5.1 INTRODUCTION

5 IDENTIFICATION OF GAPS AND SHORTFALLS

5.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents specific performance indicators to identify any gaps and shortfalls between the future performance and expectations of the transport network in the vicinity of the Forth bridges in 2012, 2017 and 2022 as specified in the Study brief. The concept of a prioritisation framework for the SMART objectives identified within the previous chapter is also discussed.

Forecasts provided in this report are, unless stated otherwise, taken from the Transport Model for Scotland (TMfS). TMfS is the official model of Transport Scotland, maintained and updated periodically by consultants. It models all responses to possible transport interventions, such as changing mode, destination, time of travel etc and has recently been updated to a 2005 base, including the latest land use forecasts, as provided by each local authority.

The model includes representations of three time periods: AM peak (08:00-09:00), Inter peak (average hour of 10:00-16:00) and PM peak (17:00-18:00).

Three future year scenarios (2012, 2017 and 2022), along with the 2005 base were analysed.

Future anticipated/committed transport schemes added to the base 2005 situation for each forecast are listed below:

2012:

  • M74 Completion;
  • M9 Spur Extension;
  • Finnieston Bridge (Glasgow);
  • A68 Northern Dalkeith Bypass;
  • Ferrytoll Link Road, (Rosyth);
  • Second Upper Forth Crossing (at Kincardine);
  • Alloa – Stirling – Glasgow Rail Service;
  • M8 Upgrade (Ballieston to Newhouse);
  • Airdrie – Bathgate Rail Reopening;
  • Edinburgh Airport Rail Link;
  • Edinburgh Tram Lines;
  • Glasgow Airport Rail Link;
  • Glasgow Cross Rail;
  • Borders Rail Service;
  • M80 Upgrade (Stepps to Haggs);
  • A801 Upgrade (West Lothian); and
  • Aberdeen Western Peripheral Road.

2017:

  • Sherriffhall Grade Separation Junction;
  • Glasgow East End Regeneration Route; and
  • South East Wedge / Shawfair, (Edinburgh).

2022:

  • Rosyth Bypass.

It should be noted that these schemes are those that are expected to be in place by the forecast year. However, some of the schemes are not fully committed, and their inclusion should not be taken as any form of commitment by Transport Scotland or any other national, regional or local government body.

5.2 SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

This section discusses the objectives for the Forth Replacement Crossing Study and how they can be measured using the forecasting and assessment tools currently available to the Study.

Maintain cross-Forth transport links for all modes to at least the level of service offered in 2006

The ‘level of service’ is a concept in transport planning that is most usually linked to the delay experienced by travellers through the network. In this case, selected journey times for car and bus provide a measure of change between the current and forecast situations.

The journeys selected for analysis in the highway model are seen as representative of the various journeys being made across the Forth:

  • Dunfermline to Edinburgh City Centre;
  • Kirkcaldy to Leith; and
  • Perth to Livingston.

Single bus services from TMfS were selected for analysis from the AM and PM peak periods. The bus services selected for analysis in the AM peak are:

  • Kirkcaldy to Edinburgh;
  • Inverkeithing to Riccarton Campus; and
  • Perth to Edinburgh.

In the PM peak the following were selected:

  • Edinburgh to Kirkcaldy;
  • Riccarton Campus to Dunfermline; and
  • Edinburgh to Perth.

These selected bus routes provide a representative measure of journey times on a variety of approaches to, and from, the Forth Road Bridge, thus allowing an overall picture to be developed.

A similar analysis of rail is not required, as the journey times are dependent on timetable, which has not changed in the forecast scenarios. However, an analysis of the level of crowding on the cross Forth services in the AM peak will also be undertaken, as this is a key factor in people’s perception of the ‘level of service’ they are receiving from a rail trip.

Connect to the strategic transport network to aid optimisation of the network as a whole

How well the transport network is operating can be measured by the average speed of vehicles on the network. This can also be produced for subsets of both geographical area (Local Authority) and type of road.

Improve the reliability of journey times for all modes

The reliability of journey times cannot be directly measured with the forecasting tools available. However, reliability is closely related to the levels of congestion. It is proposed to use a measure of congestion as a proxy measurement for this objective.

