queueing on the southbound longer journey times may have an impact on global air quality. The Package included the option right turn at the north and centre junctions. With the inclusion of the western distributor there would be a for inclusion of a western The western distributor road would provide a means of directly accessing greater environmental impact due to the extensive new distributor road. development land allocations in the Aberdeenshire LDP. This has the potential to infrastructure on greenfield land. mitigate future development impact on Laurencekirk High Street. The package would also provide the grade separated junction The benefits of the western distributor remain unclear following a qualitative which is currently a planning condition on proposed appraisal and the perceived benefit of including such an option appears to be development impacting the south junction. This would facilitate focused on public acceptability. The western distributor road in isolation does not the progress of developments in the north of Angus and appear to contribute positively to any of the TPOs for the study, except possibly Laurencekirk. TPO5 High Street if some local traffic associated with new development in In addition, there are journey time benefits from the ability to Laurencekirk were to re-route. increase the A90 speed limit back to 70mph.

7-20 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION STAG PART 1 - INITIAL APPRAISAL

Package Description Results of Initial Appraisal Selection/Rejection No./ID Similar to Package 4, costs of this package will be higher than those of Packages 2 The package should therefore be selected for detailed appraisal and 3 due to the inclusion of the B9120 / A937 link road. The costs will rise stage. The, need for and benefit associated with the inclusion of further if a western distributor road is included the western distributor road should, however, be tested with the use of a traffic model, with particular emphasis on the future operation of the network. 6 Package 6 consists of grade The initial appraisal presented a situation where the package achieved positive The package performs well against the TPOs. It addresses the separation at the north and benefits for each of the TPOs, although its cost would be very high. core problems and issues with access to Laurencekirk. south junctions The need for additional complementary measures such as on the High Street was The provision of two grade separated junctions would have a not considered, however improvements at both the north and south junction moderate environmental impact in terms of visual impact. were anticipated to achieve a balance in traffic flow in Laurencekirk. The package would address the current problems and issues, as Traffic destined for the north was likely to use the north junction for well as providing the grade separated junctions which are access/egress and traffic destined for the south, likely to use the south junction. currently a planning condition on proposed development It is anticipated that this package is likely to see less traffic using the centre impacting the junctions, together with allowing the release of junction, although some crossing of the A90 will remain at this location. development in the north of Angus and North or Laurencekirk. The provision of the grade separated junction at the south and north junctions In addition, there are journey time benefits from the ability to will resolve the delay issues experienced due to the existing conditions. It will increase the A90 speed limit back to 70mph. also allow for the development of current committed schemes and any future The package should be selected for a more detailed appraisal developments at the north of Angus and north of Laurencekirk, as any potential queueing on to the A90 will be removed. 7 Package 7 consists of grade This packages scored well against the TPO’s, like Package 6, but with the closure Package 7 performs well against the TPOs, by removing the separation at the north and of the central it removes all the potential crossing conflicts on the A90. Costs are crossing conflicts, reducing delay and improving the perception south junctions, together with likely to be very high, similar to Package 6. of safety at the junctions closure of Laurencekirk access This package arrangement would allow access to both ends of Laurencekirk so The provision of two grade separated junctions would have a and central reserve at the centre should not change the traffic patterns on Laurencekirk High Street significantly. moderate environmental impact in terms of visual impact. junction, leaving left in /out The provision of the grade separated junction at the south and north junctions The package would address the current problems and issues, as access at the east approach. will resolve the delay issues experienced due to the existing conditions. It will well as providing the grade separated junctions which are also allow for the development of current committed schemes and any future currently a planning condition on proposed development developments at the north of Angus and north of Laurencekirk as any potential impacting the junctions, together with allowing the release of queueing on to the A90 will be removed. development in the north of Angus and North or Laurencekirk. In addition, there are journey time benefits from the ability to increase the A90 speed limit back to 70mph. This Package should be selected for the detailed appraisal stage.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 7-21 SECTION STAG PART 1 - INITIAL APPRAISAL

Package Description Results of Initial Appraisal Selection/Rejection No./ID 8 Package 8 was a complementary Package 8 is focused on sustainable travel and scores well independently against This package should be selected for the detailed appraisal stage (Sustainable package which is focused on the sustainable travel TPO. and remain as a complementary package which could be applied Travel) sustainable travel measures. It is, however, limited in its ability in isolation to address the fundamental issues to any of the core packages. These included pedestrian with access to Laurencekirk. It is considered that this package could be applied to crossings on the High Street, any of those core packages which include grade separation of the south junction. grade separated It is likely to have a relatively low cost and minimal environmental impact. pedestrian/cycle link of the A90 utilising the existing underpass, improved pedestrian facilities at the High Street/Alma Place junction and a public transport awareness campaign

7-22 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION 7 STAG PART 1 - INITIAL APPRAISAL

. Summary The STAG Part 1 Initial appraisal has considered packages against the: • TPOs; • Five key STAG criteria; and • Technical Deliverability. Eight options were considered and the appraisal concluded Package 1 be rejected, with the remaining seven packages recommended be taken forward for STAG Part 2 Detailed Appraisal Table 7-4 outlines the rationale for selection of packages for progression to STAG Part 2 Detailed Appraisal and includes proposals for refinement and testing. Set out below is a summary of those packages recommended for progression: • Package 2 – grade separation of south junction with rationalisation of High Street parking; • Package 3 – grade separation of south junction with closure of central reserve at north junction with/without western distributor road; • Package 4 – grade separation of south junction with closure of the centre junction provision of associated A937 link road and rationalisation of High Street Parking; • Package 5 – grade separation of south junction with closure of centre junction, provision of associated A937 link road and closure of the central reserve at the north junction with/without western distributor road; • Package 6 – grade separation of north and south junctions; and • Package 7 – grade separation of north and south junctions and closure of the Laurencekirk access and central reserve at the centre junction, with only left in/out permitted on the eastern approach. In addition, further testing is required at a detailed stage in relation to Packages 3 and 5 and whether the inclusion of a western distributor road is required for operational purposes. It is anticipated that the consideration will be given of the application of Package 8 (sustainable travel) to any of the core packages. As mentioned previously, the Tier 2 complementary options would be progressed to the DMRB Stage 2 assessment, as these may bring additional benefit to the design of the best performing package.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 7-23

SECTION 8 STAG Part Introduction to Detailed Appraisal

. Introduction This chapter introduces the outcome of the STAG Part 2 Detailed Appraisal, which is discussed in detail in subsequent chapters. The chapters set out the assessment and appraisal of the performance of the seven packages that emerged from the STAG Part 1 Initial Appraisal against the TPOs, STAG and deliverability criteria for the study. It should be noted the purpose of this report is to pull together the key findings of the STAG appraisal, rather than provide any recommendation on a preferred package. As part of this study, an S-Paramics micro-simulation model was developed to quantify the performance of each of the packages. The results of this testing using the model are presented within this chapter and then used to quantify the ability of each package to meet the TPOs for the study, STAG and deliverability criteria. The STAG Part 2 Detailed Appraisal has been undertaken in accordance with STAG and, in contrast to the Part 1 Initial Appraisal, the following chapters provide the results of a more detailed and, where possible, quantitative analysis of the impacts. The STAG Criteria considered in the appraisal include: • Environment; • Safety; • Accessibility and Social Inclusion; • Integration; and • Economy. The appraisal of the packages is presented within this report as follows: • TPOs (Section 9); • STAG Criteria (Section 10); • Cost to Government (Section 11); and • Risk and Uncertainty (Section 12). Following the initial appraisal, a series of option tests were developed to review the impact of different intervention packages in the STAG Part 2 Detailed Appraisal. The packages demonstrate a degree of commonality, focusing on a combination of core and Tier 1 options, as defined within Section 7 of this report. Table 8-1 provides details of where the option testing appraisal will be reported within this chapter and the risk and uncertainty section of the report. Table 8-1 – Package Testing Summary Package Variant Reporting 2 – Grade separated junction at south junction with High Street parking rationalisation Core testing reported below 3b - Grade separated junction at south junction, closure of central reserve at north Core testing reported below junction with no western distributor road 4 - Grade separated junction at south junction, closure of centre junction, provision of Core testing reported below A937-B9120 Link Road and High Street parking rationalisation 5b - Grade separated junction at south junction, closure of central reserve at north Core testing reported below junction/closure of centre junction with provision of A937/B9120 Link Road with no western distributor road 6 - Grade separated junction at north junction and south junction Core testing reported below 7 – Grade separated junction at north junction and south junction, part closure of Core testing reported below centre junction leaving left in/out from B9120 only

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 8-1 SECTION STAG PART 2 - INTRODUCTION TO DETAILED APPRAISAL

Package Variant Reporting 8 - Pedestrian crossings on the High Street, grade separated pedestrian/cycle link of Core testing reported below (non- the A90 utilising the existing underpass, improved pedestrian facilities at the High quantitative assessment) Street/Alma Place junction and a public transport awareness campaign 3a - Grade separated junction at south junction, closure of central reserve at north Option testing reported within the Risk junction with western distributor road and Uncertainty section of this report 5a - Grade separated junction at south junction/closure of central reserve at north Option testing reported within the Risk junction, closure of centre junction and provision of A937/B9120 Link Road with and Uncertainty section of this report western distributor road

This section of the report contains a detailed appraisal of each package and provides an assessment of their performance against the TPOs, STAG and deliverability criteria. The effectiveness of Packages 2 to 7 to meet the five TPOs is then summarised within the report, using a 7 point scoring scale. The results from the modelling exercise allow scores against TPOs to be fully refined. Package 2 and Package 4 include changes to parking on Laurencekirk High Street. The Laurencekirk traffic model is not capable of directly simulating these changes. It is however possible to approximate the impacts of the removal of parking through the simulation of increased speeds on the High Street in the traffic model. This would simulate the effect of the removal of the existing pinch points on the High Street. This test has been included as part of the Risk and Uncertainty testing. Package 8 is considered to be a desirable additional set of low cost measures that may support any one of the major enhancement packages (Packages 2-7) emerging from the STAG Part 1 Initial Appraisal. The impact of Package 8 is more difficult to quantify, with impacts on traffic flows and network efficiency which are orders of magnitude lower than the other options, despite offering accessibility and integration benefits. As a result, it has been decided Package 8 will not be scored within the STAG Part 2 Detailed Appraisal. Commentary will, however, be provided where Package 8 specifically addresses particular criteria and provides context to the outcomes of the study. . Option Appraisal Modelling Outcomes .. Traffic Modelling Assumptions Packages 2 to 7 emerging from the STAG Part 1 Initial Appraisal have been tested within the S-Paramics traffic modelling software (v2013.1). Outputs from the S-Paramics models were entered into the Program for Economic Assessment of Road Schemes (PEARS) version 14.1 to estimate the economic benefits of the packages. Safety benefits have been assessed by undertaking an accident-only Network Evaluation from a Surveys and Assignment (NESA) model, using version 14 of the software. The S-Paramics traffic model was prepared for the study area with a base year of 2014. The development of this model is detailed in the Model Development Report issued in November 2014. The model has been externally audited and approved and has been calibrated and validated to DMRB standards. The network coverage of the model is shown in Figure 8-1.

8-2 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION STAG PART 2 - INTRODUCTION TO DETAILED APPRAISAL

Figure 8-1 - S-Paramics Model Network Coverage

The economic assessment presented within this STAG report is based on the following modelled scenarios: • “Do-minimum” model – this reflects traffic demands and operating conditions that are forecast to occur due to background traffic growth, committed developments and transport interventions; and • “Do-something” models – this set of models is based on the “do-minimum models”, but also includes the proposed improvement packages to be assessed in this Appraisal. An individual “do-something” model is prepared for each package to be tested. It should be noted that developments conditioned on the delivery of improved infrastructure at the A90/A937 south junction have been excluded from the forecast demands used in the core testing and are reported within the Risk and Uncertainty section of this report. A comparison of network operation between the “do-minimum” and “do-something” models enables the benefits of each package to be estimated. The “do-something” option packages have been tested relative to the “do-minimum” scenario for two assessment years: • 2018 – Opening Year; and • 2033 – Design Year. The modelling was based on a fixed trip assumption. This means that the level of trips within the “do- minimum” and “do-something” models is the same. The traffic demands in the 2018 and 2033 models have been derived through analysis of the Aberdeen Sub Area Model (ASAM) version 4A. ASAM is a strategic transport model that covers the north east of Scotland and reflects the impact of committed and proposed developments and infrastructure on the demand for travel.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 8-3 SECTION STAG PART 2 - INTRODUCTION TO DETAILED APPRAISAL

Appendix G contains details on the method used to develop the future year traffic models. The traffic model data and analysis presented within Section 9 of this report all relates to demand forecasts based on committed development only. It is important to note that this does not include the M1 mixed use development at the north of Laurencekirk or the Montrose Airfield Employment site. The potential impact of these proposed developments on the operation of the packages is considered within the Risk and Uncertainty section of this report. Output from ASAM has been used to forecast the level of traffic demand in the future years of 2018 and 2033 within the Laurencekirk model network. A summary of the increase in overall traffic demand within the S- Paramics models is shown in Table 8-2. Table 8-2 - Laurencekirk S-Paramics Traffic Model Overall Trip Numbers Weekday AM (06:00-09:00) Weekday PM (16:00-19:00)

MGVs, HGVs MGVs, HGVs Year Cars and LGVs and Coaches Total Cars and LGVs and Coaches Total 2014 6181 813 6994 7427 607 8034 2018 7010 902 7912 8330 666 8996 Difference from 2014 829 89 918 903 59 962 % Difference from 2014 13% 11% 13% 12% 10% 12% 2033 8136 1103 9238 9612 808 10420 Difference from 2014 1955 290 2244 2185 201 2386 % Difference from 2014 32% 36% 32% 29% 33% 30%

The increase in peak two-way traffic flows between the 2014 base and 2033 forecast year: • Traffic flows on the A90 increase by 38% from 4,770 in 2014 to 6,590 in 2033 during the AM (06:00-09:00); • Traffic flows on the A90 increase by 43% from 4,880 in 2014 to 6,970 in 2033 during the PM (16:00-19:00); • Traffic flows on the A937 increase by 10% from 960 in 2014 to 1,060 in 2033 during the AM (06:00-09:00); and • Traffic flows on the A937 increase by 2% from 1,120 in 2014 to 1,140 in 2033 during the PM (16:00-19:00). The demands in Table 9-2 and the traffic flows above reflect committed developments from Aberdeenshire Council and Angus Council that are not dependant on delivery of junction upgrades at the A90. The forecast demand also contains an assumption of an additional 1% external growth on the A90. All supporting information relating to the development of this growth scenario can be found within Appendix G. There are no committed transport infrastructure measures included within the network coverage of the S- Paramics model. The ASAM4A model includes major infrastructure schemes such as the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route (AWPR). Therefore, the forecast of future year demands includes the influence of committed transport schemes outwith the S-Paramics model that could have an impact on traffic flows in the area. The traffic models and the economic results are based on the following time periods: • Weekday AM Period – 06:00 – 09:00; and • Weekday PM Period – 16:00 – 19:00. The assignment of traffic within the model is based on a conventional generalised cost that includes time and distance. As is normal traffic modelling practice, the model does not reflect the influence of safety on route choice or the junction types used by traffic. Therefore, although in practice a grade separated junction may be perceived by drivers as providing a safer option than an at grade junction on the A90. The model will not include this potential safety benefit within the assignment of traffic for the various packages. This section of

8-4 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION STAG PART 2 - INTRODUCTION TO DETAILED APPRAISAL the report highlights where it is considered that there is a risk that the model would significantly differ from potential driver behaviour in this respect. The consequences of this difference are noted in the text. The Model Development Report has been included within Appendix G. The model has been audited during its development by Transport Scotland’s auditors. Traffic Flow diagrams for the modelled scenarios are contained within Appendix H. The outcomes of the traffic modelling exercise are detailed within the following sections of the report. The presentation of the traffic modelling focuses on the 2033 results, as this set of models contains the greatest level of demand.

.. Dominimum Operation As indicated by Table 8-2, traffic demands increase significantly between the 2014 base and the future year scenarios. Traffic demand increases by around 10% between 2014 and 2018 and by around 30% between 2014 and 2033. The same level of traffic demand is present in the “do-minimum” and “do-something” models. This facilitates a direct comparison of the influence of the packages on the routes used by traffic within the model. Turning counts for the 2033 AM modelled period for the “do-minimum” are shown Figure 8-2. Note that an extended set of turning count diagrams is contained within Appendix H.

Figure 8-2 – Do-minimum - 2033 AM (06:00-09:00) Turning Counts

The data in Figure 8-2 indicates that traffic proportions are broadly unchanged from the 2014 base. Within the model therefore, the routing of traffic is unchanged, despite the increase in overall volumes. It should be noted however, that the volume of traffic rerouting in order to avoid delays northbound on the A937 at the A90 south junction is forecast to increase by 2033. Within the S-Paramics modelled network, approximately 250 vehicles are forecast to reroute to avoid the south junction in the AM period of 06:00-09:00 in the 2014 base. By the 2033 “do-minimum”, the number of vehicles that reroute has increased to around 400. Turning counts for the 2033 PM modelled period for the “do-minimum” are shown in Figure 8-3.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 8-5 SECTION STAG PART 2 - INTRODUCTION TO DETAILED APPRAISAL

Figure 8-3 – Do-minimum - 2033 PM (16:00-19:00) Turning Counts

The areas of queuing observed in the 2033 “do-minimum” model are as follows: • South Junction – A937 south arm during the AM and PM peaks; • South Junction – A937 north arm during the AM and PM peaks; and • North Junction – in central reserve for the A90 north to Laurencekirk during the PM peak. At the south junction, the increases in queuing and delay occur due to the increase in traffic flow on both the A937 and the A90 between the 2014 and 2033 models. The increase in traffic flow on the A90 reduces the opportunity for vehicles to enter the main carriageway from the side arm approaches, causing increasing queues and delays. Delays and queuing on the A937 northbound at the A90 south junction increase markedly between the 2014 base and 2033 “do-minimum”. This is particularly the case in the AM period, where the A937 northbound queue increases from approximately 15 passenger car units (pcu) in the 2014 base model, to around 60pcu in the 2033 “do-minimum”. This causes vehicles to reroute within the model to avoid the queue on the A937. This increases trip lengths for vehicles, as they have to divert from what would be the fastest route in free flow conditions, to use the B974 and an unnamed road to the west of the A937. Queuing and delay is also evident on the A937 southbound approach to the south junction. The queue on this approach to the junction is largest in the PM period where it peaks at around 20 pcu in length 2033 “do- minimum”. At the north junction in the PM period, the queue in the central reserve for the right turn increases primarily due to the increase in traffic flow on the A90 northbound carriageway and peaks at 10 pcu in the 2033 “do- minimum”. This reduces gaps for the traffic turning right into Laurencekirk. There are no queues predicted at the centre junction within the traffic model for the 2033 “do-minimum”. This is due to the relatively low turning flows at this junction.

8-6 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION STAG PART 2 - INTRODUCTION TO DETAILED APPRAISAL

.. Package Package 2 includes the grade separation of the south junction. Figure 8-4 shows the general location of Package 2 and the potential layout. At this stage the final design of the proposals has not been defined and the layout presented in Figure 8-4 is indicative.

Figure 8-4 - Package 2 Sketch

The grade separated layout at the south junction operates within capacity with the estimated traffic flows at the 2033 modelled year. There is no queueing evident at any of the approaches to the two roundabouts that are included within the grade separated layout. The merge and diverge slip roads all operate within capacity. As such, the excess delay and queues that were present on the approaches to the A90 with the at grade layout in place are removed by the grade separated junction. This leads to substantial journey time decreases in the peak periods on the A937 northbound and southbound approaches to the A90. The large reduction in delay on the A937 and the removal of the requirement to negotiate the central reserve at the at-grade junction are likely to lead to a reduction in levels of driver frustration. This could, in turn contribute to an improvement to driver behaviour. Within the “do-minimum” model, some vehicles choose to reroute to avoid the delays northbound on the A937 as it approaches the A90 with the at grade junction layout in place. Within the “do-something” model, the introduction of the new grade separated junction reduces delays to such an extent that no traffic re- routing away from the A937 occurs within the modelled area. At 2033, with grade separation at the south junction, it is estimated that around 250 vehicles will reroute from the B974 and an unnamed minor road in order to use the A937. It should be noted that the grade separated junction layout would lead to a minor increase in journey times relative to the current at grade layout, during free flow conditions. This is because drivers would be required

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 8-7 SECTION STAG PART 2 - INTRODUCTION TO DETAILED APPRAISAL to travel through two roundabouts and a slip lane in the “do-something”, as opposed to the shorter route through the central reserve in the “do-minimum”. Grade separation of the south junction would enable the existing 50mph A90 speed limit in the vicinity of the A90/A937 junction to be replaced with a 70mph limit. Due to this, the grade separation of the southern junction delivers a journey time benefit of around 15 to 20 seconds for through traffic on the A90. Turning counts for the 2033 AM modelled period for Package 2 are shown in Figure 8-5.

Figure 8-5 – Package 2 - 2033 AM (06:00-09:00) Turning Counts

Turning counts for the 2033 PM modelled period for Package 2 are shown in Figure 8-6.

8-8 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION STAG PART 2 - INTRODUCTION TO DETAILED APPRAISAL

Figure 8-6 – Package 2 - 2033 PM (16:00-19:00) Turning Counts

The data in Figure 8-5 and Figure 8-6 indicates that Package 2 does not lead to a significant level of traffic rerouting in the model. It is important to note however that the model does not account for perceptions of safety when estimating vehicle routing. In practice, it is considered that the grade separated junction would be perceived by drivers to offer a safer means of turning on and off the A90 than the available at grade alternatives. Therefore, it is possible that the grade separated junction would attract a greater level of traffic than is predicted by the model. Package 2 has been tested against higher forecasts of traffic demands. This analysis is presented within the Risk and Uncertainty section of this report. This testing indicates that the grade separated south junction would operate within capacity with higher traffic flows. Therefore, it is considered that the grade separated south junction would be able to accommodate the potential increase in traffic flows that may occur if additional drivers choose to use the junction due to perceptions of improved safety. Package Advantages • Removes A90 at grade crossing movements at busiest junction at the south; • Provides safer A90 crossing opportunities for all travel modes; • Eliminates queueing on the A937 from both Montrose and Laurencekirk; • Enables removal of existing 50mph speed restriction on A90; • Allows development in Laurencekirk with approved planning consent to proceed; • Safely accommodates increased traffic levels at the south junction generated by planned development in Laurencekirk and north Angus; • Reduces journey time on A90 and improves network efficiency; and • Lowest cost of grade separated packages. Package Disadvantages • Does not reduce the risk of accidents at north and centre junctions; and

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 8-9 SECTION STAG PART 2 - INTRODUCTION TO DETAILED APPRAISAL

• May not address the impact on the north and centre junctions of traffic from planned development in Laurencekirk, particularly from the north Laurencekirk site. .. Package b Package 3b includes the provision of a grade separated south junction and the closure of the central reserve at the north junction. Package 3a includes the measures described above and also includes a western distributor road. This variation of Package 3 has been tested and included within the Risk and Uncertainty section of this report. Figure 8-7 shows the general location of Package 3b and the potential layout. At this stage the final design of the proposals has not been defined and the layout presented in Figure 8-7 is indicative.

Figure 8-7 – Package 3b Sketch

The operational benefits delivered by the grade separation of the south junction are described for Package 2. The grade separation of the south junction would provide a similar benefit to network operation in Package 3b. The operational benefits of the grade separated south junction are: • Reduction in delay and queuing on the A937 approaches to the A90; • Increase in speed limit from 50 mph to 70 mph on the A90 at the section on approach the south junction; • Improved perception of safety due to grade separated layout; and • Grade separated layout operates within capacity with no excess queuing or delay. Package 3b includes the closure of the central reserve at the north junction. The closure of the central reserve at the northern junction means that vehicles travelling from the north would need to utilise either the centre junction or the grade separated south junction to access Laurencekirk.

8-10 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION STAG PART 2 - INTRODUCTION TO DETAILED APPRAISAL

Within the 2033 ”do-minimum” PM model there is a queue at the central reserve at the north junction of around 15 vehicles in length for traffic waiting to turn right into Laurencekirk. This queue is removed in Package 3b as the central reserve at the north junction has been closed. Although not forecast within the model, it is considered that the queue at the north junction would be transferred to the centre junction in Package 3b. This could occur as traffic approaching from the southbound A90 would be unable to use the north junction for the right turn from the A90 to Laurencekirk. Vehicles would have to reroute to the centre or south junctions instead. If vehicles reroute to the centre junction this would increase the traffic turning right from the central reserve and push it over capacity. Therefore, rather than fully resolve the “do-minimum problems” experienced at the north junction, it is considered that closure of the central reserve in Package 3b would transfer these issues to the centre junction. This would occur as closure of the central reserve at the north junction would transfer traffic demand and consequently queueing and delay to the centre junction. Turning counts for the 2033 AM modelled period for Package 3b are shown in Figure 8-8.

Figure 8-8 – Package 3b - 2033 AM (06:00-09:00) Turning Counts

Turning counts for the 2033 PM modelled period for Package 3b are shown in Figure 8-9.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 8-11 SECTION STAG PART 2 - INTRODUCTION TO DETAILED APPRAISAL

Figure 8-9 – Package 3b - 2033 PM (16:00-19:00) Turning Counts

Figure 8-8 and Figure 8-9 indicate that within the S-Paramics traffic model, all traffic from the north travels via the central junction when accessing Laurencekirk. The route via the southern junction includes an increase in trip length and journey time that means it is not used by vehicles in the model when travelling from the southbound A90 to Laurencekirk. In practice, it is considered that drivers would consider perceptions of safety in addition to journey times and distance when making route choices. If a grade separated junction were introduced at the southern junction as under Package 3b, it is likely some drivers would choose to avoid crossing the central reserve at the centre junction and use the new south grade separated junction instead as it is likely to be perceived as a safer route. Therefore, a greater number of vehicles may use the southern junction under this package than is predicted by the traffic model. As this choice of junction would increase trip length and journey time, this would lead to an economic dis-benefit being generated by vehicles that use the southern junction on this particular trip. The data in Figure 8-8 and Figure 8-9 demonstrate that flows at the north end of the High Street are predicted to decrease with Package 3b. This occurs due to the closure of the north junction central reserve. Therefore Package 3b would result in a decrease in traffic flows on the High Street at the new Mearns Academy. This would facilitate an improved environment for pedestrians at a key service in Laurencekirk. Package b Advantages • Removes A90 at grade crossing movements at busiest junction at the south and also at north junction; • Provides safer A90 crossing opportunities for all travel modes; • Eliminates queueing on the A937 from both Montrose and Laurencekirk and on southbound A90 at the north junction; • Enables removal of existing 50mph speed restriction on A90; • Allows development in Laurencekirk with approved planning consent to proceed; • Safely accommodates increased traffic levels at the south junction generated by planned development in Laurencekirk and north Angus;

8-12 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION STAG PART 2 - INTRODUCTION TO DETAILED APPRAISAL

• Reduces journey time on A90 and improves network efficiency; • Lower cost than Packages 4 to 7; and • Reduces traffic flow at north end of High Street; Package b Disadvantages • May not address the impact on the north and centre junctions of traffic from planned development in Laurencekirk, particularly from the north Laurencekirk site; • The route of existing bus services would need to change. Bus services would be required to change route to access Laurencekirk via the centre junction rather than the north as at present; • Increases traffic at centre junction, which will not reduce the risk of accidents and may increase it; and • Has the potential to transfer traffic demands from the north junction to the centre junction or the south junction. This would increase traffic delays and queues at the centre junction. .. Package Package 4 is similar to Packages 2 and 3 in that it includes the provision of grade separation at the south junction. It also includes closure of the centre junction, with provision of an associated link road from the A937 to the B9120. Figure 8-10 shows the general location of Package 4 and the potential layout. At this stage the final design of the proposals has not been defined and the layout presented in Figure 8-10 is indicative.

