Transport Technical Note

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