Transport Technical Note

TRANSPORT TECHNICAL NOTE

November 2011

TRANSPORT TECHNICAL NOTE

November 2011

Version 3.0

Version Date Description Comment 0.1 to 04/11 to 06/11 Pre draft versions for discussion with Confidential / limited 0.4 SESplan, SEStran and Transport Scotland circulation 1.0 03/06/11 First draft Joint Committee Paper (13/06/11) 2.0 23/06/11 Incorporates amendments following Joint Committee Paper technical notes member authority (26/07/11) workshop session (21/06/11) 2.1 11/07/11 Further amendment following Board Joint Committee Paper Meeting 01/07/11_ (26/07/11) 3.0 27/09/11 Accommodating Editorial Changes Editorial change version

CONTENTS

LIST OF APPENDICES 3

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES 4

1 INTRODUCTION 5

Context to the TTN considering transport within the wider strategic framework of the SDP. 5

2 BACKGROUND 7

Main issues Report (May 2010) 7

Transport Technical Note (May 2010) 7

Transport Scotland’s Consultation Response to MIR (27 August 2010) 8

3 ACCESSIBILITY ANALYSIS AND STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN ASSESSMENT 10

Stage 1: Accessibility Analysis 10

Stage 2: Strategic Development Plan Assessment (accounting for committed transport 11 schemes)

Stage 3: Analysis of SDP, committed transport schemes and a set of complementary transport 26 schemes

4 IMPLICATIONS FOR THE SDP 30

Transport within the context of the wider SDP 30

Growth aspirations result in network deterioration 31

SDP and Action programme 32

5 APPENDICES 33

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: MVA Consultancy Note 2 Version 4: Accessibility Analysis.

Appendix 2: MVA Consultancy Note 6 Version 6.2: SESplan Strategic Development Plan Assessment

Appendix 3: MVA Consultancy Note 7 Version 1.4: Transport Measures for SDP

Appendix 4: MVA Consultancy Note 8 Version 8.0: SESplan SDP assessment

Appendix 5: SESplan response to Transport Scotland’s MIR representations (extract from MIR responses)

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Figure 1 Time Lost Due to Congestion Local Authorities and Edinburgh (hours, annual) 13

Table 1 Constraints from a regional perspective – 2032 reference case forecast with SDP 14

Table 2 Corridors and Measures 17

Table 3 The ‘Do something’ test 27

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This Transport Technical Note (TTN) has been prepared to inform the development of the SESplan Strategic Development Plan (SDP). The TTN is informed by the SESplan Main Issues Report and the associated Technical Note (May 2010) and presents the findings of the MVA Consultancy (MVA) studies, a process managed by SEStran on behalf of SESplan. The TTN provides a summary overview of the findings of the MVA study per stage. The complete Information Notes produced by MVA associated with each stage are contained within Appendices 1 – 4. The TTN provides the basis for the SDP policy in relation to transportation.

1.2 The TTN contains:

The findings of an Accessibility Analysis of settlements within the SESplan area; The findings of analysis of the impact of the SDP and committed transport schemes using established network based key performance indicators; The findings of analysis of the impact of the implementation of a set of complementary schemes to accompany the SDP on these key performance indicators; and, The implications of the MVA modelling work for the Strategic Development Plan.

1.3 The TTN should be read in conjunction with other background documents including:

Housing Technical Note; Spatial Strategy Assessment Technical Note; Economy Technical Note; Green Belt Technical Note; Green Network Technical Note; Strategic Environmental Assessment;

The TTN has informed the SDP. The SDP and the TTN inform the Action Programme.

Context to the TTN, considering transport within the wider strategic framework of the SDP

1.4 The TTN is set within the context of the wider strategy for the SDP. The SDP supports sustainable economic growth within the SESplan area. The SDP identifies three main drivers of sustainable economic growth:

Climate Change; Demographic Change; and, The Economy.

1.5 In terms of climate change, the SDP seeks to set the spatial framework to support the achievement of the Scottish Government Target to reduce CO2 emissions by 40% by 2020 and

by reducing CO2 emissions by 80% by 2030. Reducing the need to travel and promoting the use of sustainable modes of transport will contribute to this aim.

1.6 Demographic change is a key driver for the plan. Over the period 2006 – 2031, the population of the SESplan area is projected to increase by 16%1 and the number of households is expected to increase by 28.2% (during the plan period)2. The SESplan HNDA identified 18,950 households as currently being in housing need. This requirement will be met through the SDP, which has an obligation to ensure that sufficient developable and marketable housing land is available throughout the period.

1.7 The SDP sets an ambitious framework for economic growth within the SESplan area in recognition of the potential contribution of South East Scotland to the national economy. The SDP provides the spatial framework for economic growth and land use requirements of key sectors as set out in the Economy Technical Note.

1.8 Meeting the identified level of housing need and economic growth aspirations, has implications for the transport network within the SESplan area. The network is already heavily constrained and particular stretches and junctions will come under further pressure without any further housing development. It is acknowledged that whilst transport network congestion is a product of increasing travel demands, the location of additional houses can to a greater or lesser extent, exacerbate existing congestion. In addressing improvements to the network it is recognised that the constraints on public sector spending will last for some time and previous levels of developer contributions are unlikely to be obtained. As a result, improvements to the network will inevitably struggle to meet the rate of economic growth.

1 Source: GROS (2009) Population and Household Projections for Scotland’s Strategic Development Planning Areas (2006 – based)

Published 14 July 2009. 2 SESplan (2011) Housing Technical Note Table 18: 2006 Based GROS Household Projections

2 BACKGROUND

2.1 This TTN builds upon the SESplan MIR and the accompanying Transport Technical Note (May 2010).

Main Issues Report (May 2010)

2.2 The preferred approach as set out in the MIR was to guide new development, where possible, to locations that are well served by public transport or accessible by walking or cycling, thereby reducing the need to travel by private car, reducing the impact on CO2 emissions and air quality, and encouraging the use of more sustainable modes of transport. The MIR envisaged that the SDP would improve accessibility and transport choice for all sectors of the community and safeguard land for potential improvements to the transport network.

2.3 The MIR gave a commitment for the SDP to support medium and long term proposals including:

the Forth Replacement Crossing with its associated public transport strategy; Edinburgh Airport enhancements; improvements to the Edinburgh to Glasgow rail line; upgrading of Sheriffhall roundabout on the A720 and at Redhouse on the A92; the re-opening of the Airdrie to Bathgate rail line (subsequently opened); the development of the Borders Railway; the construction of the Edinburgh tram network with extensions into West Lothian and Fife; the Edinburgh Orbital Bus scheme; improvements along the M8 and M9; and the completion of Park and Ride sites and public transport priority on strategic corridors.

2.4 The MIR sets out SESplan’s commitment to work collaboratively with Transport Scotland, SEStran and other partners to encourage the use of public transport, walking and cycling and to ultimately achieve a more sustainable community which will contribute to achieving the 40% reduction target of CO2 emissions by 2020 set by the Scottish Government. This joint work included further appraisal of the transport implications of the proposals for growth in the MIR. This built on work already undertaken in respect of the Edinburgh and the Lothians Structure Plan and the Accessibility modeling work undertaken during the development of the MIR and in support of the appraisal of the SDP itself.

2.5 New development that generates significant volumes of goods movement will be guided to locations well served by rail or sea. Where movement by lorry is inevitable, development will be guided to locations close to the motorway or trunk road network. In this context the SDP will support improvement of ports on the Forth and access to them by rail and road as necessary and appropriate.

Transport Technical Note (May 2010)

2.6 The Transport Technical Note (May 2010), set out an overview of transport issues for the SESPlan area. It is noted that traffic volumes have been growing rapidly, on average around 1.5% per annum. This trend is expected to continue potentially exacerbating existing congestion hotspots particularly the A720 City Bypass, the A701 and A7 in Midlothian, the western

approaches into Edinburgh, the A92 corridor through Fife and the approaches to the Forth Bridgehead on the M90 / A90 corridor.

2.7 As detailed within the MIR Monitoring Statement Appendix C, improvements to transport infrastructure are set out within the Local Transport Strategy and the Strategic Transport Projects Review. There has been progress in delivering transport projects within the SESplan area including the M9 Spur, A68 Dalkeith Bypass and the strategic ring of park and ride facilities at Hermiston, Ingliston, Straiton and Sheriffhall and planning consent for Lothianburn but schemes such as the Borders Rail Line, Gogar Interchange and the completion of Phase 1A of the tram are still to be implemented.

2.8 The TTN (2010) provided an overview of the Stage 1: Accessibility Analysis undertaken by MVA consultancy. An updated version of this analysis is contained within this TTN and located at Appendix 1. Based on this analysis the TTN (2010) presents some issues for the strategic development plan. It is stated that the approved Structure Plans already identify a significant amount of land for development. However, delivery has been slowed, due to the lack of infrastructure provision caused in part by the current economic downturn and lower than expected developer contributions. The SDP must therefore build on these existing allocations maximising existing transport infrastructure and capitalising on key transport commitments. This approach will allow for development to come forward whilst also assisting the shift towards the greater use of public transport thereby reducing traffic growth.

2.9 The TTN (2010) outlined the requirement for further transport assessment work, noting that the accessibility analysis undertaken to inform the MIR was a first stage in ensuring the integration of transport and land use planning in the preparation of the SDP. The note advised that a transport assessment of the SDP is required, the outcomes of which would inform the preparation of the SDP.

Transport Scotland’s consultation response on MIR (27 August 2010)

2.10 Transport Scotland provided a response to the consultation on the MIR on 17 August 2010. The response set out that, in broad terms, the proposed policy approach in respect of transport and other infrastructure is in line with SPP. Transport Scotland identified three key issues in their consultation response:

The need for appraisal

2.11 The proposed modelling exercise was welcomed by Transport Scotland. There is an expectation that it will be continued and completed and based on the outputs of the HNDA. Transport Scotland expressed concern at a lack of assessment of potential cumulative impact of the allocations on the strategic transport network, the trunk road and rail network within the SESplan area. The consequences of SDP policy need to be understood by SESplan and Scottish Government. It is not appropriate to leave appraisal of interventions to the LDP or Local Transport Strategy level.

Clarity of delivery responsibilities

2.12 The Proposed Plan (and Action Programme) will need to be accurate in terms of identifying who has responsibility for delivering specific elements of infrastructure. The Action Programme is subject to consultation and all those bodies cited as being expected to deliver services or infrastructure will have to give their approval before the programme is published. The SDP should not predicate any allocations which rely on the delivery of the Strategic Transport Projects Review (STPR) interventions within a specific timeframe. Beyond the current STPR priorities, the remaining interventions will be determined by the output of future spending reviews. The SDP should not therefore make assumptions about the timing of delivery of STPR interventions.

2.13 The MIR and Appendix C of the Monitoring Statement outline requirements including a number of strategic transport interventions from existing policies and plans. The strategic interventions listed have varying status with regard to deliverability and funding. The Scottish Government is incorrectly listed as being responsible for delivering a number of interventions which do not form either part of STPR or Transport Scotland’s current investment programme. As previously stated, the timing national interventions outside of STPR priorities are dependent on future spending reviews.

Rail infrastructure

2.14 Transport Scotland does not support proposed new rail stations as listed in Appendix C of the Monitoring Report. A number of the new stations detailed risk adversely affecting the Scottish Government’s priorities for the national rail network.

2.15 The Transport Scotland response to the MIR was considered alongside other responses to the MIR. The SESplan response to the MIR consultation is contained at Appendix 5.

3 ACCESSIBILITY ANALYSIS AND STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN ASSESSMENT

3.1 The MVA Consultancy (MVA) modelling process was managed by SEStran on behalf of SESplan to support the development of the SDP. This section sets out the MVA process and presents the key findings within the context of the SDP. The following section builds upon the MVA analysis and sets out policy implications for the SDP.

3.2 The full versions of the MVA Information Notes referred to in this section are contained within Appendices 1 – 4. Analysis of the outcomes of the modelling exercise, from the perspective of the implications for the SDP, is presented in the following section. The MVA methodology is based on a three stage process:

Stage 1: Accessibility analysis; Stage 2: Analysis of SDP and committed transport schemes; and, Stage 3: Analysis of SDP, committed transport schemes and a set of complementary transport schemes and other measures.

The MVA analysis therefore enables a cumulative and cross border assessment of the impacts of the SDP and presents findings based on key indicators differentiated through modelling a series of transport interventions.

Stage 1: Accessibility analysis

3.3 The Accessibility Analysis undertaken by MVA provides an assessment of possible residential development locations being considered for future development as part of the SDP at a settlement level. The analysis developed through an accession modelling technique can be regarded as a first phase sift of potential development locations. The Accessibility Analysis presents conclusions as to the sustainability of locations based on both regional and local accessibility.

3.4 The focus of the Accessibility Analysis is on access by public transport (regional) and or walk / cycle (local). Regional accessibility is undertaken on the basis of access to employment, hospital and retail parks whereas local accessibility relates to access to GPs, secondary schools and local retail. It is noted that at a regional level, the access to retail is based upon access to retail parks rather than town centre locations. This is not fully in keeping with the ‘network of centres’ hierarchy as set out within the SDP which supports the town centre first principle of development. It is, however considered that the analysis can still be used to compare or prioritise development between locations or alternatively it can be used to present a rationale to improve the accessibility to certain locations. The selection of retail parks was an attempt to capture the type of travel which people typically undertake to regional rather than local / closest destinations.

3.5 The analysis is undertaken within the context of Scottish Government policy direction which seeks to minimise the overall need to travel, maximise the opportunities for active travel, maximise the potential for the use of public transport and minimise associated car travel. The process is supplemented through analysis of 2001 Census Travel to Work data in order to give consideration to the mode share of travel to work by settlement, the percentage of settlement residents working in the City of Edinburgh area and percentage of settlement residents working locally (within their own settlement). The Accessibility Analysis also recognises the benefits of locations within larger settlements, and as such excludes large conurbations from the appraisal.

3.6 The findings of the accessibility analysis are contained within Appendix 1 and set out by regional accessibility and local accessibility. The accessibility analysis enables an understanding of the locations which score well on both measures i.e. regional and local accessibility. These locations are identified as Musselburgh, Hermiston Gait, Loanhead Galashiels, Inverkeithing, Livingston, Dunfermline, Newcraighall, Danderhall. The locations which ‘score’ most poorly are: Newcastleton, Yetholm, Pencaitland, West Linton, Longniddry, Gullane, East Linton, and Oakley.

3.7 There is a connection between the Accessibility Analysis and the modelling exercise undertaken by MVA (Stage 2 and Stage 3 as set out below). The planning data (land allocations) which formed the basis of the modelling work was provided by the local authorities, the selection of which was informed by the Accessibility Analysis. In addition, the Accessibility Analysis informs the SDP in respect of:

The Spatial Strategy Assessment (SSA) – The Accessibility Analysis underpins criterion i) Accessibility, of the Stage 2 Assessment of the SSA. As part of this process the MVA analysis has been used to assess the relative accessibility of areas across the SESplan area.

Housing Technical Note (HTN) – The distribution of the housing land shortfall across the SESplan area is based upon the SSA and the SESplan Housing Needs and Demand Assessment. The Accessibility Analysis, through the SSA, has a role in identifying areas with capacity for development

Stage 2: Strategic Development Plan Assessment (accounting for committed transport schemes)

3.8 The second element of the MVA three stage process was to build on the findings of the Accessibility Analysis, and model the allocations as set out within the SDP. This ‘reference case’ scenario includes committed transport schemes. The full report produced by MVA is set out at Appendix 2.

Strong alignment between TELMoS, GROS 2006 and HNDA

3.9 The MVA study models the SDP allocations through the TELMoS (Transport Economic Land-use Model of Scotland). On this basis the MVA study seeks to demonstrate commonalities between TELMoS and the GROS (General Register Office for Scotland) data which underpinned the analysis within the MIR. The MVA comparison demonstrates that:

TELMoS matches the GROS 2006 based forecasts of households and population to 2032 well at the SESplan level: the distribution through the model of the additional population / households through the model closely reflects the programming details of housing allocations provided by the SESplan member authorities; employment land allocations are very high (and therefore not fully built out), particularly in Fife and West Lothian, and that employment growth is focused in Edinburgh.

The conclusion of this analysis is that TELMoS presents similar outcomes to GROS and, on this basis, can be used to model the transport assessment of the SDP.

3.10 As part of the MIR, the preferred housing approach (Scenario 1) made use of GROS projections adjusted downwards to take account of the recession as a measure of demand (166,400 units) which when compared to existing supply resulted in a need for an additional 27,000 units. The alternative MIR approach (Scenario 2) used the GROS projections as published as a measure of demand (185,300 units).

3.11 The SESplan HNDA uses GROS 2006 as an input but is more sophisticated, resulting in a lower demand figure than GROS (155,600 compared to 185,300). By means of the use of the GROS 2006 projections, the MVA analysis assumes a higher level of demand than the SDP, and accordingly presents a higher growth scenario. In terms of key indicators, it is considered that the MVA analysis presents a high growth scenario or a ‘worst case’ scenario in terms of congestion.

3.12 There are a number of key factors which ensure that the modelling of TELMoS (given its commonalities with the GROS 2006 data which underpinned the MIR) can be understood as a fair representation of the HNDA which underpins the SDP. This is based on an examination of the commonalities between the GROS 2006 data and the HNDA:

GROS 2006 and HNDA make use of the same population projections. The use of the HNDA and the Housing Land Audit (2010) results in a need to identify land for 4,000 extra dwellings over the plan period. However, this 4,000 as a proportion of the overall number of houses allocated within the plan is very small (less than 1%), and taking account of distributional effects across the SESplan area, the impact is insignificant.

It is intended that there will be a final consolidated run of the model to make use of the final SDP inputs.

Committed transport schemes as part of the ‘reference case’

3.13 The MVA assessment makes use of TELMoS to undertake analysis of the SDP allocations. TELMoS provides highly disaggregated demographic and economic data (including increasing car ownership) at the fine spatial level required for the transport demand forecasting model. The following committed transport schemes as identified within the Regional Transport Strategy were included as part of the reference case forecast (i.e. it is assumed that these transport proposals will definitely be implemented):

A68 Dalkeith Northern Bypass (opened post 2007 base year); Borders Railway; Airdrie to Bathgate re-opening (opened post 2007 base year); Shotts line improvements (introduced post 2007 base year); Edinburgh Glasgow Improvement programme including Edinburgh Gateway train / tram interchange; Forth Replacement Crossing; Clackmannanshire Bridge (opened post 2007 base year); and Edinburgh trams (Airport to Ocean Terminal).

Findings of ‘reference case’

3.14 Based on this analysis, the reference case analysis presents information based on forecast traffic levels, congestion, peak spreading and public transport use. The forecast suggests a tapering off of the growth in traffic (vehicle kilometers) in the SESplan area across the period as follows: 2007-2019: +1.5% per annum; 2019-2024: +0.9% per annum; and 2024-2032: +0.8% per annum. The level of growth over the period reflects the trends of the past 10 years (prior to the recession), and represents total growth over the period 2007 -2032 of 34% (an average of 1.2% per annum) As set out in Figure 1, hours lost due to congestion increase over the period by a factor of 2.5 by 2032, and are higher outside Edinburgh. Figure 1 Time Lost Due to Congestion Local Authorities and Edinburgh (hours, annual)

(Source: MVA Consultancy Information Note 6. Version 6.1)

3.15 The reference case presents findings in terms of peak spreading within the 2007 base year model 2.5 % of traffic being defined as being held over to the ‘next time period’, but by 2032 this figure is forecast to increase to 9.4%. In terms of public transport use, making use of the aggregate measure of total boardings across the network, overall use is expected to rise by 3% over the plan period.

