shaping perth’s transport future design manual for roads & bridges scheme assessment · 2017....

Shaping Perth’s Transport Future

Design Manual for Roads & Bridges Scheme Assessment

Document: WP H004j/DMRB1 Version: 4

Volume 1: Stage 1 Assessment Report

Perth & Kinross Council

November 2011

Halcrow Group Limited

City Park, 368 Alexandra Parade, Glasgow G31 3AU

tel 0141 552 2000 fax 0141 552 2525

halcrow.com

Halcrow Group Limited has prepared this report in accordance with

the instructions of client Perth & Kinross Council for the client’s sole and specific use.

Any other persons who use any information contained herein do so at their own risk.

© Halcrow Group Limited 2012



Volume 1: Stage 1 Assessment Report November 2011



Volume 1: DMRB Stage 1 Assessment Report

Document history



Volume 1: Stage 1 Preliminary Assessment Report


This document has been issued and amended as follows:

Version Date Description Created by Verified by Approved by

1.0 Nov 11 Draft L Wilson P Marriott L Wilson

2.0 Dec 11 Minor amendments L Wilson L Wilson L Wilson

3.0 Dec 11 Preliminary Economics results G Blair L Wilson L Wilson

4.0 Jan 12 Traffic & Economics Text G Blair L Wilson L Wilson



Contents

1 Executive Summary 1 1.1 Perth Traffic and Transport Issues STAG 1

1.2 Shaping Perth’s Transport Future Strategic Environmental Assessment 1

1.3 Shaping Perth’s Transport Future Strategy 1

1.4 Design Manual for Roads & Bridges Stage 1 Assessment Recommendations 2

2 Structure of the Report 4

3 Introduction 5

4 Existing Conditions 7 4.1 Existing Traffic Problems 7

4.2 Locality & Topography 8

4.3 Existing Roads and Structures 9

4.3.1 A9 Perth to Inverness Trunk Road 9

4.3.2 A93 10

4.3.3 A94 10

4.3.4 Dunkeld Road 11

4.3.5 Ruthvenfield Road 11

4.3.6 Bute Drive 11

4.3.7 Stormontfield Road 11

4.3.8 Perth Bridge (A85 West Bridge Street) 11

4.3.9 Queen’s Bridge (A93 South Street) 12

4.3.10 Existing River Crossing 13

4.3.11 Perth to Inverness Railway Line 13

4.3.12 Existing Utilities 13

4.4 Environmental 13

4.4.1 Existing Watercourses 15

4.5 Existing Constraints Summary 16

5 Description of Alternative Schemes 17 5.1 Part 1 Appraisal 20

5.1.1 Cross Tay Link Road 22

5.1.2 A9 / A85 Crieff Road Junction Improvements 22

5.1.3 Western Edge link 22

5.1.4 New M90/A912 junction at Friarton 22

5.2 Part 2 Appraisal 22

5.3 Shaping Perth’s Transport Future Strategic Environmental Assessment 24



5.4 Shaping Perth’s Transport Future Strategy 24

5.5 Design Manual for Roads & Bridges Stage 1 Preliminary Assessment 24

5.5.1 Do-Minimum 25

5.6 Corridor C 26

5.6.1 Corridor C2 26

5.7 Corridor E 27

5.7.1 Corridor E2 27

5.8 Corridor G 28

5.8.1 Western Edge Link 29

5.9 Preliminary Cost Estimate 29

6 Engineering Assessment 31 6.1 Geology and Geomorphology 31

6.2 Hydrology Drainage 33

6.3 Public Utilities 33

6.4 Corridor C1 33

6.4.1 River Almond Crossing 34

6.4.2 Bertha Loch 36

6.4.3 Corridor C1 - A9 Junction, Rail & River Tay Crossings 38

6.4.4 Corridor C2 - A9 Junction, Rail & River Tay Crossings 40

6.4.5 River Tay – A93 45

6.4.6 A93 – A94 46

6.5 Corridor E 47

6.5.1 River Almond Crossing 48

6.5.2 Bertha Loch 48

6.5.3 Corridor E1 - A9 Junction / Rail Crossing 48

6.5.4 Corridor E2 - A9 Junction / Rail Crossing 49

6.5.5 Corridors E1 & E2 - River Tay Crossing 54