An appropriate measure of congestion is the number of hours lost due to travel being slower than speed achieved on each road when traffic is flowing freely. This analysis will be produced for the AM peak from Junction 4 on the M90 to Echline Roundabout, as this is considered to be representative of the main corridor.

In the absence of the introduction of any bus priority measures, the reliability of bus journeys is a function of the journey time of private road vehicles. This report is concerned with analysing how the network will perform in the absence of any specific measures and proposals that may be developed during this study: the agreed measures in the forecast scenarios do not include bus priority to the north of the Forth Road Bridge. In this report, therefore, the measurement of road congestion can serve as a proxy for both car and bus journey time reliability.

Increase travel choices and improve integration across modes to encourage modal shift of people and goods

The measurable outcome for this objective is the mode split between car and public transport for trips across the Forth.

Improve accessibility and social inclusion

Social inclusion can be measured through an assessment of how the socially deprived can access centres of major employment, such as:

  • Edinburgh city centre;
  • Gyle;
  • Edinburgh Airport;
  • Livingston;
  • Glenrothes; and
  • Leith Waterfront and Victoria Quay.

The Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (2006) was used to choose a selection of areas in the most deprived 20 per cent, ranked by income, both north and south of the Forth:

  • S01002721: Cowdenbeath;
  • S01002785: Kelty;
  • S01002656: Dunfermline;
  • S01002759: Methil;
  • S01001926: Sighthill, Edinburgh;
  • S01002279: Pilton, Edinburgh; and
  • S01006402: Craigshill, Livingston.

The duration of Cross Forth movements to access employment by both the road network and public transport can then be assessed, showing the change in accessibility brought about by each scenario.

Additionally, ‘isochrone’ maps can be produced for road journey times to each employment centre for a visual representation.

Minimise the impacts of maintenance on the effective operation of the transport network

The total vehicle flow over the Forth Road Bridge and particularly the total flow of heavy goods vehicles is closely linked to the requirement for maintenance and resurfacing work on the bridge carriageways. The Forth Replacement Crossing Study Report 1: Network Performance concludes in its section on Surfacing (section 2.4.4) that "If the number of HGVs is reduced…it would be reasonable to predict that the life of the bridge surfacing would be increased" and hence the amount of maintenance required be reduced. Conversely, it would also seem reasonable to assume that increased volumes of traffic, and HGVs in particular, would increase the amount of surface maintenance and the disruption associated with it.

Annual ‘total vehicle’ and ‘heavy goods vehicle’ flows will be prepared for each time period.

Minimise the impact on people, the natural and cultural heritage of the Forth area

Qualitative assessments of the impact of any scheme on the natural and cultural heritage of the Forth Area of any proposed scheme will form part of the assessment.

An assessment of regional emissions (in tonnes) due to transport can be undertaken using TMfS. This can give the following outputs:

  • Carbon Monoxide;
  • Hydrocarbon Pollutants;
  • Oxides of Nitrogen Pollutants;
  • Particulate Pollutants; and
  • Carbon Dioxide.

Support sustainable development and economic growth

The 2002 report Scotland’s Transport Delivering Improvements: Transport Indicators for Scotland, published by the Scottish Executive outlines performance targets for their objectives to support sustainable development and promote economic growth.

For sustainable development, the report identifies Transport Emissions, "Freight Lifted" and Modal Shifts on short journeys and journeys to work/school as key performance indicators. These factors are already reported upon for the following objectives:

  • Transport Emissions are reported in "Minimise the impact on people, the natural and cultural heritage of the Forth area";
  • "Freight Lifted" is reported in "Minimise the impacts of maintenance on the effective operation of the transport network"; and
  • Modal Shift is reported in "Increase travel choices and improve integration across modes to encourage modal shift of people and goods".

For economic development, road traffic volumes, road traffic congestion and condition of the road network are listed as performance indicators. These factors are already reported for the following objectives:

  • Road Traffic Volumes are reported in "Minimise the impacts of maintenance on the effective operation of the transport network"; and
  • Road Traffic Congestion is reported in "Minimise the impacts of maintenance on the effective operation of the transport network".

The condition of the road network is not explicitly reported upon, as this is not a quantifiable output of the modelling. However, the volume of HGVs and the level of traffic generally can be taken as a proxy measure for this.

5.3 GAP ANALYSIS

This section presents the quantitative analysis of the performance levels of the forecast scenarios against each objective.