Figure 8-10 – Package 4 Sketch

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 8-13 SECTION STAG PART 2 - INTRODUCTION TO DETAILED APPRAISAL

The operational benefits delivered by the grade separation of the south junction are described for Package 2. The grade separation of the south junction would provide a similar benefit to network operation in Package 4. The operational benefits of the grade separated south junction are: • Reduction in delay and queuing on the A937 approaches to the A90; • Increase in speed limit from 50 mph to 70 mph on the A90 at the section on approach the south junction; • Improved perception of safety due to grade separated layout; and • Grade separated layout operates within capacity with no excess queuing or delay. Package 4 also includes the closure of the centre junction and the provision of a new link road between the A937 and the B9120. This change increases travel times to and from the Garvock area. For trips between from the Garvock area to/from Laurencekirk and the southbound A90, the increased trip length is around 3km. This leads to an increase in journey times for these trips. In the “do-minimum” situation there is relatively little queuing and delay at the centre junction. Therefore, closure of this junction does not remove any significant problems regarding queues or delays. Turning counts for the 2033 AM modelled period for Package 4 are shown in Figure 8-11.

Figure 8-11 – Package 4 - 2033 AM (06:00-09:00) Turning Counts

Turning counts for the 2033 PM modelled period for Package 4 are shown in Figure 8-12.

8-14 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION STAG PART 2 - INTRODUCTION TO DETAILED APPRAISAL

Figure 8-12 – Package 4 - 2033 PM (16:00-19:00) Turning Counts

Figure 8-11 and Figure 8-12 show that traffic flows at the north and south junctions would increase due to the closure of the centre junction. The grade separated south junction operates within capacity despite the increase in traffic flows. There is no queuing observed within the 2033 model on any of the approaches to the roundabouts at the grade separated junction. The merge and diverge slip roads all operate without excess delay to traffic. At the north junction, the additional traffic leads to an increase in queue length within the central reserve. The queue length for the right turn from the southbound A90 to Laurencekirk exceeds the length of the existing right turn bay in the central reserve. This would lead to stationary traffic being present on the A90 main carriageway and would therefore cause an accident risk. Package Advantages • Removes A90 at grade crossing movements at busiest junction at the south and also at the centre junction; • Provides safer A90 crossing opportunities for all travel modes; • Eliminates queueing on the A937 from both Montrose and Laurencekirk; • Enables removal of existing 50mph speed restriction on A90; • Allows development in Laurencekirk with approved planning consent to proceed; • Safely accommodates increased traffic levels at the south junction generated by planned development in Laurencekirk and north Angus; • Reduces journey time on A90 and improves network efficiency; and • Lower cost than Packages 6 and 7. Package Disadvantages • Does not reduce the risk of accidents at north junction; • May not address the impact on the north junction of traffic from planned development in Laurencekirk, particularly from the north Laurencekirk site;

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 8-15 SECTION STAG PART 2 - INTRODUCTION TO DETAILED APPRAISAL

• Increases traffic at south end of High Street; • Increases journey length between B9120 and Laurencekirk; • Cost of link road reduces value for money; and • Would transfer traffic demands from the centre junction to the south and north junctions. This would increase delays and queues at the north junction. .. Package b Package 5b includes grade separation of the south junction, closure of the centre junction with provision of a link road between the B9120 and the A937 and closure of the north junction central reserve. This therefore limits entry to Laurencekirk from the north to using the south junction, with only left in/left out provision remaining at the north junction. Figure 8-13 shows the general location of Package 5b and the potential layout. At this stage the final design of the proposals has not been defined and the layout presented in Figure 8-13 is indicative.

Figure 8-13 – Package 5b Sketch

The operational benefits delivered by the grade separation of the south junction are described for Package 2. The grade separation of the south junction would provide a similar benefit to network operation in Package 5b. The operational benefits of the grade separated south junction are: • Reduction in delay and queuing on the A937 approaches to the A90; • Increase in speed limit from 50 mph to 70 mph on the A90 at the section on approach the south junction; • Improved perception of safety due to grade separated layout; and • Grade separated layout operates within capacity with no excess queuing or delay.

8-16 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION STAG PART 2 - INTRODUCTION TO DETAILED APPRAISAL

The impacts that arise from the closure of the centre junction are the same as those reported for Package 4. The closure of the central reserve at the north junction removes the queueing and delay that occurs at this junction within the “do-minimum”. The main changes in this respect occur for traffic turning right from the southbound A90 into Laurencekirk. With regard to queuing, the most significant change in the removal of the queue in the central reserve in the PM peak period. This removes the capacity issue at the central reserve associated with the lack of space for vehicles to decelerate safely. Turning counts for the 2033 AM modelled period for Package 5b are shown in Figure 8-14.

Figure 8-14 – Package 5b - 2033 AM (06:00-09:00) Turning Counts

Turning counts for the 2033 PM modelled period for Package 5b are shown in Figure 8-15.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 8-17 SECTION STAG PART 2 - INTRODUCTION TO DETAILED APPRAISAL

Figure 8-15 – Package 5b - 2033 PM (16:00-19:00) Turning Counts

The data in Figure 8-14 and Figure 8-15 indicates that Package 5b forces a large volume of traffic to reroute via the south junction. This includes all traffic turning right into Laurencekirk from the north. Within Package 5b, the left turn onto the northbound carriageway of the A90 remains open. Therefore, the majority of vehicles that are travelling towards Aberdeen from Laurencekirk are able to use the north junction. This traffic therefore does not get transferred to the south junction. The grade separated south junction operates within capacity despite the increase in traffic flows. There is no queuing observed within the 2033 model on any of the approaches to the roundabouts at the grade separated junction. The merge and diverge slip roads generally operate without excess delay to traffic. The traffic flow on the southbound diverge slip road at the south junction is forecast to be around 1,400 vehicles between 16:00- 19:00 for Package 5b at 2033. The model indicates that some delay occurs on the A90 mainline as traffic merges into the nearside lane to access the southbound diverge at the south junction. The delay is in the order of a few seconds, however, the capacity of this diverge would require consideration as part of any detailed design process. The traffic flow data shown in Figure 8-14 and Figure 8-15 indicates that Package 5b is forecast to lead to an increase in traffic flows at the southern end of the High Street. Traffic flows at the northern end of the High Street are forecast to decrease. As demonstrated by the Accessibility Figure in Appendix A, the majority of services and facilities within Laurencekirk are located within the north of the town. Therefore, it is considered that the flow increases predicted for the southern end of the High Street in Package 5b would have a minor impact on access to services. Package b Advantages • Removes A90 at grade crossing movements at all Laurencekirk junctions; • Provides safer A90 crossing opportunities for all travel modes; • Eliminates queueing on the A937 from both Montrose and Laurencekirk and on southbound A90 at the north junction;

8-18 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION STAG PART 2 - INTRODUCTION TO DETAILED APPRAISAL

• Enables removal of existing 50mph speed restriction on A90; • Allows development in Laurencekirk with approved planning consent to proceed; • Safely accommodates increased traffic levels at the south junction generated by planned development in Laurencekirk and north Angus; • Reduces journey time on A90 and improves network efficiency; and • Lower cost than Packages 6 and 7. Package b Disadvantages • Potential impact on existing bus services; • Increases traffic at south end of High Street; • Increases journey length between B9120 and Laurencekirk; • Cost of link road reduces value for money; and • Longer journey time for A90 southbound traffic wanting to enter Laurencekirk. .. Package Package 6 includes the provision of grade separation at both the north and south junctions. Figure 8-16 shows the general location of Package 6 and the potential layout. At this stage the final design of the proposals has not been defined and the layout presented in Figure 8-16 is indicative.

Figure 8-16 – Package 6 Sketch

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 8-19 SECTION STAG PART 2 - INTRODUCTION TO DETAILED APPRAISAL

The operational benefits delivered by the grade separation of the south junction are described for Package 2. The grade separation of the south junction would provide a similar benefit to network operation in Package 6. The operational benefits of the grade separated south junction are: • Reduction in delay and queuing on the A937 approaches to the A90; • Increase in speed limit from 50 mph to 70 mph on the A90 at the section on approach the south junction; • Improved perception of safety due to grade separated layout; and • Grade separated layout operates within capacity with no excess queuing or delay. The grade separated north junction operates without any queuing on the approaches to the roundabouts included within the grade separated layout. The merge and diverge slip roads operate without causing excess delays to traffic. As the delay at the north junction is minor within the “do-minimum” situation, the journey time benefits delivered by the grade separation of the north junction are insignificant, based on a traffic forecast that includes committed development only. If the M1 mixed use development within Laurencekirk were to proceed, this would increase traffic demand through the north junction. Package 6 has been tested with a traffic forecast that accounts for proposed development including the M1 site. The results of this test is contained within the Risk and Uncertainty section of this report. Turning counts for the 2033 AM modelled period for Package 6 are shown in Figure 8-17.

Figure 8-17 – Package 6 - 2033 AM (06:00-09:00) Turning Counts

Turning counts for the 2033 PM modelled period for Package 6 are shown in Figure 8-18.

8-20 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION STAG PART 2 - INTRODUCTION TO DETAILED APPRAISAL

Figure 8-18 – Package 6 - 2033 PM (16:00-19:00) Turning Counts

The data in Figure 8-18 indicates the model is forecasting that within Package 6, grade separation of the north junction would lead to an increase in traffic flows at the centre junction, relative to the “do-minimum”. Figure 9-18 shows a transfer of traffic flows from the north junction to the centre junction. This occurs for the right turn movement from the southbound A90 to Laurencekirk. Around 550 vehicles transfer from the north junction in the “do-minimum” to the centre junction in the “do-something” for this turning movement. These vehicles reroute as the modelled journey time within Package 6 from the southbound A90 into Laurencekirk is slightly faster through the centre junction than the north junction. This occurs as the new grade separated layout increases the geometric delay to vehicles relative to the at grade layout. In addition, the model may be slightly underestimating delay for the right turn at the centre junction. As noted previously, the traffic model does not consider perceptions of safety when it estimates the routes that vehicles will take. Feedback received during consultation has indicated that the public consider a grade separated layout to be safer than the existing at grade junctions. Therefore it is considered that drivers are likely to use the north junction in preference to the centre junction, as it would be perceived that the grade separated layout was safer. As such, it is considered that the forecast of traffic routing in Package 6 is unlikely to be accurate with regard to junction choice for the right turn from the southbound A90 to Laurencekirk. The construction cost for Package 6 is notably higher than that for Package 2 to 5. This occurs due to the provision of an extra grade separated junction in Package 6 relative to Packages 2 and 5. Package Advantages • Removes A90 at grade crossing movements at busiest junction at the south and also at north junction; • Provides safer A90 crossing opportunities for all travel modes; • Eliminates queueing on the A937 from both Montrose and Laurencekirk and on southbound A90 at the north junction; • Enables removal of existing 50mph speed restriction on A90; • Allows consented development in Laurencekirk with linked planning condition, relating to improved south junction, to proceed;

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 8-21 SECTION STAG PART 2 - INTRODUCTION TO DETAILED APPRAISAL

• Safely accommodates increased traffic levels at south and north junctions generated by planned development in Laurencekirk and north Angus; and • Reduces journey time on A90 and improves network efficiency. Package Disadvantages • Significantly higher cost than Packages 2 to 5, which reduces value for money; • May not address the impact on the centre junction of traffic from planned development in Laurencekirk, particularly from the north Laurencekirk site; and • Does not eliminate A90 at grade crossing movement at centre junction. .. Package Package 7 is similar to Package 6, as it includes the grade separation of the north and south junctions as core variants, however it also includes the partial closure of the centre junction, leaving the east side from the B9120 left in/out.

Figure 8-19 shows the general location of Package 7 and the potential layout. At this stage, the final design of the proposals has not been defined and the layout presented in Figure 8-19 is indicative.

Figure 8-19 – Package 7 Sketch

The operational benefits delivered by the grade separation of the south junction are described for Package 2. The grade separation of the south junction would provide a similar benefit to network operation in Package 7. The operational benefits of the grade separated south junction are: • Reduction in delay and queuing on the A937 approaches to the A90; • Increase in speed limit from 50 mph to 70 mph on the A90 at the section on approach the south junction;

8-22 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION STAG PART 2 - INTRODUCTION TO DETAILED APPRAISAL

• Improved perception of safety due to grade separated layout; and • Grade separated layout operates within capacity with no excess queuing or delay. In the “do-minimum” situation there is relatively little queuing and delay at the centre junction. Therefore, closure of the central reserve and the B9120 arm of this junction does not remove any significant problems regarding queues or delays. There would be an increase in trip length for vehicles on the B9120 wishing to travel directly into Laurencekirk or northwards to Aberdeen as a result of the partial closure of the centre junction. The increase in trip length for these movements would be up to 3km in length. The grade separated north junction operates without any queuing on the approaches to the roundabouts included within the grade separated layout. The merge and diverge slip roads operate without causing excess delays to traffic. Turning counts for the 2033 AM modelled period for Package 7 are shown in Figure 8-20.

Figure 8-20 – Package 7 - 2033 AM (06:00-09:00) Turning Counts

Turning counts for the 2033 PM modelled period for Package 7 are shown in Figure 8-21.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 8-23 SECTION STAG PART 2 - INTRODUCTION TO DETAILED APPRAISAL

Figure 8-21 – Package 7 - 2033 PM (16:00-19:00) Turning Counts

Figure 8-20 and Figure 8-21 demonstrate that closure of the Laurencekirk arm of the centre junction would result in traffic reassigning to the north and south junctions. Both the north and south grade separated junctions operate without any queuing or excess delays despite the transfer of traffic flows from the centre junction. The construction cost for Package 7 is notably higher than that for Package 2 to 5. This occurs due to the provision of an extra grade separated junction in Package 7 relative to Packages 2 and 5. Package Advantages • Removes A90 at grade crossing movements at all three Laurencekirk junctions; • Provides safer A90 crossing opportunities for all travel modes; • Eliminates queueing on the A937 from both Montrose and Laurencekirk and on southbound A90 at the north junction; • Enables removal of existing 50 mph speed restriction on A90; • Allows consented development in Laurencekirk with linked planning condition to proceed; • Safely accommodates increased traffic levels at all Laurencekirk junctions generated by planned development in Laurencekirk and north Angus; and • Reduces journey time on A90 and improves network efficiency. Package Disadvantages • Significantly higher cost than Packages 2 to 5, which reduces value for money; and • Increases journey length between B9120 and Laurencekirk.

8-24 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION 9 Detailed Appraisal Transport Planning Objectives

. Introduction Prior to appraising the packages during the STAG Part 2 Detailed Appraisal, the five TPOs for the study have been reviewed and revised to ensure they are still considered sufficiently “SMART”. Table 9-1 summarises the “smartening” of the TPOs, identifying the chosen indicator against which performance of the packages will be assessed. To ensure that, at every possible opportunity each package can be quantitatively appraised against the TPOs, the indicators have also been developed and refined. Table 9-1 - Smartening Of Transport Planning Objectives Transport Planning Objective Proposed Indicator TPO 1 - Safety Reduction in personal injury accidents numbers at each of the three Laurencekirk To achieve a reduction in accidents at the junctions against the 2009 to 2013 STATS 19 numbers. This will be based on the A90 Laurencekirk Junctions as a result of 2033 results comparing the “do-minimum” against the package tests. traffic turning or crossing at the junctions. TPO 2 - Driver Behaviour Reduction in the AM and PM peak standard deviation of journey times encountered To achieve a significant improvement in for vehicles on both north and south approaches to the south junction. This will be the attitude towards safety at the A90 based on 2033 results, comparing the “do-minimum” against the package tests. Laurencekirk junctions by reducing the Reduction in the AM and PM peak standard deviation of journey times encountered delay and improving the opportunities to for vehicles on both north and south approaches to the centre junction. This will be cross the A90. based on the 2033 results comparing the “do-minimum” against the package tests. Reduction in the AM and PM peak standard deviation of journey times encountered for vehicles at the north junction on both the approach from Laurencekirk to turn north and A90 southbound right turn into Laurencekirk. This will be based on the 2033 results comparing the “do-minimum” against the package tests. Increase in positive attitude towards safety at the A90 Junction – community feedback. TPO 3 - Efficiency of the Network and Reduction in AM and PM peak mean average journey time on the A90 between the Economic Development B974 junction and the Laurencekirk north junction, based on the 2033 results To achieve an improvement in network comparing the “do-minimum” against the package tests. efficiency experienced by traffic travelling Reduction in AM and PM peak mean average journey time between Marykirk and on the A90 and accessing and crossing the the Laurencekirk north junction, based on the 2033 results comparing the “do- A90 at the Laurencekirk junctions in order minimum” against the package tests. to support sustainable economic growth in the south of Aberdeenshire and the north Reduction in AM and PM peak mean average journey time from Laurencekirk High of Angus. Street to Marykirk via the south junction, based on the 2033 results comparing the “do-minimum” against the package tests. Reduction in AM and PM peak mean average journey time between the southbound right turn lane at A90 north junction and Laurencekirk High Street, based on the 2033 results comparing the “do-minimum” against the package tests. TPO 4 - Sustainable Travel To Increase the opportunity for pedestrians and cyclists to safely cross the A90. To enable safe crossing of the A90 by sustainable (non-motorised) modes. TPO 5 - Laurencekirk High Street Increase or decrease in AM and PM peak traffic volumes on the High Street at the To contribute to the High Street’s role as a south and north ends of the town based on the 2033 results of comparing the do- central place for the continued vitality of minimum against the Package tests. the Laurencekirk community. Positive attitude towards the continued vitality of the High Street – community feedback.

Quantifiable indicators were developed for each of the TPOs. Tables 1 to 5 in Appendix J indicate the assessment of the TPOs against the indicators, this data has been used to inform the overall assessment of the packages against the TPOs. The quantified assessment has been supplemented by a qualitative analysis as it has not been possible to develop indicators that fully capture every aspect of the TPOs.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 9-1 SECTION DETAILED APPRAISAL - TRANSPORT PLANNING OBJECTIVES

TPO 1 – To achieve a reduction in accidents at the A90 Laurencekirk junctions as a result of traffic turning or crossing the junctions. This TPO has been assessed based on the ability of the packages to reduce accidents at the A90 junctions. This includes the stopline at the side arm approaches to the A90 and at the central reserves. Therefore, packages have been scored positively where they remove or reduce at grade crossings and right turn movements at the A90 junctions. A quantified assessment of accident numbers under each package has been estimated using the NESA software. In addition to the quantified assessment undertaken in NESA, the appraisal of this TPO has also considered accident risk. Section 5.3 summarises a number of accident risk factors that currently occur at the A90 junctions. These include: • Long vehicles (including school buses) overhanging the central reserve into the main carriageway; • Delay at the south junction contributing to driver frustration and increased risk taking behaviour by drivers; • Reduction in visibility for vehicles in the central reserve due to multiple stacking; • Geometric parameters of the A90 junctions do not meet DMRB requirements at the central reserves and some of the acceleration and deceleration lanes; • Forecast increases in traffic will increase delay, this could in turn lead to increased driver frustration and risk taking or inconsiderate behavior; and • Forecast increases in traffic will place further pressure on the existing A90 junction layouts, in particular the adequacy of the length of the acceleration and deceleration lanes. It is considered that the removal of the at grade crossing movements at the A90 junctions would remove the accident risks above at the specific junctions where improvements are made. When a package removes an at- grade crossing of the A90 and replaces it with a merge, it has been assumed that this would lead to a substantial reduction in accident risk. Table 9-2 indicates the current at grade A90 crossings that are affected by the packages. Table 9-2 - A90 Crossing Points Package Status of A90 at Grade Crossing Points with the Packages

South Junction Centre Junction North Junction 2 Replaced with grade Unchanged Unchanged separated crossing 3b Replaced with grade Unchanged Central Reserve Closed separated crossing 4 Replaced with grade Junction closed Unchanged separated crossing 5b Replaced with grade Junction closed Central Reserve Closed separated crossing 6 Replaced with grade Unchanged Replaced with grade separated crossing separated crossing 7 Replaced with grade Central Reserve Closed and Replaced with grade separated crossing Side Arm from Laurencekirk separated crossing Closed 8 Unchanged Unchanged Unchanged

It is considered that Packages 5b and 7 would lead to the greatest reduction in accident risk associated with turning or crossing traffic at the A90 junctions. This is because these packages remove all of opportunities to make right turns or movements into the central reserves at the all three junctions.

9-2 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION DETAILED APPRAISAL - TRANSPORT PLANNING OBJECTIVES

Package 2 would lead to the lowest reduction in accident risk as it would only result in the removal of turning and crossing movements at one at grade junction. Packages 3b, 4 and 6 would achieve this at two locations. An accident-only NESA assessment has provided data to inform the appraisal of this objective by estimating the number of accidents that would occur at each junction under the packages. It should be noted that the NESA software is not able to estimate the number of accidents that might occur at grade separated merges. There is therefore a tendency for NESA to very slightly underestimate the accidents at grade separated junctions. The impact of the new roundabouts that would be introduced as part of the grade separated junctions are included in the NESA assessment. As indicated by Table 1 in Appendix J, all packages are forecast to deliver a positive safety impact in terms of reducing the number of accidents at the A90 junctions. The reduction in accidents occurs as each package includes the grade separation of the south junction, as well as the upgrade or full/partial closure of the north and centre junctions. Therefore, each package removes at least one at grade junction on the A90 and replaces it with a safer grade separated layout. A summary of the reduced number of accidents at the A90 junctions estimated by the NESA assessment is indicated by Table 9-3. Table 9-3 - Reduction in Accident Numbers (60 Year Appraisal Period) Package Reduction in Number of Accidents at the A90 Junctions Relative to the Do- minimum Over a 60 Year Appraisal Period 2 8 3b 17 4 31 5b 32 6 34 7 30 8 Not quantified but expected to be minimal

Based on the NESA assessment, the greatest reduction in accidents is estimated to occur for Packages 4 to 7 . These packages all include the closure of the existing central reserve openings at more than one location on the A90. The modelling results suggest Package 6 will see the greatest reduction in accidents as a result of removing at-grade crossing manoeuvres at both the north and south junctions. Packages 5b and 7 remove all of the at grade crossing movements at the north, centre and south junctions. However, manoeuvres are restricted under these packages, which leads to vehicles re-routing via adjacent junctions and, consequently, a lower reduction in accident numbers than forecast for Package 6 . As noted in Section 4 of this report, the centre junction has the highest number of recorded accidents over the three year period 2011 to 2014. Therefore, Package 4 is estimated to deliver a higher reduction in the number of accidents than Package 3b. Package 4 includes the closure of the centre junction, whilst Package 3 includes the closure of the central reserve at the north junction. The accident reduction forecast for Package 6 is the highest. This package removes all at grade crossing movements at the north and south junctions, these junctions having higher side road traffic flows that the centre junction. The centre junction remains open, meaning traffic using it does not divert to either of the other junctions. Table 9-4 indicates that the score that each Package has achieved under TPO 1. In addition to the total number of accidents forecast in the NESA assessment, consideration has been also been given to the extent to which the packages reduce the risk of accidents by removing the turning and crossing movements at the at grade junctions.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 9-3 SECTION DETAILED APPRAISAL - TRANSPORT PLANNING OBJECTIVES

Table 9-4 - TPO 1 Scoring Summary Package TPO 1 Score Scoring Summary 2 1 This package would remove turning and crossing movements at the south junction. The north and centre junctions would remain unchanged. Within the NESA assessment, this package delivers the lowest reduction in accident numbers. 3b 2 This package would remove turning and crossing movements at the south and north junction. The centre junction would remain unchanged. Within the NESA assessment, this package delivers the second lowest reduction in accident numbers. 4 2 This package would remove turning and crossing movements at the south and centre junction. The north junction would remain unchanged. Within the NESA assessment, this package delivers one of the largest reduction in accident numbers. 5b 3 This package would remove turning and crossing movements at the north, centre and south junctions. Within the NESA assessment, this package delivers quite a high reduction in accident numbers. 6 3 This package would remove turning and crossing movements at the north and south junctions. Within the NESA assessment, this package delivers the largest reduction in accident numbers. 7 3 This package would remove turning and crossing movements at the north, centre and south junctions. Within the NESA assessment, this package delivers one of the largest reduction in accident numbers. 8 0 This package would not have a significant impact on traffic flows and safety at the A90 junctions.

TPO 2 – To achieve a significant improvement in the attitude towards safety at the A90 Laurencekirk junctions by reducing the delay and improving the opportunities to cross the A90 Survey data indicates that the average delay on the A937 northbound approach to the south junction is around 3 minutes during the AM peak (06:00-09:00). This level of delay fluctuates and peaks at around 5 minutes. At other times during the peak period, vehicles can turn from the A937 onto the A90 without being delayed at the side arm stopline. On the A937 southbound arm of the south junction, survey data shows that the average delay to vehicles is around 1 minute between 16:00-18:00 with a maximum delay of 3 minutes 30 seconds. Within a low flow rural context, the level of delay recorded during the surveys can be viewed as significant. Feedback received from the public indicates that this variability in the delay on approach to the A90 can cause driver frustration. The public also indicated that this frustration can lead to increased levels of inconsiderate behaviour and risk taking from drivers. This has included instances of: • Parallel stacking of vehicles in the central reserve on the A90, thus reducing visibility for some drivers trying to enter the A90; • Drivers at the stopline on the approaches to the A90 feeling under pressure to accept unsafe gaps in oncoming traffic when making turning movements onto the main carriageway; and • Drivers pulling into the offside lane of the A90 from the central reserve because there are not gaps in traffic in the nearside lane. These types of movement presents a safety risk and contributes to a perception that the A90 at grade junctions at Laurencekirk are unsafe. During the consultation exercise, the public indicated that they consider that a grade separated junction layout would provide a safer means to cross the A90, as it would prevent vehicles from parallel stacking in the central reserve. The extent to which the packages might reduce delays and variability in journey times has been assessed using the S-Paramics model developed for this study. Table 2 in Appendix J summarises the journey time analysis undertaken in the model. The table presents the average journey times for the “do-minimum” scenario and for the packages at the 2033 modelled year. The standard deviation in modelled journey times for each of the

9-4 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION DETAILED APPRAISAL - TRANSPORT PLANNING OBJECTIVES packages is also presented. Where a package is forecast to deliver a reduction in standard deviation, this is considered to reflect an improvement in journey time reliability. Table 2 in Appendix J indicates that of all the measures included in the packages, grade separation of the south junction will have the most significant impact on journey times and reliability. This measure is included in Packages 2 to 7 . Introduction of grade separation at the south junction will remove the main source of delay and journey time unreliability in the ”do-minimum” network. The delays that occur at the centre junction are limited, in comparison to those experienced at the south junction. The data in Table 2 in Appendix J indicates that of the packages that leave the centre junction open, they all have a minor impact on journey times and reliability. The average journey time changes by less than 5 seconds on the approaches to this junction within the packages that leave the junction open. Figure 9-1 shows the maximum queue length on the A937 south arm at the south junction for the 2033 AM modelled period. The data in Figure 9-1 demonstrates that all of the packages are forecast to greatly reduce the maximum queue length on the A937 south arm at the south junction from around 60 vehicles to almost 0.