6.5.6 Corridors E1 & E2 - River Tay to A93 56

6.5.7 Corridors E1 & E2 – 93 to A94 57

6.6 Corridor G 59

6.6.1 West Bank 60

6.6.2 East Bank 62

6.6.3 River Tay to A94 64

6.7 Western Edge Link 67

7 Environmental Assessments 68 7.1 Description of the Local Environment / Baseline Conditions 68

7.2 Assessment of Environmental Effects 68

7.2.1 Generic Impacts 68

7.2.2 Corridors C1 and C2 Impacts 70

7.2.3 Corridors E1 and E2 Impacts 72



7.2.4 Corridor G Impacts 74

7.3 Mitigation 75

7.3.1 Generic Mitigation Measures 75

7.3.2 Mitigation for the reduction of impacts to the River Tay special Area of conservation 78

7.3.3 Perth Traffic & Transport Issues STAG 82

7.3.4 Shaping Perth’s Transport Future Strategy and SEA 82

7.3.5 Public Exhibitions 82

7.3.6 Stakeholder Workshop 83

7.3.7 Further Consultation 83

7.4 Statement of Determination 83

7.4.1 Characteristics of the scheme 84

7.4.2 Location of the scheme 84

7.4.3 Characteristics of potential impacts of the scheme 85

7.4.4 Corridors C1 and C2 Summary 85

7.4.5 Corridor E1 and E2 Summary 85

7.4.6 Corridor G Summary 86

8 Traffic and Economic Assessment 87 8.1 Existing Conditions 87

8.1.1 Introduction 87

8.1.2 Study Area 87

8.1.3 Base Model 87

8.1.4 Journey Times 89

8.1.5 Road Safety 90

8.2 Future Conditions 90


8.2.2 Network Improvements 90

8.2.3 Future Traffic Demand 91


8.3 Effect of Options 101


8.3.2 Route Corridors 101

8.3.3 Traffic Demand 101

8.3.4 Traffic Flows 101


8.3.6 Road Safety 133

8.4 Economic Appraisal 134


8.4.2 Basis of the Economic Appraisal 134

8.4.3 PEARS Assessment 134

8.4.4 Accident & Non-Traffic Related Maintenance Assessments 137

8.4.5 Overall Economic Assessment 138



9 Recommendation 139 9.1 Corridor C1 139

9.2 Corridor C2 139

9.3 Corridor E1 140

9.4 Corridor E2 140

9.5 Corridor G 141

Appendix – Refer to Volume 2



Doc no: 1 Version: 1 Date: 19 October 2011 Project code: TKPKFA Filename: CTLR DMRB Stage 1 Ver 4.0.doc

1

1 Executive Summary

1.1 Perth Traffic and Transport Issues STAG

Against a backdrop of continued population growth and economic development,

Perth and Kinross Council (PKC) commissioned Halcrow Group Limited to assess the

transport problems in and around Perth and consider potential solutions. Whilst

current, economic conditions may seem somewhat different, it is fully expected that

demand for development will return and the study looked at the transport problems

in the context of Perth and its immediate surroundings, considering local and

regional transport issues where appropriate.

The study was completed in accordance with the Scottish Transport Appraisal

Guidance (STAG) which provides a clear and robust framework to identify potential

transport interventions.

This study was also in progress in advance of the publication of the Strategic

Transport Projects Review (STPR) by Transport Scotland in December 2008 and it was

therefore not possible to include proposals for the grade-separation of Inveralmond

and Broxden at the option generation and testing stages. However, supplementary

work was undertaken in the later stages of the study which takes into account STPR

proposals for the Perth area, the findings of which were reported within the Perth

Traffic and Transport Issues STAG Report (PTTI STAG).