Maintain cross-Forth transport links for all modes to at least the level of service offered in 2006

Using TMfS, select routes were chosen to analyse journey times and average speed during the AM and PM peak periods. As discussed in section 5.2, the three routes selected for this analysis are Dunfermline to Edinburgh City Centre, Kirkcaldy to Leith and Perth to Livingston. These are outlined below in Figure 5.1.

Figure 5.1 Journey Time Routes

image of Figure 5.1 Journey Time Routes

©Crown copyright. All rights reserved. License Number 100019139

The time taken is measured after each kilometre of the journey. As only the time after each discrete section can be measured, interpolation is used to calculate the times where appropriate. Note that the total distance of a route can change slightly between forecast years as other infrastructure is added.

Figure 5.2 shows the journey time against the journey distance for each forecast year. In the southbound direction in the AM peak, it can be seen that there is no noticeable increase between forecast years until the Forth Road Bridge is reached. There is a small increase between the years until Edinburgh is reached, where larger increases in journey time between forecast years is experienced. Lower predicted junction delay at Barnton due to a slight drop in flow due to the introduction of the M9 Spur Extension accounts for the drop in total journey time between 2005 and 2012.

In Figures 5.2 - 7.11, the following abbreviations are used:

km = kilometres

km/hr = kilometres per hour

Figure 5.2 Dunfermline - Edinburgh City Centre AM Peak Journey Times

image of Figure 5.2 Dunfermline - Edinburgh City Centre AM Peak Journey Times

Figure 5.3 shows the same information for the PM peak northbound direction. A pattern similar to that of the AM peak is exhibited, in that there is no increase between years to the north of the bridge: the majority of the increase in journey time is due to increasing congestion in Edinburgh.

Figure 5.3 Edinburgh City Centre – Dunfermline PM Peak Journey Times

image of Figure 5.3 Edinburgh City Centre – Dunfermline PM Peak Journey Times

In order to remove the effects of Edinburgh congestion on the journey time route, a subset of the above route was taken. The route from Dunfermline to Barnton junction was analysed. Figures 5.4 and 5.5 show information for this route southbound in the AM peak and northbound in the PM peak.

Figure 5.4 Dunfermline - Barnton AM Peak Journey Times

image of Figure 5.4 Dunfermline - Barnton AM Peak Journey Times

Figure 5.5 Barnton – Dunfermline PM Peak Journey Times

image of Figure 5.5 Barnton – Dunfermline PM Peak Journey Times

There is very little increase in the time taken to complete the southbound journey in the AM peak. This is due to the AM peak hour being very close to capacity, with little scope for further deterioration in the time taken to cross the Forth Road Bridge.

There is an approximately two minute increase in the journey time across the Forth Road Bridge in the PM peak northbound direction between 2005 and 2022. Again, this small increase is a function of how close the existing situation is to capacity in the peak hour. Figures 5.6 and 5.7 present the equivalent information for the AM peak northbound and PM peak southbound directions, respectively.

Figure 5.6 Dunfermline - Barnton PM Peak Journey Times

image of Figure 5.6 Dunfermline - Barnton PM Peak Journey Times

Figure 5.7 Barnton - Dunfermline AM Peak Journey Times

image of Figure 5.7 Barnton - Dunfermline AM Peak Journey Times

These figures clearly show that there is a greater increase in journey times in the ‘non peak’ directions in the AM and PM peak hours i.e. northbound in the morning and southbound in the evening. This supports the view that the peak hour is so close the capacity that there is little scope for further deterioration.

Figures 5.8 and 5.9 show equivalent information for the Kirkcaldy to Leith route in the AM peak and the return journey in the PM peak. Again, a similar pattern to the previous route is exhibited: increases in journey time duration in future are largely a function of increases in congestion in Edinburgh.

Figure 5.8 Kirkcaldy – Leith AM Peak Journey Times

image of Figure 5.8 Kirkcaldy – Leith AM Peak Journey Times

Figure 5.9 Leith - Kirkcaldy PM Peak Journey Time

image of Figure 5.9 Leith - Kirkcaldy PM Peak Journey Time

Figures 5.10 and 5.11 show equivalent information for the Perth to Livingston journey time route in the AM peak and the return journey in the PM peak. The introduction of the M9 Spur Extension by 2012 reduces the journey time and the total trip length. The northbound journey time does not increase back to its 2005 level by 2022.

