stry. The SEPA reports sug

development and production of power).

I la& lb4 I Transport, Storage and I Point Source I 11 I River Communication water Transport, Storage and Diffuse 1 bodies

Transport, Storage and orphological alterations Communication

3 SEPA, 2005. "~harac~e~satio~and impact analyses required by Article 5 of the - Seotland eter bodies at $~~ni~~an~risk. Z b = needed to make sure this view is correct. 4.8

4.81 Using water bodies su as rivers and canals for transpo~often requires / morpholog~calaltera ns which can affect habi~tsand also the flow resulting in floodin

4.82 Surface water run-off from hj~hwayscan be contaminated by oil, hydrocar heavy metals, particles and other ha ful pollutants from vehicle exh Therefore it is important that highways watercourses. Some of has s water sewers. Foul water is taken to a sewage treatment works and surface water run-off from the hi ork drains via roads gullies is directly discharged untreated into a watercourse. However, a large propo~jonof the City of Edinburgh has a combined drainage system. This means that in normal conditions, surface water run-off from the highways network drains directly to combined foul sewers and hence sewage treatment works. This ensures that harmful pollutants and particulates are removed before release back into the river system.

4.83 Although water quality in Edinburgh’s rivers is ranked as faidgood, they are still affected by pollution, for example from surface water run-off and combined sewage overflows. During very heavy rain, surface water can overflow into the foul water system or vice versa and contaminated material can enter the watercourse. However this is heavily diluted by the volume of storm water and does not cause major problems under no

4. Rd North - Braid Bu

tributary of Water of

- - Burn road flooded temporary bridge trapping debris Sewer s~rchar~in~

Gullies and/or catchment sewer surcharging eina

a 4.8 w~~h~nthe LTS h

. Air Qua

4.90 Air pollution is harmful to human health, aggravating respirato~ailments such as asthma and bronchitis whilst exacerbating heart conditions. The Government estimates that high air pollutjon episodes are responsible fo eaths in the UK each year, many amongst the ve elderly. Friends of the Earth (Scotland) state that air pollution from car emissions kills 100 people a year in Edinburgh.

.91 Part IV of the Environment Act 1995 statutorily requires the Council to undertake a Review and Assessment of Edinburgh’s air quality against the Governmen~s National Air Quality Strategy (NAQS) objectives for key pollutants. The Stage 1 and 2 reviews indicated that all objectives would be achieved apart from annual objectives for Nitrogen Dioxide (N02) and the standard for particulates (PMto)’. The third stage review concluded that the particulate standard would be achieved. However, the Stage 3 and 4 reviews in this process indicated that the statutory objectives for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) are not likely to be met by 2005 for eight city centre sites (George Street, Gorgie Road/Ardmillan, Leith WalWMcDonaid Road, North Bridge, , Queen Street, Roseburn Terrace and West

4.92 Table 4.12 displays the measured levels of Nitrogen Dioxide in Edinburgh for 2001 and the concentrat~onspredicted for 2005. For one site a 68% reduction in NO, emissions is required to meet the NAQS objective for NO2.

12-0 ct 1995 requires the production of an Air Quality Action PI ameliorate air quality.

4.95 On the 31** ecember 2000, dinb burg Council declared a single AQ centre, ~ncludingthe main links roa

4.96 Council's Air Quality Progress Report 2005 illu rated that although carbon noxide, sulphur dioxide and particles meet eir respective air quality objectives, the annual average roadside nitrogen dioxide trends vary within the AQMA. Of the 11 monitoring sites 4 were found to be demoflstrating trend (displayed in Table 4.13), indicating a increase in concentration implemefltationof the AQMA.