70

60

50

40

30

20

10 Queue Queue Length (Max No.of Vehicles)

0 06:00 06:30 07:00 07:30 08:00 08:30 Time of Day

Do-minimum Package 2 Package 3 Package 4 Package 5 Package 6 Package 7

Figure 9-1 - South Junction – A937 South Arm Maximum Queue - 2033 AM (06:00-09:00)

Figure 9-2 shows the maximum queue length on the A937 south arm at the south junction for the 2033 PM modelled period. The data in demonstrates that all of the packages are forecast to greatly reduce the queue length on the A937 south arm at the south junction from around 15 vehicles to around 4. The queue at the grade separated roundabout occurs as the flow of traffic into Laurencekirk from the southbound A90 cuts the A937 northbound.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 9-5 SECTION DETAILED APPRAISAL - TRANSPORT PLANNING OBJECTIVES

16

14

12

10

8

6

4 Queue Queue Length (Max of No.Vehicles) 2

0 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 Time of Day

Do-minimum Package 2 Package 3 Package 4 Package 5 Package 6 Package 7

Figure 9-2- South Junction – A937 South Arm Maximum Queue - 2033 PM (16:00-19:00)

Figure 9-3 shows the maximum queue length on the A937 north arm at the south junction for the 2033 PM modelled period. The data in Figure 9-3 shows that all of the packages are predicted to reduce the maximum queue from around 18 vehicles to around 2 vehicles.

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4 QueueLength (Max No.of Vehicles) 2

0 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 Time of Day

Do-minimum Package 2 Package 3 Package 4 Package 5 Package 6 Package 7

Figure 9-3 - South Junction – A937 North Arm Maximum Queue - 2033 PM (16:00-19:00)

9-6 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION DETAILED APPRAISAL - TRANSPORT PLANNING OBJECTIVES

Figure 9-4 shows the maximum queue length at the central reserve at the north junction for the 2033 AM modelled period. This shows that Packages 2 and 4 are predicted to show a similar level of queuing as observed in the “do-minimum” situation. Note that the central reserve at the north junction is closed in the other packages.

7

6

5

4

3

2

1 Queue Queue Length (Max No.of Vehicles)

0 06:00 06:30 07:00 07:30 08:00 08:30 Time of Day

Do-minimum Package 2 Package 4

Figure 9-4 – North Junction – Central Reserve Maximum Queue - 2033 AM (06:00-09:00)

Figure 9-5 shows the maximum queue length at the central reserve at the north junction for the 2033 PM modelled period. This shows that Packages 2 is predicted to show a similar level of queuing as observed in the “do-minimum” situation. Package 4 is predicted to lead to a large increase in queuing at the north junction. This is due to the closure of the centre junction and the transfer of demand to the north junction.

30

25

20

15

10

5 Queue Length (Max No.of Vehicles)

0 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 Time of Day

Do-minimum Package 2 Package 4

Figure 9-5 - North Junction – Central Reserve Maximum Queue - 2033 PM (16:00-19:00)

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 9-7 SECTION DETAILED APPRAISAL - TRANSPORT PLANNING OBJECTIVES

At the north junction, Package 4 leads to an increase in delays and journey time unreliability for traffic turning right into Laurencekirk from the southbound A90. The length of queue in the central reserve is of sufficient length to extend back onto the A90 southbound carriageway at times during the PM peak. This would create a safety risk as it would result in stationary vehicles on the A90 main carriageway. In addition to reducing the delay at the south junction, the packages will also contribute to a reduction in driver frustration due to the implementation of new junction layouts. Packages that close the central reserves on the A90 will reduce or remove the locations at which vehicles are able to parallel stack in the central reserve. Table 9-5 includes a summary of the central reserves that would be closed under the different packages. Packages 5b and 7 include the closure of the central reserves at all three junction. Package 2 leads to the smallest change in the layout of the central reserve, with closure at the south junction only. Table 9-5 indicates that the score that each Package has achieved under TPO 2. Table 9-5– TPO 2 Scoring Summary Package TPO 2 Score Scoring Summary 2 2 Grade separation of the south junction removes the most significant delays and journey time unreliability experienced by traffic in the “do-minimum” situation. The grade separated junction operates well within capacity with nominal queues evident under forecast traffic demand in 2033. Therefore, the junction layout will reduce journey time variability at the south junction. This package includes the closure of the central reserve at the south junction. 3b 2 The benefits delivered by grade separation of the south junction are the same as in Package 2. This package includes the closure of the central reserve at the north and south junctions. 4 1 The benefits delivered by grade separation of the south junction are the same as in Package 2. This package includes the closure of the central reserve at the centre and south junctions. Journey time reliability at the side arm of the north junction would reduce slightly with this package. The increased delay at the north junction would lead to the queue at the central reserve in the PM peak extending back onto the A90 main carriageway and causing a safety risk. 5b 3 The benefits delivered by grade separation of the south junction are the same as in Package 2. The grade separated south junction is able to accommodate all traffic rerouting from the closed north and centre junction without excess delay. This package includes the closure of the central reserve at the north, centre and south junctions. The traffic modelling indicates that there would be a high level of journey time reliability at all junctions with this package. 6 3 The benefits delivered by grade separation of the south junction are the same as in Package 2. The grade separated north junction operates within capacity under the 2033 forecast demands. The delays at this location in the “do-minimum” are minor, therefore, the new grade separated junction provides a limited improvement to average journey times and reliability. This package includes the closure of the central reserve at the north and south junctions. The traffic modelling indicates that there would be a high level of journey time reliability at all junctions with this package.

9-8 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION DETAILED APPRAISAL - TRANSPORT PLANNING OBJECTIVES

Package TPO 2 Score Scoring Summary 7 3 The benefits delivered by grade separation of the south junction are the same as in Package 2. The benefits delivered by grade separation of the south junction are the same as in Package 6. The grade separated north and south junctions are able to accommodate all traffic rerouting from the partially closed centre junction without excess delay. This package includes the closure of the central reserve at the north, centre and south junctions. The traffic modelling indicates that there would be a high level of journey time reliability at all junctions with this package. 8 0 This package would not have a significant impact on delays or journey time reliability.

TPO 3 - To achieve an improvement in network efficiency experienced by traffic travelling on the A90 and accessing and crossing the A90 at the Laurencekirk junctions in order to support sustainable economic growth in the south of Aberdeenshire and north of Angus. All of the packages have a similar impact as they remove the main element of delay in the “do-minimum” network, which is at the A937 approaches to the south junction. Figure 9-6 indicates the change in journey time between the “do-minimum” and the packages for the 2033 AM modelled period for the A937 northbound approach to the A90 at the south junction. The data in this figure demonstrates that the packages are forecast to significantly reduce the level of delay experienced on this approach to the A90. The journey times on the A937 for the all the packages are almost identical as they all include grade separation of the south junction. The journey time for the packages are steady across the modelled period indicating that there is very little excess delay and a high level of journey time reliability.

2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 Journey Time Journey Time (Seconds) 400 200 0 06:00 06:15 06:30 06:45 07:00 07:15 07:30 07:45 08:00 08:15 08:30 08:45 Time of Day

Do-minimum Package 2 Package 3 Package 4 Package 5 Package 6 Package 7

Figure 9-6 – South Junction - A937 Northbound Journey Time – 2033 – AM Period (06:00-09:00)

Figure 9-7 indicates the change in journey time between the “do-minimum” and the packages for the 2033 PM modelled period for the A937 northbound approach to the A90 at the south junction. The pattern of journey time change in the PM period is similar to that observed in the AM figure. All of the packages lead to a reduction in journey time, however, this is of a smaller magnitude in the PM.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 9-9 SECTION DETAILED APPRAISAL - TRANSPORT PLANNING OBJECTIVES

800

700

600

500

400 Journey Time Journey Time (Seconds)

300

200 16:00 16:15 16:30 16:45 17:00 17:15 17:30 17:45 18:00 18:15 18:30 18:45 Time of Day

Do-minimum Package 2 Package 3 Package 4 Package 5 Package 6 Package 7

Figure 9-7– South Junction - A937 Northbound Journey Time – 2033 – PM Period (16:00-19:00)

The improvement in the A937 northbound journey time has the potential to attract traffic that currently uses alternative routes. Therefore, the reduction in delay on the A937 has the potential to improve journey times for traffic not currently using this route. Therefore, there is a potential for the south junction to deliver an improvement to network efficiency that extends beyond the A937 corridor. In the “do-minimum” model, some traffic routes via the B974 and the unnamed road to the west of the A937 in order to avoid the delays at the south junction. Within the 2033 AM model, 200 vehicles are predicted to reroute onto the A937. The coverage of the model does not include the A92. Analysis of survey data indicates that approximately 80 vehicles may currently be using the A92 in order to avoid the A90/A937 south junction for northbound trips. These drivers could be attracted back to the A937 for northbound trips due to the improved journey times that would occur with the grade separation of the A90/A937 south junction. In practice, there is potential for a greater number of trips to reassign to the A937 during the AM period, with a grade separated south junction than is indicated by the modelling. This is because additional traffic may be attracted to the junction due to perceptions of improved safety. The model is unable to quantify the potential impact of the effect of rerouting on safety. Figure 9-8 indicates the change in journey time between the “do-minimum” and the packages for the 2033 AM modelled period for the A937 southbound approach to the A90 at the south junction. The data in this figure demonstrates that the packages are forecast to significantly reduce the level of delay experienced on this approach to the A90.

9-10 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION DETAILED APPRAISAL - TRANSPORT PLANNING OBJECTIVES

600

550

500

450

400 Journey Time Journey Time (Seconds) 350

300 06:00 06:15 06:30 06:45 07:00 07:15 07:30 07:45 08:00 08:15 08:30 08:45 Time of Day

Do-minimum Package 2 Package 3 Package 4 Package 5 Package 6 Package 7

Figure 9-8 - South Junction – Laurencekirk to A937 Southbound Journey Time – 2033 – AM Period (06:00-09:00)

Figure 9-9 indicates the change in journey time between the “do-minimum” and the packages for the 2033 PM modelled period for the A937 northbound approach to the A90 at the south junction. As with the AM period, the packages are forecast to significantly reduce the level of delay experienced on this approach to the south junction.

1200 1100 1000 900 800 700 600 500

Journey Time Journey Time (Seconds) 400 300 200 16:00 16:15 16:30 16:45 17:00 17:15 17:30 17:45 18:00 18:15 18:30 18:45 Time of Day

Do-minimum Package 2 Package 3 Package 4 Package 5 Package 6 Package 7

Figure 9-9 - South Junction – Laurencekirk to A937 Southbound Journey Time – 2033 – PM Period (16:00-19:00)

Grade separation of the south junction is included in all packages, therefore, the network efficiency benefits that would occur due to rerouting are considered to be common to all packages. It is anticipated that the potential for rerouting would be largely confined to the AM period, as the level of delay northbound on the A937 is much lower at other times of the day.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 9-11 SECTION DETAILED APPRAISAL - TRANSPORT PLANNING OBJECTIVES

Grade separation of the south junction would also enable the existing 50mph speed limit on the A90 to be increased to 70mph. Improvement of efficiency of the network on the A90 to the south of Aberdeen is an objective of the NESTRANS RTS. All of the packages would contribute to the achievement of this objective by allowing the 50mph limit to be removed. Figure 9-10 indicates the change in journey time on the A90 northbound that is forecast to occur if the 50 mph speed limit were to be removed for the AM period. Figure 9-11 indicates the data for the southbound direction.

245

240

235

230 Journey Time JourneyTime (Seconds) 225

220 06:00 06:15 06:30 06:45 07:00 07:15 07:30 07:45 08:00 08:15 08:30 08:45 Time of Day

Do-minimum Package 2 Package 3 Package 4 Package 5 Package 6 Package 7

Figure 9-10 - A90 Southbound Journey Time – 2033 – AM Period (06:00-09:00)

9-12 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION DETAILED APPRAISAL - TRANSPORT PLANNING OBJECTIVES

260

255

250

245

240

235

Journey Time Journey Time (Seconds) 230

225

220 06:00 06:15 06:30 06:45 07:00 07:15 07:30 07:45 08:00 08:15 08:30 08:45 Time of Day

Do-minimum Package 2 Package 3 Package 4 Package 5 Package 6 Package 7

Figure 9-11 - A90 Northbound Journey Time – 2033 – AM Period (06:00-09:00)

The data in Figures 9-5 and 9-6 indicates that the journey time reduction on the A90 would be in the order of 15 to 20 seconds in both directions. The A90 is free flowing at this point, therefore, the increase in speed limit translates consistently into a reduction in journey times. Within the 2033 modelled period, the flow on the A90 at this point is in the region of 7,500 vehicles during the AM period of 06:00-09:00 and 8,000 vehicles in the PM period of 16:00-19:00. Therefore, the journey time saving is experienced by a relatively large number of vehicles within the model. None of the packages leads to a significant increase in delay on the side arm approaches to the A90 at the south junction. In Package 4 the journey time for right turning traffic into Laurencekirk at the north junction increases by around 80 seconds per vehicle in the AM period (06:00-09:00) and 50 seconds per vehicle in the PM period (16:00-19:00). This occurs as the closure of the centre junction leads to an increase in right turn demand at the north junction. It might be expected that Package 3b would display a similar pattern of delay to Package 4 in that the closure of the central reserve at the north junction would lead to an increase in delay at the centre junction. This is not reflected in the results in Table 3 in Appendix J. It is considered that the traffic model is slightly underestimating delay for the right turn from the A90 southbound to Laurencekirk at the centre junction. It is considered in practice that the network layout in Package 3b would lead to a greater level of delay than in predicted by the model for this movement. This is due to the transfer of the right turning flow from the north junction to the centre junction. Grade separation of the south junction would also deliver an increase in capacity at the A90/A937 junction. It is considered that this would have a positive impact on sustainable economic growth on the A937 corridor, the north of Angus and Laurencekirk. Currently, the capacity limitations of the A90/A937 south junction are placing a barrier to the progress of developments in Laurencekirk and the north of Angus. This includes recent planning applications for a residential development in Laurencekirk and an employment area in Montrose. Grade separation of the south junction would provide capacity that would help to accommodate the traffic generated by proposed developments in the local area and thus support economic growth.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 9-13 SECTION DETAILED APPRAISAL - TRANSPORT PLANNING OBJECTIVES

Packages 6 and 7 include the delivery of grade separation at the north junction. This would provide an increased capacity to accommodate traffic associated with proposed land allocations in the Aberdeenshire LDP located at the north of Laurencekirk. Table 9-6 indicates that the score that each Package has achieved under TPO 3. Table 9-6 – TPO 3 Scoring Summary Package TPO 3 Score Scoring Summary 2 2 Grade separation of the south junction would improve journey times on the A937 in both the northbound and southbound directions. Grade separation of this junction would also allow the 50 mph section on the A90 to be removed. Grade separation of the south junction would increase the capacity of this junction and accommodate the traffic impact of proposed development. Grade separation at the south junction would provide increased capacity that may accommodate the traffic generated by new developments over a wide area including the north of Angus and Laurencekirk. 3 2 The benefits delivered by grade separation of the south junction are the same as in Package 2. Within the model, the closure of the central reserve at the north junction makes little difference to network operation. In practice, it is considered that closure of the central reserve at the north junction would lead to slightly increased delays for traffic at the centre junction. 4 2 The benefits delivered by grade separation of the south junction are the same as in Package 2. Closure of the centre junction leads to increased trip distances for traffic turning to/from the A90. 5 2 The benefits delivered by grade separation of the south junction are the same as in Package 2. Closure of the centre junction and the central reserve of the north junction leads to increased trip distances for traffic turning to/from the A90. 6 3 The benefits delivered by grade separation of the south junction are the same as in Package 2. Grade separation of the north junction would deliver an increase in junction capacity to the north of Laurencekirk. This may provide a means to accommodate increased traffic levels that would be generated by proposed developments in Laurencekirk. 7 3 The benefits delivered by grade separation of the south junction are the same as in Package 2. The benefits delivered by grade separation of the north junction are the same as in Package 6. 8 0 This package would not have a significant impact on network efficiency.

TPO 4 - To increase the opportunity for pedestrians and cyclists to safely cross the A90 All packages have a positive impact in terms of providing a safe crossing of the A90 for sustainable modes. This is facilitated by the upgrade of existing at grade junction(s) to grade separated layouts. Where grade separated junctions are proposed, the intent is the designs will incorporate dedicated pedestrian/cyclist facilities. As such, Packages 6 and 7 involving the grade separation of both the north and south junctions are considered to offer most benefit. Package 8 involves the upgrade of an existing underpass that would provide a grade separated crossing facility of the A90 for pedestrians and cyclists and link it to the east. This would make the route more attractive and be of benefit to users. Package 8 also includes the provision of signalised pedestrian crossings on Laurencekirk High Steet. This would facilitate an improved pedestrian environment and enhance access to service for those that are required to cross the High Street. Table 9-7indicates that the score that each Package has achieved under TPO 4.

9-14 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION DETAILED APPRAISAL - TRANSPORT PLANNING OBJECTIVES

Table 9-7 – TPO 4 Scoring Summary Package TPO 4 Score Scoring Summary 2 1 This package promotes and facilitates safe pedestrian and cyclist movements across the A90 at the south of Laurencekirk by providing a grade separated junction at the south. 3 1 Like Package 2, the south grade separated junction will allow and promote safe pedestrian/cyclist movements across the A90 at the south of Laurencekirk. 4 1 Like Package 2, the south grade separated junction will allow and promote safe pedestrian/cyclist movements across the A90 at the south of Laurencekirk. 5 1 Like Package 2, the south grade separated junction will allow and promote safe pedestrian/cyclist movements across the A90 at the south of Laurencekirk. 6 2 This package promotes and facilitates safe pedestrian and cyclist movements across the A90 at the north and south of Laurencekirk by providing a grade separated junction at each location. 7 2 This package promotes and facilitates safe pedestrian and cyclist movements across the A90 at the north and south of Laurencekirk by providing a grade separated junction at each location. 8 2 This package includes a proposal to connect an existing grade separated walk and cycle crossing of the A90 to the local road network to the east of the road

TPO 5 - To contribute to the High Street’s role as a central place for the continued vitality of the Laurencekirk community. Laurencekirk High Street currently serves a number of functions, this includes providing access to community services, businesses and residential properties. Other functions provided by the High Street include providing on-street car parking, public transport waiting facilities, a route for through traffic and other activities such as refuse collection and servicing for local businesses. The assessment of the packages against this TPO considers the extent to which the packages enable or hinder the functions served by the High Street. This assessment has been informed by analysis of how traffic flows might change on the High Street under each of the packages relative to the “do-minimum”. It is considered that a large increase in traffic flows would lead to a reduction in vitality on the High Street, as it make the area less attractive for other uses. Table 5 in Appendix J shows traffic flows at three locations on the High Street during the AM and PM Weekday peaks only for the “do-minimum” situation and with the packages in place. Traffic volumes during the inter- peak and weekend periods are lower, but have not been quantified for the packages. The change in absolute traffic volumes outwith the peak periods is likely to be lower than shown in Table 5 in Appendix J. It is important to recognise that traffic volumes are only one of a number of factors that will influence the vitality of the High Street. Therefore, the assessment of performance against this TPO has not been based purely on the quantified appraisal of the traffic flow indicator. The quantitative analysis of flows has been supplemented by a qualitative analysis of potential impact on the High Street. Within Laurencekirk, the concentration of services is greatest at the northern end of the town. The accessibility figure in Appendix A shows that community facilities such as the Post Office, rail station and Mearns Academy Campus are located at the northern end of the town. A number of small local businesses are located along the High Street with access taken via footways on each side of the carriageway. There is a greater concentration of shops at the northern end of the High Street. A small food store is located within the centre of the town. During the consultation undertaken for the study, the public indicated that they would not like traffic volumes to increase on the High Street. Despite this, the public did not indicate that the current level of traffic on the High Street was preventing them from being able to access services. The largest increase at the northern end of the High Street is predicted to occur under Package 7 . In 2033, an increase of 260 vehicles (26%) between 16:00-19:00 is estimated to occur if this package were in place. It is

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 9-15 SECTION DETAILED APPRAISAL - TRANSPORT PLANNING OBJECTIVES therefore considered that none of the packages will lead to an increase in traffic flows on the High Street that would have a significant impact on the access to services. Package 5 is estimated to lead to the largest increase in flows at the southern end of the High Street, with flows estimated to increase by 1,200 in 2033 between 16:00-19:00. To the north east of Blackiemuir Road, the increase in traffic flows is estimated to be in the region of 450 vehicles between 16:00-19:00. There is however, predicted to be a decrease in traffic flows at the north end of the High Street. As services in Laurencekirk are concentrated at the north end of the town, the predicted increase in flows under Package 5 is considered to have a minor negative impact on vitality of the High Street. Whilst it has not been included within the scoring, it is important to note that Package 8 would provide a means to mitigate against potential negative impacts on the High Street arising from the other packages. Package 8 contains a number of measures that would be complementary to Packages 2 to 7. It is considered that the pedestrian crossings that would be introduced as part of Package 8 would more than mitigate the impact of the increased traffic flows that may occur under some of the packages. Table 9-8 indicates that the score that each Package has achieved under TPO 5. Table 9-8 – TPO 5 Scoring Summary Package TPO 5 Score Scoring Summary 2 0 This package is not anticipated to lead to a significant change in flows on the High Street. 3 0 This package would lead to a reduction in flows at the north of the High Street but an increase at the southern end. 4 -1 This package would lead to a slight increase in flows at the north and south of the High Street due to the closure of the centre junction. 5 -1 This package would lead to a reduction in flows at the north of the High Street but a large increase at the southern end. 6 0 This package is not anticipated to lead to a significant change in flows on the High Street. The traffic model predicts that under this option some traffic would reroute from the north junction to the centre junction. In practice however, it is considered that drivers would prefer to use the grade separated junction at the north as it is perceived to be safer. Therefore, overall traffic volumes on the High Street would be unchanged. 7 -1 This package would lead to a slight increase in flows at the north and south of the High Street due to the closure of the centre junction. 8 2 This package includes the introduction of signalised pedestrian crossings on the High Street. Currently none exist, therefore it is considered that this option would improve pedestrian provision and thereby the vitality of the High Street.

.. Summary of TPO Scoring The 5 TPO’s defined for the study are as follows: TPO 1 - Safety TPO 2 - Driver behaviour TPO 3 - Efficiency of the network and economic development TPO 4 - Sustainable travel TPO 5 - Laurencekirk High Street. Table 9-9 shows a summary of the TPO scoring for the packages.

9-16 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION DETAILED APPRAISAL - TRANSPORT PLANNING OBJECTIVES

Table 9-9 – Summary of TPO Scoring TPO 1: Safety TPO 2: Driver TPO 3: Efficiency TPO 4: Sustainable TPO 5: behaviour of the network travel Laurencekirk High and economic Street development Package 2 1 2 2 1 0 Package 3 2 2 2 1 0 Package 4 2 1 2 1 -1 Package 5 3 3 2 1 -1 Package 6 3 3 3 2 0 Package 7 3 3 3 2 -1 Package 8 0 0 0 2 2

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 9-17

SECTION 10 Detailed Appraisal STAG Criteria

. Environment .. Introduction In order to fully inform the STAG Part 2 Detailed Appraisal, an environmental appraisal has been undertaken based on STAG methodology. The appraisal has taken into account the environmental aspects scoped out in the earlier STAG Part 1 Initial Appraisal. The future design of any option considered in this environmental appraisal may be subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment and, therefore, the findings of this STAG Part 2 Detailed Appraisal would inform the production of an associated Environmental Statement. From the outset of the appraisal, consultation has been undertaken with both statutory and non-statutory consultees to obtain a complete set of baseline data and to enable an assessment of the impact each of the option packages has on the local environment. Both qualitative and quantitative assessment methods have been used, where appropriate, and the assessment has focused on those significant impacts that arise as a result of the proposals. As mentioned previously, Package 8 is considered to be a desirable additional set of low cost measures that will support any one of the major enhancement packages (Packages 2-7). The impact of Package 8 is more difficult to quantify and, therefore, it has been agreed Package 8 will not be scored within the STAG Part 2 Detailed Appraisal on the same basis as the other packages. Commentary will, however, be provided where Package 8 specifically addresses particular criteria and provides context to the outcomes of the study. .. Principles of Assessing Impacts for STAG An appraisal of the environmental impacts was carried out for each of the following environmental sub-criteria during the Initial Appraisal. This was to determine the appropriateness of further quantification as the appraisal progresses: • Water quality, drainage and flood defence; • Geology; • Biodiversity and habitats; • Landscape; • Visual amenity; • Agriculture and Soils; • Cultural heritage; • Local air quality – particulate matter (PM10) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2); • Global air quality – carbon dioxide (CO2); and • Noise and vibration. In addition, the presence of receptors and areas of environmental designation and/or sensitivity was considered during the Initial Appraisal, with the presence of any sensitive receptors in proximity to the packages being noted. During the STAG Part 2 Detailed Appraisal, this aspect has been examined further to establish the likely impact of each package on the above environmental sub-criteria. The first stage was to identify a buffer zone surrounding each of the packages, to understand the proximity of receptors and identify any likely negative impacts. Buffers zones of 50, 100 and 150 metres, respectively, were drawn from the centre point of each package.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 10-1 SECTION DETAILED APPRAISAL - STAG CRITERIA

As there are no environmental designations present within 2km of the packages and the main sensitive receptors of the area are the residential dwellings, the environmental assessment has focused on a qualitative appraisal, with supporting quantification where information was available and relevant. Figure 11-1 provides a summary of the buffer zones around the packages and the associated influence on the main sensitive receptor in the area, i.e. residential dwellings.

Figure 10-1 – Buffer Zones around Packages

.. Subcriteria Environmental Baseline Summary ... Water Quality and Flood Defence A high level Water Quality and Flood Defence review was undertaken to inform the appraisal and is presented in the Environmental Baseline Report provided within Appendix D to this report. The results show that the elements of Packages 2 – 7 may impact on small watercourses to some minor extent, but this will depend on the detailed design. Packages 6 and 7 are likely to have impact over a wider area, as they involve constructing two grade separated junctions. In terms of potential flooding risk, there are no flood areas close to the three junctions and, therefore, measures will have a neutral impact. The sub-options for Packages 3 and 5 include the Western Distributor Road which is sited closer to existing flood areas but its suggested alignment is considered unlikely to be flood risk. It is appropriate that further consultation with SEPA be commenced at DMRB Stage 2, should a chosen package progress. Package 8 would have no impact on water quality or flooding issues.