Figure 5.10 Perth - Livingston AM Peak Journey Times

image of Figure 5.10 Perth - Livingston AM Peak Journey Times

Figure 5.11 Livingston – Perth PM Peak Journey Times

image of Figure 5.11 Livingston – Perth PM Peak Journey Times

Table 5.1 and Figure 5.12 below summarise the total journey times for each route in peak directions (i.e. AM peak for southbound movements and PM peak for northbound movements). Note that as mentioned earlier, for the numbers contained in the above graphs, interpolation was used to calculate the times at each kilometre point of the journey. This leads to slightly different total journey times from those actually recorded. The actual journey times are listed in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1: Total Road Journey Times in the Peak Direction (minutes)

Description

2005

2012

% Change over 2005

2017

% Change over 2005

2022

% Change over 2005

Dunfermline to Edinburgh City Centre

55.0

49.6

-10

54.0

-2

58.3

6

Edinburgh City Centre to Dunfermline

60.7

58.1

-4

66.6

10

73.4

21

Kirkcaldy to Leith

76.3

77.8

2

85.1

12

91.6

20

Leith to Kirkcaldy

80.9

86.4

7

98.2

21

105.5

30

Perth to Livingston

67.0

61.8

-8

63.8

-5

65.8

-2

Livingston to Perth

75.7

73.6

-3

77.2

2

78.9

4

Figure 5.12: Total Road Journey Times in the Peak Direction (minutes)

image of Figure 5.12: Total Road Journey Times in the Peak Direction (minutes)

The table and figure show that by 2017 most of the journey times have increased duration, with the exception of Perth to Livingston and Dunfermline to Edinburgh City Centre in the morning peak. This trend continues to 2022. The objective of maintaining cross-Forth transport links for all modes to at least the level of service offered in 2006 is, therefore, not met for road-based trips.

The modelled results for journey times show very little change between years over the Forth Road Bridge. As discussed earlier, this is due to the crossing being at, or near, its capacity in the peak direction in the peak hour. However, the modelling package is not capable of including the effects of queuing on other vehicles, or the ‘dynamic’ nature of those queues. In reality, the peak is likely to increase in duration and queues increase in length and duration, which will have a negative impact on journey times. This growth and decay of the queues is not represented in the modelling

Table 5.2 below summarises the bus journey times and the percentage change between the 2005 and forecast years. Figure 5.13 presents the values graphically.

Table 5.2: Total Bus Journey Times in the Peak Direction (minutes)

Description

2005

2012

% Change over 2005

2017

% Change over 2005

2022

% Change over 2005

Kirkcaldy - Edinburgh

87.8

85.1

-3

88.0

0

91.2

4

Edinburgh - Kirkcaldy

99.9

100.3

0

109.8

10

116.9

17

Inverkeithing - Riccarton Campus

57.1

55.5

-3

60.6

6

64.4

13

Riccarton Campus - Dunfermline

93.0

104.0

12

121.3

30

128.9

39

Perth - Edinburgh

103.9

101.7

-2

104.8

1

108.0

4

Edinburgh - Perth

130.4

131.4

1

141.0

8

148.6

14

Figure 5.13: Total Bus Journey Times in the Peak Direction (minutes)

image of Figure 5.13: Total Bus Journey Times in the Peak Direction (minutes)

In a similar fashion to the car journey times, there is a slight decrease in 2012, compared with the 2005 situation, as the M9 Spur Extension is included. However, by 2017 and 2022, the journey times are in excess of the base situation. The objective of maintaining cross-Forth transport links for all modes to at least the level of service offered in 2006, therefore, is not met for bus trips.

Table 5.3 below shows the percentage change in rail crowding on southbound services crossing the forth during the am peak between 2005 and the forecast years of 2012, 2017 and 2022.

Table 5.3: Percentage Change in Rail Crowding

 

2005

2012

% Change from 2005

2017

% Change from 2005

2022

% Change from 2005

Load

1474

1509

2.4

1670

13.3

1789

21.4

% Crowd Factor

1.108

1.113

0.4

1.125

1.5

1.131

2.0

As shown in the above table, the number of passengers increases on the southbound cross-Forth services over the period from 2005 to 2022. Over the same time period, rail crowding increases as well. The objective of maintaining cross-Forth transport links for all modes to at least the level of service offered in 2006 is, therefore, not met for rail trips.