Table 4.13: Annual average Nitrogen Dioxide trends at locations within the AQMA ns ioxi

~~~kelyto result in

easing the use of er vehicle tec~noIQ lementat~on of a Low on Zone particula~y help to achieve this). In 2003 the Council a policy on Green Fleet and achieved a 9% reduction in for a number of other pollutants.~;and 0 Integrated Transport Initiative (this includes a major progr im rovements as well as funding of clean uch of this was dependent on the introduction sal rejected at a referendum in 2005. emissio~scould have been achieved).

4.100 Smaller scale measures have also be proposed, these include:

0 Travel plans; 0 Awareness raising; 0 Home energy efficiency programmes; 0 Requiring drivers to turn off their vehicle engines when parked; and 0 Roadside emissions testing.

4.1 01 Air pollution is trans-boundary in nature and as such key air pollutants could have derived from outside the Edinburgh Council’s area.

4.102 The Edinburgh and Structure Plan, which was approved by Scottish inisters in 2004, has a significant role to play to improve air quality within the city through the integration of land use lanning and transport provision. One of r transpo~ policies set o in the plan involv ents so as to reduce the need to travel pa~icular~~by

3

4

inbur ouncil LT it is likely that tra related air poll n would increase ntation of future LTS emes. However, re is a significant a uncertai~tyand it will therefore be con red in more de SEA.

Climate

.I07 There is international consensus that human activity is alterin sions of greenhouse gases, released as a by produce electricity and fuel transport. This has potentially seriou consequences for society worldwide including alteration of weather patterns and agricultural prod~ction,rising sea levels and increased risk of ~ooding.

.IO8 Carbon Dioxide (COP)is the principal greenhouse gas driving climate change. Friends of the Earth Edinburgh state that the transport sector is responsible for 23% of climate changing COP emissions. The proportion of COP emitted by transport is rising in line with the growth in car ownership and distance travelled.

4.109 The LTS has potential to contribute towards e rts to mitigate climate change by reducing 602 emissions from road . For example by reducing traffic volumes and promoting modal shift and the use of vehicles which lower COPemissions.

.II1 .I12

.I13 TS (So~ietyof Chief 0 raffic and Condition S each Scottish author e seen from Table 4.14 20% of Ed~nburgh’sentire to a point at whic prolong future life s ation is necessary on over a third of the network.

able 4.14: Conditio cs

4.114 It must be remembered that only 20% of the Council’s roads were measured as part of the study and therefore the information might not present a true picture of the network. The Council intend to extend the survey to cover the whole network but at present no additional data is available on the condition of the highways, footways and bridges.

.I15

4.1 I marises the key assets of value in t

.15: architectural sites in Edinburgh

Oerf Q nation \ Number Listed Buildinas 1 Category A - 897 sites

Roman - 2 sites Secular - 27 sites

4.119 Listed buildings in Edinburgh range in scale from the Forth Rail Bridge to small statues such as , and large historic mansions to small domestic cottages. As can be seen from Table 4.9 there are a total of 4880 items on the Statutory List for dinburgh. Many of the single items on the list are tenement blocks or terraces with many individual houses. As such there are around 22,000 separately owned properties which are listed, the largest number in any British Local Authority area.

4.12 cotland assigns each fisted buildin to one of three categories on its degree of inte~est: e eo

m In (D N 3 .-cu cu.- sc

.I30 This is closely linked to the revious section rega Cultura~~Archaeological rchitectural Herita

4.131 There are many large natural and semi- natura^ open spaces in Edinbu Holyrood Park is a natural open space for wildlife and people at the heart of the . Large sem~-naturalopen spaces include:

4.132 There are a total of 20 istoric Gardens and Designated Landscapes ( Edinburgh, comprising an area of 2,851 hectares which represents 10.4% of the total city area.

4.133 The Edinburgh Local Plans contain policies designed to protect open spaces and HGDL's.

4.134 As the scope of the LTS is restricted primarily to the roads and streetscape environment, it is not anticipated to have a negative impact upon landscape. The LTS is likely to improve access to open space and areas of landscape through facilitating improved public services and better infrastructure for walking and cycling. Therefore, Landscape wi// not be taken forward for further consideration in the SEA process as agreed with the Consultation Authorities.

oise

els o Is ar 4.1 3

In general the data availa le on environmen pollution issues. However, nagement of Environmental Noise Directive, 2002/49/EC) states to develop noise maps for large agg~omerations (above 250,000 inhab~tants),major roads, major railways and major airports. As a result, the Scottish Executive is to produce a noise map of Scotla identify the worse affected areas in the Country. This information w tackle soaring decibel levels, curbing those exceeding safety guidelines. The map is due to be produced by 2007.

4.140 Edinburgh is connected by a number of trunk roads (including moto~ayssuch 8 and M9) and A roads which are heavily used by commuter and raffic. Highway generated traffic noise has two main causal factors; engine noise and noise generated by tyre contact with the road surface. Engine noise tends to be the biggest contributor at speeds below 30mph. Noise generated from road surface contact becomes more of an issue at speeds exceeding 40mph. Clearly the noise generated by traffic experienced by residents in Edinburgh is dependant on traffic flows and speed designation of the local roads. Thus traffic noise will vary across Edinburgh depending on these o factors.

.I41 pril 2005 to the 2dh January 2006 the City of Edinb~~gh

.143 e Stra the

in Table 4.16 refer to the LTS objectives, reviously set out in umbers 1 to 5 in Table 4.16 refer to the Government’s 5 Objectives, which are:

1 Environment 2 Safety 3 Economy 4 Integration 5 Accessibi~ity/SocialInclusion

4.147 It must be borne in mind that the scores presented in this table are the summa^ scores for each policy area hea ing and as such the scores do not illustrate where policies contained under the same heading have yielded completely different scores. For example:

o Access for mobility impaired people to private premises should be provided within the curtilage of those premises and not on the street - scored negatively in the STAG assessment for G and 5 (- -). e Apply principles of Edinburgh Standards for Streets in any intervention and maintenance action- scored positively in the STAG assessment for G and 5 (++).