10-2 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION DETAILED APPRAISAL - STAG CRITERIA

... Geology Initial ground condition information has been collected to inform the appraisal and is provided within the Engineering Characteristics Baseline Report within Appendix C of this report. Information on the Drift Geology underlying the site has been determined from examination of the BGS Solid and Drift Geology Map Sheet 66E Banchory at a scale of 1:50,000; inspection of borehole records obtained from the British Geological Survey online borehole scans database; and review of information contained within the “A90 Laurencekirk Junctions Cost Refinement Exercise for Grade Separation Associated with Future Development ” report prepared by URS Scott Wilson for Transport Scotland (Ref: D137127/L/REP/001 Rev 2 dated August 2011). Review of the BGS Solid and Drift Geology Map Sheet 66E Banchory at a scale of 1:50,000 indicates a consistency in the solid geology below the route of the A90 and the three junctions. In addition, none of the boreholes recorded groundwater strikes, the boreholes being noted to remain dry throughout the drilling operations. No records of standpipe installations or ongoing water monitoring were available for review. It is unlikely that mineral extraction will have taken place within the core study area. Given the similarity of the geology in the area, it is considered that all the packages will have neutral impact. ... Biodiversity and Habitats A high level biodiversity and habitat appraisal was undertaken to inform the appraisal and is presented within the Environmental Baseline Report provided within Appendix D of this report. A phase 1 habitat survey has not been completed at this stage. Given the general similarities of the package interventions and their relatively limited nature, a habitat survey has not been deemed essential for the Part 2 Detailed Appraisal. Aerial photographs have been utilised and general habitats have been identified adjacent to the A90 carriageway. The area is dominated by semi-natural and plantation woodland, arable fields, scattered trees, semi-improved grassland and tall ruderal herbs. Several watercourses and ditches cross under the A90. The NBN Gateway identified historic records of water vole Arvicola amphibious, otter Lutra lutra, bat species and adder Vipera berus from within the 10km grid square NO77 . There are recent records of badger meles meles from within 1km of the proposed scheme. It is envisaged that any impact on biodiversity and habitat is likely to be relatively minor, and has been scored as being neutral for all packages. Habitat surveys can be considered as part of the DMRB Stage 2 assessment, in case any mitigation measures are required. ... Landscape and Visual Amenity The landscape and visual amenity impacts were considered during the Initial Appraisal, which noted the absence of any designated sites within proximity of the proposals. Whilst no specific designations are present, the key elements of the packages do, however, have the potential to produce landscape and visual effects, particularly the grade separation at the south and north junctions, given the introduction of new overbridges. In addition to the visual impact associated with the physical aspects of the junctions, it is likely that any grade separated junction will be lit, which has the potential to have further visual effects over a wider area, in terms of light pollution. Packages 2 through to 7 all include grade separation at the south junction, whilst Packages 6 and 7 both include a grade separation at the north junction, which will have the most significant visual impact. The proposed changes to the B9120 junction, as defined within Packages 4, 5 and 7, are not significant in landscape or visual terms. At present, the A90 and its junctions have a limited presence within the local landscape, but increasing the extent of the road infrastructure is likely to have an adverse impact. The local landscape character is of a large scale with wide vistas, distant views and expansive field patterns. It is considered the introduction of grade separation at either the north or south junctions would not affect the key elements of the landscape, but would have more localised impacts. In terms of the packages being appraised, Package 8 , which does not include a grade separated junction, has no landscape effects. There are considered to be no real differences between Packages 2 to 7 in overall landscape impact terms other than Packages 6 and 7 affecting two locations, rather than just one.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 10-3 SECTION DETAILED APPRAISAL - STAG CRITERIA

The visual amenity of the A90 at Laurencekirk is dominated by the adjoining wide agricultural landscape. There are sections of open views, but these are broken up by shelterbelts and woodland. Site visits have noted that the views of the A90 from Laurencekirk itself are very limited. To inform the appraisal, a series of visual receptors have been developed and considered in relation to the most significant aspects of the packages, namely the grade separation at both the north and south junctions, and this has been documented within Table 10-1. Table 10-1 – Visual Receptors Receptor View

South Junction Properties off A937 at Gaugies Burn south side Screened by trees Properties on West Burnside Mostly screened by trees Properties on Gardenston Street Some clear views Houses on Kinnear Square Screened by trees Mains of Newton Farm Clear view of junction Houses at Law of Newton Very limited view of A90 due to trees Stoneydale Farmhouse view screened by trees and barn Dykelands Croft View of junction Dykelands Cottages No. 1,2,6 & 7 have view of junction Johnston Lodge Screened by trees along Gaugies Burn Johnston Mains Screened by trees along Gaugies Burn North Junction Burnside Very limited view due to woodland Conveth Mains Farm cottages Clear view of junction Honeyhive Limited view of junction Keilburn Clear view of junction Upperton Farm Limited view of junction Lower Scotstoun Limited view of junction – trees and landform

The new overbridges associated with the grade separated junctions are critical to the visual impact, however only those residential properties close to the junctions will experience any significant visual impacts. For Packages 2 to 7 , this would include properties on Gardenston Street and Main of Newton Farm. For Packages 6 and 7 , which also include grade separation at the north junction, Conveth Mains Farm cottages and Keilburn would be impacted. There is little to differentiate the various packages, other than the single grade separated junction within Packages 2 to 5 will have more limited impact than the two grade separated junctions in Packages 6 and 7 . The distance between the junctions is sufficient that there is unlikely to be any cumulative visual impact. The visual impacts could be reduced with the introduction of sensitive woodland planting on the overbridge embankments. This would need to tie in with the local landscape pattern of woodland and would help to integrate the bridges into the landscape. The use of lighting should be minimised to reduce the impact on the local “nightscape”. ... Local Air and Noise Impacts There are a low level of sensitive receptors within 150m of any of the packages. Where packages are likely to lead to an increase in vehicular traffic flows of greater than 1,000 AADT, a detailed air quality study would be required as part of any detailed design. The S-Paramics micro-simulation model constructed to support the detailed appraisal of the packages operates on a fixed demand basis between “do-minimum” and “do-

10-4 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION DETAILED APPRAISAL - STAG CRITERIA something” scenarios and, as such, any large increase traffic flows will mainly be due to re-routing associated with the interventions. The change in global carbon dioxide emissions over the 60-year evaluation period, considered as part of the traffic and economic modelling, together with the monetised present value of each option against the “do- minimum” has been provided within Table 10-2. Given the low values in change, all packages (2-7) are considered to have a neutral impact on air quality. Package 8 does not have a significant impact on air quality. Table 10-2 – CO2 Emissions (tonnes) Package Change in CO2 Emissions against the “do-minimum” Discounted Monetized Present Value of Change in CO2 (tonnes) Emissions against the “do-minimum” (£m) 2 0.00002 -0.25 3 0.00002 -0.31 4 0.00003 -0.32 5 0.00004 -0.150 6 0.000024 -0.29 7 0.00003 -0.36

Whilst any sensitive receptors are deemed to be outwith a 50m buffer zone in relation to the packages, a qualitative assessment of the noise and vibration impacts has been undertaken. Table 10-3 highlights each package and the associated results from evaluation of the network changes. Table 10-3 – Review of Noise Impacts Package Results 2 The changes in flow along the A90 would not cause a noticeable change in noise level. Changes in traffic flow at the junctions and links into Laurencekirk will not cause a noticeable change in noise, and there would be no significant changes at non-residential receptors. It is not expected that night time noise levels will change and no properties are likely to be eligible under The Noise Insulation Regulations. The area around Laurencekirk has not been identified as a Candidate Noise Management Area from the Transportation Noise Action Plan produced by Transport Scotland. 3 The changes in flow along the A90 would not cause a noticeable change in noise level. The new road links around the south junction will cause an increase in noise, but this is unlikely to be noticeable at the dwellings within Laurencekirk, especially given the background noise level from the A90. An increase in traffic using the central junction could cause a localised noticeable increase in noise level. There are unlikely to be any significant changes at non-residential receptors. It is not expected that night time noise levels will change and no properties are likely to be eligible under The Noise Insulation Regulations. The area around Laurencekirk has not been identified as a Candidate Noise Management Area from the Transportation Noise Action Plan produced by Transport Scotland. 4 The changes in flow along the A90 would not cause a noticeable change in noise level. The new road links around the south junction will cause an increase in noise, but this is unlikely to be noticeable at the dwellings within Laurencekirk, especially given the background noise level from the A90. There are unlikely to be any significant changes at non-residential receptors. It is not expected that night time noise levels will change and no properties are likely to be eligible under The Noise Insulation Regulations. The area around Laurencekirk has not been identified as a Candidate Noise Management Area from the Transportation Noise Action Plan produced by Transport Scotland. 5 The changes in flow along the A90 would not cause a noticeable change in noise level. The new road links around the south junction will cause an increase in noise, but this is unlikely to be noticeable at the dwellings within Laurencekirk, especially given the background noise level from the A90. There are unlikely to be any significant changes at non-residential receptors. An increase in traffic using the High Street due to re-routing could cause a localised noticeable increase in noise levels. It is not expected that night time noise levels will change and no properties are likely to be eligible under The Noise Insulation Regulations. The area around Laurencekirk has not been identified as a Candidate Noise Management Area from the Transportation Noise Action Plan produced by Transport Scotland.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 10-5 SECTION DETAILED APPRAISAL - STAG CRITERIA

Package Results 6 The changes in flow along the A90 would not cause a noticeable change in noise level. The new road links around the south and north junctions will cause an increase in noise, but this is unlikely to be noticeable at the dwellings within Laurencekirk, especially given the background noise level from the A90. There are unlikely to be any significant changes at non-residential receptors. It is not expected that night time noise levels will change and no properties are likely to be eligible under The Noise Insulation Regulations. The area around Laurencekirk has not been identified as a Candidate Noise Management Area from the Transportation Noise Action Plan produced by Transport Scotland. 7 The changes in flow along the A90 would not cause a noticeable change in noise level. The new road links around the south and north junctions will cause an increase in noise, but this is unlikely to be noticeable at the dwellings within Laurencekirk, especially given the background noise level from the A90. The closure of the link at the central junction could cause a localised decrease in noise level. There are unlikely to be any significant changes at non-residential receptors. It is not expected that night time noise levels will change and no properties are likely to be eligible under The Noise Insulation Regulations. The area around Laurencekirk has not been identified as a Candidate Noise Management Area from the Transportation Noise Action Plan produced by Transport Scotland.

... Agriculture and Soils The appraisal has been informed by the Environmental Baseline Report provided within Appendix D. It has concluded that: • Agricultural land to the west of the A90 in the Laurencekirk area is considered to be Class 2 (land capable of producing a wide range of crops and the land is highly productive); • Land south of Laurencekirk and east of the A90, between the A90 and the A937 is also Class 2; • At the southern end of the village, to the east of the A90, there is also an area of Class 3.2 (land capable of producing moderate range of crops) between the A937 and the B9120; and • On the eastern side of the A90 at the northern end of the village, the land is considered to be Class 3.1 (land capable of producing a moderate range of crops with high yield of cereals and grass) and Class 4.2 (land primarily suited to grassland with some limited potential for other crops). There are no Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) 6 within the Laurencekirk area. ESAs were designated under the Agricultural Act 1986 and relate to areas of the countryside where important environmental features can be affected by farming practices. The elements of the all packages would impact solely on agricultural land within the lower 3.2 classification and are considered to have a similar scale of neutral impact, given the limited nature of intervention. ... Significance criteria This environmental assessment has included an appraisal of the environmental impact based on a 7-point scale reflecting the high level criteria shown in Table 10-4. Table 10-4 - Environmental value (or sensitivity) and typical descriptors Significance scoring Typical descriptors

+3 High positive. A positive impact on an internationally or nationally important resource. +2 Medium positive. A positive impact on a regionally important resource. +1 Low positive. A positive impact on a locally important resource. 0 Negligible. No change or the positive and negative effects are in balance. -1 Low negative. A negative impact on a locally important resource. -2 Medium negative. A negative impact on a regionally important resource. -3 High negative. A negative impact on an internationally or nationally important resource.

6 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2002/07/15133/9011

10-6 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION DETAILED APPRAISAL - STAG CRITERIA

... Summary Packages 2 to 7 all have a limited negative impact on Environment. The single grade separated Packages 2 to 5 have a minor environmental impact, whereas the double grade separated Packages 6 and 7 have a moderate impact. As it contains relatively small scale measures, Package 8 is considered to have a negligible impact on the Environment. The impact on each environmental sub-criteria from each package has been considered and a summary of this has been provided within Table 10-5. Table 10-5 – Environment Summary Appraisal Results Sub-criteria Package

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Water quality, drainage and flood defence 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 0 Geology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Biodiversity and habitats 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Landscape 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Visual amenity -1 -1 -1 -1 -2 -2 0 Agriculture and Soils 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cultural heritage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Local air quality – particulate matter (PM10) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) Global air quality – carbon dioxide (CO2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Noise and vibration 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 Overall Score -1 -1 -1 -1 -2 -2 0

. Safety .. Introduction The Safety criterion includes two sub-criteria which have been considered in detail. These are: • Accidents; and • Security. The first sub-criterion considers whether the proposed package under consideration will have any impact on the number of transport related accidents and/or their severity. The second sub-criterion considers the perceived safety of all transport users as well as their vehicles, where appropriate. The total cost of accidents on a road network is calculated by multiplying the number of accidents predicted to occur on the network by the cost per accident. The cost per accident varies by the severity of the accident (fatal, serious or slight) and the road category (urban or rural) or junction type and classification (major or minor, built up or non-built up). Those packages which increase the total length of the road network (e.g. slip roads, link roads or roundabouts), or result in an increase in the total number of vehicle kilometres within the network as a result of junction closures etc. will, all else being equal, increase the number of accidents occurring over the 60-year assessment period. Similarly, if any package results in a reduction in the number of vehicle kilometres on one road type, but an increase for another road type, then the net impact on the number of accidents will depend upon the relative accident rates for the two road types.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 10-7 SECTION DETAILED APPRAISAL - STAG CRITERIA

The resultant impacts in respect to accidents has been quantified using an accident-only NESA model. It should be noted that the predicted number of accidents calculated by NESA varies depending on the prevailing speed limit within the vicinity of a junction. The program will predict greater numbers of accidents for junctions with a larger number of arms and with greater inflow on these arms. NESA also predicts greater numbers of accidents for junctions on roads with speed limits over 40mph and more accidents for priority junctions compared to roundabouts. The second sub-criterion, relating to security, has been qualitatively assessed based on initial findings and feedback received during the course of the study. ... Accidents An assessment of the accident benefits has been calculated using assessment software NESA. This has been undertaken for all packages which have been subject to modelling within S-Paramics Micro-Simulation software. For the purpose of this accident assessment of the Laurencekirk road network, local accident rates (i.e. rates based on the number of accidents that occurred during the five year period from July 2009 to June 2014) have been used, as these are lower than the national default rates normally used. This will ensure that the accident benefits for the proposed packages are not over-estimated within the assessment. The estimated number of accidents, change in accidents and accident benefits (discounted to 2010 prices) for each of the packages over the 60-year appraisal period are shown in Table 10-6. Note, the accident numbers shown in Table 10.7 are for the full study network, therefore, the data differs from that shown in Table 10.6. This is because Table 10.6 presents accident numbers for the north, centre and south junctions only. Table 10-6 – Monetised Accident Benefits Package Package do-minimum 2 3 4 5 6 7 Number of accidents 288 279 270 298 294 256 264 Change in number of accidents N/A -9 -18 10 6 -33 -24 Accident benefits (£Ms) N/A 0.92 1.54 0.15 0.67 2.48 2.58 Monetary values are in average 2010 prices discounted to 2010 at 3.5% for 30-years and 3.0% for the remainder of the evaluation period

The figures presented within Table 10-6 indicate that, generally, there is a decrease in the number of accidents in all but Package 4 and 5. This overall trend is mainly due to the change in junction form, from priority junctions to grade separated junctions. The increase in accidents Package 4 and 5 is partially due the increased road length travelled due to closures of junctions and central reserves and vehicles re-routing. Note that Package 8 is not applicable for this particular assessment. ... Casualty Rates Although casualty severity rates from the NESA analysis do not directly relate to the number of accidents that are envisaged to occur in the future, they do provide a reasonable indication of how the different packages will affect the types of person injury accidents that could occur. Results are summarised in Table 10-7, which shows estimated changes in accidents compared with the Reference Case for links (lengths of road) and junctions. The figures refer to the 60 years after opening. Package 8 has not been assessed for this criterion.

10-8 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION DETAILED APPRAISAL - STAG CRITERIA

Table 10-7 – Casualty Severity Links Junctions Total

Seriou Tota Seriou Package Slight Serious Fatal Total Slight s Fatal l Slight s Fatal Total do-minimum 253 29 4 286 151 17 2 170 404 46 6 456 2 247 30 4 281 137 14 1 152 384 43 6 432 3 247 30 4 281 123 12 1 136 369 42 5 416 4 271 33 5 308 130 12 1 143 401 44 6 451 5 270 32 5 306 125 10 1 136 395 43 5 443 6 251 30 4 285 98 9 1 108 349 39 5 393 7 257 30 4 291 98 7 1 106 355 37 5 397

In terms of impact on links only, three Packages 2, 3 and 6 are forecast to reduce casualty numbers, whilst three Packages 4, 5 and 7 appear to actually increase the numbers of casualties (the total of slight, serious and fatal). This is due to the increased km travelled by vehicles on the network due to the closure of the centre and north junctions. Packages 2 and 3 show the highest reduction in overall casualty numbers from the “do- minimum" for the links, but this is in the order of some 2%. In terms of junctions only, all the packages are forecast to reduce casualty numbers across the three personal injury casualty categories. Package 7 shows the highest reduction in overall casualty numbers from the ”do- minimum”, being in the order of approximately 38%. In addition, all packages are forecast to reduce the number of fatal casualties, with Package 7 having the highest reduction of approximately 74%. In terms of total impact, when considering links and junctions together, all the packages are forecast to reduce casualty numbers across the three personal injury casualty categories, although Packages 4 and 5 see minimal reduction that is likely to have neutral impact. Package 7 is the best performing, in terms of reducing fatal casualties, with an estimated decrease of approximately 25%. However, the best performing package, overall, is Package 6 , which is forecast to reduce total casualty numbers by approximately 14%. Package 6 performs slightly better than Package 7 because it has a greater impact on the reduction of numbers of slight injury casualties, which is mainly due to less vehicle/km travelled on the links. ... Modelling Assumptions & Approach Due to the limitations of the NESA program, which does not allow for the specification of individual junction accident coefficients, it has not been possible to keep accident rates for unaltered junctions consistent between the ”do-minimum” and “do-something” networks. For the purposes of the assessment, therefore, the total number of local accidents specified within the “do- minimum” scenario has also been specified for unaltered junctions in the “do-something” scenarios. It is acknowledged that this approach is likely to slightly underestimate the accident cost of unaltered junctions that experience an increase in through trips as a result of traffic reassignment. This should be borne in mind when interpreting the model results. As a result, the accident benefits of the packages may be marginally overestimated. For junctions in the packages that restrict certain movements (such as central reserve closures), any observed accidents resulting from vehicles making those movements, that would no longer be possible within the various packages, have therefore been excluded from the accident numbers specified for these junctions in the ”do-something” networks. Whilst the approach adopted affects the packages to different degrees, the level of accident benefits associated with the packages relative to one another tend to be broadly similar. It should be noted, however, that due to the relative closeness of accident benefits associated with Packages 6 and 7, the benefits attributable to Package 6 have the potential to be greater overall than those for Package 7, which performs best in terms of fatal accidents.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 10-9 SECTION DETAILED APPRAISAL - STAG CRITERIA

... Security Analysis of the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD), as part of the study baseline, has suggested that crime is low within Laurencekirk and surrounding areas and, therefore, it is unlikely that the interventions within the packages would influence personal security. Security also considers the perceived safety of all transport users as well as their vehicles. As perceived safety issues using the junctions within the vicinity of Laurencekirk, and specifically the south junction, was a major concern to the local community, the provision of a grade separated junction at the south within Packages 2 to 7 will help to alleviate these concerns. Residents will feel safer travelling through the south junction in a private vehicle or on public transport, knowing that they no longer have to cross the A90 at grade. Packages 3 and 4 both include closure of the central reserve at another junction, which would give a sense of safer travelling, compared with Package 2. Packages 5 and 7 will provide a major improvement in security by eliminating all at grade crossings of the A90 at the three junctions. The provision of Package 8 will also provide addition some minor security improvements for users travelling along or crossing the High Street and for pedestrians/ cyclists to cross the A90 using enhanced access to the underpass. However, this package is limited compared with the other packages, so was not scored. ... Summary The results of the Safety Appraisal (see Table 10.8) show that the packages with the double grade separated junctions, Packages 6 and 7 perform the best in reducing the number of accidents on the network as they remove the current at grade junctions at the south and north (and centre in the case of Package 7). For this criteria all the single grade separated options score the same. Package 8 is considered to have a negligible impact on safety, therefore the accident benefits of this package have not been quantified. The impact on each safety sub-criterion from each package has been considered and a summary of this has been provided within Table 10-8: Table 10-8 – Safety Summary Appraisal Results Package Sub-Criteria 2 3 4 5 6 7 Accidents 2 2 0 0 3 3 Security 1 2 2 3 3 3 Overall 2 2 1 2 3 3

. Economy The Economy criteria within STAG includes three components: • Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) • Wider Economic Benefits (WEBs) • Economic Activity and Location Impacts (EALIs) The analysis under the TEE criteria provides an assessment of the main benefits and costs to users of the transport network when the proposed scheme is in place. These costs and benefits mainly arise from changes to journey times and vehicle operating costs, which are presented as Consumer and Business User Benefits as part of the appraisal. Due to the localised nature of the proposed interventions, it is considered that the packages would not have a significant impact on WEBs. A detailed appraisal against this sub-criteria has not, therefore, been undertaken for the packages.

10-10 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION DETAILED APPRAISAL - STAG CRITERIA

The packages have the potential to provide a benefit under the EALI sub-criteria. A qualitative appraisal has been undertaken in order to understand the potential EALI impact of the packages. .. TEE The Present Value of Benefits (PVB) for the Packages is presented in Table 10-9. The PVB is based on a 60 year appraisal period and all benefits are expressed in 2010 prices. Monetary values have been discounted to 2010 at 3.5% for 30 years and 3.0% for the remainder of the evaluation period. The estimate of benefits for the schemes relates to the modelled periods only which are: • AM Weekday – 06:00 to 09:00 • PM Weekday – 16:00 to 19:00 It should be noted that each package includes an increase in speed limit from 50 mph to 70 mph on the A90 in the vicinity of the south junction. This would provide a benefit to traffic outwith the modelled peak periods. This benefit has not been quantified for the packages and is therefore not included in the reporting below. It is considered that this benefit would be common to all packages. Therefore, calculation of the impact of the speed limit change on the A90 for the non-modelled hours would not affect the order of the packages in terms of estimated benefit. Table 10-9 – Present Value of Benefits (£M) Package

2 3 4 5 6 7

Consumer User Benefits 8.46 8.61 6.46 3.48 8.19 6.94 Business User Benefits 9.83 9.71 7.58 5.26 10.05 7.56 Indirect Tax Revenues 0.71 0.87 0.91 1.51 0.83 1.00 Carbon Emission Benefits -0.25 -0.31 -0.32 -0.53 -0.29 -0.36 Present Value of Benefits (PVB) 18.76 18.87 14.63 9.72 18.78 15.13

Packages 2 to 7 all provide a benefit through improved journey times and lower vehicle operating costs. Grade separation of the south junction is common to all packages and provides benefits due to two main reasons: • Improved journey times on the A90; and • Improved journey times on the A937 approaches to the A90. These are explained in more detail below. The 50 mph speed limit on the section of the A90 to the south of Laurencekirk is replaced with a 70 mph speed limit within each of the packages due to the grade separation of the south junction. This leads to a reduction in journey time by approximately 12 to 15 seconds for all vehicles on the A90 that travel through the entire length of the 50 mph speed zone. Within the 2033 model, this is approximately 5,000 in the AM period (06:00- 09:00) and 5,300 vehicles in the PM period (16:00-19:00). Grade separation of the south junction also leads to a significant decrease in journey times on the A937 northbound and southbound approaches to the A90. The greatest decrease is northbound on the A937 towards the A90. In the 2033 model, the journey time northbound from Marykirk to the A90 is improved by up to 15 minutes during the AM peak. The journey time changes noted above are common to Packages 2 to 7 . The improvement in northbound journey time on the A937 due to the grade separated junction attracts traffic from competing routes for trips to the A90. In the “do-minimum” model, some traffic routes via the B974 and the unnamed road to the west of the A937. In the 2018 AM “do-something” models, approximately 100

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 10-11 SECTION DETAILED APPRAISAL - STAG CRITERIA northbound vehicles reassign to the A937 from the competing routes and within the 2033 AM model, the number increases to 200 vehicles. The opportunity for traffic to reassign to this quicker route when accessing the A90 provides a benefit in all of Packages 2 to 7 . In practice, there is potential for a greater number of trips to reassign to the A937 with a grade separated south junction than is indicated by the modelling. This is because additional traffic may be attracted to the junction due to perceptions of improved safety. A further test has therefore been undertaken to consider the impact of additional vehicles reassigning from the B974 to the A937. The outcomes of this test are detailed in the Risk and Uncertainty section of this report. Package 2 contains a high level of benefit (£18.76M) as it includes the grade separation at the south junctions and no other junction closures. The junction closures in the other packages restrict route choice and as a consequence increase some trip lengths and journey times within the model. There is a risk that the traffic model may overstate the benefits of Package 2 as, in practice, were a grade separated junction to be provided at the south junction, it will be the safest access point to and from Laurencekirk. As such, traffic approaching Laurencekirk from the north may choose to bypass the northern and central at grade junctions and use the new grade separated junction in preference. This would increase trip lengths and journey times within the model and lower the benefits delivered. As it contains no junction closures, the benefits for Package 2 would be at the greatest risk of reduction and carry the highest level of uncertainty of all of the packages. Package 3 incorporates the closure of the central reserve at the north junction, in addition to the grade separation of the south junction and provides a marginally higher level of benefit than Package 2. When interpreting the result of the Package 3 test, it should be noted that the fastest free flow route from the southbound A90 into Laurencekirk is by turning right on to the A937 at the north junction in the “do- minimum”. When the northern junction central reserve is closed, this means that all vehicles in the model must access Laurencekirk via the central junction instead of the northern junction. This is a marginally faster route and results in a very slight (0.05%) increase in benefit for Package 3 over Package 2. However, there is a risk that this output from the modelling would not reflect actual behaviour and that in practice there would actually be increased delay experienced at the centre junction that could outweigh the journey time benefits of travelling via the A90. It is considered that the level of benefit estimated for Package 3 may be slightly overestimated in the modelling and that it could deliver a lower level of benefit than Package 2.

In practice, there is a potential that more drivers would use the south grade separated junction than is predicted by the model. This is mainly the case for southbound A90 traffic to Laurencekirk. Although not the fastest route, perceptions of the greater level of safety offered by the south grade separated junction may attract more traffic to this location from the centre at grade junction.

Package 4 includes the closure of the centre junction, in addition to the grade separation of the south junction. Closure of the centre junction increases trip length and journey times for traffic to and from the B9120 in particular. The closure of the central reserve at the centre junction also forces some Laurencekirk traffic to reroute via the north and south junctions. This lowers the level of benefit delivered by Package 4 in relation to Package 2.

On the south eastern side of the A90 a 1.5km link road is provided to link the B9120 to the A937. This provides access to the B9120 in the absence of a direct connection to the A90. This results in a minimum diversion of 1.5km, along a slower road. For trips to and from the A90 to the north and across the centre junction, the total diversion is approximately 3km.

In the 2033 models, the two way flow on the B9120 to the south west of the A90 is 180 vehicles in the AM period model (06:00-09:00) and 270 vehicles in the PM period model (16:00-19:00). The number of vehicles affected is relatively minor when compared to the traffic flow on the A90. However, as they experience

10-12 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION DETAILED APPRAISAL - STAG CRITERIA diversions of up to 3km there is a noticeable drop in the level of benefit in Package 4 (£14.63M) when compared to Package 2 (£18.76M).

Package 5 provides the lowest level of benefit (£9.72M) of any of the packages. This occurs because the closure of the centre junction and the central reserve at the northern junction leads to the longest forced increase in trip lengths of any of the packages. The increased trip length increases journey times and vehicle operating costs.

Whilst Package 5 places the greatest level of traffic through the grade separated south junction, it continues to operate without significant queuing or delay.

Package 6 provides a similar level of overall benefit (£18.78M) to that of Package 2 (£18.76M). This indicates that the grade separation of the north junction does not provide a significant level of additional benefit with committed development only.

During free flow periods, traffic travelling through the grade separated layout takes slightly longer than going through the current at grade junction. There is limited delay at the existing north junction within the 2018 and 2033 “do-minimum” models and therefore improvements to journey times at this junction are limited.