3.16 In summary, the assessment of the SDP, accounting for committed schemes, indicates that traffic growth is expected to continue over the course of the plan period, reflecting population growth / demographic change, growth in car ownership and economic growth. As a consequence, the hours lost to congestion increases, peak hour congestion per vehicle kilometre doubles, and public transport use only sees modest growth.

What does this mean for the network?

3.17 The table below sets out a list of transport issues set out by Strategic Development Area.

Table 1: Constraints from a regional perspective – 2032 reference case forecast with SDP

SDA Constraints from a regional perspective – 2032 ref case forecast with ‘SDP’

Pressure on junctions north of Kincardine Bridge 1 Increasing delays on A985 and A907 Fife West Lack of rail link to Edinburgh

Increase in junction delays in and around Dunfermline 2 Deterioration in level of service on various routes in and around Dunfermline Dunfermline Forth Replacement Crossing does not provide significant further cross Forth capacity Area Some uncertainty surrounding Forth Replacement Crossing public transport strategy Surplus P&R capacity exists – market exhaustion? General deterioration of level of service on A92 west of A910 3 Increased delays on A92 through Glenrothes Glenrothes Increased delays at Redhouse roundabout causing knock on delays on B981 in Kirkcaldy / Kirkcaldy Cross Forth road and rail capacity issues also affect this area

Increase in delay on A921 approaching Dalgety Bay / Inverkeithing 4 Cross Forth road and rail capacity issues also affect this area Fife South

Increased delays on A915 between Leven and Kirkcaldy 5 Delays at A915 / A916 /A911 junction Fife East Delays on A915 east of Leven Cross Forth road and rail capacity issues also affect this area Increased junction delays in Linlithgow and at B8046 / A904 junction 6 General deterioration in level of service on M9 / A904 M9 Corridor Lack of rail station at new Winchburgh development Significant capacity issues in and approaching west Edinburgh area Increased delays at junctions in Bathgate, Armadale and Whitburn 7 Significant deterioration of level of service on M8

SDA Constraints from a regional perspective – 2032 ref case forecast with ‘SDP’

West West Increased delays on A801 and A7066 Lothian Significant capacity issues in and approaching west Edinburgh area

Selected junctions in Broxburn and Livingston under pressure 8 A899 (Livingston), A71 and A89 all see increased delays M8 Corridor

Increased delays on M9 Spur 9 Barnton junction a significant capacity constraint North West Delays appearing through Kirkliston Edinburgh Significant capacity issues in and approaching west Edinburgh area

Increased delays on A8, Gogar, Edinburgh Park area 10 Generally high levels of congestion in base year, significant deterioration is forecast West Edinburgh

Increase in delays along A70 and A71 approaches to Edinburgh 11 Growth in congestion around Hermiston Gait and Calder junction South West Edinburgh

A720 already operating at or near capacity in base year peak hours 12 Increase in delays forecast on A720 and associated junctions South Edinburgh

A720 already operating at or near capacity in base year peak hours 13 Very significant increase in delays forecast on eastern stretches of the A720 and associated junctions South East including Sheriffhall and Old Craighall Edinburgh

No detailed modelling available 14

Central Edinburgh

No detailed modelling available 15

North East Edinburgh

No detailed modelling available 16

Edinburgh Waterfront

Widespread and significant additional congestion across the modelled area of west Edinburgh suggests a 17 significant constraint on growth in this area North

SDA Constraints from a regional perspective – 2032 ref case forecast with ‘SDP’

Edinburgh

All accesses to Edinburgh employment areas under pressure 18 A6106, A68, A7, A768, B704 all see significant additional delays on approaches to Edinburgh A7 / A68 / Associated localised junction issues Borders Rail P&R capacity at Borders Railway stations may be insufficient Corridor

Increased junction delays along A701 19 Some additional delay on A702 from Penicuik junction approaching Lothianburn A701 Corridor

Modest deterioration on A6093, no issues on A68 in this area 20 A1 Old Craighall / Edinburgh Rural South Lothian Area

Increased congestion on A198, A1 approaching Edinburgh sees reduced level of service from Tranent to Old 21 Craighall and beyond East Lothian Access routes out of Tranent experiencing greater delays West Potential capacity issues on North Berwick train services

Networks operating within capacity in this area 22 A1 Old Craighall / Edinburgh main road issue East Lothian Potential capacity issues on North Berwick train services Central

Minor, but not significant delays on A198 coastal route 23 A1 Old Craighall / Edinburgh main road issue East Lothian Potential capacity issues on North Berwick train services Coastal

Networks operating within capacity in this area 24 A1 Old Craighall / Edinburgh main road issue East Lothian East

No significant regional issues in this area 25 Low levels of commuting to Edinburgh Eastern Borders

No significant regional issues in this area 26 Low levels of commuting to Edinburgh Lauder / Coldstream

SDA Constraints from a regional perspective – 2032 ref case forecast with ‘SDP’

Area

Some increase in delay on A699 (Selkirk – Kelso) 27 A6091 / A68 junction area seems small delays Central A6091 and routes through Galashiels see an increase in delay Low levels of commuting to Edinburgh but Borders Borders Railway significant

No significant regional issues in this area 28 Very low levels of commuting to Edinburgh South Borders

No significant regional issues in this area 29 2nd Tweed Crossing associated with further development at Peebles Western Borders

No significant regional issues in this area 30

West Linton Area. (Source MVA Consultancy Note 8 Version: 8.0)

What does this mean for transport measures?

3.18 The table below builds on Table 1 and sets out traffic growth alongside proportion of housing allocations and congestion data per SEStran Strategic Commuter Corridor, as defined in the SEStran Regional Transport Strategy (see Appendix 3 for further details on the Strategic Commuter Corridor. The correspondence between the SESplan SDAs and the SEStran RTS corridors is also shown. The table includes analysis of transport issues alongside considered schemes and potential SDP Action Programme schemes.

Table 2: Corridors and Measures

Corridor

19 19 32

- -

/ SESplan

32 (%) 32

SSAA -

number

c / vehkm) / c

19 (%) 19 (%) 32 (%) 32

- - -

1 - East 23 17 4.8 0.0 2.7 4.8 87 No significant Musselburgh QBC -  RTS schemed Lothian [Lo issues – significant programme of aimed at mode Coastal w] potentially measures through share targets 21, 23 congestion Musselburgh to link with through existing Greenways on

Corridor

19 19 32

- -

/ SESplan

32 (%) 32

SSAA -

number

c / vehkm) / c

19 (%) 19 (%) 32 (%) 32

- - -

2 - East 16 12 6.7 4.7 5.8 2.8 69 Increased New stopping service to  Pending Lothian [Lo delays at Old [East Linton] Dunbar, ScotRail / A1 / w] Craighall [Reston], Berwick upon Transport Borders junction – Tweed, to Newcastle Scotland study 20, 22, minor delays 24, 25 at A6094 junction, and A198 junction on A1 Delays on A1 Bankton Park and Ride –  from A199 Blindwells junction eastbound in AM peak, approaching capacity west of Old Craighall Musselburgh Parkway  Ruled out by station Transport Scotland - Implementabilt y Old Craighall junction  Proposals improvements under development / discussion

3 – 22 12 13. 9.4 11.6 5.7 67 Some Sheriffhall bus priority –  RTS schemed Midlothi 3 [Lo capacity A7 / A68: bus priority / aimed at mode an / w] issues at queue management to share targets Borders junctions on enable buses to avoid East A7 from queuing on approaches to 18, 26, Gorebridge Sheriffhall (this 27, 28 north requirement would be reviewed in the light of any grade separation at Sheriffhall) A7 around Pedestrian / cycling  Maximise Dalkeith Infrastructure to opportunities approaching complement Waverley capacity Railway Potential new railway station at Redheugh on

Corridor

19 19 32

- -

/ SESplan

32 (%) 32

SSAA -

number

c / vehkm) / c

19 (%) 19 (%) 32 (%) 32

- - -

Increased A7 / A68 bus priority  RTS schemed delays in area schemes aimed at mode south of share targets Sheriffhall roundabout A68 / A6124 Tram Line 3 to Dalkeith  Retain as a long junction term aspiration under increased pressure Minor issues Borders Railway to  Committed in Galashiels Tweedbank scheme and at A6091 / A68 junction A7 / A68 local junction  Local improvements improvements linked to developments

Potential new rail station at Redheugh on Borders Railway

Potential part and ride north of A68 / A720 junction

4 13 4 4.1 2.8 3.5 5.9 76 Increased Lothianburn P&R  RTS schemed Midlothi [Lo delays at aimed at mode an / w] junctions on share targets Borders A701 West between 19, 30, Penicuik and 29 Straiton Increased A701 Multi Modal Study  Midlothian delays on outcomes – Bilston Bypass Council scheme approach to and walk / cycle bus Lothianburn priority improvements junction Leadburn junction safety  improvements

Corridor

19 19 32

- -

/ SESplan

32 (%) 32

SSAA -

number

c / vehkm) / c

19 (%) 19 (%) 32 (%) 32

- - -

A68 local improvements  Tram Line 3 to Penicuik  Retain as a long term aspiration

5 West 18 13 0.2 0.0 0.1 3.2 11 Lack of bus Local traffic management  Lothian [Lo 1 priority on and junction A70 w] A70 between improvements / signal 11 Balerno and Wester Hailes Road is an issue – space constrained Increase delays on approach to Edinburgh Increased delays at A70 / Riccarton Mains Road junction

6 West 12 14 2.3 4.2 3.1 20. 87 A71 has high A71 Bus Priority measures  RTS schemed Lothian 4 V/C between on approach to Edinburgh aimed at mode A71 [Hi Livingston share targets 11, 8, 7 gh and ] Edinburgh A71 junctions Shotts Line service Implemented in between improvements December 2009 Livingston and Edinburgh also at capacity A71 delays Kirknewton level crossing  west of replacement – local safety Livingston scheme. Planning permission granted for underbridge and pedestrian crossing to west of the existing crossing. Agreement with Network Rail required regarding land acquisition. Delays approaching the City Bypass at Hermiston and junction at Riccarton

Corridor

19 19 32

- -

/ SESplan

32 (%) 32

SSAA -

number

c / vehkm) / c

19 (%) 19 (%) 32 (%) 32

- - -

7 West 13 6 9.8 12.1 10.8 19. 86 Increased 'Hub and spoke' PT to  New services Lothian 1 delays at all serve dispersed not includes in M8 [Hi key junctions employment locations in SDP 11, 8, 6, gh – Newbridge, Livingston area, 10 ] Gogar, throughout day and Maybury, evening Hermiston Deterioration Improved bus services  New services of level of from Livingston North not included in service across station to employment SDP many routes locations in the corridor Increased Livingston bus priority  delays in A89 measures corridor / Kirkliston Delays Improved P&R at West  increasing on Calder and Kirknewton A899 Livingston spine route New bus based P&R sites -  Heartlands, Winchburgh, Deer Park, Linlithgow Fastlink Phase 2 - Kirkton  Campus to Edinburgh – better services and facilities A8 Newbridge to Gogar –  bus priority M8 Bus Lane – Hard  Ruled out by shoulder running Transport Scotland M8 / A720 Managed  Traffic Motorway Study management measures measures New road link to  West Edinburgh Airport – from Edinburgh Gogar, and improvements Transport to Newbridge junction Appraisal (WETA) measure A89 Corridor  Infrastructure improvements – bus measures only service and infrastructure (priority) improvements New M8 junction at  Developer led - Whitburn Heartlands

Corridor

19 19 32

- -

/ SESplan

32 (%) 32

SSAA -

number

c / vehkm) / c

19 (%) 19 (%) 32 (%) 32

- - -

8 21 16 2.0 4.4 3.0 15. 13 Increased Improved bus links to  New services Edinburg 1 6 delays on stations and parking at not included in h – [M A904 stations - eg Bo'ness- SDP Linlithgo ed Linlithgow, Grangemouth w – ] to Falkirk High, Polmont Falkirk area 6, 9 Some M9 bus lane Linlithgow to  Ruled out by deterioration Newbridge Transport on M9 and its Scotland approaches to Newbridge Increased New station at  Ruled out by local delays Winchburgh Transport in Linlithgow Scotland Larger M9 junction for  Associated with impacts Winchburgh strategic beyond development SESplan area Forth Replacement  Details to be Crossing Public Transport confirmed Package M9 Junction 3 west facing Agreed in slips principle by Transport Scotland – developer funded

9 66 14 0.8 0.1 0.5 16. - New bridge No schemes – potentially Clackmannansh Kincardin 0 51 resolve main minor adjustments to new ire Bridge e [M issues – road layouts opened in 2008 1 ed congestion ] relieved in Kincardine. Some delays forecast at 2+1 merges on to new bridge

10 38 31 8.1 5.4 6.9 21. 29 Increased West Fife Quality Bus  Stirling – 6 1 delays on Corridor Alloa – [Hi A907, B910 Dunferml gh ine ] 1, 2 Significant New station at  Ruled out by increase in Dunfermline West Transport

Corridor

19 19 32

- -

/ SESplan

32 (%) 32

SSAA -

number

c / vehkm) / c

19 (%) 19 (%) 32 (%) 32

- - -

11 40 10 1.1 0.8 1.0 13. 89 Cross Forth  Queensf 4 car traffic erry [M demand 1, 2, 3, 4, ed continues to 5 ] exceed supply with the new Cross Forth ferry bridge in place – leading to increased peak spreading Barton  junction Expanded park and operating choose at Inverkeithing & beyond Dalgety Bay capacity Delays Dunfermline -  around A904 Inverkeithing / / A90 Dunfermline Halbeath Bus junction Priority measures

Corridor

19 19 32

- -

/ SESplan

32 (%) 32

SSAA -

number

c / vehkm) / c

19 (%) 19 (%) 32 (%) 32

- - -

Significant  delays on M9 spur associated with Park and Choose at northbound Rosyth and Halbeath and southbound merges and 2 to 1 lane reductions Forth Replacement  Crossing Public Transport Package Signalisation of Pitreavie  roundabout A90 northbound bus  priority Completion of SITCoS  Comprehensive bus rights-of-way network (inc A907, A823, Rosyth) Expanded park and  choose at Inverkeithing & Dalgety Bay

12 M90 13 7 1.4 0.2 0.9 14. 40 Deterioration  2, 3 6 6 of level of Forth Replacement [M service on Crossing and associated ed M90 Public Transport Package ] southbound  STPR scheme with P&R at Inverkeithing to Halbeath Halbeath and Railway revised Fife Circle

13 Fife 22 14 18. 10.3 14.8 8.7 12 Increased A92 based express buses,  New services Central 4 [M 8 delays on links at key interchanges - not included in 3, 5 ed A92 east of plus bus priority on routes SDP ] Lochgelly in 3 main towns (Dunfermline, Kirkcaldy, Glenrothes) including network of PT hubs Increased  delays in and New station at Kirkcaldy around East Kirkcaldy Levenmouth line re-  opening, with revised Fife Circle services

Corridor

19 19 32

- -

/ SESplan

32 (%) 32

SSAA -

number

c / vehkm) / c

19 (%) 19 (%) 32 (%) 32

- - -

A92 Redhouse  Interchange improvements Other A92 Junction  improvements – Bankhead, Preston

14 City 24 7 0 0 0 58. 11 City Bypass  SEStran Bypass / 2 8 operating at proposal – Outer [Hi capacity in potential Orbital gh base year synergies with Outer Orbital Buses & ] Transport associated Infrastructure Scotland managed motorway proposals Significant  Longer term delays Barnton Interchange extend for (associated with above) full length of route Significant  Longer term delays at all A720 junctions and Barnton – Maybury bus approach priority (associated with routes – above) Gilmerton, Straiton, Lothianburn, Dreghorn Major  Proposals deterioration under at and Old Craighall junction development / around improvements discussion Sheriffhall roundabout Sheriffhall Junction Grade  STPR scheme separation M8 / A720 Managed  Traffic Motorway Study management measures measures

Internal 22 9 27. 45.6 35.1 Congestion Edinburg 0 not analysed h in detail – buffer network Edinburg Further bus priority, on  h North key routes in the north Edinburgh corridor, eg Inverleith Row,

Corridor

19 19 32

- -

/ SESplan

32 (%) 32

SSAA -

number

c / vehkm) / c

19 (%) 19 (%) 32 (%) 32

- - -

Traffic Growth 2007 Traffic (%) Growth 2019 Traffic (%) Allocation Housing 2007 Allocation Housing 2019 Housing Total of Share 2007 Allocation Congestion Corridor (se 2032 congestion in Increase 2007 in Issues Traffic 2032 to Corridor Considered Schemes SDP? in Include Comments Queensferry Road, Dundas Street, Crewe Road South Newhaven-Airport,  Granton links Roseburn-Granton, long term Granton Newhaven trams Edinburg Gilmerton Road bus  h south- priority east and east Niddrie Mains Road bus  priority measures, etc Shawfair package of  Development measures specific Edinburg Further bus priority, eg  h south- Bridges, A702, A70, A701, east, A7, junction measures and Edinburg bus lanes h south, Edinburg h south- west Edinburg Tackle remaining bus  h west, priority bottlenecks, eg Edinburg Corstorphine (traffic h south management), Drum Brae, west Calder Road, Dalry / Gorgie, Queensferry Road Edinburg A702 bus priority (inc  Associated with h south Fairmilehead junction) Lothianburn P&R Edinburg Greendykes / ERI bus link  Bus link only h orbital & services inner New bus services - south  New services to east Edinburgh not included in SDP South Suburban railway  The case for the service has not been definitively made. Funding and implementabili ty issues

Others Grangemouth road and  STPR / NPF2 rail access upgrades – schemes including A801 Avon

Corridor

19 19 32

- -

/ SESplan

32 (%) 32

SSAA -

number

c / vehkm) / c

19 (%) 19 (%) 32 (%) 32

- - -

(Source: MVA consultancy Note Number 7 Version 1.4)

3.19 In summary, the reference case scenario indicates that congestion will increase and that there would be deterioration in terms of level of service at junctions and links across the SESplan area.

Stage 3: Analysis of SDP, committed transport schemes and a set of complementary transport schemes

3.20 Building on the committed transport schemes as set out in the reference case, the MVA analysis presents a ‘do something’ test based on the implementation of a proposed range of strategic corridor-based transport measures. The main elements as set out in the SEStran MVA modelling ‘do something test’ are set out below:

Table 3: ‘Do something’ test

Measure Location - Affects SESplan Strategic Purpose of Measure SEStran Development Areas Corridor Sheriffhall grade separation 14 – City Most Lothians – wide ranging Relieves key bottleneck on regional Bypass influence though network – also for A7 north / south movements and access to A68. City Bypass congestion will to some extent be displaced to Old Craighall & westbound carriageways though.

Measure Location - Affects SESplan Strategic Purpose of Measure SEStran Development Areas Corridor Redhouse roundabout 13 – Fife 3 & 5 but small region wide impact Relieves congestion at this key improvements Central interchange – mainly affects Fife – Dundee strategic movements. Old Craighall signalisation 20 - 25 Designed to control flow on A720 / A1 junction – should reduce delays and improve safety.