Connect to the strategic transport network to aid optimisation of the network as a whole

Table 5.4 and Figure 5.14 show the percentage change in average speeds on roads modelled in the TMfS between 2005 and the forecast years of 2012, 2017 and 2022 for each Local Authority in the SEStran area.

Table 5.4: Percentage Change in Average Speed by SEStran Local Authority

Local Authority

2012

2017

2022

City of Edinburgh

-8.9

-19.3

-25.6

Clackmannanshire

1.2

0.7

-0.4

East Lothian

-0.3

-7.7

-9.0

Falkirk

-0.5

-1.2

-3.2

Fife

0.5

-1.1

-2.9

Midlothian

-7.1

-9.0

-9.9

Scottish Borders

0.1

0.3

0.0

West Lothian

-0.3

-2.3

-5.4

Figure 5.14: Percentage Change in Average Speed by SEStran Local Authority

image of Figure 5.14: Percentage Change in Average Speed by SEStran Local Authority

Average speeds change slightly between 2005 and 2012 for all SEStran Local Authorities except for the City of Edinburgh and Midlothian. Speeds then reduce in the period to 2017 and to 2022 in all areas with the exception of Clackmannanshire and the Scottish Borders. Edinburgh experiences a 26 per cent decline in average speeds between 2005 and 2022. East Lothian and Midlothian both experience a 9-10 per cent decline. The network as a whole is not functioning as well in 2022 as in 2005: the objective of aiding optimisation of the network as a whole is therefore not met.

Improve the reliability of journey times for all modes

Figure 5.15 presents an analysis of the selected congestion indicators on the corridor from Junction 4 of the M90 to Echline Roundabout south of the Forth Road Bridge:

  • additional annual vehicle hours; and
  • average time lost per vehicle kilometre.

Both indicators are for two way combined flows.

Figure 5.15: Indexed Congestion Indicators (2005=100)

image of Figure 5.15: Indexed Congestion Indicators (2005=100)

Both congestion indicators increase over time, indicating that traffic conditions will become less stable and that journeys will, therefore, become less reliable. The objective of improving the reliability of journey times for all modes is therefore not met.

Increase travel choices and improve integration across modes to encourage modal shift of people and goods.

Figure 5.16 presents an analysis of the total public transport use in the AM peak travelling across the Forth between SEStran Local Authorities and the mode share of public transport.

Figure 5.16: Indexed Cross Forth Public Transport Movements (2005=100) and Public Transport Mode Share Southbound in the AM Peak Period (07:00-10:00)

image of Figure 5.16: Indexed Cross Forth Public Transport Movements (2005=100) and Public Transport Mode Share Southbound in the AM Peak Period (07:00-10:00)

The diagram shows public transport use declining in both absolute terms and in the proportion of total travel southbound across the Forth in the AM Peak. The decline is slight in absolute terms, being less than 8 per cent between 2005 and 2022. In the same period the proportion of total trip making between the SEStran Local Authorities to the north of the Forth and those to the south declines from 14.6 per cent to 13.8 per cent, though this is a recovery from the mode share of 13.3 per cent in 2012. This initial decline in PT mode share could be due to the introduction of the M9 Spur Extension making car travel more attractive.

Without intervention above that included in the forecast scenarios, the public transport mode share is predicted to decline. The objective of increasing travel choices and improve integration across modes to encourage modal shift of people and goods is therefore not met.

Further work is required to ensure that the timeline of expansion in capacity on the Fife – Edinburgh rail corridor is correctly represented in the modelling.

Improve accessibility and social inclusion

Social inclusion can be measured through an assessment of how the socially deprived can access centres of major employment, such as:

  • Edinburgh city centre;
  • Gyle;
  • Edinburgh Airport;
  • Livingston;
  • Glenrothes; and
  • Leith Waterfront and Victoria Quay.

The Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) (2006) was used to choose a selection of areas in the most deprived 20 per cent, ranked by income, both north and south of the Forth:

  • S01002721: Cowdenbeath;
  • S01002785: Kelty;
  • S01002656: Dunfermline;
  • S01002759: Methil;
  • S01001926: Sighthill, Edinburgh;
  • S01002279: Pilton, Edinburgh; and
  • S01006402: Craigshill, Livingston

Figures 5.17, 5.18, illustrate journey time isochrones5 in ten minute intervals from Dunfermline between 2005 and 2022.