There is a potential that the benefits delivered by the north grade separated junction would improve if further new development, beyond that already committed, were constructed at the northern end of Laurencekirk. This possibility is investigated in the Risk and Uncertainty section of this report.

Package 7 delivers lower benefits (£15.13M) than Package 6. Closure of the Laurencekirk side of the centre junction and the central reserve is included in Package 7, in addition to grade separation of the north and south junctions.

These changes to the centre junction increase trip length and journey times for some vehicles in the model and lower the level of benefit delivered by this package relative to Package 6. The longest diversion is approximately 3km and occurs for the following movements:

• B9120 to A90 northbound; and • A90 southbound to B9120. .. EALI The Economic Development and Impact Report contained within Appendix M provides details of the EALI assessment of the packages. A summary of the main findings of the EALI assessment is provided below. Laurencekirk has traditionally been an arable farming area, with good agricultural land and associated businesses to serve the sector. However, recent developments have seen businesses that serve the oil and gas industry establish in the area, as the price and availability of land is more attractive than in Aberdeen. Clusters have formed (or are in the process of formation) at the former airfields at Edzell and Fordoun, along with Montrose port. Montrose port is also used for freight such as cereals, fertilisers, wood pulp, logs and steel. Volumes have increased in recent years, enabling turnover to grow by over 70% from 2011 to 2014. Energy and manufacturing industries also have a presence in Montrose and north Angus. Laurencekirk Business Park is the base for 11 businesses, which include oil and gas support business and manufacturing. Evidence from stakeholder consultation, presented in Appendix B, indicates that constraints imposed by the A90 junctions at Laurencekirk have an adverse impact on economic activity. Stakeholder perception is therefore that proposed residential and industrial developments around Laurencekirk and in north Angus are unable to proceed due to capacity constraints at the South junction.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 10-13 SECTION DETAILED APPRAISAL - STAG CRITERIA

Development The Angus Council Economic Development Unit (ACEDU) stated that the inability to grant planning permission for any development which would add demand to the Laurencekirk A90 junctions has “significant impacts not only for businesses trying to grow or expand, new business coming into the area but for any new housing development, school or leisure facility.” Table 10-11 provides a summary of significant development proposals for which progress is currently constrained by the A90 junctions. Table 10-10 – Proposed development sites constrained by A90 junctions Site / Applicant Details Location Junction Brechin Road, Residential – 250 houses (04/00083/OUT and Off A935, west of South Montrose 14/00136/FULM) Montrose centre Edzell Business Base Mixed use – Residential, retail, commercial, Former RAF Edzell airbase South business, general industrial / distribution and community facilities (APP/2012/0037) M1 site, Laurencekirk Mixed use - 885 houses and 11 hectares of Laurencekirk, west of North employment land (APP/2014/4094) north junction Montrose airfield Mixed use – 50 hectares of employment land Coastal site, north of South (14/00480/EIAM) Montrose centre Scotia Homes and Mixed Use – residential, commercial, retail and South of Laurencekirk South Scotia Commercial business (APP/2010/2822 & 2823) High St Sunnyside Hospital Mixed use – 265 residential units, Classes 4, 7, 8, 11 Hillside, south of South and community uses. Marykirk

In Montrose, there has been strong demand over the last 2 or 3 years for additional land for commercial use (generating employment opportunities) resulting from the lack of supply. If further growth cannot be accommodated, it is considered that businesses (in particular oil and gas service businesses) could withdraw from the area, or expand their operations elsewhere, at the expense of the local economy. ACEDU advised that a large scale development at Montrose airfield has generated interest from local companies; Aberdeen- based oil companies and leisure operators. These include international investors who cannot grow in Aberdeen because of cost and the lack of suitable staff, port access and accommodation. Network Efficiency Traditional farming businesses experience delays in transporting materials due to problems in navigating slow- moving agricultural vehicles across the A90 junctions. Comments received at the March 2014 Stakeholder ‘drop in session’ indicated that some haulage companies are reluctant to cross the traffic stream at the A90 junctions as it is “too dangerous”. A vehicle travelling north would need to continue to Stonehaven to find a grade separated junction; an extra 23 mile round trip from the north junction. The extra time incurred and hence cost of transport potentially affects both the receipt of deliveries and outward goods movements. The ACEDU also raised concerns that access to from Montrose and north Angus is also adversely affected by the A90 junctions. In their view, junction improvements would deliver shorter and more reliable journey times to the airport and could be considered complementary to the new Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route. Labour Market One consultee reported that a growing business had relocated out of Laurencekirk and Brechin to Arbroath (though individual cases could be due to many other reasons than transport). Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce, Angus Economic Development Partnership and the ACEDU have all agreed that concerns regarding journey time unreliability and/or safety can adversely impact on employee recruitment and retention. There is a significant skills shortage in centres such as Aberdeen, in a number of sectors such as social care and public service provision. This is due to a number of factors, but better journey times could encourage more

10-14 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION DETAILED APPRAISAL - STAG CRITERIA people living in the Laurencekirk area with the required skills to fill these positions. The ACEDU also stated that a new junction will improve mobility of labour to the benefit of local employers. Summary of EALI In conclusion, consultation with stakeholders has indicated that access to Laurencekirk via the existing A90 junctions is constraining economic activity in Laurencekirk and north Angus: • Planning permission for new developments cannot be granted due to the capacity constraints at the A90 junctions; • Businesses and residential areas cannot expand; and • Delays in navigating the A90 junctions is also suggested to add costs and hinder normal business activities. Packages 2 to 5 are likely to relieve constraints experienced by local businesses, such as delays in transporting products and materials due to limited capacity and delay, longer journey times and the avoidance of the town by some potential customers, employees and business partners. Stakeholder input suggests that development sites in Laurencekirk and north Angus are unable to proceed without grade separation of the south junction due to capacity constraints. Hence grade-separation would enable the build out of new housing and commercial property, helping to make the area more attractive for inward investment. By improving perceptions of safety and reducing journey times, a grade separated junction would be likely to increase labour mobility, benefitting both employees and businesses. Packages 6 and 7 would alleviate the constraints imposed by the north junction on the local area, in addition to the benefits of Packages 2 to 5. The impacts of the north junction constraints are felt mainly in Laurencekirk; with the M1 site unable to proceed unless the north junction is grade separated. .. Summary All of the packages deliver a benefit to users of the transport network. Grade separation at the south junction is the main generator of benefit from the interventions that have been tested. Grade separation at the south junction delivers a significant level of benefit as it improves journey times on the A937 by largely removing queues on approach to the A90. This intervention also enables the existing 50 mph speed limit on a section of the A90 to be replaced by a 70 mph speed limit, which leads to a journey time benefit for all vehicles on the A90 passing through this area. Grade separation of the south junction is common to all packages. Packages that include closure of other junctions or central reserves reduce the level of benefit when compared to delivery of the grade separated south junction on its own. There is a relatively low level of delay at the north junction in the “do-minimum situation”. Therefore, the grade separation of the north junction provides a relatively low level of additional benefit. The addition of the link road between the A937 and the B9120 in Packages 4 and 5 increases trip lengths for vehicles to and from the Garvock area. This reduces the estimated benefit that would be delivered by these packages. The impact on economy from each package has been considered and a summary of this has been provided within Table 10-11. Table 10-11 – Economy Summary Appraisal Results Sub-Criteria Package

2 3 4 5 6 7 TEE 3 3 2 1 3 2 EALI 1 1 1 1 2 2 Total 2 2 2 1 2 2

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 10-15 SECTION DETAILED APPRAISAL - STAG CRITERIA

. Accessibility and Social Inclusion .. Introduction Improving accessibility is one of the five STAG criteria and focuses on the extent to which proposals help people and businesses access goods, services, people and communities. Key issues of consideration include: • How the proposal affects accessibility for transport users and for others, including access to jobs, communities, shops, services and other facilities; and • How the proposal impacts in terms of tackling social exclusion. Two aspects of particular importance are: • Community accessibility – access to work, education and training, health and shopping; and • Comparative accessibility – distribution of impacts by social groups relative to the population as a whole, and social impacts by location. Aberdeen is the centre of economic activity and employment for a high proportion of those employed and living within Laurencekirk. A transport network that promotes the safe movement of people to and from the town is essential for the competitive performance of Laurencekirk, the south of Aberdeenshire as a whole, as well as the north of Angus. The provision of safe, operationally efficient junctions is of importance to support the projected population growth in the local area, together with the significant employment growth across the wider Aberdeenshire area. The packages have been developed to provide safe and efficient access to Laurencekirk to facilitate the movement of people to locations of work, education etc. via the strategic road network to support the town’s current and projected future population. Improving access to Laurencekirk benefits local residents and also all A90 road users currently travelling to and from the north of Scotland. This is as a result of the core packages facilitating the removal of the 50mph speed restriction currently in place on the A90, thereby reducing strategic journey times. .. Community Accessibility The Laurencekirk junctions are critical to providing access to the town from the north and south, and from settlements such as Montrose in the north of Angus. At the local and strategic level, accessibility impacts will be positive with the introduction of new grade separated junctions. Packages 2 through to 7 all include grade separation at the south junction, which allows improved accessibility to the south onto the A90 and south on the A937 to Marykirk and Montrose. Packages 6 and 7 also include the grade separation of the north junction, which offers further improved access to the A90 over that provided by a single grade separated junction. These also provide enhancements to accessibility for vehicles accessing the A90 to the north of Laurencekirk without the need to negotiate the High Street. Packages 3 and 5 include the closure of the central reserve at the north junction, which would restrict vehicle movements, however the improvement at the south junction, included within these packages would provide a suitable alternative. It is recognised, however, that Package 5 would add a minimum of 3km additional travel distance for vehicles attempting to access Laurencekirk from the north. This may also affect bus routes travelling to and from Laurencekirk and increase journey times as the bus needs to re-route through the centre or south junctions. There may however be improvements in the journey time reliability of buses, as the grade separated junction will eliminate queueing delays at that location. Packages 4 and 5 include the closure of the centre junction, but with option of providing a link road between the B9120 Garvock Road, on its east side, to the A937 to maintain access for local traffic. Although this would be a marginally longer route for northbound traffic, it removes an at grade junction and directs such traffic to the safer grade separated south junction. Construction of the link road would require acquisition of farming land and also needs to be designed to avoid any significant impact on the oil pipeline. The link road would be

10-16 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION DETAILED APPRAISAL - STAG CRITERIA designed to current standards. If no link road were provided, local traffic and other traffic using the B9120 would have to detour along relatively narrow unclassified roads to access the A937. Package 7 includes the partial closure of the central junction, including the closure of the central reserve and removing access to the A90 from Laurencekirk. This would restrict vehicle movements, although, in terms of public transport, existing routes do not utilise the centre junction and so would not be directly impacted. As a result, Package 6 provides the most benefits overall. There are benefits for public transport accessibility to and from Laurencekirk from the grade separation of the south and north junctions. In particular, there are positive benefits occurring at the south junction from the improved access to/from the town by potentially reducing journey times for bus services as a result of reduced delays using the junction. There is also a benefit in improved perception of safety in using the junctions. This will particularly apply for bus users, as there will not be the risk of overhanging the central reserve whilst waiting to cross or turn. A second grade separated junction, such as proposed within Packages 6 and 7 , brings further benefit for road users by reducing junction delay at both junctions. It also offers the opportunity for public transport vehicles to route more quickly and in a safer manner via the north and south junctions, to the extent that some bus services may consider re-routing via Laurencekirk rather than bypassing it on the A90. No community facilities, such as the Post Office, community centre, library and health facilities, or businesses in Laurencekirk are envisaged to be significantly impacted by any of the packages or by direct changes to the A90 junctions. The majority of shops and some community facilities that are located on the High Street or Aberdeen Road will be affected, but only to a minor extent, by any change in the existing traffic flows arising from grade separation at the north or south junctions and any junction or central reserve closure. Increased flows on the High Street may increase delays being experienced at existing pinch points along the road, but these are minor. Whilst the impact of the packages results in significant percentage changes in traffic flows, the existing low baseline means actual flow changes are less noticeable, so is not considered a major issue. The existing cemetery at Cairns Gardens would be impacted by closure of the centre junction or its central reserve, in that some visitors would have to re-route. Such numbers are, however, unlikely to be significant. The cemetery would act as a physical constraint to any significant alteration of the centre junction, but this is not proposed under any of the remaining packages. As stated previously, for Packages 2 to 7 , the main beneficiaries will be car owners. However, there will also be benefits for bus services and school transport in that grade separation at the south junction will significantly reduce junction delay for these vehicles, thereby reducing journey times and improving reliability. For Packages 3 and 5 , the closure of the north central reserve would have a negative impact on bus services and school transport that use the junction, but re-routing via centre junction or the grade separated junction will reduce that negative impact to some extent. There will also be positive benefits for pedestrians/ cyclists/ equestrians who will be provided better access arrangements through the design of a minimum of one grade separated junction in Packages 2 to 7 . Journey time savings have been calculated within the economy section of this report and these benefits have been quantified. .. Comparative Accessibility Comparative accessibility, or the distribution of accessibility impacts, provides the opportunity to take into consideration the impact of investment decisions against particular groups in society, and that transport investment decisions should seek to support wider policy aims including social inclusion, regeneration and rural development.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 10-17 SECTION DETAILED APPRAISAL - STAG CRITERIA

The Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) was consulted to provide insight to the dimensions of deprivation within the study area. The SIMD statistics benefit from having a total of seven dimensions7 which provide insight into the level of deprivation within an area. The seven dimensions of deprivation include: • Income; • Employment; • Health; • Education; • Housing; • Geographic Access; and • Crime. In understanding the social demographic for the study area, it was important to appreciate the characteristics relating to the above noted dimensions. The SIMD has been compiled in the years of 2004, 2006, 2009 and 2012. Whilst there are a total of seven dimensions of deprivation, the SIMD provides an indication of deprivation within a total of 6505 datazones, ranking each datazone in order from the most deprived (i.e. 1) to the least deprived (i.e. 6505). Each datazone was developed using a clusters of census output areas which have demographic commonalities. For this particular study, the area of Laurencekirk has been considered, with analysis showing a total of 4 datazones cover the entirety of the built up area of the town. Typical analysis of the SIMD examines whether areas are within the 15% most deprived areas in Scotland 8. The SIMD indicates that Laurencekirk ranks within the 30% least deprived data zones within Scotland. The northern section of Laurencekirk is ranked among the top 15% least deprived zones in Scotland in terms of both employment and health. It is useful to consider Laurencekirk in the wider context of Aberdeenshire and Table 10-12 highlights the SIMD ranks for data zones within a number of small towns within Aberdeenshire. Table 10-12 - SIMD Rankings Sample Comparison Data Zones Overall Rank Income Employment Health Education Housing Access Crime S01000275 5475 4405 5465 5171 4137 4452 4886 5063 (Laurencekirk south west) S01000272 4879 5111 5626 4309 4988 3224 935 3788 (Laurencekirk east) S01000279 5482 5141 6107 6065 5225 2953 1442 3942 (Laurencekirk north) Inverurie North 5006 4383 4264 3740 4855 5484 4728 5553

Banchory 6430 6328 6356 6304 6342 6473 2471 6186

Portlethen 6160 6221 6198 5813 5263 4462 2168 5618 East Cairngorms 5438 6008 6036 6030 5428 4580 628 4604

*Source: SIMD 2012

Those data zones covering Laurencekirk are of a similar ranking with zones covering other localities throughout Aberdeenshire. This is indicative of Laurencekirk’s status as a relatively affluent area, with little sign of deprivation.

7 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Social-Welfare/TrendSIMD

8 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/SIMD/SIMDguidetoanalysis

10-18 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION DETAILED APPRAISAL - STAG CRITERIA

In this instance, consideration has been given to the social groups within the local communities which would be impacted by the packages. Early consultation with the local communities in and around Laurencekirk has suggested that the severance caused by the A90 impacts on both the young and the elderly. In particular, the elderly have concerns relating to driving across the A90 at the existing at grade junction arrangements to access services in Laurencekirk from Marykirk and other surrounding settlements. Similarly, school age children are limited in the opportunities available to cycle or walk to school as a result of severance caused by the A90. Consideration has been given to the location of people, the locations of key services and employment and the ability of each package to benefit all community groups. Whilst there is commonality between the packages, improvements at the south junction i.e. Packages 2 through to 7 , are likely to benefit the localised population’s access to goods and services within Laurencekirk from nearby satellite villages and hamlets due to existing connections to the east. Those packages which include closures to existing junctions or restrictions of certain movements, such as Packages 3, 4 and 7 , may have any benefits realised from grade separation at the south junction (and north in the case of Package 7) balanced against potential negative impacts arising from the closure/restrictions at other junctions. .. Equality Impact Assessment subsection under Comparative Accessibility An Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) considers issues of race, sex, disability, sexual orientation, religion and belief, age, gender reassignment and pregnancy and maternity under the Equality Act 2010. It is considered that the packages assessed within this study would have only a minor impact on the groups noted above and, therefore, a full EIA is not required. The minor impacts arising from the packages are outlined below. During consultation with stakeholders and the public, it was evident that two groups within society, the young and the elderly, had issues crossing the A90 by car and non-motorised modes. No other groups were identified to have concerns. The needs of pedestrians, cyclists, public transport users and new/elderly motorists are acknowledged within the TPOs developed for this study. This has fed into the development and appraisal of the packages. Packages 2 to 7 incorporate grade separated crossings of the A90, this would improve the perception of safety for all motorists including the elderly and the young. Package 8 includes a number of measures that will facilitate access to services for the young and old, who may be less likely to have access to a car. This includes signalised pedestrian crossings of Laurencekirk High Street and public transport awareness measures. .. Summary It is considered that each of the core Packages 2 to 7 would have a positive impact on accessibility for private car users, due to the commonality of a southern grade separated junction, which allows a clear positive impact on accessibility linking Laurencekirk to Montrose and reducing the severance caused by the A90. Packages 2 to 7 could also, as a result of improved journey times, have a positive impact on accessibility for public transport passengers using buses that route into Laurencekirk from the A90, B9120 or A937, as well as school transport serving Mearns Academy. Pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians will also benefit positively due to better access arrangements through the design of the grade separated junctions. Packages 4 and 5 include the closure of the centre junction which will impact on private car user accessibility, with increased journey times as alternative routes are taken. Package 5, however, also includes closure of the central reserve at the north and centre junctions, slightly inconveniencing the southbound journey from the key employment centre of Aberdeen, as all users will have to travel via the south grade separated junction. Package 3 includes closure of the central reserve at the north junction and so, again, will slightly impact on accessibility of private car users and bus services, and may offset some accessibility benefits realised from the provision of grade separation at the south junction.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 10-19 SECTION DETAILED APPRAISAL - STAG CRITERIA

All packages , due to the commonality of including at least one grade separated junction, will provide benefits focused on car owners and those travelling by public transport will also experience improved accessibility, as traffic flow improves and delay is removed at the south junction. Table 10-13 provides a summary of the appraisal results for accessibility and social inclusion. Table 10-13 – Accessibility and Social Inclusion Summary Appraisal Results Sub-Criteria Package

2 3 4 5 6 7 Community Accessibility 1 0 0 0 2 1 Comparative Accessibility 1 1 0 0 1 0 Overall 1 1 0 0 2 1

. Integration .. Introduction In accordance with STAG, there are three aspects of integration which require consideration, namely: • Transport Integration – the degree to which options complement other transport infrastructure and services; • Transport Land Use Integration – the fit between options and established land use plans and land use/transport planning guidance; and • Policy Integration – the appropriateness of options when considered against wider policies both of central and local government, for example health or social inclusion. .. Transport Integration Transport integration has wide implications for the mobility of people and goods. An integrated transport network aids accessibility by connecting people to opportunities and goods to markets with minimal disruption. As outlined in earlier chapters, Package 8 (Sustainable Travel) is common to all packages being appraised. Included in the package are a number of measures which would improve transport integration, in particular the provision of pedestrian crossings on Laurencekirk High Street. This will assist in providing safer formal crossing facilities, and would also improve the linkage between bus interchange points on the High Street with the rail station to the west of the town. At present, no detailed design work has been undertaken in relation to Package 8 and, therefore, it is not possible to comment on impacts in terms of quality of infrastructure, layout and information, other than their scale means they are likely to have minor impact and the provision of improvements would be to current design standards. Packages 2 through to 7 all include provision of a grade separated south junction, with Package 6 and 7 also including a grade separated north junction. As part of testing within the S-Paramics model, these interventions have been shown to provide some journey time benefits, most notably at the A937 arms of the south junction. In addition, each provides the ability for vehicles to cross the A90 without impeding trunk road traffic. The provision of grade separation at the south junction integrates the communities on the east side of the A90 to Laurencekirk, and, importantly, benefits the integration of the local communities through easier crossing locations. It also reduces delays at that junction, therefore making journey times more reliable, allowing enhancement of timetable reliability by bus companies and enabling enhanced connectivity between bus and rail timetables for interchange between services. This improved ability to cross the A90 by all modes helps remove any severance issues from communities outwith Laurencekirk, as well as benefiting residents of the town. This will also improve the ability of public service, school and private hire buses to negotiate the south

10-20 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION DETAILED APPRAISAL - STAG CRITERIA junction and access Laurencekirk more safely from the communities of Marykirk and beyond, providing an improvement on the current infrastructure. The further inclusion of grade separation at the north within Packages 6 and 7 will allow improved accessibility, as it provides the opportunity for service enhancements, allowing a circular movement by public service vehicles, entering Laurencekirk at the north and exiting at the south without crossing A90 traffic. Packages 2 through to 7 all provide at least one single grade separated junction. A number of the packages, however, include other measures such as closures/restrictions which will have some level of negative impact on integration. Alternative routes, and indeed the improvement of junctions and infrastructure, will tend to balance any negative impact caused by closures of the north junction central reserve in Package 3 , closure of centre junction in Packages 4 and 5 and partial closure of the centre junction in Package 7 . Package 8 contains measures that could be delivered alongside the other packages, to form the initial stages of a more comprehensive pedestrian and cycle network. This would serve to further enhance the integration of the transport network and, in turn, promote sustainable alternatives to car based travel. An example would be improved crossing opportunities on the High Street, allowing safe crossing on foot, such that it encourages walking to town centre bus stops or the rail station. .. Land Use Transport Integration This aspect considers whether the packages being tested complement existing land-use planning policies and wider planning objectives. ... Aberdeen City and Shire Strategic Development Plan () The Strategic Development Plan (SDP) has identified Laurencekirk as within a Strategic Growth Area which links the Aberdeen City and Shire region with central and southern Scotland, as well as the rest of the UK by road and rail 9. The SDP states that new housing and employment development is proposed in the southern end of the corridor and will be supported by the potential for expansion of the new secondary school in Laurencekirk (Mearns Academy Community Campus, which has replaced the previous school which stood on a nearby site). All the packages would assist in delivering the SDP. Packages 2 to 7 would all provide a significant positive impact on the ability to realise the aspirations of the SDP, as they would result in major infrastructure improvements with a grade separated south junction. Packages 6 and 7 include the provision of a grade separated junction at the north as well as the south and will further contribute positively in terms of the ability to support the delivery of the SDP. This new infrastructure at both junctions would be able to accommodate both committed and aspirational development. ... Aberdeenshire Local Development Plan () The Aberdeenshire Local Development Plan (LDP) was summarised within Section 3, and has also been considered in relation to land use and transport integration. The overall objective of the LDP is to make the area an attractive place to live, visit and do business in. The LDP states that this will be achieved by delivering economic growth, whilst addressing sustainable development and climate change. On this basis, the LDP reflects national economic, spatial and transport policy. The aims for the LDP are to: • Grow and diversify the economy; • Take on the challenges of sustainable development and climate change; • Make sure the area has enough development land to provide for people, homes and jobs to support services and facilities;

9 http://www.aberdeencityandshire-sdpa.gov.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=1111&sID=149

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 10-21 SECTION DETAILED APPRAISAL - STAG CRITERIA

• Protect and improve assets and resources; • Promote sustainable mixed communities with the highest standards of design; and • Make efficient use of the transport network – proposals promote development that helps us develop a long-term framework for the transport and communications network while recognising the role that cars have in rural areas. The LDP reinforces the Strategic Development Plan (SDP) by identifying three types of area for planning purposes. Within this framework, Laurencekirk is included within the strategic growth area. This area is to be the focus for growth and new development. The overall strategic growth area covers Aberdeen City and the transport routes to Laurencekirk, Huntly and Peterhead. These areas are designated to accommodate over 75% of all growth within the Structure Plan area. With regard to the future development of Laurencekirk, the following Key Planning Objectives have been set: • Meet the demand for new housing in the strategic growth area; • Sustain existing services; • Provide opportunity for employment; and • Relieve town centre congestion through the provision of a distributor road. An allocation of 1,105 new residential units across two sites by 2023 has been made for Laurencekirk. 11 hectares of land is also designated for employment by 2023, with a strategic reserve of 16 hectares to 2030. A new primary school, open space requirements and an extended health centre are to be delivered in conjunction with the residential units. A new secondary school has already been built. The principal development allocations for residential dwellings has been focused to the north of the town The level of growth planned in Laurencekirk reflects its Strategic Area planning status within the LDP. The mixed nature of development proposed for Laurencekirk reflects the aim to deliver a service centre for the local area. All the packages would support the LDP, in particularly Packages 2 to 7 , with Packages 6 and 7 likely to be more supportive for future proposed development, if the scale identified within the LDP comes to fruition. Package 5, uniquely amongst the single grade separated junction packages, may also remove any possibility of disruptive queueing on the southbound A90 at the north junction resulting from future local plan developments. Risk and Uncertainty testing reported in Section 13 assesses the effectiveness of a western distributor road, when combined with the best performing packages. The western distributor road was originally included within the LDP, however its inclusion within this study has been tested as part of the Risk and Uncertainty chapter. An assessment of the proposed interventions did not identify any properties that might be required to be demolished, as part of any package. This would be confirmed during the DMRB Stage 2 assessment, as part of the detailed design. .. Policy Integration The Policy Integration criterion examines whether the proposed options contribute to and are consistent with other Government policies and legislation. Key areas for consideration in this respect include: • Disability; • Health; and • Rural and Community Affairs. ... Disability There are no specific proposals to benefit people with disabilities, although Package 8 provides improved pedestrian crossing facilities which would provide some minor enhancements for people with mobility difficulties.