City Bypass bus service 14 – City Lothians & Borders Together with P&R sites, would improvements Bypass provide improved access to key employment centres. Would relieve A720 congestion and improve access to employment sites where parking is constrained. Gogar roundabout to 7 – M8 10 Provides a second access route to Edinburgh Airport link road Edinburgh Airport and is an integral part of the West Edinburgh development proposals. Relieves congestion on Eastfield Road. New M9 Winchburgh junction 8 – M9 6 Provides access to Winchburgh junction – relieves local network Levenmouth rail 13 – Fife 5 Provides rail access to the Central Levenmouth area. Encourages modal shift to rail with knock on congestion benefits. Cross forth ferry 11 - Primarily 1 to 5 New mode for cross Forth travel Queensferry would promote modal shift from car Rosyth Bypass 10 Alloa 1,2 Local congestion relief around A985 Dunfermline and Dunfermline. A801 River Gorge & 7 – M8 and 8 6-8 Improvements mainly aimed at goods Grangemouth access – M9 vehicle traffic on currently unsuitable improvements (STPR) route. New P&R sites at Kilpunt, 7 – M8, 8 – 6-11, 19 and 30 New park and ride sites encourage Winchburgh, Deer Park, M9 & 4 – modal shift from car and provide Bankton and Lothianburn Midlothian additional capacity. west Additional P&R capacity at Various All SESplan except City of Many P&R sites have constrained selected locations Edinburgh parking – a programme of expansion would encourage further modal shift and use. Edinburgh – Newcastle semi 2 – East 25, 24, 22, 21 New rail services at East Linton and fast with new stations at East Lothian A1 Reston, and improved frequency at Linton and Reston Drem – Musselburgh would promote further mode shift from car. Extensive bus priority on Various Various Bus priority can be used to enable regional corridors not currently buses to bypass congestion hot spots covered by bus priority and encourage modal shift from car through faster and more reliable

Measure Location - Affects SESplan Strategic Purpose of Measure SEStran Development Areas Corridor journey times.

(Source: MVA Consultancy, Note 6 Version 6.)

3.21 MVA drew the following conclusions from the ‘do something’ test at the regional level:

Peak hour congestion is reduced; Peak spreading is reduced; and, Public transport usage increases.

3.22 However, the impacts on traffic levels and congestion are small when viewed at the regional level. This is in the main due to the large amount of suppressed demand for car travel in the area. Additional road capacity provided, or made available through modal shift, is taken up by this suppressed demand. This leads to a small reduction in peak spreading however. Each of the proposals would of course have a more significant impact at the local level.

3.23 The forecast is based on standard WEBtag assumptions and the MIR land use / demographic scenario suggests that road traffic would continue to grow at 1.2% per annum over a 25 year period. The high level emissions analysis suggests that, in order to meet the 2020 emissions reduction target, traffic levels would in fact have to reduce by around 1.5% per annum.

3.24 In response to this, MVA then considered a ‘radical’ scenario which modelled a significant escalation in fuel prices and the implementation of parking charges across the SEStran area to reflect the Regional Parking Strategy. Whilst the full details are contained within Information Note 6 Version 6.2 (appendix 2), the analysis suggests that a policy package such as this would have a significant impact upon tempering traffic growth, and allied to vehicle efficiency improvements could go a long way towards meeting emissions reduction targets. MVA do note however, the scale of the measures required to invoke changes of this magnitude.

4 IMPLICATIONS FOR THE SDP

4.1 The MVA modelling exercise and associated analysis provides an assessment of the implications of the development strategy of SDP on the transport network through presenting findings across key indicators. The aim of this section of the Technical Note is to seek to present the findings within the wider context of the SDP, and present the potential implications for the transport chapter of the SDP. The MVA modelling process forms part of the evidence base underpinning the SDP and in this regard sits alongside technical work supporting the development of the SDP including the HNDA and the Spatial Strategy Assessment.

Transport within the context of the wider SDP

4.2 The stated vision of the SDP is as follows:

By 2032, the Edinburgh City Region is a healthier, more prosperous and sustainable place which continues to be internationally recognised as an outstanding area in which to live, work and do business.

4.3 The vision is ambitious and its achievement requires coordinated action to meet a set of closely related aims spanning a wide range of plans, programmes and projects in all sectors. The aims are to:

Enable growth in the economy by developing key economic sectors, acting as the national hub for development and supporting local and rural development. Set out a strategy to enable delivery of housing requirements to support growth and contribute to meeting housing need in the most sustainable locations. Integrate land use and transport, reduce the need to travel and cut carbon emissions by steering new development to the most sustainable locations. Conserve and enhance the natural and built environment. Promote green networks including through increasing woodland planting to increase competitiveness, enhance biodiversity and create more attractive, healthy places to live. Promote the development of urban and rural brownfield land for appropriate uses. Promote the provision of improved infrastructure to enhance connectivity within the area, between the area and other parts of the UK and elsewhere to support economic growth and meet the needs of communities. Contribute to the response to climate change and promote sustainability.

4.4 The SDP therefore has a stated aim to grow the economy, through acting as a national hub for development and to support this growth through meeting housing demand and need across the plan area. Whilst the SDP needs to be realistic and pragmatic, it also has to be aspirational. Within the wider context of the SDP, the transport network is balanced against other influential factors.

Growth aspirations result in network deterioration

4.5 The MVA analysis has indicated that under the ‘Reference Case’ scenario there is general deterioration to the network in terms of congestion at junctions and links roads associated with underlying economic, population and car ownership growth. As a baseline therefore, congestion is taken to increase within the SESplan area as we start from a position where much of the key network is already operating at capacity.

4.6 It is apparent from the MVA analysis that the planned land allocations to meet the SESplan area’s growth aspirations have a detrimental impact upon the transport key indicators, in terms of an increase in hours lost to congestion, a doubling of peak hour congestion per vehicle kilometre doubling with only modest growth in public transport. Furthermore, the MVA analysis of a ‘do something’ scenario suggests that the committed range of interventions do not make a significant impact upon addressing the deficiencies associated with the key indicators at the aggregate regional level. This is due to a large amount of suppressed demand within the system which quickly occupies any new capacity in the network. Each of the ‘do something’ schemes, however, are valuable in their own right and would assist in progressing towards the objectives of the Regional Transport Strategies.

4.7 The MVA analysis demonstrates that the SDP allocations accounting for existing committed improvements, and proposing further improvements also results in a suboptimal solution, not addressing the congestion on the network. A further ‘radical scenario’ demonstrates the scale of the measures required to have a demonstrable impact upon congestion on the network. Such a scenario was modelled in order to demonstrate the extent of interventions required to have an impact on reducing congestion and in practice, the fuel price and parking charge variables modelled within the radical scenario would sit outside of the scope of the SDP or associated Action Programme.

4.8 The analysis suggests that the aspirational nature of the SDP result in deterioration of the transport network within the SESplan area. This can be rationalised through the particular economic circumstances, public sector spending constraints and the relative importance of the SESplan area’s contribution to the Scottish economy.

4.9 In addition, as part of this consideration it is important to note two factors. Firstly, the MVA analysis notes that the SDP has only a limited impact upon the whole regional picture as the majority of the development is contained within the base ‘stock’ (some 540,000 dwellings, and of the allocated 145,000 dwellings around 80,000 are the legacy of previous structure plans. The MVA conclusion is that the SDP will only have ‘control’ of the location of around 10% of what will be the total housing stock by 2030. This suggests that limiting the aspirations of the SDP would not have a significant impact on addressing the detrimental impacts upon the network, as much of the land allocations are outside of the control of the SDP.

4.10 Secondly, a key assumption within the MVA analysis is that all of the allocated land will be built out by 2032. Such an assumption enables an analysis of the full impact of the SDP upon the

transport network within the SESplan area to be undertaken. However, in practice development would be phased in a manner which would enable an incremental assessment of the impact of the proposal upon the network. Such site specific considerations are not addressed at the SDP level. It is considered that the phasing of development should be addressed within LDPs. Policy 8: Transportation will address this issue and provide an appropriate context for policy development at LDP level.

SPD and Action programme

4.11 Policy 8: Transportation of the SDP will be developed to support the overarching vision and aims of the SDP and realise the opportunities presented by sustainable forms of transport. The plan will seek to capitalise on key transport commitments in terms of facilitating growth within the SESplan area. The SDP has a role in setting the context for LDPs and in particular providing a prompt for LDPs to set out a means to consider the phasing of development on the basis of the assessment of infrastructure provision.

4.12 The Action Programme has a critical role in setting out the means to deliver the SDP. The MVA analysis and the Transport Technical Note will underpin the transport intervention element of the Action Programme.

4.13 In addition, in recognition of the role of SESplan to consider cumulative and cross border impacts, SESplan will explore the principle of cross border developer contributions outwith the scope of the SDP preparation process.

5 APPENDICES

Appendix 1: MVA Consultancy Note 2 Version 4: Accessibility Analysis.

Information Note

Project Title: SESplan Accessibility Analysis

MVA Project Number: C3973900

Subject: Assessment of Potential Development Locations

Note Number: 2 Version: 4.2

Author(s): Scott Leitham

Reviewer(s):

Date: 14 July 2011

1 Introduction

1.1 This note provides an assessment of a range of residential development locations which are being considered by SESplan within the context of the emerging Strategic Development Plan (SDP). The Accession work can be thought of as a ‘first phase’ analysis or sift of potential new development locations. As a second phase, the development plan will be modelled and assessed in detail within a multi-modal transport modelling context.

1.2 Version 2 includes revisions following a meeting with SEStran on 17 February 2010.

1.3 Version 3 includes revisions following comments received from SESplan on 16 March 2010.

1.4 Version 4 of this Note includes an additional set of settlements supplied by SESplan on 25 January 2011.

1.5 Version 4.1 adds Census data separately for Newcastleton which had previously been omitted.

1.6 Version 4.2 includes minor formatting changes.

2 Approach

2.1 The list of proposed strategic sites / locations provided by SESplan within each local authority area is as follows:

Local Authority Settlements

Balerno, Currie, Hermiston, Kirkliston, Newbridge, Newcraighall, City of Edinburgh Queensferry, Ratho, Ratho Station, The Drum / Cauldcoats1 (Danderhall), Turnhouse

1 Danderhall used as a proxy

Assessment of Potential Development Locations 1 Information Note 2 Version: 4.2

Local Authority Settlements

Dunbar, East Linton, Gullane, Haddington, Longniddry, East Lothian Musselburgh, North Berwick, Pencaitland, Prestonpans2, Tranent, Wallyford

Cardenden, Cowdenbeath, Dalgety Bay, Dunfermline, Fife Glenrothes, Inverkeithing, Kincardine, Kinghorn, Kirkcaldy, Leven, Oakley, Rosyth

Auchendinny (and Rossynlee), Bilston, Bonnyrigg, Dalkeith, Midlothian Danderhall, Gorebridge, Loanhead, Penicuik, Rosewell, Roslin, Shawfair3

Coldstream, Duns, Eyemouth, Galashiels, Hawick, Innerleithen, Scottish Borders Jedburgh, Kelso, Lauder, Newcastleton, Newtown St Boswells, Peebles, Selkirk, Walkerburn, West Linton, Yetholm

Addiewell, Armadale, Bathgate, Broxburn, East Calder, West Lothian Fauldhouse, Linlithgow, Livingston, West Calder, Whitburn, Winchburgh

2.2 An accessibility-based analysis of these sites was undertaken using an Accession model of the whole SEStran area. The model was updated to include coding of the three major and most influential public transport schemes which affect the area: Borders Railway, Airdrie to Bathgate re-opening, and Edinburgh tram Line 1. Note that Accession provides a highly detailed representation of transport supply – both public transport services and road speeds, which is used with other spatially detailed data for this analysis. It does not deal with the demand for transport – this will be picked up in the next phase of the analysis.

2.3 The strategic nature of the SDP means that in most cases, the locations listed above were provided at the settlement, rather than the site specific level. In order to provide a comparative indicator at the settlement level (yet be based on spatially detailed information), the accessibility analysis was undertaken at the census output area level - for all output areas defined as being part of each settlement. A typical census output area contains approximately 125 households. An average value was then taken from all the constituent output areas to provide an overall settlement average. This value can then be used to compare systematically between settlements.

2.4 The analysis focussed on a set of regional accessibility indicators supplemented by local accessibility indicators, as shown in Table 2.1 below.

2 Also a proxy for Blindwells 3 Danderhall used as a proxy

Assessment of Potential Development Locations 2 Information Note 2 Version: 4.2

Table 2.1 Accessibility Measures Developed

Regional Accessibility Local Accessibility Employ- Hospital Retail GP Secondar Local ment Park y School Retail Car Hansen Minimum Minimum Minimum Time Time Time Public Hansen Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum Transport Time Time Time Time Time Walk Minimum Minimum Time Time Car / PT ratio Ratio Ratio Ratio

2.5 Access to employment: was determined using a ‘Hansen’ measure. This measure reflects travel times from any defined location to all potential employment locations, weighted by the number of jobs at each employment location and the travel time to each location in each case. Residential locations with short journey times to employment locations with many jobs therefore ‘score’ more highly than locations with longer journeys to these sites or fewer jobs close by. Employment locations and volumes have been extracted from 2001 Census Travel to Work data4, with the information being aggregated to ‘datazone’ level. The analysis was undertaken using AM peak pubic transport services and road speeds. A Hansen value is determined for each census output area within each settlement and the average taken to represent the overall settlement level of accessibility – a high value indicates good accessibility.

2.6 Access to Hospitals: Regional hospitals are defined here as having more than 300 beds and an A&E or outpatients facility. Using this definition gives us the following list: Edinburgh Royal Infirmary, Edinburgh Western General, Falkirk Royal, Queen Margaret, Victoria, Borders General and St John’s in addition to key hospitals in neighbouring areas such as Ninewells. The analysis was undertaken using off peak pubic transport services and road speeds, and identifies the shortest journey time which can be achieved from each output area to its nearest hospital within the defined time period. Again these values are averaged to provide a single result for each settlement for each mode of travel.

2.7 Access to Regional Retail: ‘CACI’ produce a widely recognised definition of different types of retail operation together with their locations. We have used this data previously for SEStran and therefore used their definition of ‘Retail Parks’ as a reasonable representation of the type of shopping destination likely to lead to regional rather than local travel. This definition covers a range of sites within the SEStran area and we also included sites in neighbouring local authority areas. The analysis was also undertaken using off peak pubic transport services and road speeds and again is focussed on shortest travel times from each output area to its nearest retail park. The full list used is as follows: Airdrie Retail Park (RP); Alloa RP; Arbroath Westway RP; Bathgate RP; Coatbridge Faraday Retail Park; Dundee - City Quay, Gallagher RP, Kingsway RP, Milton Of Craigie RP; Dunfermline - Carnegie Drive RP, Halbeath RP; Edinburgh - Cameron Toll, Craigleith RP, Fort Kinnaird RP, Gyle Centre, Hermiston Gait RP, Meadowbank RP, Ocean Terminal, Seafield Rd RP; Falkirk Central RP; Galashiels - Comely Bank Mill RP, Hunters Bridge RP; Glasgow - Auchinlea RP, Auldhouse RP, Birkenshaw RP, Braehead RP,

4 It is acknowledged that there will have been some changes in employment location since 2001, but there is no other comparable systematic dataset available, and in addition, the changes since 2001 are unlikely to fundamentally change the outcomes here.

Assessment of Potential Development Locations 3 Information Note 2 Version: 4.2

Braehead Shopping Centre, Forge RP, Gt Western RP, Helen Street, Kingsgate RP, Parkhead Forge, Strathkelvin RP, The Fort Shopping Park, West End RP, Finnieston Street RP; Glenrothes - Saltire RP; Hamilton - Hamilton Palace RP, Hamilton RP; Kirkcaldy Fife Central RP; Livingston - Almondvale South RP, Almondvale West RP, McArthur Glen Outlet Centre; Loanhead Pentland RP; Musselburgh Olivebank RP; Perth St Catherines RP; Stirling Springkerse RP; Tillicoultry Sterling Mills; West Calder Designer Outlet Centre; Wishaw - Ashtree RP, Caledonian Centre RP.

2.8 For local accessibility, travel times to nearest GP, secondary school and grocery / supermarket (using a DfT ‘Pitney Bowes’ dataset) at the ‘output area’ level were calculated, again using off peak travel. Settlement level averages were then obtained as before. This analysis could clearly be updated in time if there are new proposals regarding these services affecting any of the settlements.

2.9 As noted above, for all except access to employment, the fastest travel time by each defined mode is calculated. For public transport this includes walk times to / from bus stops, and any walk and wait time if interchanging between services.

2.10 The locations of regional hospitals, retail parks, and the local accessibility sites can be found in graphical form on the accompanying CD, which includes a full set of graphics relating to the above indicators.

2.11 This analysis can be used to compare or prioritise between locations or alternatively it can be used as a basis for identifying the need for improving accessibility at certain locations – ie to meet any determined thresholds. The graphical information also allows locations within settlements to be compared, which will be of particular relevance in the development of Local Development Plans.

2.12 Analysis of the 2001 Census Travel to Work data also provides some behavioural insights into the commuting patterns of current residents of these settlements and this paper considers:

 the mode share of travel to work by settlement (car, public transport, active travel (walk, cycle);

 % of settlement residents working in the City of Edinburgh area; and

 % of settlement residents working locally, ie within their own settlement.

2.13 Over time, it is reasonable to assume that the travel behaviour of residents of new developments associated with a given settlement would become broadly aligned with current residents of that settlement. This will to some extent depend on the scale and timing of the development though. If a new development is very large compared to its associated settlement, there will clearly be insufficient local demand and by definition people will make longer distance moves to occupy this new housing (potentially leading to higher travel volumes) compared to smaller or more incremental developments. The degree of self-containment o f settlements is also a key measure of the likely impact of developments on the regional / national transport networks. If development is located within or adjacent to settlements of a reasonable size, a higher proportion of the resulting travel is likely to be ‘internalised’ within the settlement.

Assessment of Potential Development Locations 4 Information Note 2 Version: 4.2

2.14 In overview, the Census analysis suggests that high ‘active travel’ (walk / cycle) mode share is associated with self-contained settlements, some distance from other employment centres. This description typically applies to the Borders towns. High car mode share is associated with smaller settlements closer to major employment centres, with relatively poor public transport. So a settlement which is some distance from other employment centres but is of reasonable size is likely to be self contained and as such give rise to a high proportion of active travel. The decisions of where to locate new allocations must however reflect the prevailing planning and economic development policies.

2.15 There are a number ways in which the outputs from this process can be used to draw conclusions. For example, the different settlement locations can be looked at in terms of:

 best absolute public transport accessibility – this would identify locations with the best access to the job market / regional services using public transport;

 best relative public transport accessibility – this would identify the locations where public transport is most ‘competitive’ with car in terms of accessing the employment market a n d other services, and thus provide the highest likelihood of public transport use; or

 best car accessibility – would show the sites with best access to the employment market and other services by car.

2.16 The choice of the most relevant measures to use should be directed by existing policy. Scottish Planning Policy5 suggests that opportunities for personal travel should be prioritised by mode in the following order: walking, cycling, public transport, car, and other vehicles. An assessment of development locations should therefore reflect this modal prioritisation and, from a transport perspective, development should therefore be focussed on areas which:

 minimise the overall need to travel;

 maximise opportunities for active travel;

 maximise the potential for the use of public transport; and

 minimise associated car travel.

2.17 The over-riding objective here from the SEStran / Transport Scotland perspective is to minimise the negative impacts of new development on the transport network, principally congestion and vehicle kilometres travelled (which contributes to emissions / accidents). This should be seen in the context of the current transport networks and known congestion ‘hot spots’, which are generally focussed on the area’s key junctions. The impacts of varying development strategies on the operation of the network is planned to be systematically assessed using the SEStran Regional Transport Model.

5 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/02/03132605/0

Assessment of Potential Development Locations 5 Information Note 2 Version: 4.2

3 Context – RTS Corridors

3.1 The Regional Transport Strategy (RTS) forms the agreed basis for the development of transport across the area and it should therefore form an important part of the SDP and indeed later L D P considerations. A detailed analysis of ‘regional commuter corridors’ formed a significant element of the RTS, as shown in the figure below.