4.148 Nevertheless the scoring provides a useful measure of the effectiveness of the policies contained within the LTS Central Case Strategy to achieve the objectives of the LTS and also to meet the Governments objectives.

.-I49

need to travel, especia~lyby car'.

3 LTS Policies which ositively seek to create a sustainable transport ne

ing sustainable travel an in it (e.g. cycling / walk in^ infrastruct~reand the proposals); 0 ng best use of existing ~nfrastructurewithout major construction (e.g. bus ity measures at traffic signals, the use of bus lanes for cycting, taxis and emergency vehicles); 0 Striking a balance be the needs of all road users, including pedestrians, cyclists and public tra 0 Safeguarding the environmen~as far as practicable (e.g. air quality policies); 0 No proposals for major road schemes which would enwurage traffic growth; and 0 Proactive road safety policies that protect vulnerable road users withou~ discouraging travel by such modes ([email protected] and cycling).

4.154 It is likely that these policies which proactively seek to secure a sustainable transport network would have environmentally positive consequences such as:

e Constraining traffic growth as far as practicable; 0 Minimising traffic volumes and congestion hence reducing traffic generated emissions of greenhouse gases and improving air quality; 0 Making it easier to travel without the car by more environmentally sustainable modes; 0 Improving accessibility and reducing severance (as a result of strong investment in public transport and a policy position of undertaking no major new road construction); 0 Creating a more pleasant walking and cycling environment, increasing opportunities for physical fitness and improv~nggeneral health (improved air quality will have a positive effect on respiratory conditions); fore human health for all; and nscape and prese~i~gcultural and archaeolog~~l emissions~vibrat~ons and noise that can have a ildings and mo~umen~swould be reduced).

4.15 vir0 8C8

that wi~houtthe LTS these demand lean towards traffic restraint, will presumption is that without the LTS there are no c . The likely conse~uenceof this would be ts iY pronounced given the progress that Edinburgh has made over the last 10 years in sustainable transport and road danger reduction. 4.158 It is difficult to predict the effect of this scenario within the l~mitedscope of the S However, it is likely that without any further restraint on the use of the private m level of car owne~hipin Edinburgh woul increase and as such traffic volumes an congestion would intensi~from current levels. This increased emand would likely fill the available highways capacity to the detriment of other, more sustainable transport modes.

4.159 In terms of the impact on the env~ronment,the probable outcomes of the “without the LTS” scenario are likely to include:

0 An increase in traffic volume and hence significantly above that predicted under the traffic restraint policies of the LTS. 0 A decrease in the efficiency and hence competitiveness of sustainable modes such as buses caused by increased traffic congestion. This would be worsened by a lack of car restraint policies in favour of bus priority to treat congestion blackspots. 0 A gradual deterioration in the walking and cycling environment, made less favourable due to the increase in motor traffic and failure to maintain, enhance and extend existing pedestrian and cycling facilities. 0 Worsening air pollution from vehicle exhaust emissions associated with the increased traffic volumes and traffic congestion within Edinburgh’s AQMA and the city as a whole. An increase in noise pollution associated with increased traffic volumes and longer peak hour movement periods caused by increased traffic congestion. 0 Increased road danger and likel~hoodof road traffic accidents as a result of the increased volume of motor traffic. orsened human health caused by increased levels of air poi~ution,noise, road danger vi ro rain

4.161 Bt is a re~u~remen~of the S the LTS are identified. termined throug~consul judge men^,

4.162 As many p~obiemssi~ultaneousiy impact on several environ~entalareas, the data has been presented to s ow the main linkages and identify oppo unities for joined up thinkin between different olicy areas. This joint working i exempli~ed by the clos interrelat~onsh~pbetween the LTS, Air Quality and Planning policies. Finally, Table 4.17 also notes the likely significance of LTS impacts on the environmen~.

4.163 Further opportun~tiesfor envi~on~entalimprovement in the LTS include:

The use of old tarmac and recy~ledglass as secondary aggregates in Hi~hways schemes and also of recycled glass (would benefit Installing NOx absorbing paving materials alongsid improve air quality by soaking up NOx emissions from vehicle exhausts. These have been successfully used in Japan and are currently being trialled in the London Borough of Camden (Would benefit Air Quality). Reduction of signage clutter and street furniture (would benefit material assets, cultural heritage, landscape, population and human health). Increase the use of open spaces for recreation and green corridors as a traffic transport corridor for cyclists and pedestrians (would benefit population and human health, and air quality). Increase the use of energy efficient devices in street furniture; for example in street lighting and parking meters. (would benefit material assets and climate). The consideration of a Low Emissions Zone (LEZ) or Clear Zone if needed to support the use of cleaner technologies (would benefit air quality, climate change and human health and population). Reduction in the number of road accidents involving Powered Two Wheelers (PTWs) through road safety initiative and travel awareness campaigns (would benefit human health and population). Increase the quality of highways and transpo~ationschemes to preserve and enhance Edinburgh’s cultural heritage and townscape through policies to control or [schemes in such areas nvironmental Problems & Opportunities associated with the LT

As previously discussed in section 4 traffic growth has a negative effect on all environmental areas, some more than others. Air quality, population 81 human health, climate, Travel Plan, Air Quality townscape and noise are most seriously affected through Action Plan, ~dinbur~h's greater pollutant emissions, road casualties, intimidation by Local Plans Transport vehicles and ambient environmental conditions which Policies, The Edinburgh decrease the quality of life. and Lothian Structure Plan Transport policies The LTS policies of reducing the need to travel, reducing demand to travel by car, improving and promoting alternatives to the car to secure a shift to sustainable modes will provide an opportunity to slow the rate of traffic growth.

