6. OPTION GENERATION, SIFTING AND DEVELOPMENT

 

6. OPTION GENERATION, SIFTING AND DEVELOPMENT

6.1 Generation of Options

As part of the STAG assessment process, it is important to derive a range of options and that this process is carried out in a logical, transparent and auditable manner. In the Aberdeen to Inverness Transport Corridor Study, consideration has also been given to how best to combine strategy level options for testing from the number of potential combinations to meet the defined objectives.

The most common method of defining options for analysis is to assess how the problem being confronted can be ameliorated or eliminated. In general terms, appropriate proposals should be generated through the following sources:

• Options from the consultation process;
• Options which have a planning history and which remain valid;
• Transport initiatives and land use planning options developed through the statutory planning and policy process;
• Options from the structured decision making process;
• Options generated by the project team; and
• Options from the Regional and Local Transport Strategies

The nature and scale of the transport improvement options being developed for appraisal reflect the work undertaken in setting the transport planning objectives, as outlined previously. The key opportunities for the transport corridor relate primarily to:

• Addressing road safety concerns along the A96 trunk road;
• Improving journey time reliability on rural sections of the A96 trunk road;
• Encouraging a shift from private car trips to more sustainable forms of transport such as bus, rail, cycling and walking and contributing positively to targets for reducing carbon emissions;
• Addressing the conflict between strategic and local traffic in urban areas, air quality, pedestrian severance issues, and contributing positively to supporting economic growth; and
• Improving the efficiency of freight movements along the transport corridor.

The options generated in consultation with the stakeholders for consideration in addressing the highlighted problems within the overall transport planning objectives are shown in Table 6.1. To maximise the benefits of local knowledge and experience of prevailing transport conditions, the stakeholders were grouped geographically into three groups G1, G2 and G3 representing Highland, Moray and Aberdeenshire / Aberdeen City respectively.

Table 6.1 – Generation of Transport Improvement Options

Option Ref.		Workshop Ref.	Option Description
1		All-1	Provision of dual carriageway from Aberdeen to Inverness
2		All-2	Provision of double track rail line from Aberdeen to Inverness
3		All-3	Nairn Bypass
4		All-4	Elgin Bypass
5		All-5	Keith Bypass
6		All-6	A82/A9/ A96 Link Road
7		All-7	Provision of Grade separated junctions on dual carriageway
8		All-8	Removal of shuttleworking section
9		All-9	Provision of a new station at Inverness Airport
10		All-10	Increasing frequency of train services (hourly schedule)
11		All-11	Addition of bus lanes at Inverness and Aberdeen
12		All-12	Provision of cycle track from Inverurie to Aberdeen
13		All-13	1.5 hour journey time from Aberdeen to Inverness (rail)
14		All-14	Climbing Lanes/WS2+1 - (Strategic dual carriageways)
15		All-15	Railway passing loops
16		G1-16	Travel planning and demand management
17		G1-17	Quality bus partnerships/ schemes
18		G1-18	Investment in cycling and walking infrastructure
19		G1-19	Interchange facilities at railway stations
20		G1-20	Interchange facilities at key junctions for all modes
21		G1-21	Facilities for HGV's & tractors lay-bys for platoons to disperse
22		G1-22	Freight park and interchange at the Inverness airport
23		G1-23	Short sea shipping for freight between In & Ab (coastal route)
24		G1-24	Hard edge strips for agricultural vehicles
25		G1-25	Freight transport interchange outside towns
26		G1-26	Environmental enhancement of town centres
27		G1-27	Commuters cycle network within and between towns
28		G1-28	Keith - a carbon neutral town (a test case)
29		G1-29	Facilities for pedestrian and cyclist crossings in rural sections
30		G1-30	Short term AIP schemes
31		G2-16	Fochabers and Mosstodloch bypass
32		G2-17	Priority vehicle lanes
33		G2-18	Enhanced travel initiatives through concessionary travel
34		G2-19	Park & Ride
35		G2-20	Improvement schemes to address local accident issues
36		G2-21	Improvement schemes to address journey time reliability issues
37		G2-22	Enhanced public transport facilities (services and infrastructure)
38		G2-23	Provision of improved cycling facilities
39		G2-24	New rolling stock and additional service capacity
40		G2-25	Local commuter rail services
41		G3-16	Park & Ride sites
42		G3-17	A96/A90 Junction Haudagain improvement
43		G3-18	Education/behavioural change - travel planning, travel awareness e.g. car sharing, video conferencing
44		G3-19	Relative cost of modes - pricing & fares/subsidy
45		G3-20	Priority lanes & HOV Lanes
46		G3-21	Pedestrian crossings at local points
47		G3-22	Technology - VMS, real time information
48		G3-23	Enforcement e.g. cameras/signs/policing
49		G3-24	Short term measure & Dualling to Inverness Airport
50		G3-25	Delnies Improvement
51		G3-26	Threapland Junction Improvement
52		G3-27	Public transport infrastructure e.g. shelters, real time info
53		G3-28	Localised junction safety improvements
54		G3-29	Public transport fleet improvements - quality & capacity
55		G3-30	Increased frequency of Type B Layby provision for slow moving vehicles
56		G3-31	Improved access for disability usage/ buggy usage - road/rail
Additional Options
57	Add-1		Provision of Dual Carriageway from Inverness to Fochabers/Mosstodloch
58	Add-2		Provision of WS2+1 from Inverness to Fochabers/ Mosstodloch

6.2 Preliminary Assessment of Options

Given the scale of the Aberdeen to Inverness Transport Corridor Study, no one measure will provide a solution to the transport problems within the study area. It is therefore likely that the most effective solutions will consist of packages of different measures.