10-22 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION DETAILED APPRAISAL - STAG CRITERIA

In each of the core Packages 2 through to 7 , the pedestrian environment would be improved with associated footways likely to be provided at sections of new roads and the ability to use a grade separated crossing of the A90. The impact on people with disabilities is likely to be minimal, given the lack of approach footways at the junctions. ... Health As discussed previously, Package 8 includes a series of sustainable travel measures which should be applied to any of the core packages. These measures, which would help facilitate sustainable journeys and the travel awareness element, would encourage alternatives to the private car, with associated health benefits arising as a result. In addition, Packages 2 to 7 do help improve access for pedestrians, equestrians and cyclists, thereby encouraging opportunities for active travel. However, overall benefits are likely to be so measurably small such that impact is broadly neutral. ... Rural and Community Affairs The Aberdeenshire Single Outcome Agreement sets out how the Community Planning Partnership is delivering the Scottish Government’s and Aberdeenshire Council’s priorities and has agreed a set of long-term outcomes to be delivered for local communities. These include: • Children have the best start in life through action with parents and children pre-birth to 8 years; • Aberdeenshire will be recognised as a great place to live, work, invest with opportunity for all; • The unemployment rate in identified areas of deprivation in Aberdeenshire will be less than the national average; • Reductions in inequalities in health outcomes between communities and across Aberdeenshire; • Older people will live independent, healthier lives for longer in a homely environment, in a community which respects and values them, with informal carers who receive support to continue to care; • Aberdeenshire is the safest place in Scotland; and • Successful, inclusive and resilient communities with the confidence, capability and capacity to tackle the things that matter to them. The ability of any of the packages to specifically support the above outcomes is difficult to quantify. The study has, however, highlighted benefits in terms of facilitating new development, improving safety perception and improving quality of life and, in the broadest sense, all packages could be deemed to complement a number of these outcomes. .. Summary In summary, all the packages will assist in improving integration and will provide a positive impact to some extent. Packages 6 and 7 would significantly improve transport integration, allowing improved mobility of people and goods to and from Laurencekirk via a choice of grade separated junctions. Table 10-14 provides a summary of the appraisal results. It is considered that the packages presented will complement land use planning and wider national regional and local policy, with Packages 6 and 7 , the double grade separated options providing the enhanced capacity to accommodate future development aspirations. Packages 2 to 7 may release sufficient capacity in relation to accessing Laurencekirk and north Angus to support the future economic growth and development potential of these areas. In terms of policy integration, it is likely that, whilst the interventions will not have any detrimental impact, they will have little measureable positive impacts either, so are all scored as neutral.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 10-23 SECTION DETAILED APPRAISAL - STAG CRITERIA

Table 10-14 – Integration Summary Appraisal Results Sub-Criteria Package

2 3 4 5 6 7 Transport Integration 1 1 1 1 2 2 Land Use Transport Integration 1 1 1 1 2 2 Policy Integration 0 0 0 0 0 0 Overall 1 1 1 1 2 2

10-24 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION 11 Detailed Appraisal Implementability

. Introduction In accordance with STAG, there are four aspects of implementability which require consideration at the Part 2 Detailed Appraisal stage, namely: • Technical; • Operational; • Financial; and • Public Acceptability. Packages 2 to 7 have been appraised against the implementability criteria. Findings are discussed in the following sections.

As mentioned previously, Package 8 will not be scored within the STAG Part 2 Detailed Appraisal on the same basis as the other packages. Commentary will, however, be provided where Package 8 specifically addresses particular criteria and provides context to the outcomes of the study.

.. Technical This sub-criterion considers the technical aspect of delivering an enhancement and should highlight any particular issues. For Package 2 , the construction of a grade separated junction at the existing south junction would not present any significant technical difficulties and is considered to be feasible to construct. Some land acquisition would be required. It may be feasible to construct most of the junction without major disruption to A90 traffic, with the aim to keep two lanes open during peak periods and any lane closures restricted to overnight. There would also be some disruption to A937 traffic. These elements would require clarification during the DMRB Stage 2 assessment. Package 3 is similar to Package 2 and is considered feasible to implement, with the additional closure of the central reserve at the north junction relatively straightforward. Core testing is without the provision of the Western Distributor Road, which is a possible sub-option that would have more challenges in terms of crossing the railway, environmental mitigation and land acquisition. Packages 4 and 5 include closure of the central junction and provision of the associated new A937/B9120 link road that may present some technical challenges due to its relative proximity to the BP Forties Pipeline. However, previous studies have suggested that an alignment running parallel with the A90 can be achieved and initial consultation with BP also confirmed that the proposed link would be a sufficient distance from the pipeline. Hence it is considered that there were no significant potential technical concerns, although land acquisition would be required. Packages 6 and 7 provide two grade separated junctions, one at the north and the other at the south. As noted above, there are unlikely to be any significant technical issues with the south grade separated junction. The railway line provides a constraint, in terms of siting the north grade separated junction to the north side of its existing location without requiring major structures. The BP pipeline would also need some further consideration at the north junction due to the proximity of the new side roads. This will influence future design options. However, early consultation with BP has suggested that the junction is of a sufficient distance that major feasibility concerns can be avoided. DMRB requirements, in terms of minimum junction spacing, may require the centre junction to be closed. At this time, no properties are envisaged to be required for demolition as part of any package. However, this would require clarification during the DMRB Stage 2 assessment.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 11-1 SECTION DETAILED APPRAISAL - IMPLEMENTABILITY

All the packages will result in some delay to A90 and local road traffic during the construction period. This would be exacerbated for Packages 6 and 7, as they involve construction of two grade separated junctions, although the majority of works can be constructed offline. .. Operational This sub-criterion considers the subsequent operational requirements of an enhancement and should highlight any particular issues. For all the packages, the operation of the south grade separated junction featured in Packages 2 to 7 is unlikely to cause any ongoing operational issue. For Packages 2 and 4 , rationalisation of parking in the High Street may require subsequent enforcement of any new waiting restrictions that are introduced. Package 6 and 7 would have no significant operational issues with the addition of the north grade separated junction. For Packages 3, 4, 5 and 7 , central reserve closures, closure of the centre junction and provision of the A937/B9120 link road, as appropriate, are all unlikely to cause any significant operational issues either. .. Affordability This sub-criterion considers the financial aspect of delivering an enhancement and should highlight any particular issues, including any significant future operational or maintenance costs. Cost of implementation is discussed in Chapter 10. All scheme costs are quoted in 2014 prices. Package 2 has an outline cost estimate of approximately £18.7m but is envisaged to be lowest of the six options. Operational/maintenance costs are likely to be nominal. Like all the packages, funding sources have still to be identified. Package 3, but without the Western Distributor Road, is slightly more expensive at £18.8m than Package 2 and ongoing costs should be nominal. Provision of the Western Distributor Road, which is estimated to cost approximately £26.3m, would be add a significant additional capital cost giving an extended Package 3 an overall cost estimate of £45.1m. Packages 4 and 5 have outline cost estimates of approximately £21.8m, with Package 5 the slightly more expensive. The cost estimate for Package 5 excludes the Western Distributor Road, which is estimated to cost approximately £26.3m, resulting in an overall outline cost estimate for an extended Package 5 of approximately £48.1m. Packages 6 and 7 are the most expensive of all the options, having outline cost estimates of approximately £37.1m. Package 7 is slightly more expensive, as it includes closure of part of the centre junction. The significantly higher costs have implications for funding, as it is not clear if the envisaged scales of proposed development, both within Laurencekirk and also north Angus, require both grade separated junctions. .. Public Acceptability This sub-criterion considers the likely level of public support for an enhancement. Objections to an option could have implications for its delivery, particularly with regard to timescales. Package 2 is likely to meet with public acceptability, as the provision of a grade separated junction has been an aspiration of the public for a number of years, as it addresses junction operational issues, safety concerns and helps accommodate new development. Whilst public feedback has indicated some support for rationalisation of High Street parking, it is envisaged there would also be objections to change and loss of specific locations of existing parking spaces. Package 3 is likely to have public support, although there may be some objections to the closure of the north junction central reserve. Packages 4 and 5 are both likely to receive general support as they provide the south grade separated junction. Closure of the centre junction may be met with concerns from the public, however it is anticipated that these would be substantially outweighed by the provision of the link road which would facilitate the majority of movements at the central junction which come via the B9120. For Package 5, there may be some objections

11-2 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION DETAILED APPRAISAL - IMPLEMENTABILITY to the closure of the north junction central reserve, especially when combined with closure of the centre junction and potential increase in traffic at the south part of the High Street. Packages 6 and 7 are both likely to receive general public support, as they help address both existing south and north junction crossing movement issues to a significant extent and would help accommodate new development. Package 7 may generate some objections to the closure of some movements at the centre junction. Consultation during the detailed appraisal stage consisted of a public exhibition in Laurencekirk on 21 January 2015, followed by a period of over five weeks when further feedback was received by post and email. 155 feedback forms were received (34 at the exhibition; 48 by post and 73 by email). Most respondents expressed a preference for one or more of the packages (see Table 11-1 below); in some cases they ranked the packages in order of preference. 129 respondents expressed support for one or more of the proposed packages. A further 19 respondents expressed general support for a grade separated junction or ‘flyover’, without identifying a particular package. This means 148 of the 155 responses (over 95%) supported junction improvements. Table 11-1 – Consultation feedback Package Description Number % supporting 7 Grade separated junctions at south and north, part closure of centre 84 49 junction, leaving left in/out from B9120 6 Grade separated junctions at south and north 36 21 2 Grade separa ted junction at south 36 21 5 Grade separated junction at south, closure of central reserve at north 8 5 junction, closure of centre junction and provision of A937-B9120 link road 4 Grade separated junction at south, closure of centre junction and 6 4 provision of A937-B9120 link road 3 Grade separated junction at south and closure of central reserve at north 1 1 junction

As can be seen from Table 11.1, consultation feedback indicated strong support for the provision of a grade separated south junction and many respondents also supported grade separation of the north junction. Some respondents would like to see the latter as a future improvement, as demand increases with development. However, other respondents felt that this is a ‘once in a generation’ opportunity for an intervention and would prefer grade separation of both north and south junctions at the same time. There was some support for interim measures, such as better lighting or an extension to the 50mph speed limit, to provide some immediate relief whilst plans for grade separated junctions are developed. Several respondents raised concerns about increased volumes of traffic on the High Street, either as a result of closing the north junction or from increased development. For further information on the consultation process, see Appendix B. .. Summary In summary, all packages are considered unlikely to have any significant technical difficulties that would affect the feasibility of delivery. Some land acquisition is required for all packages but is unlikely to a major issue, although provision of the Western Distributor Road would require more land. Grade separation at the north junction and the A937/B9120 link road may be affected by the BP pipeline, although initial discussions suggest this not a significant issue and can be designed out. Siting of the north grade separated junction is also constrained by the railway line.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 11-3 SECTION DETAILED APPRAISAL - IMPLEMENTABILITY

For all packages , there are no significant operational or maintenance issues envisaged. New waiting restrictions on the High Street, as part of the parking rationalisation, may subsequently require some enforcement to ensure they work effectively. The packages range in cost (2014 prices) from approximately £18.7m to £37.2m (excluding the cost of implementing the Western Distributor Road – a further £26.3m). At this time, funding sources have still to be identified. It is envisaged that all packages would receive general public support, as each one provides the south grade separated junction. There may be some objections to other measures, such as High Street parking rationalisation, central reserve closures or closure of the centre junction, but these are likely to be from local road users. A brief appraisal of Package 8 concludes there are no technical issues with its delivery and there would be no significant operational or maintenance issues. This is a low cost package of measures that does not involve any significant new infrastructure and is likely there would be general public support. Overall, the appraisal of implementability of the packages has not identified any major issues that might be deemed to affect the viability of any option. However, further consideration will need to be given to the funding of packages, particularly Packages 6 and 7 .

11-4 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION 12 Cost to Government

. Economic Appraisal This chapter sets out the economic appraisal of the package options, in terms of cost to Government. The construction cost of the packages tested within the STAG appraisal has been estimated using quarter 1, 2014 cost rates. As mentioned previously, Package 8 will not considered on the same basis as the other packages. In terms of scheme costs, it is minor in comparison with the other packages. The estimated scheme costs include the following assumptions: • Construction period of 1 year; • Land Cost - £12,944 per ha; • Contingency for risk; • Optimism bias of 44% (standard rate at this stage of project); • Preparation – 12% of scheme costs; and • Supervision – 5% of scheme costs. Table 12-1 indicates the estimated costs for the packages, presented in 2014 prices. A breakdown of the scheme costs is provided in Appendix K. Table 12-1 - Costs to Government (£Ms) 2014 Prices Package

2 3b 4 5b 6 7 Scheme Costs 18.7 18.8 21.9 21.9 37.1 37.2

It should be noted that the cost estimates for Packages 3 and 5 do not include the Western Distributor Road, which has a separate cost estimate of approximately £26.3m. An economic appraisal of the schemes has been undertaken using version 14.1 of PEARS. The appraisal is based on 3 hour weekday AM and PM periods modelled using S-Paramics. A standard annualisation factor of 253 has been used within the economic appraisal. The appraisal has been carried out for a 60 year appraisal period with a current year of 2014 The results of the PEARS assessment and the Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) delivered by the packages is indicated by Table 12-2. For consistency, the values for Packages 2 and 4 are quoted without the inclusion of the rationalisation of High Street parking measure, which is included within the Risk and Uncertainty analysis. Table 12-2 – PEARS Assessment Results (£M) Package

2 3b 4 5b 6 7 Present Value of Benefits (£) 18.76 18.87 14.63 9.72 18.78 15.13 Present Value of Costs (£) 14.58 14.75 17.11 17.17 29.10 29.17 Net Present Value (£) 4.18 4.12 -2.48 -7.45 -10.32 -14.04 Benefit to Cost Ratio 1.29 1.28 0.85 0.57 0.65 0.52

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 12-1 SECTION COST TO GOVERNMENT

. Summary The results presented in Table 12.2 indicate that Package 2 will provide the highest Net Present Value (NPV) and Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) of the options tested. Package 2 is forecast to deliver an NPV of £4.18M and a BCR of 1.29. This is very similar to Package 3 which is forecast to deliver an NPV of £4.12M and a BCR of 1.28. The benefits delivered by these schemes are generated by the grade separation of the south junction. The NPV and BCR for Packages 4-7 are lower than for Packages 2 and 3. Package 4 is forecast to deliver an NPV of £-2.48M and a BCR of 0.85. The Present Value of Benefits (PVB) for this package is lower due to the closure of the central junction and the resulting increase in trip length and journey times for some vehicles. The provision of the new link road between the B9120 and the A937 is estimated to cost around £2M and contributes to a lower NPV and BCR. Package 5 delivers the lowest PVB and BCR of the packages tested and is forecast to deliver an NPV of £-7.45M and a BCR of 0.57. This package includes the closure of the centre junction, the closure of the central reserve at the north junction and provision of a B9120 / A937 link road. This leads to the greatest increase in trip length of any of the packages. This contributes to Package 5 providing the lowest BCR of any of the schemes. Packages 6 and 7 have the highest Present Value of Costs (PVC) of all the packages, as they include the grade separation of the north and south junctions. Package 6 delivers a similar PVB to that of Packages 2 and 3. However, the NPV and BCR are significantly poorer due to the extra cost of providing grade separation at the north junction. Package 7 delivers a lower NPV and BCR than Package 6. This is due to the increased trip length for some vehicles compared with Package 6 caused by the closure of the central reserve at the centre junction. All packages gain economic benefits from the reduction in delay to A90 traffic from removal of the 50mph speed limit on the A90. The results show that that Packages 2 and 3 return the highest BCR of the packages tested.

12-2 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION 13 Risk and Uncertainty

. Sensitivity Tests This chapter presents the results from a number of sensitivity tests, undertaken to determine the following: • Uncertainty on future development and build out rates; • Uncertainty on rerouting from B974 to A937; • Sensitivity to development at north end of Laurencekirk; and. • Sensitivity to travel speed changes on the High Street. The sensitivity test modelling has been undertaken on a Fixed Trip Matrix basis. The S-Paramics and PEARS software has been used to appraise the operation and benefits of the packages in the sensitivity tests. The assessment years for the modelling and economic appraisal are: • 2018 Opening Year; and • 2033 Design Year. The sensitivity testing is based on the following four future year demand scenarios: • Future Year Scenario 1 (FYS 1): Background growth and committed development (excluding developments conditioned on a new A90 access), reflecting the “do-minimum” and “do-something” results reported in the Economy section of the Option Appraisal; • Future Year Scenario 2 (FYS 2): Background growth and committed development (including developments conditioned on an upgraded access to the A90); • Future Year Scenario 3 (FYS 3): Background growth and committed development (including developments conditioned on a new A90 access) and proposed development (expected build out rate); and • Future Year Scenario 4 (FYS 4): Background growth and committed development (including developments conditioned on a new A90 access) and proposed development (including accelerated build out rate for development in Laurencekirk). As the modelling has been undertaken on a Fixed Trip Basis, a separate “do-minimum” model was created for each future year scenario in order to reflect the differing levels of demand. Demands from ASAM have been used as the basis for the preparation of all four of the Future Year demand scenarios. .. Uncertainty of Future Year Demand The demands applied in each of the future year scenarios is described below. FYS 1 includes committed development within the study area. FYS 2 includes the development included in FYS 1, with the addition of two developments that are dependent on the delivery of a new south junction on the A90 at Laurencekirk. These are: • 100,000sqm employment area at southern end of Montrose Airfield; and • 75 unit residential development at southern end of Laurencekirk. Trips for Montrose Airfield have been added based on the Transport Assessment (TA) prepared for the development and dated May 2014. FYS 3 includes demands from all of the developments included in FYS 2, as well as trips from additional proposed developments. The key change within the network coverage of the S-Paramics model is the inclusion of the Laurencekirk M1 development, which is located at the north end of the town. This development

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 13-1 SECTION RISK AND UNCERTAINTY includes 570 residential units and 10ha employment area within the 2033 year of FYS 3. A rate of 66 jobs per ha is included in the ASAM model. FYS 4 includes the same developments as in FYS 3. However, a higher build out rate at the Laurencekirk M1 development has been assumed. The build out rate has been assumed at 46 units per year in FYS 4 as opposed to 30 units in FYS 3. This leads to an overall build out of 885 residential units at the Laurencekirk M1 site in FYS 4. The trip totals within the network included within FYS 2, 3 and 4 for the AM period are shown Table 13-1. Trip totals for the PM period are indicated by Table 13-2. The results for the FYS 1 are reported within the Economy section (11.1.3) of the Option Appraisal. Table 13-1 – -Future Year Scenario S-Paramics Trip Numbers – AM Period (06:00 – 09:00) Future Year Scenario 2 Future Year Scenario 3 Future Year Scenario 4

Lights Heavies Total Lights Heavies Total Lights Heavies Total 2014 6,181 813 6,994 6,181 813 6,994 6,181 813 6,994 2018 7,067 902 7,969 7,408 934 8,342 7,990 934 8,924 Difference from 2014 886 89 975 1,227 121 1,348 1,809 121 1,930 % Difference from 2014 14.3% 10.9% 13.9% 19.9% 14.9% 19.3% 29.3% 14.9% 27.6% 2033 8,267 1,104 9,371 9,532 1,196 10,728 10,619 1,196 11,815 Difference from 2014 2,086 291 2,377 3,351 383 3,734 4,438 383 4,821 % Difference from 2014 33.7% 35.8% 34.0% 54.2% 47.1% 53.4% 71.8% 47.1% 68.9%

Table 13-2 – Future Year Scenario S-Paramics Trip Numbers – PM Period (16:00 – 19:00) Future Year Scenario 2 Future Year Scenario 3 Future Year Scenario 4

Lights Heavies Total Lights Heavies Total Lights Heavies Total 2014 7,427 607 8,034 7427 607 8034 7,427 607 8,034 2018 8,420 666 9,086 8670 687 9357 9,281 687 9,967 Difference from 2014 993 59 1,052 1243 80 1323 1,854 80 1,933 % Difference from 2014 13.4% 9.7% 13.1% 16.7% 13.2% 16.5% 25.0% 13.2% 24.1% 2033 9,822 810 10,632 10774 888 11662 12,228 888 13,116 Difference from 2014 2,395 203 2,598 3348 281 3629 4,801 281 5,082 % Difference from 2014 32.2% 33.4% 32.3% 45.1% 46.3% 45.2% 64.6% 46.3% 63.3%

The FYS 2 to 4 include a high level of traffic growth due to new developments. However, no mitigation measures have been included within the model associated with these developments. This is because many of the developments are proposed and access strategies and external mitigation have not yet been developed. External mitigation would normally be brought forward by the developers of the proposed sites as part of any planning applications in future, in line with normal practice. Therefore, the “do-minimum” models under FYS 2 to 4 contain a level of congestion that is higher than is likely to be experienced in practice. This means the packages tested against FYS 2 to 4 “do-minimum” scenarios are likely to provide an upper estimate of the potential benefits that could occur from their construction. It is therefore considered that the benefits calculated for the sensitivity tests undertaken with the forecast demands for FYS 2 to 4 provide a maximum potential benefit. .. Uncertainty on Future Development and Build out Rates The performance of Package 2 has been assessed under the full range of Future Year Scenarios. This is in order to assess the range of benefits that might be delivered under different flow scenarios. Package 2 was chosen

13-2 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION RISK AND UNCERTAINTY as the comparison for this set of model tests, as it was the best performing option when considering Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR). There are number of risks to consider when reviewing the level of benefits delivered under these sensitivity tests, which are as follows: • FYS 2, 3 and 4 contain a large number of development trips. However, no off-site mitigation is provided with the developments. Therefore, the level of delay in the “do-minimum” is a worst case scenario and the level of benefits for the packages is likely to be at the upper end of what might be expected; • Within the 2014 base model, some entry flares have been removed from the model on the A937 approaches at the north and south junctions to address potentially unrealistic vehicle behaviour and therefore to facilitate improved and more realistic calibration to traffic survey results. Removal of the flare on the A937 approach to the A90 at the north junction does introduce a risk with regard to the estimate of benefits delivered by capacity upgrades at this location. Without the flare, in the model there is a greater tendency for right turning vehicles on the A937 to block left turning vehicles on the A937 as they approach the A90 than might be expected in practice. This increases delay in the “do-minimum” situation. Therefore, the benefits delivered by any measure in the “do-something” that improves capacity at the A937 approach to the north junction may be slightly overestimated; and • FYS 3 and 4 include a large increase in demand through the north junction in both the AM and PM periods. This demand is associated with the proposed M1 development at the northern end of Laurencekirk. This places a heavy demand on the southbound A90 right turn to the A937 into Laurencekirk at the north junction, particularly in the PM peak. The model showed queuing on the right turn increased to such an extent that it blocked through traffic on the southbound A90. This led to a very large increase in delay in the model due to vehicles making late lane selection decisions. A coding change has therefore been implemented to mitigate this modelled behaviour. Within S-Paramics, vehicles become aware of upcoming changes in the road network based on the ‘signposting’ distance. Within the FYS 3 and 4 “do- minimum” and “do-something” models, the signposting has been increased from 250m to 2000m at the north junction to reduce levels of unrealistically excessive queuing. The level of benefits delivered under these sensitivity tests is shown in Table 13-3. The Package 2 results for FYS 1 are provided for reference. As mentioned above, due to modelling assumptions, the values may be a slight overestimate of the level of benefits that might be expected from such packages. Table 13-3 – Package 2 Sensitivity Test Results Present Value of Benefits (PVB £M) for Package 2

Future Year Future Year Future Year Future Year Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Consumer User Benefits 8.47 19.56 31.09 33.07 Business User Benefits 9.83 21.37 32.90 36.27 Indirect Tax Revenue 0.71 0.36 -0.29 -0.34 Carbon Emission Benefits -0.25 -0.11 0.13 0.15 Present Value of Benefits (PVB) 18.76 41.17 63.83 69.15 Monetary values are in average 2010 prices discounted to 2010 at 3.5% for 30-years and 3.0% for the remainder of the evaluation period

The level of benefit increases significantly between the Future Year Scenarios as greater levels of development traffic are added. Traffic demands and congestion in the “do-minimum” scenario at both the A90 north and south junctions increase significantly from FYS 1 through to FYS 4 . The grade separation of the south junction relieves delay at this location and provides a substantial benefit by improving journey times.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 13-3 SECTION RISK AND UNCERTAINTY

As noted above, there are several factors that contribute to the high level of benefits recorded within these sensitivity tests. There is a risk that the PVBs indicated for Package 2 , under Future Year Scenarios 2 to 4 are overestimated and may not be fully realised. .. Uncertainty on Rerouting from B to A Package 2 has been tested to understand the potential benefits that may arise due to additional re-routing from the B974, which is to the south of Laurencekirk on the A90, to the A937 with a grade separation in place at the south junction. This sensitivity test has been undertaken with the FYS 1 demands in place. As noted in the Laurencekirk S-Paramics base model development report, vehicle routing via the B974 was fixed via the use of a restriction. During consultation for the Access to Laurencekirk study, some members of the public stated that they chose routes for their journeys that allowed them to avoid using the south junction. Analysis of surveyed traffic data indicated that this would likely include diversion to use the B974. However, the generalised cost for travel via the B974 is too high in the model for many vehicles to assign this way, rather than using the alternatives. It should be noted that in practice, drivers may be choosing to reroute via the B974 due to safety concerns rather than to avoid delay. It would not be possible to model this route choice using a time and distance based generalised cost equation. As a result, a route restriction was added to the model to represent this route choice. Package 2 has, therefore, been tested with this restriction removed to determine the potential benefits that may arise due to re-routing associated with improved perception of safety at the south junction. This model has been labelled as Package 2a. Within this test, 72 additional vehicles are able to select the A937 as a preferred route in the AM period, in the PM period it is 14. All trips are in the northbound direction. The Present Value of Benefits delivered by this sensitivity test is indicated within Table 13-4. Table 13-4 – B974 Rerouting Sensitivity Test Results Present Value of Benefits (PVB £M)

Future Year Scenario 1 – Package 2 Future Year Scenario 1 – Package 2a Consumer User Benefits 8.47 8.74 Business User Benefits 9.83 9.77 Indirect Tax Revenue 0.71 0.78 Carbon Emission Benefits -0.25 -0.27 Present Value of Benefits (PVB) 18.76 19.02

Monetary values are in average 2010 prices discounted to 2010 at 3.5% for 30-years and 3.0% for the remainder of the evaluation period

The level of benefits for this sensitivity test (£19.02M) is slightly higher than the level of benefits delivered by Package 2 (£18.76M). This is equivalent to an increase in benefit of approximately 1.4%. The additional benefits arise as the unrestricted traffic chooses to route via the south junction, which provides a journey time saving and a reduction in trip length when compared with the B974. .. Sensitivity to Development at North End of Laurencekirk This sensitivity test analyses the impact that proposed new development at the northern end of Laurencekirk could have on the level of benefits delivered by grade separation of the north junction. The proposed new development in Laurencekirk could increase the level of demand at the north junction. This test will identify if this results in additional benefits from interventions at the north junction. In order to do this, FYS 3 and 4 have been tested with Package 6 . FYS 3 and 4 contain the M1 development at the north of Laurencekirk. Package 6 includes the grade separation of the north and south junctions and leaves

13-4 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION RISK AND UNCERTAINTY the centre junction unchanged. Package 6 generated the highest economic benefits of the options that include grade separation at the north junction and thus has been chosen for this test. It should be noted that the M1 development adds a substantial number of trips to the road network within Laurencekirk. No off-site mitigation has been coded into the model in association with this development, as it is speculative in nature and an access strategy has not been approved. As such, the level of congestion in the “do-minimum” model is significant and is greater than might be expected when the development is in place. As a result, there is a significant risk that the benefits estimated in this sensitivity test are high. The Present Value of Benefits delivered by this sensitivity test is indicated within Table 13-5. Table 13-5 –Sensitivity to Development at North End of Laurencekirk Test Results Present Value of Benefits (PVB £M)

Future Year Scenario 1 – Future Year Scenario 3 – Future Year Scenario 4 –

Package 6 Package 6 Package 6 Consumer User Benefits 8.19 48.88 137.96 Business User Benefits 10.05 52.53 139.52 Indirect Tax Revenue 0.83 0.34 -2.88 Carbon Emission Benefits -0.29 -0.10 1.17 Present Value of Benefits (PVB) 18.78 101.65 275.77 Monetary values are in average 2010 prices discounted to 2010 at 3.5% for 30-years and 3.0% for the remainder of the evaluation period