Traffic related air pollution affects a range of areas and most City of Edinburgh Councii seriously human health. The LTS policies of reducing the policy on Green Fleet & need to travel, reducing demand to travel by car, improving Travel Plan, ~dinbu~gh and promoting alternatives to the car to secure a shift to Air Quality Action Pian, sustainable modes are aimed at reducing car use and hence J J traffic emissions. nvironmenta~Protection policies, inbu & This is entirely consistent with the Air Quality Action Plan Lothian Structure Plan. which also includes more technical solutions such as cleaner technology and the consideration of a Low Emission Zone __ - Several LTS policies are aimed directly at improving personal Edinburgh Community security, for example through better design of interchange Safety ~artnership infrastructure, CCTV, etc. Strategy 2QQ~2QQ~,and Community Safety Action _"" Oppormnltilee in the LTS

Eauallv, a range of LTS schemes including streets for people, toA centres, walking and travel awareness will improve the relating to transport, street environment and facilitate and promote more people to Youth Anti-S~ia~ walk and cycle. Behviour Strategy, the City of Edinburgh Local In turn this will result in more people using the street Plans policies on the fear environment, increase natural surveillance and reduce opportunities for crime and the fear of crime. - The programmes carried out within the LTS are subject to Edinburgh BAP, Urban policies relating to trees in the Urban Forest Strategy. These Forest Strategy, Local will minimise loss of street trees from LTS programmes. Plan policies on d J deve~op~en~ in Town centre and streets for people schemes proposed by the conservat~on areas and LTS could incorporate additional planting of street trees into tree preservation orders. their programmes. Climate change is arguably the greatest challenge mankind City of Edinburgh Council currently faces. The impacts in Edinburgh will be widespread policy on Green Fleet, but the main effect could be increased flooding and damage to livelihoods, buildings and highways infrastructure. d Through reducing the need to travel improving and promoting Transportation policies alternatives to the car to secure a shift to sustainable modes; and ~nvi~on~ental and raising awareness the LTS policies will work to lower Protection licies, overall C02emissions from the transport sector. Edinburgh and Lothian Structure Plan. Several LTS programmes will indirectly tackle obesity by: Vigorously promoting physically active modes of travel such as walking and cycling and advertising their health benefits; and 0 Creating more attractive environments for walking and " ~~ Qppcrrtuntties in the LTS

PmkBkmS

I____- could easily be cvclina with better infrastructure for pedestrians and walked or cycled &clisk whilst reducing the road danger presented by road vehicles. There are several trunk roads in Edinburgh area i.e. M8, M9, Air Quality Action Plan over the trunk A720. These are major sources of air pollution and noise, yet h J the Council has no direct authority to undertake rem~iation measures (for example vegetative noise barriers) as they are under the control of Transport Scotland. Social exc~us~onin The LTS targets investment at such areas by prioritising Local Plan uilt oor programmes for highways infrastructure renewal, accessibility Environment and and safety schemes in these areas. Transport policies J sever an^ and The LTS policies also provide improved access to and use of the transport network by those of limited mobility and the disabled. Opportunities exist in the LTS to redress this through the Lm J targeted Highways Maintenance programme. This is dependant upon funding and realistic aspirations have to be set. There exists an opportunity in the LTS to create 'people- friendly' streets whereby people are given priority over cars. City Centre traffic management schemes will improve the conditions for pedestrians and public transport passengers. This has already been the case in parts of Edinburgh, particularly in locations around primary schools, where 20mph zones have been implemented. The LTS seeks to increase the opportunity for such schemes. Local road safety and town centre schemes in the LTS will the role of town assist this area by improving road safety and upgrading the quality of the streetscape and removing street clutter so that it for people & becomes less dominated by vehicles and more people

Counci! LTS SEA Final ~nvironmen~a~Report which present opportunities to raise J the public on the links between their ir quality, climate change and noise.

I I ctiw Scat

that all aspects of the environmen~are consi~eredwithin the LTS, it has been necessary to set specific . These allow the envi~onmentaleffects of the LTS to be measu 1. Potential ind~cators have also been suggested.

4.165 The SEA objectives and potential indicators are shown in Table 4.1 designed to be consistent with the LTS objectives and other Edinburgh

Table 4.1 8: SEA Objectives and Potential lndicators

Edinburgh

.IAvoid damage to designated wildlife sites including 1.1 Number of sites a Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Local Nature proposals, i~c~udingphysical Reserves, Country Parks and Special Protection severance of habitats caused by Areas as part of transport works new schemes’ I .2 Manage Edinburgh’s transport network in a way that 1.2 a). Length of transport network protects and enhances the biodiversity value of all managed for biodiversity ‘ b). Edinburgh’s greenspaces, with specific reference to overall number of street trees off-road plans. added / lost from highways environment each year

Z. To reduce road danger, improve personal security >f transport systems and promote healthy transport :hoiCe:

2.1 Reduce road danger, particularly for vulnerable road 2.1 a). Number of adults KSI; 40% users inclu~jng pedestrians, cyclists and Reduction in total KSI ~otor~ycl~sts. from 1994-1998 and s for pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists SEA Isasus & SEA Objectives Potential Performance lnditrrtors (* denotes targets not yet measumd by the City of Edinburgh Council) good practice*

umber of soil contamina~ion esul~~ngdirectly from vities. ber of brown~e~dsites as a result of their use for transport schemes.

5. a). Number of water pollution incidents resulting directly from transport activities e.g. flooding from blocked or poorly maintained highways drains and gullies* b). Water quality improvements in the city’s watercourses, resulting from a reduction in contaminated road run- off / diffuse pollution.