3.2 These broad Commuter Corridors were defined and prioritised in terms of the likely scale of impact of measures required to meet mode share targets from 1 (high priority) to 6 (low priority). This means that higher priority corridors are more likely to benefit from investment aimed at promoting modal shift than lower priority corridors – ie this maximises the impact of any spend (see RTS for details).

4 Access to Employment

4.1 Table 4.1 summarises the results of the access to employment calculations at the settlement level, averaged for each output area within each settlement. Settlements are shown in alphabetical order for each local authority area. A ranking is also given, based on the public transport access to employment values.

Assessment of Potential Development Locations 6 Information Note 2 Version: 4.2

4.2 The Hansen value is an index which shows the relative access to employment (ie the job market) by car and public transport for each settlement in the analysis. The value will reflect the location of the settlement relative to the distribution of employment at present and the drive time or public transport travel times taken to access the jobs market. The greater the value, the better the accessibility. The ratio of the car / public transport Hansen values identifies the locations where the level of public transport is good relative to the car (ie the ratio is low) and it can be reasonably assumed that these locations would result in higher public transport modal share compared to locations where this ratio is higher.

Table 4.1 Access to Employment by settlement

PT Access Hansen to employ- Settlement Name PT Hansen Car Hansen Ratio ment rank Balerno 211,208 601,973 2.9 24 Currie 242,280 649,083 2.7 10

Hermiston 279,455 707,445 2.5 3 Kirkliston 248,109 682,393 2.8 9 Newbridge 287,810 714,443 2.5 2 Newcraighall 256,559 488,896 1.9 7 Queensferry 256,949 656,952 2.6 6 Ratho 224,762 669,556 3.0 19 City of Edinburgh Ratho Station 301,729 715,099 2.4 1 Drum / Cauldcoats 231,523 514,369 2.2 14 Turnhouse 216,963 674,167 3.1 21 Dunbar 131,537 284,158 2.2 47 East Linton 95,840 335,715 3.5 53 Gullane 94,095 318,484 3.4 55 Haddington 135,155 378,243 2.8 46

hian Longniddry 166,950 401,476 2.4 39 Musselburgh 235,562 460,830 2.0 13 North Berwick 119,089 276,313 2.3 50 East Lot Pencaitland 110,515 387,752 3.5 52 Prestonpans 194,853 422,221 2.2 30 Tranent 176,329 439,629 2.5 36 Wallyford 217,993 467,108 2.1 20 Cardenden 136,625 477,776 3.5 45 Cowdenbeath 159,375 521,565 3.3 42 Dalgety Bay 216,167 548,264 2.5 22 Dunfermline 198,179 545,482 2.8 29 Glenrothes 120,892 431,137 3.6 49 Inverkeithing 257,138 597,243 2.3 5

Kincardine 175,713 636,668 3.6 37 Fife Kinghorn 170,222 446,498 2.6 38 Kirkcaldy 161,558 457,589 2.9 40 Leven 94,769 374,677 4.0 54 Oakley 129,192 547,904 4.3 48 Rosyth 227,016 595,047 2.6 18

Assessment of Potential Development Locations 7 Information Note 2 Version: 4.2

PT Access Hansen to employ- Settlement Name PT Hansen Car Hansen Ratio ment rank Auchendinny 115,956 509,863 4.5 51 Bilston 193,522 552,866 2.9 31 Bonnyrigg 198,196 504,805 2.6 28

Dalkeith 188,839 482,659 2.6 32 Danderhall 231,523 514,369 2.2 14 Gorebridge 159,280 426,393 2.7 43

Midlothian Loanhead 208,050 555,440 2.7 25 Penicuik 160,452 500,509 3.1 41 Rosewell 157,003 505,062 3.2 44 Roslin 183,790 546,393 3.0 34 Coldstream 2,276 155,465 68.4 69 Duns 22,240 169,043 7.6 64 Eyemouth 9,392 164,184 17.5 68 Galashiels 70,599 209,524 3.0 58 Hawick 16,685 133,062 8.0 67

Innerleithen 54,173 285,492 5.3 60 Jedburgh 19,897 154,573 7.8 66 Kelso 20,018 175,543 8.8 65 Lauder 63,826 292,520 4.6 59 Newcastleton 837 99,934 119.7 71

Scottish Borders Newtown St Boswells 43,808 216,660 4.9 62 Peebles 84,015 344,341 4.2 57 Selkirk 43,713 187,942 4.3 63 Walkerburn 53,626 269,353 5.0 61 West Linton 85,795 433,607 5.1 56 Yetholm 2,020 128,595 63.7 70 Addiewell 182,273 628,020 3.4 35 Armadale 229,794 647,967 2.8 17 Bathgate 248,627 673,766 2.7 8 Broxburn 240,551 666,297 2.8 11 East Calder 211,215 641,700 3.0 23 Fauldhouse 187,737 622,071 3.3 33 Linlithgow 267,452 628,945 2.4 4

West Lothian West Livingston 230,444 658,228 2.9 16 West Calder 202,210 628,154 3.1 26 Whitburn 200,293 678,953 3.4 27 Winchburgh 237,374 653,003 2.8 12

4.3 These results suggest that from the perspective of the best access to employment by public transport, the locations with the best access area Ratho Station, Newbridge, Hermiston, Linlithgow and Inverkeithing. Public transport is most competitive in Newcraighall, Musselburgh, Wallyford, Prestonpans and Dunbar. By car, the best locations are Ratho Station, Newbridge, Hermiston, Kirkliston and Whitburn.

4.4 Table 4.2 below reports the 2001 Census Travel to Work data settlement level.

Assessment of Potential Development Locations 8 Information Note 2 Version: 4.2

Table 4.2 Key Census TTW Data per Settlement

% % working Active working in own Car % PT % % in Edin- settle- Settlement Name Share Share Share burgh ment Balerno 67 19 6 86 14 Currie 67 20 6 86 15 Hermiston 54 12 12 100 21 Kirkliston 68 15 9 80 18 Newbridge 63 15 11 85 7 Newcraighall 41 30 14 86 12 Queensferry 67 19 8 78 18 Ratho 75 11 6 79 12

City of Edinburgh Ratho Station 66 19 11 82 15 The Drum/Cauldcoats 58 32 4 61 16 Turnhouse 56 16 19 92 21 Dunbar 61 13 20 17 43 East Linton 75 8 9 27 23 Gullane 70 9 9 34 19 Haddington 66 9 19 27 42 Longniddry 76 13 4 49 14 Musselburgh 58 27 10 54 26 North Berwick 62 13 14 31 37

East Lothian Pencaitland 78 9 6 45 13 Prestonpans 56 28 11 43 24 Tranent 67 20 9 43 23 Wallyford 61 26 7 41 19 Cardenden 77 12 8 4 20 Cowdenbeath 69 14 11 5 35 Dalgety Bay 71 15 7 30 20 Dunfermline 68 14 12 15 44 Glenrothes 75 8 12 3 60 Inverkeithing 60 22 12 22 24

Fife Kincardine 70 7 17 3 21 Kinghorn 75 10 7 8 16 Kirkcaldy 70 12 13 5 55 Leven 69 7 18 2 40 Oakley 74 14 7 8 20 Rosyth 64 14 16 14 29 Auchendinny 55 3 23 34 26 Bilston 63 18 12 46 17 Bonnyrigg 67 17 9 44 21 Dalkeith 66 20 8 46 32

Danderhall 58 32 4 61 16 Gorebridge 68 21 6 44 17 Loanhead 62 17 16 48 31 Penicuik 64 21 10 49 25 Midlothian Rosewell 60 20 13 37 23 Roslin 74 13 8 50 14

Assessment of Potential Development Locations 9 Information Note 2 Version: 4.2

% % working Active working in own Car % PT % % in Edin- settle- Settlement Name Share Share Share burgh ment Coldstream 62 2 30 1 42 Duns 52 3 36 2 62 Eyemouth 57 9 26 2 46 Galashiels 64 7 24 5 58 Hawick 55 3 36 1 75

Innerleithen 62 7 24 11 41 Jedburgh 61 3 30 3 62 Kelso 66 1 26 2 48 Lauder 71 5 14 20 28 Newcastleton 67 3 17 0 42

Scottish Borders Newtown St Boswells 70 4 20 4 32 Peebles 63 4 25 20 50 Selkirk 67 4 23 3 48 Walkerburn 59 21 7 11 23 West Linton 75 3 9 42 22 Yetholm 77 1 9 1 22 Addiewell 70 19 8 14 14 Armadale 75 12 9 14 22 Bathgate 72 13 10 16 30

Broxburn 68 16 11 34 29 East Calder 76 13 5 46 15 Fauldhouse 72 17 7 10 19 Linlithgow 68 17 10 31 23

West Lothian West Livingston 73 13 9 26 50 West Calder 76 9 8 22 19 Whitburn 73 13 10 14 22 Winchburgh 70 18 7 41 17

4.5 Across the area, the highest rates of car commuting are found in Pencaitland, Cardenden, Yetholm, Longniddry (despite its good train service) and West Calder.

4.6 In contrast, the highest rates of public transport commuting are found in Danderhall, Newcraighall, Prestonpans, Musselburgh and Wallyford.

4.7 For active travel, the highest rates are found in Hawick, Duns, Coldstream, Jedburgh and Eyemouth - these coinciding with high rates for working locally.

4.8 The percentage of residents within each settlement working in Edinburgh reduces in a very consistent way with distance from Edinburgh.

4.9 Those settlements with the highest amount of local working are Hawick, Duns, Glenrothes (with very high car mode share), Jedburgh and Galashiels.

Assessment of Potential Development Locations 10 Information Note 2 Version: 4.2

5 Access to Regional Hospitals

5.1 Table 5.1 provides fastest public transport and car based travel to regional hospitals at the settlement level, together with their ratio, with a ranking based on fastest public transport travel times.

Table 5.1 Access to Nearest Hospital by settlement

Rank - PT Car Hospital Access to PT Hospital Hospital Ratio Regional Settlement Name (mins) (Mins) (car/PT) Health rank Balerno 46 17 0.38 53 Currie 44 15 0.35 51

Hermiston 22 12 0.55 12 Kirkliston 29 13 0.44 25 Newbridge 32 11 0.33 28 Newcraighall 19 7 0.35 7 Queensferry 32 12 0.38 30 Ratho 42 13 0.32 46 City of Edinburgh Ratho Station 35 11 0.31 35 Drum / Cauldcoats 7 3 0.45 1 Turnhouse 33 10 0.28 32 Dunbar 45 31 0.70 52 East Linton 69 25 0.36 68 Gullane 66 26 0.40 67 Haddington 57 20 0.35 61 Longniddry 53 17 0.33 60 Musselburgh 21 12 0.55 10 North Berwick 70 33 0.46 71 East Lothian Pencaitland 58 20 0.34 63 Prestonpans 43 15 0.36 49 Tranent 38 13 0.35 43 Wallyford 34 11 0.32 34 Cardenden 24 11 0.48 14 Cowdenbeath 26 10 0.37 19 Dalgety Bay 37 12 0.31 40 Dunfermline 18 4 0.23 5 Glenrothes 38 12 0.33 42 Inverkeithing 26 9 0.36 18 36 15 0.42 38 Kincardine Kinghorn 24 9 0.39 15 Fife Kirkcaldy 12 3 0.25 3 Leven 44 15 0.35 50 Oakley 38 13 0.34 41 Rosyth 24 9 0.37 17

Assessment of Potential Development Locations 11 Information Note 2 Version: 4.2

Rank - PT Car Hospital Access to PT Hospital Hospital Ratio Regional Settlement Name (mins) (Mins) (car/PT) Health rank Auchendinny 59 18 0.30 64 Bilston 33 14 0.42 31 Bonnyrigg 26 10 0.37 20

Dalkeith 22 11 0.50 11 Danderhall 7 3 0.45 1 Gorebridge 28 15 0.54 22

Midlothian Loanhead 29 10 0.37 23 Penicuik 41 18 0.45 45 Rosewell 42 14 0.33 47 Roslin 42 14 0.32 48 Coldstream 46 34 0.73 55 Duns 49 31 0.64 56 Eyemouth 29 13 1.80 26 Galashiels 19 6 0.33 6 Hawick 51 26 0.51 59

Innerleithen 57 24 0.42 62 Jedburgh 46 22 0.48 54 Kelso 51 21 0.41 58 Lauder 36 16 0.43 36 Newcastleton 59 61 1.04 65

Scottish Borders Newtown St Boswells 21 7 0.33 9 Peebles 70 35 0.50 70 Selkirk 24 11 0.47 16 Walkerburn 50 21 0.42 57 West Linton 61 27 0.44 66 Yetholm 69 33 0.48 69 Addiewell 34 12 0.36 33 Armadale 36 16 0.45 39 Bathgate 29 12 0.42 24 Broxburn 19 9 0.47 8 East Calder 27 7 0.25 21 Fauldhouse 36 17 0.48 37 Linlithgow 39 16 0.41 44

West Lothian West Livingston 15 4 0.23 4 West Calder 23 8 0.35 13 Whitburn 31 14 0.48 27 Winchburgh 32 15 0.45 29

5.2 The sites with the best access by public transport to a major hospital are therefore Danderhall, Kirkcaldy, Livingston, Dunfermline and Galashiels. Those with poorest access are North Berwick, Peebles, Yetholm, East Linton and Gullane.

Assessment of Potential Development Locations 12 Information Note 2 Version: 4.2

6 Access to Regional Retail

6.1 Table 6.1 provides fastest public transport and car based travel to regional retail parks at the settlement level, together with their ratio, with a ranking based on fastest public transport travel times, as before.

Table 6.1 Access to Regional Retail by settlement

Rank - PT Access to PT Retail Car Retail Retail Ratio Regional Settlement Name (mins) (Mins) (car/PT) Retail Balerno 42 10 0.23 54 Currie 35 7 0.19 46

Hermiston 15 2 0.12 12 Kirkliston 20 8 0.41 21 Newbridge 18 6 0.33 17 Newcraighall 8 2 0.19 1 Queensferry 26 10 0.38 36 Ratho 30 8 0.27 41 City of Edinburgh Ratho Station 12 6 0.52 7 Drum / Cauldcoats 15 4 0.28 13 Turnhouse 13 3 0.20 11 Dunbar 57 26 0.47 62 East Linton 58 20 0.34 64 Gullane 56 21 0.38 61 Haddington 45 15 0.33 56 Longniddry 34 12 0.36 45 Musselburgh 10 2 0.20 4 North Berwick 51 28 0.55 57 East Lothian Pencaitland 38 15 0.39 51 Prestonpans 24 10 0.41 31 Tranent 28 9 0.31 39 Wallyford 22 6 0.27 25 Cardenden 18 7 0.36 18 Cowdenbeath 24 7 0.30 30 Dalgety Bay 36 10 0.27 48 Dunfermline 13 2 0.17 10 Glenrothes 21 4 0.16 23 Inverkeithing 25 7 0.28 34 Kincardine 25 8 0.32 32 Kinghorn 34 12 0.35 44

Fife Kirkcaldy 20 5 0.22 20 Leven 44 13 0.30 55 Oakley 28 9 0.32 38 Rosyth 24 7 0.28 29

Assessment of Potential Development Locations 13 Information Note 2 Version: 4.2

Rank - PT Access to PT Retail Car Retail Retail Ratio Regional Settlement Name (mins) (Mins) (car/PT) Retail Auchendinny 41 10 0.24 52 Bilston 17 6 0.32 15 Bonnyrigg 21 8 0.36 24

Dalkeith 28 10 0.34 40 Danderhall 15 4 0.28 13 Gorebridge 37 14 0.39 50

Midlothian Loanhead 9 1 0.16 3 Penicuik 25 10 0.41 33 Rosewell 42 9 0.22 53 Roslin 22 5 0.24 28 Coldstream 79 39 0.49 67 Duns 79 36 0.46 69 Eyemouth 90 49 0.55 70 Galashiels 11 2 0.19 5 Hawick 51 25 0.50 58

Innerleithen 37 17 0.46 49 Jedburgh 58 27 0.47 65 Kelso 61 26 0.43 66 Lauder 56 19 0.34 60 Newcastleton 114 58 0.51 71

Scottish Borders Newtown St Boswells 36 12 0.34 47 Peebles 58 28 0.48 63 Selkirk 22 10 0.47 27 Walkerburn 30 14 0.46 42 West Linton 51 20 0.40 59 Yetholm 79 39 0.49 68 Addiewell 18 10 0.56 16 Armadale 12 6 0.51 6 Bathgate 8 2 0.22 2 Broxburn 22 10 0.48 26 East Calder 20 7 0.37 22 Fauldhouse 26 13 0.50 35 Linlithgow 32 14 0.44 43

West Lothian West Livingston 13 4 0.35 8 West Calder 13 6 0.48 9 Whitburn 19 8 0.41 19 Winchburgh 26 13 0.48 37

6.2 The sites with the best access by public transport to a regional retail park are therefore Newcraighall, Bathgate, Loanhead, Musselburgh and Galashiels. Those with poorest access are Newcastleton, Eyemouth, Duns, Yetholm and North Berwick, Peebles, Yetholm, and Coldstream.

Assessment of Potential Development Locations 14 Information Note 2 Version: 4.2

7 Local Accessibility

7.1 In addition to these regional accessibility measures, analysis has been undertaken (also at the output area level), to look at local accessibility measures. These measures give an indication of how accessible local services are in each case. This is focussed on access to secondary schools, GP surgeries, and local retail / grocery stores.

7.2 Table 7.1 below shows the results in a simplified yes / no format based on three criteria:

 on average, is it possible to walk to a secondary school in less than 20 minutes?;

 on average, is it possible to walk to a GP surgery school in less than 20 minutes?; and

 on average, is it possible to get a bus to a grocer / supermarket in less than 10 minutes?.

7.3 As before, an average travel time has been derived for each settlement, based on the values calculated for each constituent census output area within the settlement.

Table 7.1 Local Accessibility Indicators

Local Secondary School Nearest GP Local Grocery Authority Settlement Name < 20 min walk < 20 min walk < 10 min PT Balerno Yes No Yes Currie Yes Yes Yes

Hermiston No Yes Yes Kirkliston No Yes Yes Newbridge No No Yes Newcraighall No No Yes Queensferry Yes Yes Yes Ratho No Yes Yes City of Edinburgh Ratho Station No No Yes Drum / Cauldcoats No Yes Yes Turnhouse No No No Dunbar Yes Yes Yes East Linton No Yes Yes Gullane No Yes Yes Haddington Yes Yes Yes Longniddry No No Yes Musselburgh Yes Yes Yes North Berwick Yes Yes Yes East Lothian Pencaitland No No Yes Prestonpans Yes Yes Yes Tranent Yes Yes Yes Wallyford No No No Cardenden No No Yes

Cowdenbeath Yes Yes Yes Dalgety Bay No No Yes Fife Dunfermline Yes Yes Yes Glenrothes No Yes Yes

Assessment of Potential Development Locations 15 Information Note 2 Version: 4.2

Local Secondary School Nearest GP Local Grocery Authority Settlement Name < 20 min walk < 20 min walk < 10 min PT Inverkeithing Yes Yes Yes Kincardine No No Yes Kinghorn No Yes Yes Kirkcaldy Yes Yes Yes Leven No Yes Yes Oakley No Yes Yes Rosyth No Yes Yes Auchendinny No No No Bilston No No Yes Bonnyrigg Yes Yes Yes

Dalkeith Yes Yes Yes Danderhall No Yes Yes Gorebridge No Yes Yes

Midlothian Loanhead No Yes Yes Penicuik Yes Yes Yes Rosewell No No No Roslin No Yes Yes Coldstream No Yes Yes Duns Yes Yes Yes Eyemouth Yes Yes Yes Galashiels No No Yes Hawick Yes Yes Yes

Innerleithen No Yes Yes Jedburgh Yes Yes Yes Kelso Yes Yes Yes Lauder No Yes Yes Newcastleton No Yes Yes

Scottish Borders Newtown St Boswells No Yes No Peebles Yes Yes Yes Selkirk Yes Yes Yes Walkerburn No No No West Linton No Yes Yes Yetholm No No No Addiewell No No No Armadale Yes Yes Yes Bathgate No No Yes Broxburn Yes Yes Yes East Calder No Yes Yes Fauldhouse No Yes Yes Linlithgow Yes Yes Yes

West Lothian West Livingston Yes Yes Yes West Calder No Yes Yes Whitburn Yes Yes Yes Winchburgh No Yes Yes

Assessment of Potential Development Locations 16 Information Note 2 Version: 4.2

8 Summary

8.1 The summary tables below bring together the findings from above firstly at the local authority, then secondly at the settlement level.