The results in Table 13-5 indicate that Package 6 would deliver an exceptionally high level of benefit partly due to potential overestimates of delay on the A90 southbound through constraints in the modelling software. As noted above, due to the assumptions within the “do-minimum” model there is a risk that this level of benefit may be a high overestimate. Within the FYS 4 “do-minimum”, the shockwave queue on the A90 southbound approach to existing north junction is approximately 3km long to the edge of the modelled area. The capacity constraint at the north junction generates substantial delay, including the bottlenecking of through traffic on the A90 southbound. The grade separation of the north junction included in Package 6 completely alleviates the queueing and capacity issues at this location and returns this part of the network to free flow conditions. Package 6 also generates benefits by alleviating queuing on the A937 side arm of the north junction that occurs in the FYS 3 and 4 “do-minimum” situations due to right turning traffic waiting to turn onto the A90 blocking left turning vehicles. In summary, alleviation of the above issues within the “do-something” scenarios (in particular the blocking of through traffic on the southbound A90) generates substantial benefits as indicated by Table 13-5 for Package 6 in FYS 3 and FYS 4. As noted above, there is a substantial risk that the level of benefits delivered in this sensitivity test may be an upper estimate of what might be expected. However, it is clear from the testing that upgrading capacity at the north junction would be beneficial if the M1 development were to proceed. .. Sensitivity to Travel Speed Changes on the High Street The sensitivity test relating to the removal of High Street parking has been undertaken with Package 2 and FYS 1. The removal of parking on one side of the High Street has been simulated through the following changes to the model: • Removal of three simulated pinch points on the High Street; and • Increase of modelled speed limit from 20mph to 30mph over a distance of 900m on the High Street. The Present Value of Benefits delivered by this sensitivity test is indicated by Table 13-6.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 13-5 SECTION RISK AND UNCERTAINTY

Table 13-6 – High Street Parking Sensitivity Test Results Present Value of Benefits (PVB £M)

Future Year Scenario 1 – Package 2 – High Future Year Scenario 1 – Package 2 Street Test Consumer User Benefits 8.47 9.98 Business User Benefits 9.83 11.02 Indirect Tax Revenue 0.71 0.83 Carbon Emission Benefits -0.25 -0.30 Present Value of Benefits 18.76 21.53 (PVB) Monetary values are in average 2010 prices discounted to 2010 at 3.5% for 30-years and 3.0% for the remainder of the evaluation period

The High Street sensitivity test delivers benefits of £21.53M. This is an increase of just under 15% on the Package 2 benefit of £18.76M. When comparing the results of Package 2 with the sensitivity test, it is estimated that the removal of parking on one side of the High Street would deliver additional benefits of over £2.5M. The benefit occurs as the increase in speed limit on the A90 and removal of the pinch points on the High Street leads to a decrease in journey times. .. Sensitivity to Inclusion of Western Distributor Road The sensitivity test on the inclusion of the western distributor road has been undertaken with Package 3 and FYS 1 . The proposed western distributor road ties in as a new arm to the northern roundabout at the grade separated A90 south junction. To the north of Laurencekirk, the A90 ties into the A937 via a ghost island priority junction. The A937 forms the main route at this junction. The western distributor road potentially ties into Fordoun Road and Blackiemuir Road via at grade four arm roundabouts. The roundabouts are coded with an inscribed circle diameter of approximately 45m. The results in Table 13-7 show that the western distributor road delivers a PVB of £18.73M. This compares to a benefit in the base Package 3 of £18.87M. Therefore, the western distributor road delivers a very slight overall disbenefit compared to the core measures included within Package 3. This occurs as all traffic on Fordoun Road and Blackiemuir Road would be required to negotiate an additional junction (a roundabout) when entering and exiting the model. Table 13-7 – Western Distributor Road Sensitivity Test Results Present Value of Benefits (PVB £M)

Future Year Scenario 1 – Package 3 Future Year Scenario 1 – Package 3 – Western Distributor Road Consumer User Benefits 8.61 8.08 Business User Benefits 9.71 10.08 Indirect Tax Revenue 0.87 0.88 Carbon Emission -0.31 -0.31 Benefits Present Value of 18.87 18.73 Benefits (PVB) Monetary values are in average 2010 prices discounted to 2010 at 3.5% for 30-years and 3.0% for the remainder of the evaluation period

The positive benefits delivered by the western distributor road are limited, as it presents a significant increase in trip length for most trips to and from Laurencekirk currently using the High Street. As such, the majority of trips to and from Laurencekirk would have an increase in journey time and trip length if using the western distributor road as opposed to the High Street. Therefore, other than traffic to/from Fordoun Road and

13-6 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION RISK AND UNCERTAINTY

Blackiemuir Road, insignificant levels of traffic assigns to the Western Distributor Road. Table 13-8 shows the traffic flows on the western distributor road in FYS 1. Table 13-8 – Western Distributor Road Traffic Flows – FYS 1 2033 Traffic Flow on Western Link Road (Vehicles) Section of Western Link Road AM (06:00-09:00) (PM 16:00-19:00) Between South Junction 161 226 to Blackiemuir Avenue Between Blackiemuir 78 106 Avenue and Fordoun Rd Between Fordoun Road 77 169 and North Junction

The western distributor road would provide a direct means of accessing potential new development areas to the north and west of Laurencekirk. Therefore, if Laurencekirk expands, the western distributor road could help to minimise traffic on the High Street by providing a direct access to any new development. . Risk Register Risk management is a structured approach to identifying, assessing and controlling risks that emerge during the course of the option lifecycle. STAG recommends that the management of risk should be appropriate to the scale of the transport project under consideration. At this stage an initial Risk Register, highlighting the key risks that could affect the delivery and operation of the packages, has been prepared to allow mechanisms to be put in place to minimise the likelihood of the risks occurring and their associated impact. The Risk Register is presented in Appendix L and should be continuously reviewed and updated throughout the risk management process as the detailed design of the packages progresses.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 13-7

SECTION 14 Monitoring and Evaluation

. Introduction Monitoring and evaluation are integral to the appraisal process and within the context of STAG are defined as follows: • Monitoring is the process of gathering and interpreting information on the performance of a project post- implementation. This process should be ongoing and will usually take place in conjunction with other information gathering exercises being undertaken by a local authority or other organisation implementing a project 10 ; and • Evaluation forms an essential part of the policy cycle, demonstrating what has been achieved with public resources and providing evidence and learning points for future interventions and investments. 11 This chapter sets out the recommended approach to be adopted during the monitoring and evaluation exercise and information requirements to inform this process. . Monitoring and Evaluation At this stage, all the packages cost in excess of £5m (except Package 8) . We therefore recommend monitoring and evaluation should be consistent with the Scottish Trunk Road Infrastructure Project Evaluation (STRIPE) guidance, which has been developed to provide a framework for Transport Scotland to evaluate projects in the Scottish Motorway and Trunk Road Programme. 12 The aims of evaluation, as set out in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), Volume 5, SH 1/97 ‘Traffic and Economic Assessment of Road in Scotland’, are to: • Satisfy the demands of good management and public accountability by providing the answers to questions about the effects of a new or improved road; • Identify the strengths and weaknesses in the techniques used for appraising projects, so that confidence in the roads programme is maintained; • Allow the predictive ability of the traffic or transport models used to be monitored to establish whether any particular form of model is consistently more reliable than others when applied to particular types of projects; and • Assist in the assessment of compensation under Part 1 of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973 for depreciation due to the physical factors caused by the use of public works. The evaluation of trunk road projects is evolving as Transport Scotland improves its process and reporting to reflect the principles of monitoring and evaluation set out in STAG STAG advocates evaluation against indicators and targets derived for the TPOs originally set for the project, STAG criteria (Environment, Safety, Economy, Integration and Accessibility & Social Inclusion) and relevant policy directives, the aim of which is to identify: • Whether the project is performing as originally intended; • Whether, and to what extent, it is contributing to established policy directives; and • Whether the implemented project continues to represent value for money.

10 http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/report/j324550-15.htm#s15

11 http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/report/j324550-16.htm#s16

12 http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/system/files/uploaded_content/documents/tsc_basic_pages/Road/STRIPE_Trunk_Road_Project_Evaluation_Guidance.pdf

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 14-1 SECTION MONITORING AND EVALUATION

Furthermore STRIPE, prepared by Transport Scotland, sets out the requirements for evaluation which draws on DMRB and STAG. This document was finalised in 2013 and acts as a guide to evaluation for relevant projects. STRIPE states that two programmed evaluations should be carried out on relevant projects, as follows: • A one-year after Evaluation (1YA) – prepared one year after opening, this report should “provide Transport Scotland with an early indication (as far as is practicable) that the project is operating as planned and is on-track to achieve its objectives. The 1YA evaluation also provides a Process Evaluation including an assessment of actual vs. forecast project cost, and programme together with reasons for variance”. STRIPE also states that a stand-alone report should be prepared on each individual project. Information gathering should be supported by a site visit and stakeholder interviews; and • A Detailed Evaluation – undertaken three or five years after opening. This second evaluation “considers a project’s impacts, whether it has achieved its objectives and reviews the actual impacts against forecasts and determines the causes of any variances ”. An initial study level monitoring and evaluation framework has been developed to allow the measurement and assessment of the impact of the chosen package or packages in relation to the five TPOs identified. As part of this process the objectives have been further developed and specific measurements have been specified for future monitoring and evaluation. These are included within Table 14-1. Table 14-1 - Monitoring and Evaluation Framework Transport Planning Objective Proposed Indicator Measurement To achieve a reduction in accidents at or on immediate Change in accident numbers at Accident numbers as recorded by approach to the A90 Laurencekirk Junctions and as a the three Laurencekirk Junctions. STATS19. result of traffic turning or crossing at the junctions. To achieve a significant improvement in the attitude Delay in seconds to stopline on Difference in variation in journey towards safety at the A90 Laurencekirk junctions by A90 side arms at Laurencekirk time across junction stopline. reducing the delay and improving the opportunities to junctions. cross the A90. To achieve an improvement in network efficiency Change in journey time between Journey time surveys in the AM experienced by traffic travelling on the A90 and accessing for trips travelling onto A90 from and PM peak. and crossing the A90 at the Laurencekirk junctions in A937. order to support sustainable economic growth in the south of Aberdeenshire and the north of Angus. To enable safe crossing of the A90 by sustainable modes. Instances of Cycling to School A90 classified counts and school across from east of A90 to “hands up” survey. Laurencekirk schools Increase in pedestrian/cyclist movements across A90 against 2014 observed. To contribute to the High Street’s role as a central place Change in through trips on High ATC data collection. for the continued vitality of the Laurencekirk community. Street.

. Summary In accordance with STAG, monitoring and evaluation are integral to this study and it is recommended that this is undertaken within the bounds of the information presented above.

14-2 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION 15 Summary and Conclusions

. Introduction This chapter presents a summary of the Access to Laurencekirk study and the STAG appraisal that has been undertaken. Problems, issues, constraints and opportunities associated with current and future access to the town and the A90 were identified and Transport Planning Objectives established that address these problems. A range of improvement options were then generated and assessed in relation to their ability to meet these transport planning objectives. This report makes no recommendations with regard to any package of measures. Option Summary Tables (OSTs) are presented for those packages that the STAG Part 2 Detailed Appraisal concluded could be taken forward for further consideration at a DMRB Stage 2 assessment. The purpose of this report is to aid that decision making. . Existing and Future Conditions Section 3 presented an extensive review and analysis of existing conditions, with a focus on the three A90 junctions that serve Laurencekirk. The population of Laurencekirk has increased by approximately 60% between 2001 and 2011 and is envisaged to grow, due to new development, both in terms of schemes with planning consent and future LDP allocations. .. Access Laurencekirk is relatively compact in size, such that the majority of the town is readily accessible by walking or cycling. In terms of travelling to and from the town, it is served by a railway station, which re-opened in 2009. It is also served by a number of bus services, with the main interchange bus stops located on the High Street. However, given its rural location, the private vehicle is a significant mode of transport. The A90 trunk road is the principal strategic route in the vicinity of Laurencekirk and passes to the east of the town. There are three junctions on the A90 that enable vehicular access to and from Laurencekirk. • The north junction is an at-grade priority junction that connects the A90 with Laurencekirk High Street via the A937, Aberdeen Road; • The centre junction is a staggered priority junction that connects the A90 with the B9120, being Garvock Road on the Laurencekirk side of the junction; and • The south junction is a staggered priority junction that connects the A90 with the A937 to Montrose and links the A90 with Laurencekirk High Street via the A937. Vehicle flow on the A90 at Laurencekirk has increased over the last five years, with an increase in 24-hour AADT of over 10% between 2009 and 2013, to approximately 21,600 vehicles. The majority of this growth, however, occurred between 2012 and 2013, with growth between 2009 and 2011 being static, followed by a slight increase in 2012. The local road network within the vicinity of Laurencekirk includes the A937, which connects Montrose to Laurencekirk. The B9120 between St Cyrus and Laurencekirk is also a well-used route. Both the A937 and B9120 meet the A90 trunk road at priority junctions. Safety and delay issues at A937/A90 As part of this study temporary traffic counters were installed on the A937, which runs between Laurencekirk and Montrose, during May 2014. The results showed that the number of vehicles turning left from the southbound A90 onto the A937 was noticeably higher than the number that made the corresponding right turn on to the northbound A90. This suggests that a relatively high proportion (25-30%) of vehicles that could use the A937 to turn right onto the A90 may be avoiding the junction.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 15-1 SECTION SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The High Street in Laurencekirk carries mostly local traffic accessing residential areas, local shops and facilities, the high school and employment; as well as providing access to the A90. The vehicle flows for the High Street are typical in respect of daily fluctuations with traffic peaking during the weekdays in the AM and PM peaks, whilst on a Saturday flows peak around lunchtime. Temporary traffic counters were installed in March 2014 and recorded the High Street average two-way flow peak hour at over 350 vehicles. In the context of rural roads, the side road queuing often experienced at the south junction is causing concern for the local community. The survey data shows junction delay for turning movements tends to be minimal at both the north and centre junctions, but is more of an issue at the south junction, with peak period delays of up to 5 minutes. Whilst the total vehicle movements at the south junction are not significantly high, the survey assessment shows that vehicles experience consistent delay throughout the morning and evening weekday period. Road safety issues were identified, with vehicles stacking in the central reserve, long vehicles overhanging the central reserve and vehicles entering the A90 leftside lane directly from the centre reserve. The majority of the dualled section of the A90 has a speed limit of 70mph. However, the section covering the south Laurencekirk junction was reduced to 50mph in 2005 to address road safety concerns. This change in speed limit does affect the efficiency of the trunk road, in terms of journey times for A90 traffic. .. Constraints The A90 runs to the east of Laurencekirk and any future improvement options are constrained by a number of physical and environmental constraints: • BP Forties pipeline running to the east of the A90; • Dundee to Aberdeen railway line running to the west of the A90; • Laurencekirk Cemetery adjacent to the A90 at the centre junction; • Trunk road junction spacing requirements; and • Avoiding impact on strategic traffic journey times. Development In terms of the current status of development in Laurencekirk, a number of sites are considered to be at the planning stage including: • 21 residential units – full planning permission granted; • 210 residential units – approved in 2010, but no further progression (site EH1); and • 77 residential units – application granted subject to legal and local roads agreements; and a planning condition requiring a grade separated south junction to be in place at the A90 Laurencekirk south junction prior to the start of construction. Laurencekirk is allocated as a Strategic Growth Area. It and the north Angus area have links with the north east oil and gas industry, in terms of services and employment. As a result, there is clear demand for new development. The Aberdeenshire LDP land allocations for Laurencekirk include 1,105 new residential units across two sites by 2023, 11 Ha of land is also designated for employment by 2023, with a strategic reserve of 16 hectares to 2030. In addition, land allocations for a number of settlements in the wider Kincardine and Mearns area could result in travel demands to and from Laurencekirk to access services, education, employment and access to the rail station, all of which will impact on the A90 junctions. The Angus LDP is in the process of development and a Proposed LDP was published on 27 February 2015. The housing totals for Angus MIR to 2024 suggest new development in north Angus is concentrated within the main settlements of Montrose and Brechin. The proposed LDP land allocations, both in terms of housing and employment, for north Angus suggest some additional 825 houses could be developed, focused on Brechin and Montrose.

15-2 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Development in Laurencekirk and the surrounding area, including north Angus, will generate additional traffic that will impact on the A90 and the three Laurencekirk junctions to some degree, but particularly the A90/A937 south junction. . Problems and Issues Section 4 discusses the key problems and issues with regard to access to Laurencekirk. Information gathering has been undertaken and driven principally from the consultation outcomes and findings of previous studies. In summary, key problems are considered to include the following: Safety • Accidents, with a continuing trend for injury accidents at the centre junction; • Significant perceived accident risk at the south junction – a number of non-injury accidents occurring. Risk of new injury accidents, as a result of increased traffic flows; • Similar perceived accident risk at the north junction; • Instances of long vehicles overhanging the central reserve; • Instances of poor driver behaviour, such as stacking within the central reserve; and • Deceleration space in the central reserve for southbound right turning traffic at the north junction does not meet DMRB criteria. Network Efficiency • Section of 50mph speed limit delaying A90 mainline traffic; and • Significant delays for right turn movements and side road traffic, including public transport, using the A90/A937 south junction. Existing Junction Capacity • South junction at/near operational capacity, which will be exacerbated with any increased flows. Future Traffic Growth • South junction presents a constraint to accommodating new development, both within Laurencekirk and also north Angus, especially Montrose area; and • Increased traffic flows from proposed Laurencekirk development, as allocated within the LDP, will have a detrimental impact on the efficient operation of the existing north junction. Community Severance • A90 impacting on quality of life, by discouraging pedestrians and cyclists, as well as older drivers. The main case for intervention exists due to the inability of the current infrastructure to meet the needs of the existing population of Laurencekirk and north Angus, in terms of efficient operation of the network and perceptions of safety regarding access to the A90. Without intervention, future development is likely to stagnate within Laurencekirk and the wider area, including north Angus. This is the core foundation for a proposed intervention.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 15-3 SECTION SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

. Transport Planning Objectives The five finalised Transport Planning Objectives are: 1. Safety To achieve a reduction in accidents at the A90 Laurencekirk Junctions as a result of traffic turning or crossing at the junctions 2. Driver behaviour To achieve a significant improvement in the attitude towards safety at the A90 Laurencekirk junctions by reducing the delay and improving the opportunities to cross the A90. 3. Efficiency of the network and economic development To achieve an improvement in network efficiency experienced by traffic travelling on the A90 and accessing and crossing the A90 at the Laurencekirk junctions in order to support sustainable economic growth in the south of Aberdeenshire and the north of Angus 4. Sustainable travel To enable safe crossing of the A90 by sustainable modes (non-motorised). 5. Laurencekirk High Street To contribute to the High Street’s role as a central place for the continued vitality of the Laurencekirk community It is considered that the Transport Planning Objectives contribute meeting the objectives of key relevant established policy directives within the following policies: • Scottish Government’s Economic Strategy; • Scotland’s National Transport Strategy; • NESTRANS Regional Transport Strategy; and • Aberdeenshire Local Transport Strategy. . Option Generation, Sifting and Development Section 6 sets out the long list of potential options identified to address the key problems, the sifting of these options and their development. The outcome of the option generation stage derived a list of 36 individual options. The categorisation of options was such that a ‘core option’ was considered fundamental to address the main problems and issues with access to Laurencekirk. ‘Complementary’ options may provide additional benefits and/or limit the wider negative impact that a core option could have on the transport network outwith the main study area, but when considered alone they would not significantly address the main problems, nor contribute to the objectives of the study. Of the 36 individual options, 15 were sifted out initially, whilst two were categorised as a ‘core option’ with the remaining 19 options categorised as ‘complementary’. The two core options are: • Grade separation at the A90 south junction; and • Grade separation at the A90 north junction. It should be noted that the option for a new grade separated junction on the A90 near Laurencekirk was sifted out for a number of reasons. A new junction to the north of the existing north junction would increase journey time, not address current conflict movements at the existing junction and is constrained by the railway, without expensive structures. A new junction located between the existing centre and north junctions would require both existing junctions to be closed to comply with DMRB minimum junction spacing requirements and is constrained by the oil pipeline.

15-4 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Options for changing existing at grade junctions to roundabouts or traffic signals were also sifted out as they would introduce significant delay to A90 mainline traffic, contrary to national policy. The remaining 21 options were assessed, and it was considered appropriate to combine a number of these into packages to take forward for STAG Part 1 Initial Appraisal. Eight packages were developed with a view to maximise the benefits of each combination. As the focus of the problems and issues was around the A90 Laurencekirk south junction, all packages, other than Packages 1 and 8, included grade separation at the south junction. The eight packages taken forward for STAG Part 1 Initial Appraisal were: • Package 1 focuses on the extension of the 50mph zone at Laurencekirk on the A90 to include all three trunk road junctions, with the introduction of average speed cameras along it length. The context for the development of this package is one which is a low cost alternative to a major intervention, such as grade separation; • Package 2 includes the grade separation of the A90 Laurencekirk south junction and has, at this stage, been considered with and without the inclusion of the rationalisation of parking on Laurencekirk High Street; • Package 3 includes the provision of a grade separated A90 Laurencekirk south junction, and also includes a central reserve closure at the A90 Laurencekirk north junction. Package 3 could include a complementary sub-option of the western distributor road, which would link the south junction to the north of Laurencekirk; • Package 4 is similar to Packages 2 and 3 and includes the provision of grade separation at the south junction and closure of the central junction, with an associated link road from the A937 to the B9120, and either with or without the provision of a rationalisation of parking on Laurencekirk High Street; • Package 5 includes grade separation of the south junction and closure of the centre junction, with an associated link road from the A937 to the B9120, and closure of the north junction centre reserve; • Package 6 includes the provision of grade separation at both the north and south A90 Laurencekirk junctions; • Package 7 is similar to Package 6, as it includes the grade separation of the north and south junctions, however it also includes the closure of the Laurencekirk access and the central reserve at the centre junction, with left in/out only at the east approach; and • Package 8 is a sustainable travel package, which includes pedestrian crossings on the High Street and improved pedestrian and cycle facilities, including the upgrade of the existing underpass of the A90 and associated cycle/pedestrian link to the east. It was considered that this package could be considered as a supportive package to enhance any of the junction improvement packages. . STAG Part Initial Appraisal Section 7 reports the STAG Part 1 Initial Appraisal of the eight option packages. The Initial Appraisal was limited to a qualitative appraisal of the performance of each of the option packages, together with their rationale or justification for progression to the STAG Part 2 Detailed Appraisal stage. The eight options were considered in the context of their ability to achieve the Transport Planning Objectives as well as consideration given against the five STAG Criteria (Environment, Safety, Economy, Integration and Accessibility & Social Inclusion), Established Policy Directives and Feasibility, Affordability and Public Acceptability. The Part 1 Initial Appraisal concluded that Package 1 should be rejected, as it did not perform well against the Transport Planning Objectives. It would introduce further delay to A90 mainline traffic so would be contrary to the strategic outcomes of the National Transport Strategy in respect of improving journey times.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 15-5 SECTION SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Part 1 Appraisal Summary Tables are provided within Appendix E. Packages 2 to 7 were recommended for progression to the STAG Part 2 Detailed Appraisal stage. Detailed descriptions of the packages are in Section 7.4 of this report. It was considered that further testing was required at a detailed stage in relation to Packages 3 and 5 and the inclusion of a western distributor road is required for operational purposes. It was anticipated that consideration would subsequently be given to the application of Package 8 (sustainable travel) to any of the core packages, as a complementary measure. . STAG Part Detailed Appraisal Sections 8 to 10 report the Detailed Appraisal of the six option packages taken forward, following the STAG Part 1 Initial Appraisal. As part of this study, an S-Paramics micro-simulation model was developed to quantify the performance of each of the packages, where possible. The results of this model testing were used as part of the appraisal to quantify the ability of each package to meet the Transport Planning Objectives, STAG and deliverability criteria. The Detailed Appraisal was undertaken in accordance with STAG and, in contrast to the Initial Appraisal, considered a more detailed and, where possible, quantitative analysis of the impacts. The Detailed Appraisal considered the following package variants as part of the core testing: • Package 2 – Grade separated junction at south junction with High Street parking rationalisation; • Package 3b - grade separated junction at south junction, closure of central reserve at north junction with no western distributor road; • Package 4 - grade separated junction at south junction, closure of centre junction, provision of A937- B9120 Link Road and High Street parking rationalisation; • Package 5b - grade separated junction at south junction, closure of central reserve at north junction/closure of centre junction with provision of A937-B9120 Link Road with no western distributor road; • Package 6 - grade separated junction at north junction and south junction; and • Package 7 – grade separated junction at north junction and south junction, part closure of centre junction leaving left in/out from B9120 only Packages 3a and 5a , which included the western distributor road as a sub-option. Package 3a was tested as part of a Risk and Uncertainty assessment. Package 8 was considered to be a desirable additional set of low cost measures that will support any one of the major enhancement packages (Packages 2-7). As the impact of Package 8 is more difficult to quantify, with impacts on traffic flows and network efficiency which are orders of magnitude lower than the other options, despite offering accessibility and integration benefits, it was decided Package 8 would not be scored within the detailed appraisal. Commentary was, however, provided where Package 8 specifically addressed particular criteria and provided context to the outcomes of the study. Conclusions Part 2 Appraisal Summary Tables are set out in Appendix E. Headline conclusions can be summarised as being: Transport Planning Objectives All packages deliver a positive benefit in terms of reducing the number of accidents, with Packages 6 and 7 having the greatest benefit. All packages deliver a positive benefit in terms of improving driver behaviour, with Packages 6 and 7 having the greatest benefit.