6. To reduce air pollutant emissions from transport 6. Air Quality Monito~ngData for key sources in the Clty’s AQMA pollutants PMIO and NQx. 7. To reduce motor traffic levels and achieve a shift 7. a). Traffic levels away from the car to more sustainable modes (increaseldecrease) in AQMA* b). Modal share of sustainable transport trips B. To reduce the overall volumes of C02 emitted from 8. Number of vehicle miles travelled transport sources in the Council area and Volume of C02 sourced from Transport in Edinburgh* ateriat Assets 9. To ensure that highways and footways 9. a). Proportion of Principal road infrastructure are adequately maintalned and network and footways network in need accessible for all levels of personal mobility. of repair. b). Number of successful personal injury claims made against the Council relating to trip / fall

0 ras re oflion of recycled ed in ~ig~~~ys ~aintenan~~and street ~~~~~ve~en~ schemes* enviro~me~~features 'affected by the LTS.

Number of schemes g best practice urban receiving design awards

. Preserving features that contribute to th

public realm schemes.*

practice in sustainable use of materials - Reducing domination by motor traffic of public S

5.1 Central Case) Strat

options for further SEA assessment to be made clear.

5.2 Alternative LTS policy options were taken to be alternative policy directions rather than alternative schemes. This is because the LTS is a strategic document which sets out the olicy d~rectionand type of schemes to be employed, rather than the actual detail of each scheme.

5.3 Alternatives were limited to those that are realistic and achievable. In the case of the LTS, appraisal of alternative plans is guided by the Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance (STAG) process. Both STAG and S A require the appraisal of alternative strategies in the selection of the preferred approach.

Development of Alternative LTS Options

5.4 In the LTS it is not proposed to look at very high level choices (e.g. road/private car preference versus public transport preference versus a 'balanced' approach). These do not reflect realistic choices given the current national policy framework and the programme of major investments currently underway.

5.5 Development of alternative LTS policy options took place in Stage B and was detailed in the SEA Scoping Report. The alternative LTS plans were devised using the following sources:

e Guidance on the SEAS of LTS issued by the Scottish Executive and Scottish Heritage; 0 Examples of other SEA Scoping Reports; by the Office of the Deputy Prime the UK and London

e requ~r~~en~sof the LTS.

5.

city centre.

Edinburgh City Council LTS 5.7 Throu a number of al~er~a~ive ot speci~ca~~~include these rnative s~ra~eg~eswere de

roaches to deliveri roaches to reducin roaches to improvi

5. As discussed previously in 4, the likely evolution of the environment t the LTS would result in the envi t being adversely affected. Therefore this ' hing' scenario was not considered as a realistic alternative.

5.9 A total of 45 alternative LT policy options were generated in Stag of the SEA process. he policies in the scopi report were purely indicative, thus the LTS has been eveloped over the last months policies have altered and new policies have come in but the important thing is that the policies still reflect the broad thrust of the alternative strategies represented in the scoping report.

5.10 hen considering the impact of these alternatives on the environment, it was necessary to examine their potential technical (including cost), e~vironme~tal,social and political impii~tions,

Selection of Alternative LTS Options for Further Assessment

5.1 1 As discussed in chapter 4, in general the preferred LTS policies (contained within the Central Case Strategy) are likely to have a positive environmental impact. The preferred LTS policies prevent or reduce the negative environmental impacts that could be associated with delivering the priorities of LTS as they follow government / Scottish Executive National policies which are concerned with developing sustainable transport networks.

5.12 Despite the fact that the Central Case Strategy policies are not likely to negatively impact on the environment, the SEA Regulations require that the most relevant and realistic alternative options for the Plan or Programme are selected and taken forward for detailed assessment and doc~mentationof their environmental impacts so that they can be compared against the preferred LTS options.

5.13 In Stage C of the SEA process, 6 of the 45 alternatjve LTS options generated by Stage were selected and taken shown in Table 5.1. These were selected for op~io~sfor achieving the L

5.14 rnative QP~~O~Sit is only

.15 Some of these alt ta er

Altemcstlve LTS poficy Justlficatbn sptlon rhis alternative policy option is technically feasible and is likely to )ring about environmental benefits wi~hin the Ci ,LEZ). Jolitically it will support the LTS and TS objectives and the air quality action plan. It is a realistic and radically different policy that s likely to have positive effects; as such it warrants further ~ssessment. Mternative Policy Option Fhis option was developed by the SEA team after having seen the 2: New approaches to Zentral Case Strategy policies on speed reduction I road safety. It speed reduction. ,vas left that the LTS was weak in this area and that an alternative ieeded to be assessed. This option represents a radically jifferent approach to speed reduction than present within the LTS Gentral Case. Alt~o~ghthe technology required to implement this 2ption is expensive, could be polit~~llycontentious (speed :ameras) and the increased olice enforcement may not be aracticable, It is however environmentally and socially desirable in that it removes the negative environmental impacts associated with traditional traffic calming measures e.g. 0 Noise; 0 Vibrations; e visual intrusion created from physical measures; and 0 interrupted driving ('stop-start') which is known to increase emissions. As such it would be likely to increase road safety, air quality, health and could reduce the detrimental effect that traffic has on listed buildings and monuments. Alternative Policy Option Although there are technical difficulties with this alternative option 3: Increasing road network and is generally both environmentally and socially undesirable it capacity. represents a radical departure from the previous LTS and could potentially meet the LTS aim to tackle congestion at all times. Thus this option warrants further assessment. Altern~tivePolicy Option This alternative policy option is environmentally and socially 4: No implementation oi undesirable and contradicts the LTS objective to reduce Tram route Line 1 congestion and increase accessibility. By not implemen~ingTram