The sifting process must therefore balance the conflict between wishing to include all potential options whilst keeping timescales within appropriate levels, and the inherent difficulty in combining options into packages, the whole and the elements of which need to be appraised.

In undertaking the sifting of options process for the transport corridor, consideration has been given to current conditions along the corridor. However, should demand within the corridor increase more rapidly than anticipated, it may be necessary to re-examine some of the improvement options that have been sifted at this stage.

The results of the preliminary assessment of options against the established transport planning objectives, which will facilitate the sifting process, are summarised below in Table 6.2. This Table includes the option reference number, the workshop reference number, which indicates which of the workshop groups generated and assessed the option, and a description of the transport improvement option. The Table also indicates the distribution of scores assigned by the various groups at the workshops based on the usual 7 point positive or negative scale of slight, moderate and large centred on a neutral score of zero. The overall weighted option score is also shown in the Table based on a 4 point scale where a rating of 4 is the highest value with a score of 7.6 or more, 1 is the lowest rating with a score of 3 or less, and 2 and 3 are intermediate ratings with scores of between 3.1 and 5, and between 5.1 and 7.5 respectively.

In some cases, an option may receive a negative score against a specific objective. In this case, the option should be rejected or developed further to address the specific areas of concern.

The options that have the higher ratings of 3 and 4 are highlighted in the Table.

Table 6.2 – Preliminary Assessment of Transport Improvement Options

6.3 Sifting and Development of Options

The scoring and rating system described above as part of the preliminary assessment of the options provides a transparent mechanism for the selection or rejection of improvement options. Given the high number of options generated, the purpose is to reduce these to a reasonable number which will then be subjected to the STAG Part 1 and Part 2 appraisals as part of the Strategic Transport Projects Review.

Although some of the improvement options identified for the transport corridor are significant and could be considered major schemes, none of the options have been developed beyond an initial concept.

Based on the scoring and rating system, 8 (14%) of the 58 options generated returned a score of 7.5 or more, which are rated as the highest category 4. Some 19 (33%) of the 58 options generated returned a score of more than 5.0 and less than 7.5, which are rated as category 3. These two categories combined account for 27 (47%) of the total number, which equates to almost half of the generated options.

Although the remaining 31 (53%) options contribute to the established transport planning objectives, the results of the preliminary assessment indicate that these are less effective in contributing to the full range of objectives.

However, in addition to the 27 improvement options described above, it is considered reasonable to retain two additional options which, although achieving a rating less than 3, could deliver significant improvements. These options are:

• Removal of shuttleworking section (at Inveramsay); and
• Addition of bus lanes at Inverness and Aberdeen.

In addition, it should be noted that the junction improvement options being developed to address the problems associated with congestion during peak times at Haudagain Roundabout are presently being considered as part of a separate STAG appraisal.

To assist in the sifting process, an initial investigation of the feasibility, affordability and likely public acceptability of the proposals was undertaken as part of a pre-implementability appraisal. Based on the discussions through the consultation process and workshops, it is considered unlikely the provision of double track railway from Aberdeen to Inverness could be delivered cost effectively. Consequently, this option, although rated as category 3, has been rejected as being unaffordable at this time.

Options 19 and 20 were also rated as category 3, but as both focussed on the provision of interchange facilities, these options have been combined into a single improvement option.

Similarly, options 30 and 35 were also rated as category 3, but as both focussed on localised road safety improvements, these options have been combined into a single improvement option.

It should be noted that, particularly in the case of the railway, there might be synergies that exist through combining a series of discrete improvement options which could potentially be lost when considering the options in isolation. The effects of a 1.5 to 2 hour rail service between Aberdeen and Inverness (option 13) and the provision of interchange facilities (options 19 and 20) have been identified for more detailed consideration within the Strategic Transport Projects Review.

In addition, the potential synergy from the introduction of additional local commuter rail services, such as Aberdeen Crossrail and Invernet, and new rail stations such as those being considered at Kintore and Inverness Airport, and the combined benefits of an increased frequency of train services coupled with the provision of passing loops, should be considered further. Consequently, two additional options have been developed based on these discrete options.

Based on the results of the pre-appraisal assessment, the 28 broadly defined transport improvement options described in Table 6.3 below should be taken forward for further more detailed consideration within the Strategic Transport Projects Review.

Table 6.3 – Transport Improvement Options to be considered within Strategic Transport Projects Review

Note 1 – Increased from 1.5 hours to 2 hours which is considered to be a more reasonable improvement.