Figure 5.17: Ten Minute Journey Time Isochrones from Dunfermline, 2005

image of Figure 5.17: Ten Minute Journey Time Isochrones from Dunfermline, 2005

Figure 5.18: Ten Minute Journey Time Isochrones from Dunfermline, 2022

image of Figure 5.18: Ten Minute Journey Time Isochrones from Dunfermline, 2022

As shown in the above figures, journey times to the south from Dunfermline will increase in 2022.

Figures 5.19, 5.20, illustrate journey time isochrones in ten minute intervals from Methil between 2005 and 2022

Figure 5.19: Ten Minute Journey Time Isochrones from Methil, 2005

image of Figure 5.19: Ten Minute Journey Time Isochrones from Methil, 2005

Figure 5.20: Ten Minute Journey Time Isochrones from Methil, 2022

image of Figure 5.20: Ten Minute Journey Time Isochrones from Methil, 2022

As shown in the above figures, journey times from Methil to centres south of the Forth will take longer in 2022. In 2022, journeys from Methil to Edinburgh City Centre will take over eighty minutes while trips to Leith waterfront will take over one hundred minutes.

Tables 5.5 and 5.6 below show journeys times in the AM peak for cross Forth highway and public transport respectively. The journey times shown are in minutes and are from areas selected from the SIMD 2006 list to high employment areas. It should be noted that the highway journey times is the average time in-car and public transport journey times include walk, waiting and boarding/transfer time.

Table 5.5: Road Accessibility Journey Times

Description

2005

2012

% Change from 2005

2017

% Change from 2005

2022

% Change from 2005

Dunfermline to Leith Waterfront

63.1

70.7

12

78.7

25

85.6

36

Cowdenbeath to Edinburgh Park

42.6

36.1

-15

41.3

-3

46.8

10

Kelty to Edinburgh City Centre

57.03

51.75

-9

56.5

-1

60.23

6

Methil to Livingston

65.26

59.97

-8

62.65

-4

65.01

0

The above table shows a decrease in cross Forth journey times in 2012. In 2017 the journey times decrease slightly compared to 2005 with the exception of journeys through the City of Edinburgh to Leith Waterfront. In 2022, the journey times to all locations in the City of Edinburgh have increased since 2005. Also, the initial improvement in journey times between Methil and Livingston due to the M9 Spur Extension has been eroded. The highway network as a whole is not functioning as well in 2022 as in 2005: the objective of increasing accessibility to socially excluded areas through improved journey times is therefore not met.

Table 5.6: Public Transport Accessibility Journey Times

Description

2005

2012

% Change from 2005

2017

% Change from 2005

2022

% Change from 2005

Dunfermline to Leith Waterfront

101.78

98.79

-3

98.79

-3

98.79

-3

Cowdenbeath to Edinburgh Park

75.17

78.17

4

78.17

4

78.17

4

Kelty to Edinburgh City Centre

105.29

102.79

-2

105.58

0

108.78

3

Methil to Livingston

192.72

186.86

-3

196.95

2

198.33

3

The above table shows that in 2012, cross Forth public transport journeys decrease slightly. In 2017 and 2022, public transport journey times increase slightly compared to 2005. The objective of increasing accessibility to socially excluded areas through improved public transport journey times is therefore not met.

Minimise the impacts of maintenance on the effective operation of the transport network

Figure 5.21 presents the total annual average weekday flow in both directions, split into HGVs and cars and light goods vehicles (LGVs). It also, on a separate axis, presents the proportion that HGVs make up of total traffic.

Figure 5.21: Combined Direction Annual Average Weekday Traffic and HGV Proportions

image of Figure 5.21: Combined Direction Annual Average Weekday Traffic and HGV Proportions

The figure illustrates that the total number of HGVs using the Forth Road Bridge increases in future, and that they make up an increased proportion of the total flow. The increase in flow will lead to an increased requirement for maintenance and, therefore, to the associated disruption. The objective of minimising the impacts of maintenance on the effective operation of the transport network is therefore not met.

Minimise the impact on people, the natural and cultural heritage of the Forth area

Table 5.7 presents the emissions from transport in the SEStran Local Authorities, in 1000s of tonnes.