ramme and

1 e remain~n$allernativ LTS options were discarded from t three main reasons for rejection:

e ~echn~cal~y~environ entally, socially or f~nanc~a~ly

e They only varied s~ightlyfrom policies contained w~~h~nthe Central C and as such did no represent radically di e They had already een incorporate^ int Report. Elements of some of the alternatives not taken forward were incorporated into the chosen resented in Table 5.1.

5.19 The justification for exc~uding these from the further assessment of significant environmental effects is given in Tables 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4.

2 ative lifS Options not taken forward for further assessment - STAG Alternative St

The Council will provide extra des~gnat~in~e~hange points on This policy option to invest in bus routedinterchange serving non-city centres as opposed to the core radial bus routes sewing key non-city centre destinations and provide network is very similar to the “Alternative Policy Option 6: Focussing public transport improvements on enhanced ~acil~esat those interchan~epoints such as real-time orbital routes and routes serving local centres” which is being assessed in more detail by the SEA. ~nfo~a~nand a p~esumption in favour of ~rioritisin~pedestrian ~ove~ntsbetween interchan~estops. rk and ride schemes over and This option is environmentally and socially undesirable as it will encourage more peopie to drive thus increasing congestion and reducing air quality. This in turn will discourage people from walking and cycling and have a negative impact on health. It is also politically undesirable as it conflicts with the Air Quality Action Plan and the LTS aim to reduce congestion. Therefore this option will not be taken forward for further assessment. The focus of future tram routes will be on areas characterised by: This option is environmentally and socially desirable as it increases accessiblity without putting the reliance on the e Poor public transport a~~ib~lity private car thus having a positive effect on air quality. This option is also politically desirable as it supports the aim e Areas of low car use of the LTS to increase accessibility. As such it has merits and will be assessed through “Altemative Policy keas of unmet demand Option 4 No implementation of Tram route line 1b”. The Council will examine bus priority measures to support a wide Investment in orbital routes serving local centres has a number of potential social benet% and will be assessed as $~ngeof o~i~~periphe~a~routes iinking to key destinations such part of “Alternative Policy Option 6: Focussing public transport improvements on orbital routes and routes as local centres, hospitals, e~p~o~en~areas. As such, lower sewing local centres”.

This option is potentially both environmentally and socially desirable as it will encourage the use of more on key corridors. sustainable modes of transport. As such this option will be assessed as an alternative policy optian through ‘Alternative Policy Option 6 Focussing public transport improvements on orbital routes and routes sewing local centres”. The Council wiBI aim to id en ti^ and fill any gaps in the commercial This option is potentially both environmentally and socially desirable as it will encourage the use Of more ne~o~~p~tis~nglinks between areas of pow public transport sustainable modes of transport and increase accessibility to key non-centralised destinations. As such this option a~ssi~~~and key non-city centre destinations (health centres will be assessed as an alternative policy option through “Alternative Policy Option 6: Focussin transport improvements on orbital routes and routes sewing local centres”. This is only a slight variation of a theme contained within the LTS thus it will not be taken folvvard for he^ assessment as an alternative policy option. This has some environmental and social benefits because it encourages the use of more sustainable modes of transport improving air quality and reducing congestion thus having a positive impact on health; and increasing and ~d~n~urghAirport Link. accessibility to key facilities. However, it is felt that the South Suburban Line is the least effective scheme and that EARL and the Waverley Line will do more to reduce congestion and encourage use of alternatives to the car. ~m~te~e~~a ~~alityTaxi ~a~fle~h~~. This is a variation on existing proposals for taxis and has benefits to the LTS and has been addressed under the mitigation section of the SEA (Chapter 7). Provision of taxi ranks at local and district shopping centres. This is a slight variation on the LTS central case and does not merit further examination in the SEA, but wila instead be addressed under mitigation. The Council gives increased priority to develop~ngfurther demand This is the same as the policy in the Central Case, the difference being the resources that would be al~o~tedto nsive and door to door ~nitiatives. the policy. As it is a variation of a theme it will not be taken forward for further assessment as an alte~ativepolicy option. The Council will seek lo s~bsti~utelong stay for short stay parking This option has some environmental and social benefits such as making it less convenient for pmple to drive into prowision, retaining the current overall level of on and off street ncouraging people to use more sustainable .- ^" __. " . &twrht&--* not Man Forwsrd car lwmr"~~~attonkr the SEA p)n)cQg(o modes. However, it is very similar to a policy contained within the LTS and as such does not represent a radical alternative policy option and will not be &ken forward for further assessment. Priority given to enhanc~~gpedestrian and cycle links to local This alternative policy option is environmentally and socially desirable because it encourages the use of more mls. health centres in key target areas. sustainable modes of transport improving air quality and reducing congestion thus having a positive impact on health; and increases accessibility to key facilities in low car use areas. However, it is only a minor variation of a policy within the central case strategy and as such does not represent a radical alternative. thus it will not be taken forward for further assessment. The Council will take stock of reaction to the CETM measures, re- This option is environmentally and sociaHy desirable as it is likely to create a more pedesMan friendly env~ronment evalua~ethe measures, unde~kea ~omprehensiveexercise to and encourage people to walk. However the problems associated with CETM as measures were introdu~in raise awareness~ma~etingof the benefits of improved October 2005 show that much more needs to be done to demonstrate the potential benefits of such measures. As comprehe~ivepedestrian facilities, and pedes~anisati~and in a result, at this moment in time this policy has a bevel of political unacceptability which makes it an option that will due course, imp~ementa scheme that will aim to protect and not be taken forward for further assessment.