The recommendations from the PTTI STAG taken forward to further consideration as

part of this Design Manual for Roads & Bridges Stage 1 Preliminary Assessment are

the Cross Tay Link Road and the Western Edge Link.

1.2 Shaping Perth’s Transport Future Strategic Environmental Assessment

Perth & Kinross Council requested that a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)

of the recommendations from the PTTI STAG was carried out with the

Environmental Report being published in October 2010.

Following consultation, an Addendum to the Environmental Report was published in

2011 and recommended that an amended CTLR Corridor option located between

Option C and E which takes account of the environmental constraints identified in

the environmental assessment is progressed to the DMRB stage and assessed against

the original three route corridors.

This amended corridor reflects the preferred corridor on environmental grounds,

however the SEA reporting recognised that further assessment work is required as

part of the DMRB study to assess this corridor against other factors such as

engineering, traffic and economic impacts and constraints.

1.3 Shaping Perth’s Transport Future Strategy

This high level strategy document, published October 2010, brought together the

findings from the previous studies into a single document to support the consultation

process. Following publication of the Local Development Plan Main Issues Report,

Oct 2010, and subsequent consultations (summarised in the Shaping Perth’s

Transport Future Consultation Statement, November 2011) the finalised Shaping

Perth’s Transport Future Strategy was published in November 2011.




2

1.4 Design Manual for Roads & Bridges Stage 1 Assessment Recommendations

Figure 1.1: Recommended Corridor

As outlined in Figure 1.1 and below, the following are recommended for further

consideration as part of a future Design Manual for Roads & Bridges Stage 2 Route

Option Assessment:

• The Western Edge Link: forming part of all the corridors recommended for

further study by the PTTI STAG and the DMRB Stage 1 Preliminary

Assessment, did not highlight any impacts that precludes it from being taken

forward

• Corridor C: performed better than the other corridors for the following

reasons:

- Provides the greatest support to future development in and around Perth

- Provides the greatest relief in removing traffic travelling through the

centre of Perth

- Provides the greatest opportunity to capture the benefits and improve the

public transport, walking and cycling networks

- Is most favourable in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, local air quality

and noise

- Has the least potential impact on settlements and individual properties




3

- Has economic benefits that outweigh the costs and therefore provides

good value for money

However it is noted Corridor C would:

- Result in significant impact to the Scone Palace Gardens and Designed

Landscape and associated Scheduled Monuments

- Potentially impact on Broxy Kennels residential property located adjacent

to the A9

- Requires the most complex structure at as it crosses the River Tay,

Railway line and A9

- Result in significant adverse impacts to areas listed on the inventories of

Ancient and Semi-Natural Ancient Woodland and associated impacts to

biodiversity and habitat fragmentation

In reaching this recommendation the Design Manual for Roads & Bridges Stage 1

Preliminary Assessment took forward the PTTI STAG appraisal considering the

engineering, environmental and traffic issues associated with the PTTI STAG’s

recommendations in more detail.

While it is acknowledged there are significant environmental and engineering

constraints and impacts associated with the recommended corridor these and their

proposed mitigation measures were considered prior to reaching the

recommendation for the preferred option, Corridor C.




4

2 Structure of the Report

The Design Manual for Roads & Bridges TD 37/93 Scheme Assessment Reporting

contains guidance on the general requirements for the reporting of scheme

assessments and defines the purpose of a Stage 1 Assessment as identifying:

the environmental, engineering, economic and traffic advantages, disadvantages and

constraints associated with broadly defined improvement strategies.

This report follows the guidance contained in TD 37/93 in summarising the work

carried out to identify a recommended corridor for the Cross Tay Link Road. For

ease of reference the report also follows the structure of TD 37/93.