Table 5.7: Pollutant Emissions from Transport in the SEStran Area (000s tonnes)

Description

2005

2012

% Change from 2005

2017

% Change from 2005

2022

% Change from 2005

Carbon Monoxide Pollutants [CO]

10.6

8.0

-24

8.6

-19

9.3

-12

Hydrocarbon Pollutants [HC]

1.6

1.2

-26

1.3

-21

1.4

-14

Oxides of Nitrogen Pollutants [NOx]

10.5

6.6

-37

5.7

-46

6.0

-43

Particulate Pollutants [PM10]

0.3

0.2

-46

0.2

-54

0.2

-52

Carbon Dioxide [CO2]

1950.1

2044

5

2219

14

2451

26

Improvements in engine technology will tend to decrease most emissions over time. However, this is counterbalanced by the increases in road traffic. It can be seen that for CO, HC, NOx and PM10s the level of emissions decreases from the base situation. However, the level of CO2 emissions from transport increase. Under this measure, therefore, the objective of minimising the impact on people, the natural and cultural heritage of the Forth area is not met.

Support sustainable development and economic growth

As discussed in section 5.3, the quantifiable measurements for this objective have already been reported upon in this section.

Sustainable development measurements are:

  • Table 5.7 shows that transport related emissions of CO2 increase, while other emissions decrease due to improvements in engine technology;
  • Figure 5.21 indicates that the flows of HGVs are expected to increase in both absolute and proportion terms on the Forth Road Bridge; and
  • Figure 5.16 shows public transport use declining in both absolute terms and in the proportion of total travel southbound across the Forth in the AM peak.

Economic growth measurements are:

  • Figure 5.21 indicates that total vehicle flows will continue to increase on the Forth Road Bridge; and
  • Figure 5.15 the congestion indicators increase over time.

All three measures of sustainability move in an undesirable direction, as CO2 emissions increase, total and HGV flows both increase and public transport mode share decreases. The objective of promoting sustainable development is therefore not met.

Both indicators related to economic growth move in an undesirable direction, as road traffic levels and congestion indicators both increase. The objective of promoting economic development is therefore not met.

5.4 SUMMARY

Table 5.8 summarises the assessment of the forecast scenarios against the objectives of the Forth Replacement Crossing Study.

Table 5.8: Summary of Assessment

Objective

Measurement

Assessment

Maintain cross-Forth transport links for all modes to at least the level of service offered in 2006

Road journey times

Not met

Bus journey times

Not met

Rail crowding cross-Forth

Not met

Connect to the strategic transport network to aid optimisation of the network as a whole

Average road speeds

Not met

Improve the reliability of journey times for all modes

Number of vehicle hours between J4 of the M90 and Echline Roundabout below free-flow speed

Not met

Increase travel choices and improve integration across modes to encourage modal shift of people and goods

Public transport mode share across the Forth

Not met

Improve accessibility and social inclusion

Road journey times between areas of deprivation and major employment centres

Not met

Public transport journey times between areas of deprivation and major employment centres

Not met

Minimise the impacts of maintenance on the effective operation of the transport network

Total annual average weekday flow on the Forth Road Bridge

Not met

Annual average weekday HGV flow across the Forth Road Bridge

Not met

Minimise the impact on people, the natural and cultural heritage of the Forth area

Pollutant emissions from transport in the SEStran area.

Not met (CO2)

Support sustainable development and economic growth

Pollutant emissions from transport in the SEStran area.

Not met (CO2)

Annual average weekday HGV flow across the Forth Road Bridge

Not met

Public transport mode share across the Forth

Not met

Total annual average weekday flow on the Forth Road Bridge

Not met

Number of vehicle hours between J4 of the M90 and Echline Roundabout below free-flow speed

Not met

5.5 PRIORITISATION FRAMEWORK

A prioritisation framework for assessing objectives and schemes is being developed for the main STPR study, as this will have to compare a wide variety of interventions in a geographically spread area. The Forth Replacement Crossing Study however, has a defined area and a relatively small set of possible interventions in which to achieve its end. Therefore the existing STAG based methodology is considered an appropriate priority framework for this element of the Study.

Based on the above findings, the first objective appears to be the key to achieving the other outcomes. If the level of service is not maintained, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve the other objectives.