This option is environmentally and socially desirable though by itself it is not a radical alternative policy option as the central case strategy contains a similar pdicy. The difference here is in the resources put into grants. As such given to ~ov~dinggrants to operators to educe bus and taxi the policy will not be taken forward for further assessment. ~m~ssionsto Euro IV standard by 2010. Higher priority relative to base for lighting and CCTV coverage in This alternative policy option has clear environmental and social benefits as it encourages walking by improv~ng personal security which has a positive impact on air quality. However this is only a slight variation of a theme contained with a central case strategy policy as such it will not be taken forward for further assessment. be given to providing safe and secure access to This option is environmentally and socially desirable as it will encourage more people to make use of public this is i~entifiedas a reason for unmet demand. transport thus increasing accessibility for those without access to a car, reducing congestion and im~rovi~air closely with operators to improve on-bus safety quality (which has significant associated health benefits. Que to its merits this option will be assessed within 'Alternative Policy Option 6: Focussing public transport improvements on orbital routes and routes serving local centres'. This alternative policy option is environmentally and socially desirable because it encourages the use of more sustainable modes of transport improving air quality and reducing congestion thus having a positive impact on health; and increases accessibility to key facilities. However. it is only a slight variation of a policy within the central case strategy and as such does not represent a radical alternative. thus it will not be taken forward for further assessment.

This was not felt to be a politically reasonable option and was dropped shortly after the indicative policies were fist set out. As such will not be taken forward for further assessment. Assisted pu~haseof i~ependenttransport - BTWs and This was not felt to be a politically reasonable option and was dropped shortly after the indicative policies were first -- set out. As such will not be taken forward for further assessment. This policy option is environmentally and socially undesirable because reduced awareness about travel choices in this scenaNo. will result in more relying on the private car, this will lead to increased congestion and air pollution and have a negative effect on health. As such will not be taken forward for further assessment.

7 This option is environmentally and socially undesirable as it reduces the potential for further modal shift to public to the ~bil~~impaired, then p estrians and cyclists andthen transport considerably by giving the same level of priority to a far greater number of vehicles. Therefore this option public tra~port,freight, deliveries, high occupancy cars and will not be taken forward for further assessment. finally single upa an^ cars. Low priority so no add~~ionalinte~changes proposed. This option is environmental, socially and poiitically undesirable. It will make public transport less convenient and will adversely affect those without access to a car. As such this option will not be taken forward for further assessment. The focus of future tram routes will be on redu~ngcongestion by This option is environmentally, socially desirable as it increases accessibility without puthg the reliance on @e and ride sites and areas oi higher car use. orivate car thus havina a oositive imDact on air Quality. This option would also be politically desirable as it would Lelp to meet the obje2ves of the LTS and NT§ to reduce congestion at all times and the LTS objedive to increase accessibility. As such it has merits and will be assessed through "Alternative Policy Option 4 No implementation of Tram route line 1b". The Council will review the effect~enessof bus priorities and bus This option is environmentally and socially undesirable as it reduces the potential for further modal shift to publi; lane timings with a view to possibly allowing their use by other transport considerably by giving the same level of priority to a far greater number of vehicles. Therefore this option

priority vehicles. will not be taken forward for further assessment. _I_- Priority for real time Information focused on the Quality Bus Although this alternative policy option is environmentally and socially desirable it is only a slight variation of a Corridors. policy contained within the central case strategy as such it will not be taken forward for further assessment. The Council will~ntinueto support bus services not provided This option is environmentally and (particularly) socially undesirable as it reduces accessibility for those people co~mercia~~yand will prioritise filling any gaps in service (e.g. In most dependent on public transport who possibly have no other means of transport. This option will not be taken the early evening^ used by commu~efsincluding forward for further assessment. users.

The Counc~lwill consider re-designating some bus lanes and This option is environmentally and socially desirable as it encourages people to car share reducing traffic volumes other road space as High ~c~pan~Vehicle Lanes andlor and thus increasing air quality which has a positive impact on health. It is also technically possible and politically allowing use by freight vehicles. desirable as it would to support the Air Quality Action Plan and the LTS objective of reducing congestion. Due to these merits High Occupancy Vehicles in bus lanes will be assessed within 'Alternative Policy Option 5: High intensity 'Demand Management' measures including Smarter Choices Prog~mmeand High Occupancy Vehicles (HOVs) In bus lanes'. The Council would prefer the focus of new *schemes to be on This has some environmental and social benefits because it encourages the use of more sustainable modes of the Waverley Line and ~dinbu~hAirport rail scheme in transport improving air quality and reducing congestion thus having a positive impact on health; and increasing accessibility to key facilities. Studies have show that the South Suburban Line is the least effective scheme and that EARL and the Waverley Line will do more to reduce congestion and encourage use of a~ernativesto the car. The option is not felt to be radically different from the Central Case though, so this option is not taken forward for further assessment. schemes low priority in this scenario. This option is environmentally and (particularly) socially undesirable as it reduces accessibility for those people most dependent on public transport who possibly have no other means of transport. This option will not be taken forward for further assessment. The Council will aim to increase the amount of short stay parking This option is environmentally and socially undesirable as it will encourage more people to drive thus increasing in the city centre by relaxing restrictions on new developments congestion and reducing air quality. This in turn will discourage people from walking and cycling and have a and, if ne^§^^, providing incentives for car park operators to negative impact on health. It is also undesirable in that it conflicts with the Air Quality Action Plan and the LT§ aim make new provis~on. - to reduce congestion. Therefore this option will not be taken forward for further assessment. 