15-6 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

All packages deliver an overall improvement in journey times. The journey time savings for the south junction grade separation are generally similar across all packages for the A90 mainline, A90 to A937 and A937 to Laurencekirk High Street movements. All packages deliver a positive benefit in terms of improving safer crossing by sustainable (non-motorised) modes, with Packages 6 and 7 having the greatest benefit. With the exception of Package 2 and 6, all packages have a negative impact in terms of traffic flows on the High Street. Appraisal against STAG Criteria In terms of the STAG criteria: • Environment - all packages have a low negative impact, mainly due to noise and visual impact, with Packages 6 and 7 having a medium negative impact; • Safety - most packages have a medium positive impact, with Package 4 having low positive impact due to increased vehicle trip length and Packages 6 and 7 having a high positive impact; • Economy - all packages have a positive impact by improving journey times, particularly on the A90 and the A937. The majority of journey time improvements in all packages are generated by the grade separation of the south junction. Grade separation of this junction improves journey times for the A937 northbound and southbound at the south junction and enables the removal of the 50 mph speed limit on the A90. Packages 2, 3 and 6 generate the highest level of TEE benefit. The grade separated south junction in Packages 2 to 7 would facilitate sustainable economic development in Laurencekirk and north Angus. The grade separated north junction in Packages 6 and 7 would facilitate sustainable economic development in Laurencekirk; • Accessibility & Social Inclusion - Package 6 performs best, having a medium positive impact; and • Integration - all packages have a positive impact with Packages 6 and 7 performing best, having a medium positive impact. All packages would support both the Aberdeenshire LDP and Angus LDP, by providing grade separation at the south junction that accommodates additional traffic flows. Packages 6 and 7 are likely to be more supportive for future proposed development by accommodating development traffic using the north junction. Appraisal against Implementability The construction of a grade separated junction at the existing south junction would not present any significant technical difficulties and is considered to be feasible to construct. Some land acquisition would be required. Provision of the western distributor road would have more challenges, in terms of crossing the railway, environmental mitigation and land acquisition. Initial consultation with BP confirmed the new A937/B9120 link road should be a sufficient distance away from the Forties Pipeline that there were no major feasibility concerns. The BP Forties Pipeline would need some further consideration at the north junction, due to the proximity of the new side roads and this will influence future design options. The railway line provides a constraint, in terms of siting the grade separated junction to the north side of its existing location without involved major structures. DMRB requirements, in terms of minimum junction spacing, may require the centre junction to be closed depending on the location of the north grade separated junction. All packages may result in some delay to A90 and local road traffic during the construction period. This would be exacerbated for Packages 6 and 7 , as they involve construction of two grade separated junctions. It may be feasible to construct most of the junctions without major disruption to A90 traffic, with the aim to keep two lanes open during peak periods and any lane closures restricted to overnight. There would also be some disruption to A937 traffic.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 15-7 SECTION SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

For all packages , there are no significant operational or maintenance issues envisaged. New waiting restrictions on the High Street, as part of the parking rationalisation, may subsequently require some enforcement to avoid abuse. It is envisaged that all packages would receive general public support, as each one provides the south grade separated junction. There may be some objections to other measures, such as High Street parking rationalisation, central reserve closures or closure of the centre junction. Packages 6 and 7 may receive the most support, as they provides two grade separated junctions. Appraisal Summary The STAG Part 2 Detailed Appraisal considered Packages 2 to 7 against the: • Five Transport Planning Objectives; • Five key STAG criteria and their sub-criteria; and • Implementability. Six core options were considered, with a sub-option ( Package 3a , including the western distributor road) being considered as part of sensitivity testing. Package 8 was not subject to the same appraisal as Packages 2-7, on the basis that it was considered to be a supporting package that could be implemented to enhance any of the core options. The STAG Part 2 Detailed Appraisal concluded that all the core packages address the core problems and meet the Transport Planning Objectives for the study. Whilst there is variation in the appraisal scoring, no package has been recommended for rejection at this stage. . Costs Table 15-1 indicates the estimated costs for the packages, presented in 2014 prices. It should be noted the cost estimates for Packages 3 and 5 exclude provision of the Western Distributor Road at this time. Table 15-1 - Costs to Government (£Ms) 2014 Prices Package

2 3 4 5 6 7 Scheme Costs 18.7 18.8 21.9 21.9 37.1 37.2

An economic appraisal of the packages was undertaken using version 14.1 of PEARS. A summary of the results of the PEARS assessment and the Benefit to Cost Ratio delivered by the six core packages is shown in Table 15-2. Table 15-2 – PEARS Assessment Results (£M) Package

2 3 4 5 6 7 Present Value of Benefits (£) 18.76 18.87 14.63 9.72 18.78 15.13 Present Value of Costs (£) 14.58 14.75 17.11 17.17 29.10 29.17 Net Present Value (£) 4.18 4.12 -2.48 -7.45 -10.32 -14.04 Benefit to Cost Ratio 1.29 1.28 0.85 0.57 0.65 0.52

Monetary values are in average 2010 prices discounted to 2010 at 3.5% for 30-years and 3.0% for the remainder of the evaluation period

The results presented in Table 13-2 indicate that Package 2 will provide the highest Net Present Value (NPV) and Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) of the options tested. Package 2 is forecast to deliver an NPV of £4.18M and a BCR of 1.29.

15-8 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

. Option Summary Tables Option Summary Tables (OST) are set out overleaf, giving a summary of the STAG Part 2 Detailed Appraisal. Note that the BCR calculation in the OSTs includes indirect tax revenues as part of the Present Value of Cost to Government. Therefore, the value of benefit for Economy in the OSTs differs from the value quoted for the PEARS assessment. PEARS includes indirect tax revenues as a benefit.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 15-9 SECTION SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Option Summary Table Study Title: Access to Laurencekirk Option Title: Package 2

Capital Costs/grant (2010 Prices) £14.7M : Package 2 – grade separation of the A90 south junction with rationalisation of parking Annual Revenue Support (2010 Prices) N/A on the High Street Present Value (PV) of Cost to Government £13.87M

Monetary Monetary Impacts (Monetary and Non-Monetary) only (£m) impact ratio ------0 + ++ +++ (if relevant) (if relevant) Summary of Accessibility and Social Inclusion + - - impact on the five Environment - -0.25 - STAG criteria Integration + - -

Safety ++ 0.92 -

++ 18.30 - Economy NPV: 5.10 BCR: 1.37

Including Wider Economic NPV(WEB): BCR(WEB) Benefits :

Assessment ------0 + ++ +++ against Transport TPO Target 1: + Planning TPO Target 2: ++ Objectives TPO Target 3: ++ TPO Target 4: + TPO Target 5: 0

Contribution toward the Government’s Purpose:

Improve safety of journeys by reducing accidents and enhancing the personal safety of road users. (National Indicator “Reduce deaths on Scotland’s roads”)

Improve journey times and connections, to tackle congestion (National Indicator “Reduce Traffic Congestion”).

Promote economic growth by building, enhancing, and managing transport services, infrastructure and networks to maximise their efficiency.

15-10 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS STAG Criteria Implementability Appraisal Criterion: Supporting Information Criterion: Supporting Information The construction of a grade separated junction at the existing Would provide a minor improvement for sustainable modes of travel Accessibility & Laurencekirk south junction would not present any significant crossing A90 at south junction, as well as helping elderly drivers. Technical technical difficulties, and is considered to be feasible to construct, as Social Inclusion Help reduce sense of community severance. are the High Street measures. This package delivers a positive benefit due to the reduction in There no significant operational issues envisaged with regard to a accidents numbers. The largest improvement is at the south junction, new grade separated junction. New parking restrictions on the High Safety which can be attributed to the change to a grade separated junction. Operational Street may require enforcement.

Grade separation of the south junction will lead to significant journey This proposal has an outline cost estimate of approximately £18.7M time savings for turning traffic using the junction. The 50mph speed (2014 base).The existing infrastructure could be utilised wherever Economy Financial limit can be removed – minor individual journey time saving for A90 possible to limit the overall scheme cost. Operational/maintenance mainline traffic but high cumulative savings. costs are envisaged to be nominal in sum Proposal provides a positive fit with land use policy including This option is likely to meet with public acceptability as the provision Aberdeen City and Shire SDP, Aberdeenshire LDP and Angus LDP. Public Integration of a grade separated junction has been an aspiration of the public for Acceptability a number of years. Supports new development. This section identifies key impacts and tensions across the sub-criteria The new grade separated junction would have a minor negative impact on visual amenity and minor detrimental impact on the existing landscape. It is estimated two dwellings would suffer minor negative impact in terms of noise. Environment Package 2 is considered to have neutral impacts on other environmental sub-criteria.

Transport Planning Objectives Objective: Description of Objective Objective: Description of Objective To achieve a reduction in accidents at or on immediate approach to To achieve an improvement in network efficiency experienced by the A90 Laurencekirk Junctions and as a result of traffic turning or traffic travelling on the A90 and accessing and crossing the A90 at TPO 1: TPO 3: crossing at the junctions. the Laurencekirk junctions in order to support sustainable economic growth in south Aberdeenshire and north Angus To achieve a significant improvement in the attitude towards safety at TPO 2: the A90 Laurencekirk junctions by reducing the delay and improving TPO 4: To enable safe crossing of the A90 by sustainable modes. the opportunities to cross the A90. To contribute to the High Street’s role as a central place for the TPO 5: continued vitality of the Laurencekirk community.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 15-11 SECTION SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Option Summary Table Study Title: Access to Laurencekirk Option Title: Package 3 Capital Costs/grant (2010 Prices) £14.7M : Package 3 – grade separation of the A90 south junction and closure of central reserve Annual Revenue Support (2010 Prices) N/A at north junction without Western Link/Distributor Road Present Value (PV) of Cost to Government £13.87M

Monetary Monetary Impacts (Monetary and Non-Monetary) only (£m) impact ratio ------0 + ++ +++ (if relevant) (if relevant) Summary of Accessibility and Social Inclusion + - - impact on the five Environment - -0.31 - STAG criteria Integration + - -

Safety ++ 1.54 -

++ 18.31 - Economy NPV: 5.67 BCR: 1.41

Including Wider Economic NPV(WEB): BCR(WEB) Benefits :

Assessment ------0 + ++ +++ against Transport TPO Target 1: ++ Planning TPO Target 2: ++ Objectives TPO Target 3: ++ TPO Target 4: + TPO Target 5: 0

Contribution toward the Government Purpose:

Improve safety of journeys by reducing accidents and enhancing the personal safety of road users. (National Indicator “Reduce deaths on Scotland’s roads”)

Improve journey times and connections, to tackle congestion (National Indicator “Reduce Traffic Congestion”).

Promote economic growth by building, enhancing, and managing transport services, infrastructure and networks to maximise their efficiency.

15-12 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS STAG Criteria Implementability Appraisal Criterion: Supporting Information Criterion: Supporting Information The construction of a grade separated junction at the existing Would provide a minor improvement for sustainable modes of travel Accessibility & Laurencekirk south junction would not present any significant crossing A90 at south junction, as well as helping elderly drivers. Technical technical difficulties, and is considered to be feasible to construct, as Social Inclusion Help reduce sense of community severance. is closure of central reserve at north junction. This package delivers a positive benefit due to the reduction in There no significant operational issues envisaged with regard to a accidents numbers. The largest improvement is at the south junction, new grade separated junction. Closure of central reserve will push Safety which can be attributed to the change to a grade separated junction. Operational traffic to other two junctions, but can be accommodated.

Grade separation of the south junction will lead to significant journey This proposal has an outline cost estimate of approximately £18.9M time savings for turning traffic using the junction. The 50mph speed (2014 base).The existing infrastructure could be utilised wherever Economy limit can be removed – minor individual journey time saving for A90 Financial possible to limit the overall scheme cost. Operational/maintenance mainline traffic but high cumulative savings. Some additional journey costs are envisaged to be nominal in sum. mileage from north junction, as its central reserve is closed. Proposal provides a positive fit with land use policy including This option is likely to meet with public acceptability as the grade Aberdeen City and Shire SDP, Aberdeenshire LDP and Angus LDP. Public Integration separated junction addressed crossing issues and supports Acceptability development. May be some objections to central reserve closure. This section identifies key impacts and tensions across the sub-criteria The new grade separated junction would have a minor negative impact on visual amenity and minor detrimental impact on the existing landscape. Environment It is estimated eight dwellings would suffer minor negative impact in terms of noise. Very minor increases in PM10 and NO2, due to increased mileage as a result of central reserve closure. Package 3 is considered to have neutral impacts on other environmental sub-criteria. Transport Planning Objectives Objective: Description of Objective Objective: Description of Objective To achieve a reduction in accidents at or on immediate approach to To achieve an improvement in network efficiency experienced by the A90 Laurencekirk Junctions and as a result of traffic turning or traffic travelling on the A90 and accessing and crossing the A90 at TPO 1: TPO 3: crossing at the junctions. the Laurencekirk junctions in order to support sustainable economic growth in south Aberdeenshire and north Angus To achieve a significant improvement in the attitude towards safety at TPO 2: the A90 Laurencekirk junctions by reducing the delay and improving TPO 4: To enable safe crossing of the A90 by sustainable modes. the opportunities to cross the A90. To contribute to the High Street’s role as a central place for the TPO 5: continued vitality of the Laurencekirk community.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 15-13 SECTION SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Option Summary Table Study Title: Access to Laurencekirk Option Title: Package 4

Capital Costs/grant (2010 Prices) £17.2M : Package 4 – grade separation of the A90 south junction, closure of central junction Annual Revenue Support (2010 Prices) N/A with a A937/B9120 link road and rationalisation of parking on the High Street Present Value (PV) of Cost to Government £16.20M

Monetary Monetary Impacts (Monetary and Non-Monetary) only (£m) impact ratio ------0 + ++ +++ (if relevant) (if relevant) Summary of Accessibility and Social Inclusion 0 - - impact on the five Environment - -0.32 - STAG criteria Integration + - -

Safety + 0.15 -

++ 14.04 - Economy NPV: -2.33 BCR: 0.86

Including Wider Economic NPV(WEB): BCR(WEB) Benefits :

Assessment ------0 + ++ +++ against Transport TPO Target 1: ++ Planning TPO Target 2: + Objectives TPO Target 3: ++ TPO Target 4: + TPO Target 5: -

Contribution toward the Government Purpose:

Improve safety of journeys by reducing accidents and enhancing the personal safety of road users. (National Indicator “Reduce deaths on Scotland’s roads”)

Improve journey times and connections, to tackle congestion (National Indicator “Reduce Traffic Congestion”).

Promote economic growth by building, enhancing, and managing transport services, infrastructure and networks to maximise their efficiency.

15-14 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS STAG Criteria Implementability Appraisal Criterion: Supporting Information Criterion: Supporting Information Would provide a minor improvement for sustainable modes of travel The construction of a grade separated junction at the existing Accessibility & crossing A90 at south junction, as well as helping elderly drivers. Laurencekirk south junction would not present any significant Technical Social Inclusion Help reduce sense of community severance at south junction but not technical difficulties, and is considered to be feasible to construct. at the centre junction, although link road helps. A937-B9120 link road relatively close to oil pipeline. This package delivers a positive benefit due to the removal in There no significant operational issues envisaged with regard to a accidents at central junction, although these could move to the north new grade separated junction. Closure of central junction will push Safety and south junctions. But grade separation at south junction will Operational traffic to other two junctions but can be accommodated. Parking improve its accident record. restrictions on the high Street may need to be enforced.

Grade separation of the south junction will lead to significant journey This proposal has an outline cost estimate of approximately £21.9M time savings for turning traffic using the junction. The 50mph speed (2014 base).The existing infrastructure could be utilised at south Economy limit can be removed – minor individual journey time saving for A90 Financial junction wherever possible to limit the overall scheme cost. mainline traffic but high cumulative savings. Some additional journey Operational/maintenance costs are envisaged to be nominal in sum mileage from centre junction as it is closed to turning movements. Proposal provides a positive fit with land use policy including This option is likely to meet with public acceptability as the grade Aberdeen City and Shire SDP, Aberdeenshire LDP and Angus LDP. Public Integration separated junction addressed crossing issues and supports Acceptability development. May be some concern with central reserve closure. This section identifies key impacts and tensions across the sub-criteria The new grade separated junction would have a minor negative impact on visual amenity and minor detrimental impact on the existing landscape, as would the new A937-B9120 link road. It is estimated four dwellings would suffer minor negative impact in terms of noise. Environment Very minor increases in PM10 and NO2, due to increased mileage as a result of centre junction closure. Package 4 is considered to have neutral impacts on other environmental sub-criteria.

Transport Planning Objectives Objective: Description of Objective Objective: Description of Objective To achieve a reduction in accidents at or on immediate approach to To achieve an improvement in network efficiency experienced by the A90 Laurencekirk Junctions and as a result of traffic turning or traffic travelling on the A90 and accessing and crossing the A90 at TPO 1: TPO 3: crossing at the junctions. the Laurencekirk junctions in order to support sustainable economic growth in south Aberdeenshire and north Angus To achieve a significant improvement in the attitude towards safety at TPO 2: the A90 Laurencekirk junctions by reducing the delay and improving TPO 4: To enable safe crossing of the A90 by sustainable modes. the opportunities to cross the A90. To contribute to the High Street’s role as a central place for the TPO 5: continued vitality of the Laurencekirk community.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 15-15 SECTION SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Option Summary Table Study Title: Access to Laurencekirk Option Title: Package 5

Capital Costs/grant (2010 Prices) £17.2M : Package 5 – grade separation of the A90 south junction, closure of central reserve at Annual Revenue Support (2010 Prices) N/A north junction, closure of central junction with A937/B9120 link road without Western Present Value (PV) of Cost to Government £15.66M Distributor Road

Monetary Monetary Impacts (Monetary and Non-Monetary) only (£m) impact ratio ------0 + ++ +++ (if relevant) (if relevant) Summary of Accessibility and Social Inclusion 0 - - impact on the five Environment - -0.53 - STAG criteria Integration + - -

Safety ++ 0.67 -

+ 8.74 - Economy NPV: -6.78 BCR: 0.57

Including Wider Economic NPV(WEB): BCR(WEB) Benefits :

Assessment ------0 + ++ +++ against Transport TPO Target 1: +++ Planning TPO Target 2: +++ Objectives TPO Target 3: ++ TPO Target 4: + TPO Target 5: -

Contribution toward the Government Purpose:

Improve safety of journeys by reducing accidents and enhancing the personal safety of road users. (National Indicator “Reduce deaths on Scotland’s roads”)

Improve journey times and connections, to tackle congestion (National Indicator “Reduce Traffic Congestion”).

Promote economic growth by building, enhancing, and managing transport services, infrastructure and networks to maximise their efficiency.

15-16 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS STAG Criteria Implementability Appraisal Criterion: Supporting Information Criterion: Supporting Information Would provide a minor improvement for sustainable modes of travel The construction of a grade separated junction at the existing Accessibility & crossing A90 at south junction, as well as helping elderly drivers. Laurencekirk south junction would not present any significant Technical Social Inclusion Help reduce sense of community severance at south junction but not technical difficulties, and is considered to be feasible to construct. at the centre junction, although link road helps. A937/B9120 link road relatively close to oil pipeline. This package delivers a positive benefit due to the removal in There no significant operational issues envisaged with regard to a accidents relating to crossing the A90 at grade. Turning traffic at new grade separated junction. Closure of central junction and north Safety north and centre junctions would need to use south junction. Operational central reserve will push traffic to south junction but can be accommodated by new junction. Grade separation of the south junction will lead to significant journey This proposal has an outline cost estimate of approximately £21.9M time savings for turning traffic using the junction. The 50mph speed (2014 base).The existing infrastructure could be utilised at south Economy limit can be removed – minor individual journey time saving for A90 Financial junction wherever possible to limit the overall scheme cost. mainline traffic but high cumulative savings. Some additional journey Operational/maintenance costs are envisaged to be nominal in sum mileage from north and centre junctions, due to some banned turns. Proposal provides a positive fit with land use policy including This option is likely to meet with public acceptability as the grade Aberdeen City and Shire SDP, Aberdeenshire LDP and Angus LDP. Public separated junction addressed crossing issues and supports Integration development. May be some concern with central reserve closures Acceptability linked to extended journeys and increase in traffic in south section of High Street. This section identifies key impacts and tensions across the sub-criteria The new grade separated junction would have a minor negative impact on visual amenity and minor detrimental impact on the existing landscape, as would the new A937/B9120 link road. It is estimated four dwellings would suffer minor negative impact in terms of noise. Environment Very minor increases in PM10 and NO2, due to increased mileage as a result of centre junction and north central reserve closures. Package 5 is considered to have neutral impacts on other environmental sub-criteria.

Transport Planning Objectives Objective: Description of Objective Objective: Description of Objective To achieve a reduction in accidents at or on immediate approach to To achieve an improvement in network efficiency experienced by the A90 Laurencekirk Junctions and as a result of traffic turning or traffic travelling on the A90 and accessing and crossing the A90 at TPO 1: TPO 3: crossing at the junctions. the Laurencekirk junctions in order to support sustainable economic growth in south Aberdeenshire and north Angus To achieve a significant improvement in the attitude towards safety at TPO 2: the A90 Laurencekirk junctions by reducing the delay and improving TPO 4: To enable safe crossing of the A90 by sustainable modes. the opportunities to cross the A90. To contribute to the High Street’s role as a central place for the TPO 5: continued vitality of the Laurencekirk community.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 15-17 SECTION SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Option Summary Table Study Title: Access to Laurencekirk Option Title: Package 6

Capital Costs/grant (2010 Prices) £29.1M : Package 6 – grade separation of the A90 south junction and grade separation of Annual Revenue Support (2010 Prices) N/A north junction Present Value (PV) of Cost to £28.27M Government

Monetary Monetary Impacts (Monetary and Non-Monetary) only (£m) impact ratio ------0 + ++ +++ (if relevant) (if relevant) Summary of Accessibility and Social Inclusion ++ - - impact on the Environment - - -0.29 - five STAG Integration ++ - - criteria Safety +++ 2.48 -

++ 18.25 - Economy NPV: -7.83 BCR: 0.72

Including Wider Economic NPV(WEB): BCR(WEB) Benefits :

Assessment ------0 + ++ +++ against TPO Target 1: +++ Transport TPO Target 2: +++ Planning TPO Target 3: +++ Objectives TPO Target 4: ++ TPO Target 5: 0

Contribution toward the Government Purpose:

Improve safety of journeys by reducing accidents and enhancing the personal safety of road users. (National Indicator “Reduce deaths on Scotland’s roads”)

Improve journey times and connections, to tackle congestion (National Indicator “Reduce Traffic Congestion”).

Promote economic growth by building, enhancing, and managing transport services, infrastructure and networks to maximise their efficiency.

15-18 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS STAG Criteria Implementability Appraisal Criterion: Supporting Information Criterion: Supporting Information

Accessibility & Would provide a moderate improvement for sustainable modes The construction of a grade separated junction at the existing Laurencekirk of travel as helps crossing A90 at both north and south south junction would not present any significant technical difficulties, and is Social Technical junctions, as well as helping elderly drivers. Help reduce sense considered to be feasible to construct. North junction is near oil pipeline – Inclusion of community severance at both junctions. may affect design. This package delivers a significant positive benefit due to the There no significant operational issues envisaged with regard to the new reduction in accidents at south and north junctions. Some grade separated junctions. . Safety turning vehicles may also re-route from centre junction to either Operational north or south junctions, thereby reducing its accident record.

Grade separation of the north and south junctions will lead to This proposal has an outline cost estimate of approximately £37.1M (2014 significant journey time savings for turning traffic using the base).The existing infrastructure could be utilised at both junctions wherever Economy junctions. The 50mph speed limit can be removed – minor Financial possible to limit the overall scheme cost. Operational/maintenance costs are individual journey time saving for A90 mainline traffic but high envisaged to be nominal in sum cumulative savings. Proposal provides a positive fit with land use policy including Public This option is likely to meet with public acceptability as the grade separated Integration Aberdeen City and Shire SDP, Aberdeenshire LDP and Angus LDP. Acceptability junctions addressed crossing issues and supports development.

This section identifies key impacts and tensions across the sub-criteria The new grade separated junctions would have a negative impact on visual amenity and moderate detrimental impact on the existing landscape. It is estimated eight dwellings would suffer minor negative impact in terms of noise. Environment Very minor increases in PM10 and NO2, due to increased mileage as a result of slightly longer side roads. Package 6 is considered to have neutral impacts on other environmental sub-criteria.

Transport Planning Objectives Objective: Description of Objective Objective: Description of Objective To achieve a reduction in accidents at or on immediate To achieve an improvement in network efficiency experienced by traffic approach to the A90 Laurencekirk Junctions and as a result of travelling on the A90 and accessing and crossing the A90 at the TPO 1: TPO 3: traffic turning or crossing at the junctions. Laurencekirk junctions in order to support sustainable economic growth in south Aberdeenshire and north Angus To achieve a significant improvement in the attitude towards TPO 2: safety at the A90 Laurencekirk junctions by reducing the delay TPO 4: To enable safe crossing of the A90 by sustainable modes. and improving the opportunities to cross the A90. To contribute to the High Street’s role as a central place for the TPO 5: continued vitality of the Laurencekirk community.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 15-19 SECTION SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Option Summary Table Study Title: Access to Laurencekirk Option Title: Package 7

Capital Costs/grant (2010 Prices) £29.2M Package 7 – grade separation of the A90 south junction and grade separation of Annual Revenue Suppor t (2010 Prices) N/A north junction with closure of the centre junction except for left in/out from B9120 Present Value (PV) of Cost to Government £28.17M (east side)

Monetary Monetary Impacts (Monetary and Non-Monetary) only (£m) impact ratio ------0 + ++ +++ (if relevant) (if relevant) Summary of Accessibility and Social Inclusion + - - impact on the five Environment - - -0.36 - STAG criteria Integration ++ - -

Safety +++ 2.58 -

++ 14.48 - Economy NPV: -11.47 BCR: 0.59

Including Wider Economic NPV(WEB): BCR(WEB) Benefits :

Assessment ------0 + ++ +++ against Transport TPO Target 1: +++ Planning TPO Target 2: +++ Objectives TPO Target 3: +++ TPO Target 4: ++ TPO Target 5: -

Contribution toward the Government Purpose:

Improve safety of journeys by reducing accidents and enhancing the personal safety of road users. (National Indicator “Reduce deaths on Scotland’s roads”)

Improve journey times and connections, to tackle congestion (National Indicator “Reduce Traffic Congestion”).

Promote economic growth by building, enhancing, and managing transport services, infrastructure and networks to maximise their efficiency.

15-20 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ SECTION SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS STAG Criteria Implementability Appraisal Criterion: Supporting Information Criterion: Supporting Information The construction of a grade separated junction at the existing Would provide a moderate improvement for sustainable modes of Laurencekirk south junction would not present any significant Accessibility & travel when crossing A90 at both north and south junctions, as well Technical technical difficulties, and is considered to be feasible to as helping elderly drivers. Help reduce sense of community Social Inclusion construct. North junction is near oil pipeline – may affect severance at both junctions but not at the centre junction. design. This package delivers a significant positive benefit due to the There no significant operational issues envisaged with regard reduction in accidents at south and north junctions. Closure of most to the new grade separated junctions or closure of the majority Safety of centre junction will significantly improve its accident record, Operational of the centre junction. although re-routed traffic from B9120 (east) will transfer minor accident risk. Grade separation of the north and south junctions will lead to This proposal has an outline cost estimate of approximately significant journey time savings for turning traffic. The 50mph speed £37.2M (2014 base).The existing infrastructure could be Economy limit can be removed – minor individual journey time saving for A90 Financial utilised at both junctions wherever possible to limit the overall mainline traffic but high cumulative savings. There would be some scheme cost. Operational/maintenance costs are envisaged to additional mileage from centre junction due to its closure. be nominal in sum Proposal provides a positive fit with land use policy including This option is likely to meet with public acceptability as the Aberdeen City and Shire SDP, Aberdeenshire LDP and Angus LDP. grade separated junctions addressed crossing issues and Integration Public Acceptability supports development. May be some concern with centre junction closure due to increased local journey length. This section identifies key impacts and tensions across the sub-criteria The new grade separated junctions would have a negative impact on visual amenity and moderate detrimental impact on the existing landscape. Environment It is estimated six dwellings would suffer minor negative impact in terms of noise. Very minor increases in PM10 and NO2, due to increased mileage as a result of slightly longer side roads and closure of centre junction. Package 7 is considered to have neutral impacts on other environmental sub-criteria. Transport Planning Objectives Objective: Description of Objective Objective: Description of Objective To achieve a reduction in accidents at or on immediate approach to To achieve an improvement in network efficiency experienced the A90 Laurencekirk Junctions and as a result of traffic turning or by traffic travelling on the A90 and accessing and crossing the TPO 1: crossing at the junctions. TPO 3: A90 at the Laurencekirk junctions in order to support sustainable economic growth in south Aberdeenshire and north Angus To achieve a significant improvement in the attitude towards safety at TPO 2: the A90 Laurencekirk junctions by reducing the delay and improving TPO 4: To enable safe crossing of the A90 by sustainable modes. the opportunities to cross the A90. To contribute to the High Street’s role as a central place for the TPO 5: continued vitality of the Laurencekirk community.

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’ 15-21 SECTION SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

. Conclusions and Next Steps The Access to Laurencekirk study has been carried out in accordance with STAG. Extensive stakeholder engagement, data collection and desktop analysis has been undertaken to identify the problems, issues, constraints and opportunities associated with current and future access to the town and the A90. This has formed an evidence base for the development of TPOs that specify what any potential intervention should seek to achieve. This report includes the STAG Part 1 Initial Appraisal and STAG Part 2 Detailed Appraisal of the potential interventions, with a clear rationale for selection or rejection at each stage. 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 facilitate economic development. Improvement at the A90/A937 south junction 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 as part of this study has revealed a very clear preference for junction improvement strategies that include grade separation of the 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.

15-22 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG REPORT – FINAL DRAFT’