8.2 Table 8.1 shows:

 the ranking of each settlement in terms of access to employment, regional health and regional retail; and

 an overall composite regional accessibility ranking based on a sum of the three regional rankings.

Assessment of Potential Development Locations 17 Information Note 2 Version: 4.2

Table 8.1 Summary Table – Regional Accessibility

PT Access to PT Access to PT Access to Regional PT Settlement employment Regional Regional Access - Name rank Health - Rank Retail - Rank Composite Rank Balerno 24 53 54 48 Currie 10 51 46 37

Hermiston 3 12 12 2 Kirkliston 9 25 21 14 Newbridge 2 28 17 11 Newcraighall 7 7 1 1 Queensferry 6 30 36 22 Ratho 19 46 41 35 City of Edinburgh Ratho Station 1 35 7 8 Drum / Cauldcoats 14 1 13 4 Turnhouse 21 32 11 18 Dunbar 47 52 62 54 East Linton 53 68 64 64 Gullane 55 67 61 62 Haddington 46 61 56 55 Longniddry 39 60 45 49 Musselburgh 13 10 4 2 North Berwick 50 71 57 60 East Lothian Pencaitland 52 63 51 57 Prestonpans 30 49 31 39 Tranent 36 43 39 44 Wallyford 20 34 25 28 Cardenden 45 14 18 25 Cowdenbeath 42 19 30 31 Dalgety Bay 22 40 48 39 Dunfermline 29 5 10 9 Glenrothes 49 42 23 42 Inverkeithing 5 18 34 15

Fife Kincardine 37 38 32 37 Kinghorn 38 15 44 33 Kirkcaldy 40 3 20 17 Leven 54 50 55 52 Oakley 48 41 38 47 Rosyth 18 17 29 18 Auchendinny 51 64 52 58 Bilston 31 31 15 25

Bonnyrigg 28 20 24 22 Dalkeith 32 11 40 29 Danderhall 14 1 13 4 Gorebridge 43 22 50 43 Midlothian Loanhead 25 23 3 13 Penicuik 41 45 33 46 Rosewell 44 47 53 49

Assessment of Potential Development Locations 18 Information Note 2 Version: 4.2

PT Access to PT Access to PT Access to Regional PT

Settlement employment Regional Regional Access - Name rank Health - Rank Retail - Rank Composite Rank Roslin 34 48 28 39 Coldstream 69 55 67 69 Duns 64 56 69 66 Eyemouth 68 26 70 56 Galashiels 58 6 5 21 Hawick 67 59 58 63

Innerleithen 60 62 49 59 Jedburgh 66 54 65 64 Kelso 65 58 66 66 Lauder 59 36 60 51 Newcastleton 71 65 71 70 Newtown St Scottish Borders Boswells 62 9 47 44 Peebles 57 70 63 68 Selkirk 63 16 27 35 Walkerburn 61 57 42 53 West Linton 56 66 59 61 Yetholm 70 69 68 70 Addiewell 35 33 16 30 Armadale 17 39 6 16 Bathgate 8 24 2 7 Broxburn 11 8 26 10 East Calder 23 21 22 20 Fauldhouse 33 37 35 34 Linlithgow 4 44 43 31

West Lothian West Livingston 16 4 8 4 West Calder 26 13 9 12 Whitburn 27 27 19 24 Winchburgh 12 29 37 27

8.3 Table 8.2 shows:

 the % using car to travel to work in 2001;

 the % working in their own settlement of residence;

 a ‘sustainability’ ranking based on the two above, ie a low car % mode share and a high % working locally would provide a high sustainability ranking; and

 the local accessibility measures.

Assessment of Potential Development Locations 19 Information Note 2 Version: 4.2

Table 8.2 Local Accessibility and Census Data

% working in Second- own Local ary Local Car % settle- Sustain- School - GP - < Grocery Share ment abilty <20 min 20 min - < 10 Settlement Name (rank) (rank) Rank walk walk min PT Balerno 38 64 57 Yes No Yes Currie 36 62 52 Yes Yes Yes

Hermiston 3 42 18 No Yes Yes Kirkliston 40 54 47 No Yes Yes Newbridge 23 71 47 No No Yes Newcraighall 1 69 38 No No Yes Queensferry 34 53 45 Yes Yes Yes Ratho 63 70 69 No Yes Yes City of Edinburgh Ratho Station 31 63 47 No No Yes Drum / Cauldcoats 10 59 35 No Yes Yes Turnhouse 6 45 23 No No No Dunbar 15 13 5 Yes Yes Yes East Linton 60 35 50 No Yes Yes Gullane 51 50 56 No Yes Yes Haddington 28 16 17 Yes Yes Yes Longniddry 68 66 70 No No Yes Musselburgh 9 28 10 Yes Yes Yes North Berwick 20 19 14 Yes Yes Yes East Lothian Pencaitland 71 68 71 No No Yes Prestonpans 7 31 11 Yes Yes Yes Tranent 37 34 39 Yes Yes Yes Wallyford 16 52 34 No No No Cardenden 70 48 65 No No Yes Cowdenbeath 44 20 30 Yes Yes Yes Dalgety Bay 52 47 54 No No Yes Dunfermline 43 12 27 Yes Yes Yes Glenrothes 62 3 31 No Yes Yes Inverkeithing 13 32 18 Yes Yes Yes

Fife Kincardine 47 43 46 No No Yes Kinghorn 65 58 66 No Yes Yes Kirkcaldy 46 6 25 Yes Yes Yes Leven 45 18 29 No Yes Yes Oakley 58 46 59 No Yes Yes Rosyth 25 26 23 No Yes Yes Auchendinny 4 29 8 No No No

Bilston 24 56 43 No No Yes Bonnyrigg 32 44 41 Yes Yes Yes Dalkeith 30 22 25 Yes Yes Yes Danderhall 10 59 35 No Yes Yes Midlothian Gorebridge 41 57 52 No Yes Yes Loanhead 18 23 15 No Yes Yes

Assessment of Potential Development Locations 20 Information Note 2 Version: 4.2

% working in Second- own Local ary Local Car % settle- Sustain- School - GP - < Grocery Share ment abilty <20 min 20 min - < 10 Settlement Name (rank) (rank) Rank walk walk min PT Penicuik 26 30 28 Yes Yes Yes Rosewell 14 33 20 No No No Roslin 59 67 67 No Yes Yes Coldstream 19 15 9 No Yes Yes Duns 2 2 1 Yes Yes Yes Eyemouth 8 11 3 Yes Yes Yes Galashiels 27 5 7 No No Yes Hawick 5 1 2 Yes Yes Yes

Innerleithen 21 17 11 No Yes Yes Jedburgh 17 4 4 Yes Yes Yes Kelso 29 9 11 Yes Yes Yes Lauder 53 27 43 No Yes Yes tishBorders Newcastleton 35 14 21 No Yes Yes

Scot Newtown St Boswells 48 21 35 No Yes No Peebles 22 7 6 Yes Yes Yes Selkirk 33 10 16 Yes Yes Yes Walkerburn 12 37 21 No No No West Linton 64 39 58 No Yes Yes Yetholm 69 40 62 No No No Addiewell 49 65 63 No No No Armadale 61 38 54 Yes Yes Yes Bathgate 55 24 42 No No Yes Broxburn 42 25 33 Yes Yes Yes East Calder 66 61 68 No Yes Yes

Lothian Fauldhouse 54 51 61 No Yes Yes Linlithgow 39 36 40 Yes Yes Yes

West Livingston 57 8 31 Yes Yes Yes West Calder 67 49 64 No Yes Yes Whitburn 56 41 51 Yes Yes Yes Winchburgh 49 55 59 No Yes Yes

8.4 Taken together, the locations which ‘score’ well on both the regional accessibility and sustainability index are: Musselburgh, Hermiston, Loanhead / Galashiels, Inverkeithing, Livingston, Dunfermline, Newcraighall, Danderhall / The Drum & Cauldcoats.

8.5 The locations which ‘score’ most poorly are: Yetholm, Pencaitland, West Linton, Longniddry, Gullane, East Linton, Roslin and Oakley.

Assessment of Potential Development Locations 21 Appendix 2: MVA Consultancy Note 6 Version 6.2: SESplan Strategic Development Plan Assessment

Information Note

Project Title: SESplan Strategic Development Plan Assessment

MVA Project Number: C3A0140-00

Subject: Modelling Results

Note Number: 6 Version: 6.2

Author(s): Scott Leitham

Reviewer(s): -

Date: 19 May 2011

1 Introduction

1.1 This note outlines the current model results for the modelling of the SESplan Strategic Development Plan, which has used the SEStran Regional Model. It documents:

 the demographic / economic scenario representing the SDP as implemented with TELMoS;

 the ‘Reference Case’ transport results using established network-based key performance indicators

 a set of complementary transport schemes to accompany the SDP;

 the impact of these schemes on the network KPIs; and

 a discussion of the potential impact of other (non-modelled) policy measures.

1.2 We understand that the details of the SDP allocations are subject to change and as such a revised run of the model would be necessary to reflect this.

1.3 Version 2 includes updated model results and takes account of comments received from SEStran on 14 December 2010.

1.4 Version 3 included updated select link analysis. Version 4 includes revisions in the light of a meeting with SEStran on 11 January 2011.

1.5 Version 5 contains updated transport results from a further model run.

1.6 Version 6.1 includes a modified ‘do something’ scenario and an illustrative ‘high fuel cost’ scenario.

1.7 Version 6.2 includes minor modifications to the text in line with the SESplan Transport Technical Note.

Modelling Results 1 Information Note 6 Version: 6.2

2 The TELMoS SDP Scenario

2.1 The demographic scenario used for the SESplan TELMoS run is based on GROS 2006-based projections, in line with the SESplan Main Issues Report. As such the model is constrained to match the GROS 2006-based population projection at the SESplan level. The overall approach here contains two key elements:

 planning allocations as provided / confirmed by SESplan local authorities during 2010; and

 the GROS SESplan level 2006-based population and household projections for the SESplan area.

2.2 Figures 1 and 2 show the modelled (TELMoS) percentage growth and absolute figures for households and population respectively in the SESplan area compared to the growth projected by GROS. Overall, a good match has clearly been obtained with population growing by around 15% and households by around 30% over the SDP period.

35%

30%

25%

20% TELMoS 2007-32

15% GROS 2006-31

10%

0% Households Population

Figure 1 TELMoS and GROS SESplan Area Growth Forecasts (2007-32, %)

1,600,000

1,400,000

1,200,000

1,000,000 TELMoS 2007 GROS 2006 800,000 TELMoS 2032 600,000 GROS 2031 400,000

200,000

0 Households Population

Figure 2 TELMoS and GROS SESplan Area Growth Forecasts (abs)

2.3 Population in the SESplan area is therefore forecast by TELMoS to grow by 180,700 between 2008 and 2032.

2.4 Figure 3 below shows the how this net increase in population is spread between the local authority areas, eg East Lothian receives around 5% of this additional population, Midlothian 10% etc. It also shows the equivalent proportions from the GROS projections (which differ from TELMoS), and it can be seen for example that GROS were projecting a reduction for Midlothian.

Modelling Results 2 Information Note 6 Version: 6.2

45% 40% TELMoS 2007-32 35% GRoS 2006-31 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% -5% East Lothian City of Fife Midlothian Scottish West Edinburgh (SESplan) Borders Lothian

Figure 3 Share of Total Additional Population by Local Authority area

2.5 A key factor in explaining this distribution of additional population in TELMoS is the housing allocations provided by the local authorities.

2.6 It can be seen in Figure 4 that the distribution of the net increase in population forecast by TELMoS (ie between the SESplan local authority areas) closely reflects the housing allocations provided by the local authorities. The exception is the Scottish Borders which only receives around 5% of the additional population, despite providing around 10% of the allocations. Note that differences in these proportions will also reflect the prevailing trends in changing household size, but nevertheless this graphic demonstrates that population growth broadly follows housing allocations within the SESplan area. In practice nearly all housing allocations provided by the local authorities are ‘built out’ within the model and variances in population tend to reflect forecast changes in household size.

40% 60,000 Share of New Population 35% Share of Additional Housing Allocation 50,000 30% Housing Allocation 40,000 25%

20% 30,000

15% Dwellings 20,000 10% 10,000 5%

0% - East Lothian City of Fife Midlothian Scottish West Edinburgh (SESplan) Borders Lothian

Figure 4 Share of TELMoS Population Growth and Housing Allocations by Local Authority area

2.7 This figure therefore illustrates the close link between the data provided by the local authorities and TELMoS forecasts. As such, only if the local authority housing allocations reflect a given GROS local authority level projection will TELMoS be likely to reproduce the GROS local

Modelling Results 3 Information Note 6 Version: 6.2

authority level numbers, since TELMoS is not constrained to local authority level GROS projections.

Average Household Size

2.8 GROS project that the average household size in the SESplan area would reduce from 2.24 to 1.99 persons per household between 2006-31, a reduction of 0.25 persons per household. TELMoS forecasts a reduction from 2.18 to 1.91 between 2007-32, a similar level of reduction to GROS at 0.26. As such the two are consistent. Figure 5 shows the trend in household size for each of the local authorities.

2.30 2008 2.20 2018 2.10 2023 2.00 2032

1.90

Persons / Household 1.80

1.70

Midlothian East Lothian Fife (SESplan) West Lothian SESPLAN Total City of Edinburgh Scottish Borders

Figure 5 Forecast Household Size by Local Authority area (persons / household)

2.9 It can be seen here that there is an anomaly in the 2032 results for Midlothian and East Lothian in that the average household size rises in 2032, against the trend. A likely cause of this is a parameter which was introduced into TELMoS as part of the earlier work which analysed the Lothian Development Plan. The ‘expected occupier’ of new residential development within the City of Edinburgh area was set to be ‘single adult’ and ‘two-adult households’ (as opposed to family and other larger households) to better reflect the type of properties typically built within the City. This means that the larger households tend to be found outwith Edinburgh but still within that housing market area. It would be possible to adjust the expected occupier function so that it only applied to a proportion of the new development within Edinburgh. This would result in more smaller households moving to East Lothian and Midlothian (at Edinburgh’s expense), and we would propose to look at this if / when the model is re-run, say with updated or final land allocations.

Land Allocations and Take Up

2.10 Fundamental to the functioning of TELMoS is the floorspace allocation data received from the local authorities, representing the location and quantity of new developments. These data is summarised in Table 1 below for the whole SESplan area by the four main land use categories. Note that these land allocations are fixed in that eg industrial allocations cannot be converted to housing allocations within the model.

Modelling Results 4 Information Note 6 Version: 6.2

Table 1 Floorspace Allocations and Take Up, 2008-32

Category 2007 Stock 2007-32 2007-32 Build Built Out Rate Allocation Out

Housing 541,798 dwellings 15.8m sqm 15.6m sqm 99%

Office 5.8m sqm 5.8m sqm 2.1m sqm 36%

Industry 4.3m sqm 4.8m sqm 0.3m sqm 7%

Retail not available 1.1m sqm 0.4m sqm 37%

2.11 It can therefore be seen that, across the modelled area, virtually all of the housing allocations (16 million square metres) are taken up but much smaller proportions of the employment land (office and industry) allocation is taken up. In part though, these low take-up rates are explained by some very generous allocations. As can be seen above, the total allocation of employment land (ie office and industry) is greater than the entire base year ‘stock’ of floorspace. This is shown in more detail in Figure 6 below. Note that the selection of sites to be ‘taken up’ from these large allocations is undertaken within TELMoS and the selection is based on a range of economic and accessibility-related factors.

5,000,000 Base Year 'Stock: Office + Employment' 4,500,000 Office / Industry Allocation 4,000,000 Modelled 'Build-Out'

3,500,000

3,000,000

2,500,000

2,000,000 Sq MetresSq ('000)

1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

0 East Lothian City of Fife (SESplan) Midlothian Scottish West Lothian Edinburgh Borders

Figure 6 Employment Land Allocation and Uptake by Local Authority (2007-32)

2.12 It can be seen here that employment land allocation in Fife and West Lothian in particular are very high, at more than double the base year stock. This is in effect saying that there is a near- infinite supply in these areas which may well reflect the position on the ground, but as such makes a ‘full build out’ scenario a difficult concept to plan for.

2.13 The absolute figures for employment land allocations and build out, by floorspace type and local authority are shown in more detail in Figure 7 below.

Modelling Results 5 Information Note 6 Version: 6.2

6,000,000 6,000,000

5,000,000 5,000,000

West Lothian West Lothian 4,000,000 4,000,000 Scottish Borders Scottish Borders Midlothian Midlothian 3,000,000 Fife (SESplan) 3,000,000 Fife (SESplan) City of Edinburgh City of Edinburgh East Lothian East Lothian 2,000,000 2,000,000

1,000,000 1,000,000

- - Retail Office Industrial Retail Office Industrial

Figure 7 Allocations and Build Out by Floorspace Type, 2007-32

2.14 Employment, ie jobs located within the SESplan area, is forecast to grow from 550,000 to 640,000, an increase of 15% between 2007 and 2032. Given the large supply of floorspace, the distribution of the additional employment is much less dependant on the allocation of floorspace (as was the case with housing) and is shown in Figure 8 below.

400,000

350,000 Employment - 2007 300,000 Employment 2032 250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

0 East Lothian City of Fife (SESplan) Midlothian Scottish West Lothian Edinburgh Borders

Figure 8 TELMoS Local Authority Employment Forecasts

2.15 Employment is therefore forecast to grow in all areas except the Scottish Borders and East Lothian. The strongest employment growth is forecast to be in the City of Edinburgh area, as would be anticipated given its strengths as an employment centre.

Distribution

2.16 Figures 9 and 10 show the distribution of the residential and employment land allocations as provided by the local authorities.

Modelling Results 6 Information Note 6 Version: 6.2

Figure 9 Residential Land Allocations, 2007-32

Modelling Results 7 Information Note 6 Version: 6.2

Figure 10 Office Land Allocations, 2007-32

Modelling Results 8 Information Note 6 Version: 6.2

Summary

 TELMoS matches GROS 2006-based forecasts of households and population to 2032 well at the SESplan level;

 The distribution of the additional population / households closely reflects the housing allocations provided by the SESplan local authorities;

 Employment land allocations are very high, particularly in West Lothian and Fife; and

 Employment growth is focussed in Edinburgh.

2.17 As such, the scenario as modelled in TELMoS forms a good basis for this assessment of the SDP. In addition, TELMoS could be used to model alternative development scenarios.

3 Transport Reference Case

3.1 The Reference Case forecast run combines the TELMoS representation of the SDP, a set of committed transport schemes, with standard WEBtag1-based modelling parameters (covering values of time, vehicle operating costs etc). This latter point is important as it means that the modelling is based on the ‘official’ parameters as of 2010-11.