1 Council will consider reducina short stay parking chames, 1 This option is environmentally and socially undesirable as it will encourage more people to drive thus ~nc~easing ~~~eas~~glengths of stay and &owing free short sa; parking in congestion and reducing air quality. This in turn will discourage people from walking and cycling and have a in locations and at certain times where one must currently negative impact on health. It is also politically undesirable as it conflicts with the Air Quality Action Plan and the LTS aim to reduce congestion. Therefore this option will not be taken forward for further assessment. This alternative policy option has now been incorporated within the Central Case Strategy, thus it will not be

ci! has no plans for furUler pedestrian priori er than in p~aceswhere ~~es~ansafety is

the Central Case S~rateg~”

Ta ions not taken forward for further assessment -Alternative policies not included in Alternativ Strategies One and Two

d two (developed by the SEA team) Increasing road network capacity by embarking on a major Although there are technical difficulties with this alternative option and is generally bath env~ronmen~~lyand ~~g~ammeof: sociallv undesirable it reoresents a radical deDarture from the wevious LTS and could Dotentially meet the LTS 0 ical ~de~~ngof principal roads aim toetackle congestion at all times. Thus this’option will be taken forward for further askssment as ‘‘Alt~ma~iv~ e cation of all road space to general traffic (Le. removal Policy Option 3 Increasing road network capacity.”

e Convert read network to one wayl~~a~o~systems Motor Vehicle Priority Measures: This alternative policy option is technically possible but it is environmentally and socially undesirable as it will move pe~es~ancrossing points increase road danger for vulnerable road users. It would also worsen air quality and discourage more sustainable 0 Remove pedestrian time at cycle s~na~~ modes of transport conflicting with the Air Quality Action Plan and LTS objectives. lt will not therefore be taken 0 Remove Cycle Advance Stop Lanes forward for further assessment 0 Remove traffic calming 0 Raise speed limits ~o~~stionCharging Extensive consultation was undertaken with the public on congestion charging through the previous LTS. Although it is environmentally beneficial and technically achisvable it was rejected at public referendum and is therefore not deemed to be a feasible option for Edinburgh at this moment in time. As such it will not $a taken forward for further assessment. This alternative policy option has now been incorporated within the Central Case Strategy, thus it will not be assessed as an alternative option.

’B City Council LTS SEA Final ~~vi~onm~ntalReport a ~~~bu~~~ 7 - - -__1_1___ - JustMcat)on farnottsksn t;wwsrcrbar%wtlmrinlmsf@d anintfkSUItwoCm3 This alternative policy option is technically feasible and is socially and environmentally desirable. Politically it will support the LTS and NTS objectives and the air quality action plan. It is a realistic and radically different policy that is likely to have positive effects; as such it will be taken forward for further assessment as "Alternative Policy Option 1: Low Emissions Zone." ~romo~inga~~e~ative fuels and clean burning vehicles. This alternative policy option has now been incorporated within the Central Case Strategy, thus it will not be assessed as an alternative option. ~nviron~entallyfriendly materials: This alternative is not really a policy option on its own, it is more of a mitigation measure. As such it shall not be e Pilot use of pollutant (N82) abso~ingpaving slabs. taken forward for further assessment as an alternative but included within the SEA mitigation measures Use recycled aggregates _____ atim of vulne~ab~eroad users by: This option is both environmentally and socially undesirable and goes against the stated aims of the LTS (to e ~resum~tionin favour of ~des~~angua~d railing I reduce street clutter) and as such it will not be taken forward to further assessment. bamiers e p~~u~p~i~nto full s~gregati~n of cyclists from traffic by only ~nst~ctingsegregated off-road cycle infrastructure e di~~ragemen~d vulne~ble modes of transport i.e. walking, cycling and PWs. Road Safety Education targeted at vulnerable road users (Le. Road safety education is already offered by the Council and the LTS central case strategy contains a number of cyclists, ~~des~riansand chi~d~en~ and motorists. policies to educate vulnerable road users. This is a variation on a theme which can be addressed through mitigation (i.e. to examine if proposed policies can be improved) and as such will not be taken forward for further assessment. oad Safety Education through: Road safety education is already offered by the Council and the LTS central case strategy contains a number of e ~ommun.~~ucation policies to educate vulnerable road users. This is a variation on a theme which can be addressed through e Adult Cvcle trainina., mitigation (Le. to examine if proposed policies can be improved) and as such will not be taken forward for further e Free PaW Iscooter training. assessment. dback received from t

rtant lo emp~asisethat the indeed worsen wi~houtthe LTS policies in place.

e LTS

Signibtc4lnt Environmental Impacts of the Envlranmentel amas NOT llkely to have LtS significant impacts 0 Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna; Material assets; and 0 ~opula~ion(personal security and Landscape. accessibility, mobility & severance); 0 Human health (road safety and health); 0 Soil;

0 Air quality; 0 Climate; 0 Cultural, archaeolog~caland archjtect~ral heritage & townscape; and Noise.

5.21 These environmental areas were taken forward to Stage C of the SEA process to assess how they would be affected by the alternative LTS options. This was necessary to ascertain the level of environmental risk associated with the alternative LTS options.

7