3.2 The Reference Case transport schemes included are:

 A68 Dalkeith Northern Bypass (opened post 2007 base year);

 Borders Railway;

 Airdrie to Bathgate re-opening (introduced post 2007 base year);

 Shotts line improvements (introduced post 2007 base year);

 Edinburgh Glasgow Improvement programme including Edinburgh Gateway train / tram interchange (EGIP);

 Forth Replacement Crossing;

 Clackmannanshire Bridge (opened post 2007 base year); and

 Edinburgh trams (Airport to Ocean Terminal).

3.3 The following sections outline the forecasts in terms of key performance indicators. The forecast years are 2019, 2024 and 2032, the years which mark significant break points in the planning programme.

Traffic Growth – Area Wide

3.4 Overall the growth in traffic (vehicle kilometres) in the SESplan area is forecast to taper off over time as follows:

 2007-2019: +1.5% per annum;

 2019-2024: +0.9% per annum; and

 2024-2032: +0.8% per annum.

1 www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/

Modelling Results 9 Information Note 6 Version: 6.2

3.5 This gives an overall figure of 1.2% per annum across the period, an increase of 34% in total. This figure compares with recent trend growth in the SESplan area which was around 1.2% per annum between 1998 and 2008. As such the forecast closely reflects the recent trend growth, prior to the recession. It should be noted that these forecasts do not explicitly account for the recent economic downturn, in line with recent precedent in other studies.

Traffic Growth - Local Authority Level

3.6 This growth in vehicle kilometres is actually fairly evenly spread across the local authority areas as shown in Figure 11 below.

45% Ref 2007-19 40% Ref 2007-24 35% Ref 2007-32

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

0% East Lothian City of Fife Midlothian Scottish Borders West Lothian Edinburgh

900,000,000 Ref 2007-19 800,000,000 Ref 2007-24

700,000,000 Ref 2007-32

600,000,000

500,000,000

400,000,000

300,000,000

200,000,000

100,000,000

0 East Lothian City of Fife Midlothian Scottish West Lothian Edinburgh Borders

Figure 11 Traffic Growth (veh-km) by Local Authority Area, % and absolute

Traffic Growth – Corridors Level

3.7 The area was previously divided into ‘regional corridors’ for the RTS work. These have been retained here for consistency and to provide a more focused analysis.

3.8 The corridors are shown below in Figure 12.

Modelling Results 10 Information Note 6 Version: 6.2

Figure 12 SEStran Regional Corridor Definitions

Corridor Names: 1 – East Lothian Coastal (EL Coa), 2 – East Lothian A1 (EL A1), 3 - Midlothian East (Mid E), 4 - Midlothian West (Mid W), 5 – A70 (A70), 6 – A71 / Shotts Line (A71), 7 – M8 / Bathgate Line (M8), 8 – M9 / E&G (M9), 9 – Kincardine (Kinc), 10 – Alloa-Dunfermline (All- Dunf), 11 – Queensferry (Queens), 12 – M90 north (M90), 13 – Fife Central (Fi Cent), 14 – City Bypass (A720).

3.9 Firstly, annual base year traffic volumes by corridor is shown in Figure 13 below. Note that these figures reflect the sum of all traffic (vehicle kilometres) on all the model links within the corridor. The largest traffic volumes are found in the M8 and M9 corridors (corridors 7 and 8 above).

1,400,000 2007 Traffic 1,200,000

1,000,000

800,000

600,000 VKms ('000)

400,000

200,000

A70 A71 M8 M9 EL A1 Kinc M90 A720 EL Coa Mid E Mid W Fi Cent All-Dunf Queens

Figure 13 Annual Traffic Volumes by Corridor, 2007 (veh-km)

3.10 Traffic growth by corridor is shown in Figure 14 below for each of the three modelled years.

Modelling Results 11 Information Note 6 Version: 6.2

500,000 2007-19 450,000 2007-24 400,000 2007-32 350,000

300,000

250,000

Veh-km 200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

M8 M9 A70 A71 Kinc M90 EL Col EL A1 Mid E Mid W A720 All-Dunf Queens Fi Cent

100% 2007-19 90% 2007-24 80% 2007-32 70%

60%

50% 40%

30%

20%

10%

M8 M9 A70 A71 Kinc M90 EL Col EL A1 Mid E Mid W A720 All-Dunf Queens Fi Cent

Figure 14 Traffic by Corridor (veh kms), Absolute and %

3.11 The highest growth rates (%) are seen at Kincardine, and this reflects the extra capacity resulting from the opening of the Clackmannanshire Bridge. This also has a knock on effect on the Alloa-Dunfermline corridor which is also forecast to see high growth.

3.12 These figures can be looked at by individual time period and this shows that across all corridors, inter peak growth is more substantial (+41%) the AM and PM peak period growth (around +23%). This is evidence of the constrained peak hour networks leading to ‘peak spreading’ into other times of the day. In congested corridors, this effect is even more pronounced. For example in the M8 Corridor, peak hour growth is only 10% compared to 22% in the inter peak.

3.13 Traffic growth can also be considered by looking at the changes in flows across screenlines within each corridor. Figure 15 below shows the corridors together with the screenline locations considered (shown as green bars within the corridor). For the main radial corridors, the screenlines are taken on the approach to Edinburgh.

Modelling Results 12 Information Note 6 Version: 6.2

Figure 15 Location of Corridor Screenlines

3.14 Table 2 below shows the forecast Reference Case growth in travel across these screenlines for each year for vehicles and Table 3 shows the equivalent figures for road based public transport passengers. Base Year figures are given to provide context. These figures are the total flow across the screenline summed across the three time periods (AM, IP and PM).

Table 2 Screenline Growth, vehicles

Screenline (screenline Base number) Year 2019 2026 2032

East Lothian Coastal (9) 1,400 18% 27% 37% East Lothian A1 (10) 1,900 14% 19% 26% Midlothian & Borders East (11) 3,600 43% 41% 43% Midlothian & Borders West (12) 4,200 8% 11% 15% West Lothian A70 (13) 1,100 24% 33% 37% West Lothian A71 (14) 1,800 11% 13% 22% West Lothian M8 (15) 6,900 5% 6% 9% West Lothian M9 (16) 3,900 34% 37% 41% Alloa Dunfermline (20) 1,600 0% 13% 24% Kincardine Bridge (21) 2,300 41% 48% 53% Queensferry (18) 7,000 21% 23% 28% Fife Central (17) 5,500 21% 29% 35% External A70 (E5) 1,100 24% 33% 37% External A71 (E6) 1,800 11% 13% 22%

Modelling Results 13 Information Note 6 Version: 6.2

Screenline (screenline Base number) Year 2019 2026 2032

External M8 – (E1) 6,400 7% 6% 9% External – M876 (E2) 3,800 6% 13% 16% External – M9 (E4) 8,400 12% 17% 23%

Table 3 Screenline Growth, public transport passengers

Screenline (screenline Base number) Year 2019 2026 2032 East Lothian Coastal (9) 17,300 +14% +15% +17% East Lothian A1 (10) 1,400 -65% -65% -65% Midlothian & Borders East (11) 11,500 13% +15% +17% Midlothian & Borders West (12) 11,500 -2% -2% -3% West Lothian A70 (13) 1,000 +39% +56% +51% West Lothian A71 (14) 11,500 -39% -38% -37% West Lothian M8 (15) 12,300 +31% +34% +40% West Lothian M9 (16) 20,800 +30% +31% +35% Alloa Dunfermline (20) 2,800 +8% +4% -2% Kincardine Bridge (21) 2,300 5% 1% -3% Cross Forth Queensferry (18) 17,000 +39% +43% +42% Fife Central (17) 15,000 +24% +25% +23%

Congestion

3.15 Congestion is represented within the model by ‘time lost due to congestion’ (TLDTC). This is defined as the additional vehicles hours spent on the network due to congestion, ie compared to travelling at free flow speeds, and applies to cars and goods vehicles. A more refined measure though is time lost due to congestion per vehicle kilometre travelled. This is a better measure of congestion as experienced by car users. Both of these measures are referred to below.

3.16 The modelling of congestion within the Edinburgh City Bypass is much less defined than the rest of the model, as this area is modelled as ‘buffer’2 network, and not all the network is represented. Inclusion of the Edinburgh results therefore tends to distort the results so CEC has been excluded from some of the graphics here.

3.17 Firstly, the total annual TLDTC for the SESplan local authorities for the base and each Reference Case year is shown in Figure 16 below.

2 Buffer network means that individual models are not modelled specifically in terms of their layout, geometry etc. Instead a generic, speed flow curve based approach is used. The SEStran Regional Model was developed in this way as a detailed model of Edinburgh already existed and to develop the SEStran model in this way would have been a duplication.

Modelling Results 14 Information Note 6 Version: 6.2

16,000,000

14,000,000

12,000,000

10,000,000 West Lothian Scottish Borders 8,000,000 Midlothian Fife 6,000,000 East Lothian

4,000,000

2,000,000

0 Base Reference 2019 Reference 2024 Reference 2032

50,000,000

45,000,000

40,000,000

35,000,000

30,000,000

25,000,000 City of Edinburgh

20,000,000

15,000,000

10,000,000

5,000,000

0 Base Reference 2019 Reference 2024 Reference 2032

Figure 16 Time Lost Due to Congestion, LAs and Edinburgh (hours, annual)

3.18 Here it can be seen that total congestion is forecast to increase by around 180% between 2007 and 2032 for these five local authority areas. This is associated with an increase in traffic of only 39% and illustrates how congestion increases rapidly when networks are operating near capacity and traffic levels grow.

3.19 Figure 17 below shows TLDTC / km travelled on the network in each of the corridors for the peak hours in each of the modelled years.

Modelling Results 15 Information Note 6 Version: 6.2

70.0 2007 2019 60.0 2024 2032 50.0

40.0

30.0 seconds / seconds km

20.0

10.0

0.0

M8 M9 A70 A71 Kinc All-D M90 EL Col EL A1 Mid E Mid W A720 Queens Fi Cent

Figure 17 Peak Hour Time Lost Due to Congestion (seconds / km)

3.20 Figure 17 highlights the congestion seen in the narrowly defined City Bypass corridor. It can also be seen that Reference Case congestion increase in all corridors over the years but some corridors remain relatively uncongested, although there may still be local hotspots within these areas.

3.21 Although no corridors are defined within the CEC area, by way of context the equivalent council area figures are 46.6 seconds per kilometre in the base rising to 82.6 seconds per kilometre in 2032.

Peak Spreading

3.22 A feature of the SATURN highway assignment model used within the SEStran Regional Model here is that as traffic volumes increase, an increasing proportion of traffic cannot reach its ultimate destination within the modelled time period. This is reported as being held over to the ‘next time period’. As such this can be seen as a proxy for increases in peak spreading.

3.23 In the 2007 base year model, only 2.5% of traffic is defined as being held over to the ‘next time period’. By 2032, this figure is forecast to increase to 9.4%.

Public Transport Use

3.24 The aggregate measure of public transport use is total boardings across the network. Figure 18 below shows the average 12-hour boardings by bus, train and tram across the network.

3.25 Public transport boardings are also forecast to rise slightly over time, but this comprises a drop in bus use with an increase in train use. Overall public transport boardings are forecast to rise by 3% over the plan period, a mixture of a 12% drop in bus boardings and a 45% rise in rail boardings (this being equivalent to 1.5% per annum).

Modelling Results 16 Information Note 6 Version: 6.2

700,000

600,000

500,000

400,000 Tram Rail 300,000 Bus

200,000

100,000

- 2007 2019 2024 2032

Figure 18 Reference Case Daily Public Transport Boardings

4 Do Something Test

4.1 The ‘Do Something’ test has included a range of strategic, corridor-base transport measures. This test reflects the content of the accompanying Information Note 7, ‘Transport Measures for SDP’. In the main these are drawn from the SEStran Regional Transport Strategy and other sources such as the Strategic Transport Projects Review (STPR).

4.2 The main elements of the test are shown in Table 4 below together with details of their location, the SESplan Potential Growth Areas which would be positively influenced and the purpose of the measure.

Table 4 Do Something Test – Measures & Description

Measure Location - Affects SESplan Purpose of Measure SEStran Potential Growth Areas Corridor Sheriffhall grade 14 – City Most Lothians – wide Relives key bottleneck on separation Bypass ranging influence though regional network – also for A7 north / south movements and access to A68 City Bypass congestion will to some extent be displaced to Old Craighall & westbound carriageways though Redhouse roundabout 13 – Fife 3 & 5 but small region wide Relieves congestion at this key improvements Central impact interchange – mainly affects Fife – Dundee strategic movements Old Craighall 20 - 25 Designed to control flow on signalisation A720 / A1 junction – should reduce delays and improve safety

Modelling Results 17 Information Note 6 Version: 6.2

Measure Location - Affects SESplan Purpose of Measure SEStran Potential Growth Areas Corridor City Bypass Orbital bus 14 – City Lothians & Borders Together with P&R sites, service Bypass would provide improved access to key employment centres. Would relieve A720 congestion and improve access to employment sites where parking is constrained. Gogar roundabout to 7 – M8 10 Provides a second access Edinburgh Airport link route to Edinburgh Airport and road is an integral part of the West Edinburgh development proposals. Relieves congestion on Eastfield Road. New M9 Winchburgh 8 – M9 6 Provides access to major junction Winchburgh junction – relieves local network Levenmouth rail 13 – Fife 5 Provides rail access to the Central Leven area. Encourages modal shift to rail with knock on congestion benefits Cross forth ferry 11 - Primarily 1 to 5 New mode for cross Forth Queensferry travel would promote modal shift from car Rosyth Bypass 10 Alloa 1,2 Local congestion relief around Dunfermline A985 and Dunfermline A801 River Avon Gorge 7 – M8 and 6-8 Improvements mainly aimed & Grangemouth access 8 – M9 at goods vehicle traffic on improvements (STPR) unsuitable route New P&R sites at 7 – M8, 8 – 6-11, 19 and 30 New park and ride sites Kilpunt, Winchburgh, M9 & 4 – encourage modal shift from Deer Park, Bankton and Midlothian car and provide additional Lothianburn west capacity Additional P&R capacity Various All SESplan except City of Many P&R sites have at selected locations Edinburgh constrained parking – a programme of expansion would encourage further modal shift and use Edinburgh – Newcastle 2 – East 25, 24, 22, 21 New rail services at East semi fast with new Lothian A1 Linton and Reston, and stations at East Linton improved frequency at Drem – and Reston Musselburgh would promote further mode shift from car Extensive bus priority on Various Various Bus priority can be used to regional corridors not enable buses to bypass currently covered by bus congestion hot spots and priority encourage modal shift from car through faster and more reliable journey times

4.3 As the phasing of development across the SEStran area remains uncertain to some extent, the results below are reported only for 2032, ie at the end of the whole plan period.

Modelling Results 18 Information Note 6 Version: 6.2

4.4 The above package is a mix of public transport initiatives and road-based improvements targeted at know congestion hot spots. The main aspects which could be affected are therefore traffic levels, congestion, peak spreading and modal share.

4.5 The key conclusions are:

 Peak hour congestion is reduced;

 Peak spreading is reduced; and

 Public transport usage increases.

4.6 However at a region-wide scale, the magnitude of these changes is very small. The impact of many of the proposals would clearly only be seen in the vicinity of their implementation. However the aggregate figures below show that the package does have a positive impact on the key measures.

Impact on Traffic Levels

4.7 The mixture of road and public transport schemes in the package has only a modest effect on traffic levels in the SESplan area. Figure 19 below shows the changes in traffic (% vehicle kms) by local authority area for 2032.

2.5% Test / Ref 2032 2.0%

1.5%

1.0%

0.5%

0.0% East Lothian City of Fife Midlothian Scottish West Lothian SEStran -0.5% Edinburgh Borders

-1.0%

-1.5%

-2.0%

-2.5%

Figure 19 Impact of Package on Traffic Levels at Local Authority Level

4.7.1 In this test, the package of measures is leading to an increase in vehicle kilometres travelled in 2032 of less than 0.5%. This will reflect the highway improvements within the package and the high level of suppressed demand in the area which is really the key issue here. Additional capacity or the removal of bottlenecks leads to more traffic being accommodated on the network within a given time period.

Impact on Congestion

4.8 The package of schemes has a very modest but measurable impact on area-wide congestion. When viewed in terms of its impact on peak hour congestion, defined as change in time lost due to congestion (seconds / vehicle kilometre), the package is seen to have a positive impact. Much larger impacts would be seen at the local level.

Modelling Results 19 Information Note 6 Version: 6.2

6.0

4.0 Test - Ref (2032)

2.0

0.0 East City of Fife Midlothian Scottish West SESplan -2.0 Lothian Edinburgh Borders Lothian

-4.0 seconds / seconds veh km -6.0

-8.0

-10.0

-12.0

Figure 20 Impact of Package on Peak Hour Congestion at the Local Authority Level

4.9 A significant reduction is seen in Midlothian, reflecting the Sheriffhall improvements. Larger impacts would potentially be identified at the more local level in the vicinity of some of the interventions.

4.10 Again, this is a reflection of suppressed demand. Traffic which is removed as a result of modal shift is replaced by suppressed demand, ie peak spreading diminishes. Overall this means that the level of congestion does not reduce to the same extent as in a situation where there is less suppressed demand.

4.11 The package has a modest effect on peak spreading. The proportion of car trips modelled as carrying over to the next time period is reduced from 9.4% to 9.2%.

Public Transport

4.12 The package of measures has a positive impact on public transport. Total public transport boardings increase over the SDP period from the Reference Case. Bus boardings rise due to the widespread introduction of regional bus priority measures. This may be impacting on the rail figures.

4.13 This change is shown in more detail in Figure 23 below which shows the difference between the Test Case and the Reference Case for 2032 in terms of passenger flows across the screenlines..

Modelling Results 20 Information Note 6 Version: 6.2

15.0%

Test - Ref (2032) 10.0%

5.0%

0.0%

-5.0% % Change % (passengers)

-10.0%

-15.0%

M8 M9

A70 A71

Kinc

All-D

ELA1

Mid E Mid

ELCoa

Mid W Mid Cent Fi

Queens totalscreenline

Figure 21 Impact of Package on Public Transport Passenger Flows Across Screenlines

4.13.1 Across all the screenline, passenger numbers therefore grow by 2.5% in the test case compared to the reference case.

Emissions

4.14 Emissions have been calculated based on the current WebTAG parameters (TAG Unit 3.5.6, April 2009). The vehicle fuel efficiency improvements assumed are as follows:

 2005-10: -1.33% per annum;

 2010-15: -1.57% per annum; and

 2015-20: -1.70% per annum

4.15 No further improvements are assumed post 2020.

4.16 Using these parameters, CO2 emissions actually increase by 7%, 13% and 25% by 2019, 2024 and 2032 respectively. The package of measures does not significantly changes these figures.

4.17 We could re-run the procedure based on the WebTAG March 2010 (draft) assumed efficiency improvements. In the meantime, a high level assessment of the picture regarding emissions is outlined below.

Climate Change Targets

4.18 SG is now committed to achieving a 42% reduction from 1990 levels by 2020. According to the climate change delivery plan, this means that transport sector emissions need to reduce by 32% by 2020 from 2006 levels.

4.19 Progress towards this clearly depends on the counteracting impacts of traffic growth (veh-km) and vehicle fleet efficiency improvements.

4.20 WebTAG March 2010 (Draft) suggest the following 'average car' fuel efficiency improvements:

Modelling Results 21 Information Note 6 Version: 6.2

 2008-2010: 1.11% per annum;

 2010-2015: 1.25% per annum;

 2015-2020: 2.58% per annum;

 2020-2025: 3.54% per annum;

 2025-2030: 2.58% per annum; and

 2030-2035: 0.95% per annum.

4.21 The chart below shows how these factors interact with different projected traffic growth rates to change total emissions over the period.

4.22 This suggests that veh-km would have to reduce by around 1.5% per annum if the 2020 target were to be met for car / lgv traffic (assuming the rest of the transport sector achieves similar reductions).

Projected SESplan Area Emissions, 2006=100 110

100

70 -1.5% 60 -1.0% -0.5% No Growth 50 0.5% 1.0% Trend 40 1.5% Target

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032

Figure 22 Emission Pathways and Traffic Growth (WebTAG March 2010 Draft)

Overview

4.23 The package of transport measures has a positive impact overall and will have larger impacts at the local level. However, any package of measures can only:

 (a) affect a small proportion of the total journeys on the network; and

 (b) invoke a behavioural change in a small proportion of these.

4.24 Given this, it should not be a surprise that the schemes have only a modest impact at the regional level, but that is not to say that they would not have a positive contribution to make within their own localities. It is unrealistic however to expect a package of network-based

Modelling Results 22 Information Note 6 Version: 6.2

measures at specific locations to have a major impact at the regional level, especially in the case where there is such a high level of suppressed demand.

5 Other Measures

5.1 As we have seen, the above data indicates that the package of measures as modelled here does not have a large impact on the KPIs at a regional level. The forecast, based on standard WebTAG assumptions and the Strategic Development Plan land use / demographic scenario suggest that road traffic would continue to grow at 1.2% per annum over the 25 year period. The high level emissions analysis suggests that, in order to meet the 2020 emissions reduction target, traffic levels would have to reduce by around 1.5% per annum.

5.2 The SDP has only a limited impact on the whole regional picture for two reasons.

 it is allocating around 145,000 new homes, but there is a base ‘stock’ of 540,000; and

 of this 145,000, around 80,000 is ‘legacy’ from the previous structure plan.

5.3 So in fact the SDP only has ‘control’ of the location of around 10% of what will be the total housing stock by 2032.

5.4 Therefore, there is limited further scope to achieve the scale of change required to meet emissions targets by re-locating allocations, although there could still be a role to play.

5.5 The SEStran RTS Delivery Plan included a range of non-infrastructure based measures which were specified to contribute towards meeting the corridor-specific mode shift targets which were determined within the strategy development process..

Smarter Choices

5.6 ‘The Effects of Smarter Choice Programmes in the Sustainable Travel Towns’ was published in February 20103 and reports on three extensive demonstration projects of Personalised Travel Planning in medium-sized English towns.

5.7 In outline terms, the report suggests that car driver km was reduced by 5%-7% compared to a fall of around 1% in the control areas (attributable to the recession). As such its probably fair to assume that a SEStran area-wide PTP programme could cut car-km by around 5% in the medium term, although this figure could potentially be higher.

Fuel Prices

5.8 A key issue in determining travel behaviour and mode choice in recent decades has been the relative cost of transport by mode. The key point is that the cost of motoring has been reducing in real terms whilst the cost of travelling by train or bus has been increasing in real terms as shown below.

3 http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/smarterchoices/smarterchoiceprogrammes/pdf/summaryreport.pdf

Modelling Results 23 Information Note 6 Version: 6.2

160

140

Purchase of vehicle 120 Maintenance Petrol & oil 100 Tax & Insurance All Motoring Rail fares 80 Bus & Coach fares

40 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Figure 23 Real Terms Changes in the cost of transport by mode (UK)

5.9 A significant rebalancing of the cost of travel by mode would have a major effect on modal choice. For example, there is a good consensus in the literature that the elasticity of fuel prices per litre to vehicle kilometres travelled is around -0.3.4

5.10 In order to meet the 2020 climate change targets, based on the March 2010 WebTAG assumption, traffic levels would have to reduce by around 15% from the 2007 base to 2020. Stable traffic levels would bring only a 20% reduction in emissions.

5.11 The figure below shows the forecast traffic levels for the modelled Reference and Test Cases (identical below) together with the adjusted profiles assuming the smarter choices and fuel prices changes below. This suggests that a combination of a higher fuel price reducing demand together with the technological improvements envisaged would reduce the forecast demand in a way which is consistent with the 2020 climate change targets.

4 See for example, http://www2.cege.ucl.ac.uk/cts/tsu/papers/transprev243.pdf

Modelling Results 24 Information Note 6 Version: 6.2

12000

10000

8000

6000

million vehicle kms vehicle million 4000 Ref test Smarter Choices 2000 Fuel Price * 2 SC & FP CC Target to 2020 0 SESplan 2007 SESplan 2019 SESplan 2024 SESplan 2032

Figure 24 Potential Impact of Other Measures on Climate Change Targets

5.12 Note that a range of other policy responses have been considered in the Scottish Government’s ‘Mitigating Transport’s Climate Change Impact in Scotland: Assessment of Policy Options’ publication.5

6 An Illustrative ‘Radical’ Scenario

6.1 An illustrative scenario was modelled to represent:

 Significant escalation in fuel price; and

 The implementation of parking charges across the SEStran area broadly reflecting the Regional Parking Strategy.

6.2 For fuel prices, this comprised (all real terms):

 2007-19: +4% per annum;

 2019-24 +3% per annum; and

 2024-32: +2% per annum

6.3 For existing modeled parking charges (all real terms):

 2007-19: +3% per annum

 2019-24 +2% per annum

 2024-32: +1% per annum

6.4 For SEStran defined ‘Tier 1’ towns, charges were introduced at 50% of the above, and for ‘Tier 2’ towns, charges were introduced at 25% of the above.

5 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/282791/0085548.pdf

Modelling Results 25 Information Note 6 Version: 6.2

6.5 This test had a significant impact on the KPIs as summarised below. The impacts on traffic and congestion are shown respectively below.

0.0%

-1.0%

-2.0%

-3.0%

-4.0%

-5.0%

-6.0%

-7.0%

-8.0% Test / Ref 2019 Test / Ref 2024 -9.0% Test / Ref 2032 -10.0% East Lothian City of Fife Midlothian Scottish West Lothian SEStran Edinburgh Borders

Figure 25 High Cost Sensitivity Test – Impact on Traffic (veh km)

3,500,000,000

3,000,000,000

2,500,000,000

2,000,000,000 ref test 1,500,000,000

1,000,000,000

500,000,000

0 2019 2024 2032

Figure 26 High Cost Sensitivity Test – Impact Traffic Growth from Base (veh km)

6.6 This suggests that a policy package such as this would have a significant impact on tempering traffic growth. Allied to vehicle efficiency improvements, this could go a long way towards meeting emissions reduction targets. This test does however illustrate the scale of the measures which are required to invoke changes of this magnitude.

Modelling Results 26 Information Note 6 Version: 6.2

10,000,000 Additional TLDTC From 2007 9,000,000

8,000,000

7,000,000

6,000,000

5,000,000 Hours 4,000,000

3,000,000

2,000,000

1,000,000

0 Ref 2019 Test 2019 Ref 2024 Test 2024 Ref 2032 Test 2032

Figure 27 High Cost Sensitivity Test – Impact on Congestion

6.7 In this case the additional congestion from the base year is reduced substantially (by around one third).

Modelling Results 27 Appendix 3: MVA Consultancy Note 7 Version 1.4: Transport Measures for SDP

Information Note

Project Title: SESplan Strategic Development Plan Transport Appraisal

MVA Project Number: C3A01400

Subject: Transport Measures for SDP

Note Number: 7 Version: 1.2

Author(s): Scott Leitham

Reviewer(s):

Date: 05 April 2011

1 Introduction

1.1 This note has been produced following a meeting with SEStran, SESplan and Transport Scotland which was held on 23 February 2011.

1.2 Version 1.2 includes some additional network level analysis of the SDP forecasts.

1.3 A corridor-based approach has been taken to the assessment of the Strategic Development Plan as modelled in the SEStran Regional Transport Model. The SDP scenario, in terms of land allocations, has been modelled within TELMoS (Transport Scotland’s Transport Economic and Land Use Model of Scotland). A companion note to this describes the modelling of the land use scenario in TELMoS and the forecast changes on the transport networks through time to 2032.

1.4 The SDP was modelled together with a range of ‘Reference Case’ transport schemes which are either committed or under construction. These are:

A68 Dalkeith Northern Bypass (opened post 2007 base year);

Borders Railway;

Airdrie to Bathgate re-opening;

Shotts line improvements (introduced post 2007 base year);

Edinburgh Glasgow Improvement programme including Edinburgh Gateway train / tram interchange;

Forth Replacement Crossing;

Clackmannanshire Bridge (opened post 2007 base year); and

Edinburgh trams (Airport to Ocean Terminal).

1.5 In advance of the meeting on 23 February, a review of the Regional Transport Strategy was undertaken to identify ‘network based’ transport proposals in each of the corridors. This list was reviewed at the meeting in terms of its continuing suitability for inclusion in the transport section of the SDP, and the outcomes of these discussions are reported here.

Transport Measures for SDP 1 Information Note 7 Version: 1.2

1.6 The RTS also contains a range of ‘region-wide’ measures which contribute to meeting the objectives of the RTS.

2 Network Level Problems

2.1 The graphics below provide a network level view of the locations where congestion and delays are forecast to grow between the 2007 Base Year and 2032 Reference Case modelled scenario, for an AM peak hour.

2.2 The graphics show information at the junction and link levels respectively. The colour coding from green to red highlights areas where delays are lower and higher.

Transport Measures for SDP 2

Transport Measures for SDP 3 Information Note 7 Version: 1.2

Transport Measures for SDP 4 Information Note 7 Version: 1.2

Transport Measures for SDP 5 Information Note 7 Version: 1.2

Transport Measures for SDP 6 Table 1 Commentary on Network Graphics

Reference Case Transport issues 2007-32 Corridor

A1 Old Craighall / Edinburgh main road issue Potential capacity issues on North Berwick train services Increased congestion on A198 1 – East Lothian Coastal A1 approaching Edinburgh sees reduced level of service from Tranent to Old Craighall and beyond Access routes out of Tranent experiencing greater delays Minor, but not significant delays on A198 coastal route Networks operating within capacity in this area 2 – East Lothian A1 A1 Old Craighall / Edinburgh main road issue further afield All accesses to Edinburgh employment areas under pressure in this corridor A6106, A68, A7, A768, B704 all see significant additional delays on approaches to Edinburgh Associated localised junction issues 3 – Midlothian & Modest deterioration on A6093, no issues on A68 further south Borders East Some increase in delay on A699 (Selkirk – Kelso) A6091 / A68 junction area seems small delays A6091 and routes through Galashiels see an increase in delay P&R capacity at Borders Railway stations may be insufficient in longer term

4 – Midlothian & Increased junction delays along A701 Borders West Some additional delay on A702 from Penicuik junction approaching Lothianburn 5 – West Lothian Increase in delays along A70 approaches to Edinburgh A70

6 – West Lothian Increase in delays along A71 approaches to Edinburgh A71 Growth in congestion around Hermiston Gait and Calder junction Increased delays at junctions in Bathgate, Armadale and Whitburn Significant deterioration of level of service on M8 Increased delays on A801 and A7066 Selected junctions in Broxburn and Livingston under pressure 7 – West Lothian A899 (Livingston), A71 and A89 all see increased delays M8 Increased delays on A8, Gogar, Edinburgh Park area Generally high levels of congestion in base year, significant deterioration is forecast Widespread and significant additional congestion across the modelled area of west Edinburgh suggests a significant constraint on growth in this area Delays appearing through Kirkliston Increased delays on M9 Spur 8 – West Lothian Increased junction delays in Linlithgow and at B8046 / A904 junction M9 General deterioration in level of service on M9 / A904 Lack of station at new Winchburgh development Capacity issues in and approaching west Edinburgh area significant 9 – Kincardine Pressure on junctions north of Kincardine Bridge Increase in junction delays in and around Dunfermline 10 – Stirling Alloa Deterioration in level of service on various routes in and around Dunfermline Dunfermline Increasing delays on A985 and A907 Lack of rail link to Edinburgh

11 - Queensferry Forth Replacement Crossing does not provide significant further cross Forth

Transport Measures for SDP 7 Information Note 7 Version: 1.2

Reference Case Transport issues 2007-32 Corridor

capacity Some uncertainty surrounding Forth Replacement Crossing public transport strategy Surplus P&R capacity exists – market exhaustion? Barnton junction a significant capacity constraint Forth Replacement Crossing does not provide significant further cross Forth capacity 12 – M90 Some uncertainty surrounding Forth Replacement Crossing public transport strategy General deterioration of level of service on A92 west of A910 Increased delays on A92 through Glenrothes Increased delays at Redhouse roundabout causing knock on delays on B981 in Kirkcaldy Cross Forth road and rail capacity issues also affect this area 13 – Mid Fife Increase in delay on A921 approaching Dalgety Bay / Inverkeithing Cross Forth road and rail capacity issues also affect this area Increased delays on A915 between Leven and Kirkcaldy Delays at A915 / A916 /A911 junction Delays on A915 east of Leven Cross Forth road and rail capacity issues also affect this area Increase in delays forecast on A720 and associated junctions A720 already operating at or near capacity in base year peak hours 14 – City Bypass Very significant increase in delays forecast on eastern stretches of the A720 and associated junctions including Sheriffhall and Old Craighall

3 Transport Proposal for Inclusion in SDP

3.1 The tables below take each corridor in turn and report:

forecast traffic growth between 2007-19, and 2019-32;

share of total housing allocation, 2007-19, 2019-32, and total 2007-32;

forecast average peak hour traffic congestion in 2032;

traffic issues in the corridor in 2032;

transport proposals included in RTS for each corridor;

whether these proposals should be included in the SDP; and

any relevant comments.

3.2 The corridors referred to reflect the definitions used in the RTS and are shown below.

Transport Measures for SDP 8 Information Note 7 Version: 1.2

Figure 1 RTS Regional Commuter Corridors – Definition

3.3 Transport policies and proposals were developed in the RTS in the context of a set of mode share targets which were specified for the different commuter corridors.

3.4 Proposals highlighted in red were identified in the RTS as being ‘RTS projects delivered by others for which SEStran expresses support’.

3.5 Proposals highlighted in blue were defined specifically as ‘development led proposals’.

Transport Measures for SDP 9 Table 2 Corridors and Measures

Corridor Traffic Growth 2007-19 Growth2007-19 Traffic (%) Growth2019-32 Traffic (%) Allocation Housing (%) 2007-19 Allocation Housing (%) 2019-32 Housing Total of Share (%) 2007-32 Allocation Congestion Corridor vehkm) / (sec 2032 congestion in Increase (%) 2007-32 Issuesin Traffic 2032 to Corridor Considered Schemes SDP? in Include Comments

1 - East Lothian 23 17 4.8 0.0 2.7 4.8 87 No significant issues – potentially congestion Musselburgh QBC - significant programme of measures RTS schemed aimed at Coastal [Low] through Musselburgh through Musselburgh to link with existing Greenways mode share targets on Willowbrae Road / Milton Road Tram Line 3 to Musselburgh Retain as a long term aspiration Bankton P&R – serving Blindwells as alternative to rail link

2 - East Lothian 16 12 6.7 4.7 5.8 2.8 69 Increased delays at Old Craighall junction – minor New stopping service to [East Linton] Dunbar, [Reston], Pending ScotRail / A1 / Borders [Low] delays at A6094 junction, and A198 junction on Berwick upon Tweed, to Newcastle Transport Scotland A1 study Delays on A1 from A199 junction eastbound in Bankton Park and Ride – Blindwells AM peak, approaching capacity west of Old Craighall Musselburgh Parkway station Ruled out by Transport Scotland - Implementabilty Old Craighall junction improvements Proposals under development / discussion

3 – Midlothian 22 12 13.3 9.4 11.6 5.7 67 Some capacity issues at junctions on A7 from Sheriffhall bus priority – A7 / A68 RTS schemed aimed at East / Borders [Low] Gorebridge north mode share targets A7 around Dalkeith approaching capacity Pedestrian / cycling Infrastructure to complement Maximise Waverley Railway opportunities Increased delays in area south of Sheriffhall A7 / A68 bus priority schemes RTS schemed aimed at roundabout mode share targets A68 / A6124 junction under increased pressure Tram Line 3 to Dalkeith Retain as a long term aspiration Minor issues in Galashiels and at A6091 / A68 Borders Railway to Tweedbank Committed scheme junction

Transport Measures for SDP 10 Information Note 7 Version: 1.2

A7 / A68 local junction improvements Local improvements linked to developments

4 Midlothian 13 4 4.1 2.8 3.5 5.9 76 Increased delays at junctions on A701 between Lothianburn P&R RTS schemed aimed at West / Borders [Low] Penicuik and Straiton mode share targets Increased delays on approach to Lothianburn A701 Multi Modal Study outcomes – Bilston Bypass and Midlothian Council junction walk / cycle bus priority improvements scheme Leadburn junction safety improvements A68 local improvements Tram Line 3 to Penicuik Retain as a long term aspiration

5 West Lothian 18 13 0.2 0.0 0.1 3.2 111 Lack of bus priority on A70 between Balerno and Local traffic management and junction improvements / A70 [Low] Wester Hailes Road is an issue – space signal constrained Increase delays on approach to Edinburgh Increased delays at A70 / Riccarton Mains Road junction

6 West Lothian 12 14 2.3 4.2 3.1 20.4 87 A71 has high V/C between Livingston and A71 Bus Priority measures on approach to Edinburgh RTS schemed aimed at A71 [High] Edinburgh mode share targets A71 junctions between Livingston and Edinburgh Shotts Line service improvements Implemented in also at capacity December 2009 A71 delays west of Livingston Kirknewton level crossing replacement – local safety scheme Delays approaching the City Bypass at Hermiston and junction at Riccarton

7 West Lothian 13 6 9.8 12.1 10.8 19.1 86 Increased delays at all key junctions – 'Hub and spoke' PT to serve dispersed employment New services not M8 [High] Newbridge, Gogar, Maybury, Hermiston locations in Livingston area, throughout day and includes in SDP evening Deterioration of level of service across many Improved bus services from Livingston North station to New services not routes in the corridor employment locations includes in SDP

Transport Measures for SDP 11 Information Note 7 Version: 1.2

Increased delays in A89 corridor / Kirkliston Livingston bus priority measures Delays increasing on A899 Livingston spine route Improved P&R at West Calder and Kirknewton New bus based P&R sites - Heartlands, Winchburgh, Deer Park, Linlithgow Fastlink Phase 2 - Kirkton Campus to Edinburgh – better services and facilities A8 Newbridge to Gogar – bus priority M8 Bus Lane – Hard shoulder running Ruled out by Transport Scotland M8 / A720 Managed Motorway Study measures Traffic management measures New road link to Edinburgh Airport – from Gogar, and West Edinburgh improvements to Newbridge Transport Appraisal (WETA) measure A89 Corridor improvements – bus service and Infrastructure infrastructure (priority) improvements measures only New M8 junction at Whitburn Developer led - Heartlands development Tram extension to Livingston Retain as a long term aspiration

8 Edinburgh – 21 16 2.0 4.4 3.0 15.1 136 Increased delays on A904 Improved bus links to stations and parking at stations - New services not Linlithgow - [Med] eg Bo'ness-Linlithgow, Grangemouth to Falkirk High, includes in SDP Falkirk Polmont area

Some deterioration on M9 and its approaches to M9 bus lane Linlithgow to Newbridge Ruled out by Transport Newbridge Scotland Increased local delays in Linlithgow New station at Winchburgh Ruled out by Transport Scotland Larger impacts beyond SESplan area M9 junction for Winchburgh Associated with

Transport Measures for SDP 12 Information Note 7 Version: 1.2

Corridor Housing Allocation Allocation Housing (%) 2019-32 Housing Total of Share (%) 2007-32 Allocation Congestion Corridor vehkm) / (sec 2032 congestion in Increase (%) 2007-32 Issuesin Traffic 2032 to Corridor Considered Schemes SDP? in Include Comments Traffic Growth 2007-19 Growth2007-19 Traffic (%) Growth2019-32 Traffic (%) Allocation Housing (%) 2007-19 strategic development Forth Replacement Crossing Public Transport Package Details to be confirmed M9 Junction 3 west facing slips Development related - pending assessment

9 Kincardine 66 14 0.8 0.1 0.5 16.0 -51 New bridge resolve main issues – congestion No schemes – potentially minor adjustments to new Clackmannanshire [Med] relived in Kincardine. road layouts Bridge opened in 2008 Some delays forecast at 2+1 merges on new bridge

10 Stirling – 38 31 8.1 5.4 6.9 21.6 291 Increased delays on A907, B910 West Fife Quality Bus Corridor Alloa - [High] Dunfermline Significant increase in delays in Dunfermline – New station at Dunfermline West Ruled out by Transport A823 and A907, also junction in east Dunfermline Scotland – area implementability and budget Extension of Glasgow to Alloa trains to Dunfermline and SEStran aspiration via Edinburgh Clackmannanshire – Fife – Edinburgh STAG study. Not in STPR so unlikely to be supported by TS. Rosyth port rail link / Charleston chord Rosyth Bypass

11 Queensferry 40 10 1.1 0.8 1.0 13.4 89 Cross Forth car traffic demand continues to [Med] exceed supply with the new bridge in place – Cross Forth ferry leading to increased peak spreading Barton junction operating beyond capacity Expanded park and choose at Inverkeithing & Dalgety Bay

Delays around A904 / A90 junction Dunfermline - Inverkeithing / Dunfermline Halbeath Bus Priority measures

Transport Measures for SDP 13 Information Note 7 Version: 1.2

Significant delays on M9 spur Park and Choose at Rosyth and Halbeath Forth Replacement Crossing Public Transport Package Signalisation of Pitreavie roundabout A90 northbound bus priority Completion of SITCoS Comprehensive bus rights-of-way network (inc A907, A823, Rosyth) Expanded park and choose at Inverkeithing & Dalgety Bay

12 M90 13 7 1.4 0.2 0.9 14.6 406 Deterioration of level of service on M90 Forth Replacement Crossing Public Transport Package [Med] southbound STPR scheme with P&R Inverkeithing to Halbeath Railway at Halbeath and revised Fife Circle

13 Fife Central 22 14 18.4 10.3 14.8 8.7 128 Increased delays on A92 east of Lochgelly A92 based express buses, links at key interchanges - New services not [Med] plus bus priority on routes in 3 main towns includes in SDP (Dunfermline, Kirkcaldy, Glenrothes) including network of PT hubs Increased delays in and around Kirkcaldy New station at Kirkcaldy East Levenmouth line re-opening, with revised Fife Circle services A92 Redhouse Interchange improvements Other A92 Junction improvements – Bankhead, Preston

14 City Bypass / 24 7 0 0 0 58.2 118 City Bypass operating at capacity in base year SEStran proposal Outer Orbital Buses & associated Infrastructure Outer Orbital [High] Significant delays extend for full length of route Barnton Interchange (associated with above) Longer term

Significant delays at all A720 junctions and Longer term approach routes – Gilmerton, Straiton, Barnton – Maybury bus priority (associated with above) Lothianburn, Dreghorn

Transport Measures for SDP 14 Information Note 7 Version: 1.2

Major deterioration at and around Sheriffhall Proposals under roundabout Old Craighall junction improvements development / discussion Sheriffhall Junction Grade separation STPR scheme M8 / A720 Managed Motorway Study measures Traffic management measures

Internal 22 9 27.0 45.6 35.1 Congestion not analysed in detail – buffer Edinburgh network Edinburgh North Further bus priority, on key routes in the north Edinburgh corridor, eg Inverleith Row, Queensferry Road, Dundas Street, Crewe Road South Newhaven-Airport, Roseburn-Granton, Granton Granton links long term Newhaven trams Edinburgh Gilmerton Road bus priority south-east and east Niddrie Mains Road bus priority measures, etc Shawfair package of measures Development specific Edinburgh Further bus priority, eg Bridges, A702, A70, A701, A7, south- east, junction measures and bus lanes Edinburgh south, Edinburgh south-west Edinburgh west, Tackle remaining bus priority bottlenecks, eg Edinburgh south Corstorphine (traffic management), Drum Brae, Calder west Road, Dalry / Gorgie, Queensferry Road

Edinburgh south A702 bus priority (inc Fairmilehead junction) Associated with Lothianburn P&R Edinburgh Greendykes / ERI bus link & services Bus link only orbital inner

Transport Measures for SDP 15 Information Note 7 Version: 1.2

New bus services - south to east Edinburgh New services not includes in SDP South Suburban railway The case for the service has not been definitively made. Funding and implementability issues

Others Grangemouth road and rail access upgrades – including STPR / NPF2 schemes A801 Avon Bridge and Approach Roads Direct trains from Edinburgh Park to Glasgow Transport Scotland considering Electrification of Edinburgh Glasgow railways EGIP proposals Edinburgh Glasgow High Speed Rail Long term aspiration Haymarket redevelopment No direct impact on services

Transport Measures for SDP 16

Transport Measures for SDP 17 Appendix 4: MVA Consultancy Note 8 Version 8.0: SESplan SDP assessment

Information Note

Project Title: SESplan Strategic Development Plan Assessment

MVA Project Number: C3A0140-00

Subject: Follow-up Tasks

Note Number: 8 Version: 8.0

Author(s): Scott Leitham

Reviewer(s):

Date: 30 March 2011

1 Introduction

1.1 This note has been prepared in response to an emailed request from SEStran on 24 March 2011.

1.2 It addresses each of the requested tasks in turn.

2 SESplan Accessibility Assessments (points 1 and 2)

2.1 SESplan has identified 30 potential strategic growth areas (SGA) – see graphic in SESplan paper. In the Stage 2 Assessment, Table 1, it seems they have allocated the 71 settlements used by MVA for the accessibility analysis to the 30 SGAs and derived average values for each SGA, based on the Hansen public transport access to employment measure. These have then been ranked and presented using a „traffic light‟ system (rank 1-8: Green, 9-17: Amber and >17: Red). SSGs within Edinburgh were excluded from this analysis due to their high levels of accessibility.

2.2 It should be noted that SESplan state 25 that “The regional employment indicator has been used in recognition 20 that travel to and from work generates the majority of journeys”. The 15

proportion of travel by different trips % distance purposes (journeys and person 10 kilometres) is shown here, taken from the UK National Transport Survey. This 5 shows that commuting is one of a number of significant travel purposes. 0 It would be more accurate to say that Shopping Education Business “commuting is the most significant Commuting Other Leisure OPB & Escort Visiting Friends travel purpose in terms of congestion on the regional transport networks”.

Follow-up Tasks 1 Information Note 8 Version: 8.0

2.3 Table 1 below shows a ranking derived by MVA in this way for employment and this reflects the results presentation shown by SESplan.

2.4 It also shows the Health and Retail rankings which have now been derived in the same way.

2.5 If the average of the three regional rankings is taken, this can itself be ranked. This is shown below as „Regional Rank‟. The comparison between this and the „employment rank‟ shows the impact of taking these other indicators into account. On a limited number of occasions an SGA would „move‟ between red / amber / green classifications if all indicators were used and thus potentially lead to a different conclusion being drawn. These include:

 Fife East;

 M9 Corridor;

 Haddington;

 Dunbar; and

 Central Borders.

2.6 A new and comparable ranking for local accessibility has also been derived, based on the average travel times for each of the six local accessibility measures (secondary school, GP, local retail – all by walk and public transport). This is also shown below. The local and regional ranks could potentially be combined to provide an overall score / rank if desired.

2.7 SGAs which show as „green‟ for all four measures are highlighted in bold.

Follow-up Tasks 2 Information Note 8 Version: 8.0

Table 2.1 SESplan Strategic Growth Areas - Rankings

SESplan Employ- Healt Regio ment h Retail nal Local SESplan Sector Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank 1 – Fife West 13 13 10 13 21 2 – Dunfermline area 5 3 6 3 3 3 – Glenrothes / Kirkcaldy 14 4 5 8 11 4 – Fife South 10 6 14 11 16 5 – Fife East 19 18 18 17 4 6 – M9 Corridor 3 11 13 9 9 7 – west West Lothian 8 8 3 6 10 8 – M8 Corridor 6 2 4 2 8 9 – North West Edinburgh 2 7 7 4 7 10 – West Edinburgh 7 9 1 5 19 11 – South West Edinburgh 1 12 9 7 18 13 – South East Edinburgh 4 1 2 1 6 18 – Dalkeith / Gorebridge 11 5 12 10 12 19 – Loanhead / Penicuik 12 17 11 14 17 20 – Rural South Lothian 17 20 15 16 20 21 – Musselburgh / Tranent 9 14 8 12 13 22 - Haddington 16 23 20 19 15 23 – East Lothian Coastal 18 25 21 24 14 24 - Dunbar 15 19 22 18 2 25 – Eyemouth / Duns 24 15 24 23 1 26 – Lauder / Coldstream 23 16 23 22 24 27 – Central Borders 22 10 16 15 5 28 – South Borders 25 24 25 25 25 29 – Peebles / Innerleithen 21 21 17 19 22 30 – West Linton area 20 22 19 21 23

Follow-up Tasks 3 Information Note 8 Version: 8.0

3 Traffic Analysis (points 3, 4)

3.1 The SESplan Spatial Strategy Assessment Technical Note Stage 2 Assessment (infrastructure) includes an entry for „transport‟ against each of the 30 SSGs. The current text is shown in the table below.

3.2 The SDP modelling work undertaken with the SEStran Regional Model has been used at the link delay / junction delay level to highlight relevant transport issues for each of the SSGs from a regional transport perspective. The issues highlighted would generally lead onto the corridor level transport proposals in MVA Note 7, where some of these traffic issues are also highlighted. The disparity between the SESplan 30 SSGs and the SEStran defined corridors makes the linking less straightforward though.

3.3 The text below could be used to augment / replace the SESplan text, although references to the ELSP modelling should be removed (except perhaps for the within Edinburgh areas).

SESplan Existing Text Constraints from a regional perspective –

2032 ref case forecast with ‘SDP’ A985 access to Kincardine Bridge has Pressure on junctions north of Kincardine 1 capacity issues; local roads inadequate for Bridge significant growth; no commitment to rail Increasing delays on A985 and A907 investment Lack of rail link to Edinburgh Plans for northern Dunfermline link road Increase in junction delays in and around 2 (assume linked to committed Dunfermline development); congestion on Halbeath Deterioration in level of service on various road corridor (and Halbeath junction?); routes in and around Dunfermline Proposed LRT would improve public Forth Replacement Crossing does not provide transport but no funding committed; significant further cross Forth capacity Impact of Replacement Forth Crossing; uncertainty re proposed Inverkeithing to Some uncertainty surrounding Forth Halbeath rail spur Replacement Crossing public transport strategy Surplus P&R capacity exists – market exhaustion? A92/ Redhouse roundabout congestion at General deterioration of level of service on A92 3 peak times; public transport links could be west of A910 improved at Glenrothes and Kirkcaldy Increased delays on A92 through Glenrothes North Increased delays at Redhouse roundabout causing knock on delays on B981 in Kirkcaldy Cross Forth road and rail capacity issues also affect this area local roads inadequate for significant Increase in delay on A921 approaching Dalgety 4 growth in Burntisland/ Kinghorn area; Bay / Inverkeithing Dalgety Bay has road capacity Cross Forth road and rail capacity issues also affect this area Potential issues on A915 and A911 routes, Increased delays on A915 between Leven and 5 and Preston roundabout (Glenrothes) Kirkcaldy Delays at A915 / A916 /A911 junction Delays on A915 east of Leven Cross Forth road and rail capacity issues also affect this area Issues re potential lack of rail station at Increased junction delays in Linlithgow and at 6 Winchburgh and „knock on‟ growth at B8046 / A904 junction Linlithgow Park & Ride; junction capacity General deterioration in level of service on M9 /

Follow-up Tasks 4 Information Note 8 Version: 8.0

SESplan Existing Text Constraints from a regional perspective –

2032 ref case forecast with ‘SDP’ at M9/Newbridge, M9/J3 Linlithgow; A904 Linlithgow High St Lack of station at new Winchburgh development Capacity issues in and approaching west Edinburgh area significant capacity issues for A71 at West Calder and Increased delays at junctions in Bathgate, 7 Livingston. A8801 Avon Gorge issues Armadale and Whitburn Significant deterioration of level of service on M8 Increased delays on A801 and A7066 Capacity issues in and approaching west Edinburgh area significant TS may oppose further growth impacting Selected junctions in Broxburn and Livingston 8 on M8; capacity of junctions on M8 J3a/4 – under pressure Hermiston Gate; A71 corridor capacity A899 (Livingston), A71 and A89 all see through Livingston; capacity of Broxburn/ increased delays Uphall corridor issues relating to Forth Replacement Increased delays on M9 Spur 9 Crossing and its associated links Barnton junction a significant capacity constraint Delays appearing through Kirkliston Capacity issues in and approaching west Edinburgh area significant significant committed infrastructure e.g. Increased delays on A8, Gogar, Edinburgh Park 10 tram, Gogar Station, West Edinburgh area Transport Appraisal identified further Generally high levels of congestion in base necessary interventions. These should be year, significant deterioration is forecast delivered through West Edinburgh

Development Partnership ELSP modelling identified junction delays at Maybury, Barnton, Gyle & Newbridge Proposal to upgrade Hermiston P&R. ELSP Increase in delays along A70 and A71 11 modeling identified junction delays at approaches to Edinburgh Hermiston Gait. Increase to number of Growth in congestion around Hermiston Gait local rail services to Currie Station not and Calder junction supported by Transport Scotland because of impact on Glasgow-Edinburgh journey times. Limited opportunities for development and A720 already operating at or near capacity in 12 therefore negligible impact on transport base year peak hours network. Increase in delays forecast on A720 and associated junctions Impact on junctions on A720 city bypass; A720 already operating at or near capacity in 13 Sheriffhall junction will require additional base year peak hours capacity (ELSP modelling identified Very significant increase in delays forecast on transport congestion/ delays from eastern stretches of the A720 and associated committed devt both peak & off-peak. junctions including Sheriffhall and Old Craighall Borders Rail will provide other transport opportunities, but impact on congestion will be minimal. Tram safeguards (Newcraighall – ERI – Greendykes); Newcraighall Wisp realignment safeguard ELSP modelling identified junction delays No detailed modelling available 14 at Haymarket

Follow-up Tasks 5 Information Note 8 Version: 8.0

SESplan Existing Text Constraints from a regional perspective –

2032 ref case forecast with ‘SDP’ significant transport infrastructure No detailed modelling available 15 required as identified in the North East Transport Action Plan significant transport infrastructure No detailed modelling available 16 required as identified in the North East Transport Action Plan. Tax Incremental Finance (TIF) approach to be used to fund infrastructure delivery ELSP modelling identified junction delays Widespread and significant additional 17 at Maybury, Barnton, Quality St, Blackhall congestion across the modelled area of west and Gyle Edinburgh suggests a significant constraint on growth in this area Impact on junctions on A720 city bypass; All accesses to Edinburgh employment areas 18 Sheriffhall junction will require additional under pressure capacity (ELSP modelling identified A6106, A68, A7, A768, B704 all see significant transport congestion / delays from additional delays on approaches to Edinburgh committed devt both peak & off-peak). Associated localised junction issues Borders Rail will provide other transport opportunities, but impact on congestion P&R capacity at Borders Railway stations may will be minimal. Junctions on A7 will be be insufficient operating beyond capacity with committed devts Capacity of A701 corridor and Straiton Increased junction delays along A701 19 junction on A720 city bypass Some additional delay on A702 from Penicuik junction approaching Lothianburn road network unsuitable for significant Modest deterioration on A6093, no issues on 20 growth; no planned public transport A68 in this area investment that will support this location A1 Old Craighall / Edinburgh Junctions on A1, esp Old Craighall, Increased congestion on A198, A1 approaching 21 identified as constraint to devt. Upgrading Edinburgh sees reduced level of service from of Old Craighall required before new and Tranent to Old Craighall and beyond committed devt proceeds. Virtually no Access routes out of Tranent experiencing capacity on East Coast Main Line. TS will greater delays not support a rail halt at Blindwells. Potential capacity issues on North Berwick train services Trunk road junction constraint Networks operating within capacity in this area 22 A1 Old Craighall / Edinburgh main road issue Potential capacity issues on North Berwick train services Trunk road junctions constraint? North Minor, but not significant delays on A198 23 Berwick Rail line – may be limits on coastal route capacity. A1 Old Craighall / Edinburgh main road issue Potential capacity issues on North Berwick train services Trunk road junctions and East Coats Rail Networks operating within capacity in this area 24 Line constraints. A1 Old Craighall / Edinburgh main road issue East Coast Rail Line capacity constraint; No significant regional issues in this area 25 little scope for new station at Reston Low levels of commuting to Edinburgh Borders Rail will improve connectivity on No significant regional issues in this area 26 A7 corridor Low levels of commuting to Edinburgh B6374 Galashiels to Melrose corridor Some increase in delay on A699 (Selkirk – 27 capacity issues; possible need for new Kelso) river crossing (Tweedbank); Selkirk

Follow-up Tasks 6 Information Note 8 Version: 8.0

SESplan Existing Text Constraints from a regional perspective –

2032 ref case forecast with ‘SDP’ bypass; junction capacity issues on A68 A6091 / A68 junction area seems small delays (Earlston & St Boswells); Galashiels town A6091 and routes through Galashiels see an centre local network issues. increase in delay Low levels of commuting to Edinburgh but Borders Railway significant Localized road improvement required on No significant regional issues in this area 28 A7 S of Hawick Very low levels of commuting to Edinburgh capacity issues for A701/A703 corridor. No significant regional issues in this area 29 New river crossing required at Peebles if 2nd Tweed Crossing associated with further further devt. development at Peebles capacity issues for A701, A702 & A703 No significant regional issues in this area 30 corridors

Follow-up Tasks 7 Appendix 5: SESplan response to Transport Scotland’s MIR representations (extract from MIR responses)

Appendix 5: SESplan response to Scottish Government / Transport Scotland’s MIR representations (extract from MIR responses)

The housing requirement for SESplan has been re-assessed based on the Housing Needs and Demand Assessment (HNDA) and the updated Housing Land Audit (HLA 2010). Five scenarios have been considered informing the assessment of the housing land requirement and supply of housing land over the Plan period. The SDP will meet the housing land requirement in full over the period to 2032. In the short to medium term it is important to consider the impact that the current economic climate has had on the delivery of housing. Completions of housing developments have been reduced and there is an estimated 21 year supply of housing land across the SESplan area. For these reasons it is not therefore considered reasonable or appropriate to bring forward land to meet the housing land requirement in full over these early plan periods. The Spatial Strategy Assessment for the Proposed Plan considers both constraints and opportunities throughout the SESplan area. A range of scenario’s have been considered and analysed against a range of criteria. This has been done in consultation with key stakeholders and industry groups. The SDP identifies 13 Strategic Development Areas, based on the outcomes of a Spatial Strategy Assessment (SSA) which considered potential growth locations across the SESplan area (see accompanying SSA technical note). SESplan has worked collaboratively with SEStran to complete an assessment of the transport implications of the Spatial Strategy. This assessment also identifies requirements for any network enhancements which may be necessary. SESplan is liaising with both Transport Scotland and Scottish Government regarding the means for addressing funding issues.