Due to the size of the Report it has been split into two volumes for ease of use:


Volume 2: Appendices




5

3 Introduction

Against a backdrop of continued population growth and economic development,

Perth and Kinross Council (PKC) commissioned Halcrow Group Limited to study the

transport problems in and around Perth and consider potential solutions. Whilst

current economic conditions may seem somewhat different, it is fully expected that

demand for development will return and the study looked at the transport problems

in the context of Perth and its immediate surroundings, considering local and

regional transport issues where appropriate.

The study was completed in accordance with the Scottish Transport Appraisal

Guidance (STAG) which provides a clear and robust framework to identify potential

transport interventions, incorporating four phases – Pre-Appraisal; Part 1 Appraisal;

Part 2 Appraisal and Post-Appraisal. STAG was originally published in 2003.

A revised platform incorporating a guidance document supported by an online

technical database was published in 2008. As the study commenced in 2007, it was

completed in accordance with the STAG guidance first published in 2003, but took

cognisance of some elements of the updated guidance during the Part 2 Appraisal

where appropriate.

The study was also in progress in advance of the publication of the Strategic

Transport Projects Review (STPR) by Transport Scotland in December 2008 and it was

therefore not possible to include proposals for the grade-separation of Inveralmond

and Broxden at the option generation and testing stages. However, supplementary

work was undertaken in the later stages of the study which takes into account STPR

proposals for the Perth area, the findings of which were reported within the Perth

Traffic and Transport Issues STAG Report (PTTI STAG)1. .

The PTTI STAG and this DMRB Report have taken full cognisance of the various

statutory and non statutory policy documents that provide the framework for

planning and development within Perth & Kinross. The key documents are

summarised in Figure 3.1.

1 http://www.pkc.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/20160F81-B6E7-4F35-A230-

67841C740CB2/0/PerthSTAGReportFinalDraftOctober2010issue.pdf




6

Figure 3.1: Policy Context of the PTTI STAG




7

4 Existing Conditions

The study area is primarily the City of Perth and its immediate surroundings. The

Perth Core Area, as defined by the Perth & Kinross Structure Plan (2003), includes the

City of Perth and the area that lies within 25 minutes of travel by bus from the centre

of Perth. The area contains 50% of Perth & Kinross’ population and employment and

is consequently the main source of economic growth and the focus for future

development.

The Perth & Kinross Structure Plan, Towards a Sustainable Future, sets out policies

for the sustainable development of Perth and Kinross in 2020. In the period since the

publication of the Structure Plan, the population and housing projections upon which

it was based have been and are set to be further exceeded by a significant margin.

Perth & Kinross Council has therefore undertaken to prepare an Alteration to the

Structure Plan on housing and population to inform the Local Plan process.

In Perth & Kinross the supply of prime business land is mostly in Perth City, but

much of the supply suffers from constraints. Whilst there is land for development,

primarily in the north and north-west, the road network connections from the

existing Inveralmond Industrial Estate and Crieff Road are at capacity and unable to

cater for further vehicular loading and public transport services without significant

improvement. Accordingly, the Structure Plan recognises transport has an integral

role to play in the economic and social well being of Perth & Kinross. The Structure

Plan promotes an integrated approach to improving access within Perth & Kinross

and also recognises the importance of enhancing strategic transport links to the area.

Actual and perceived problems and opportunities in turn provide the rationale for

the study. It is important for problems and opportunities to be considered in the

wider context and therefore consideration is also given to issues and constraints of

relevance to the study.

4.1 Existing Traffic Problems

In summary, the local road network in the centre of Perth is extremely busy and can

become gridlocked during special events, incidents and accidents. This is due to the

constraints imposed on the local road network by the Perth and Queens Bridges, and

the lack of a suitable alternative east-west route that avoids the centre of Perth. A90

traffic from Dundee accessing Perth via the A912 and A93/A94 traffic going to the

industrial areas to the west of Perth converge in the centre of Perth to use one of the

two existing bridges (Perth Bridge and Queens Bridge).

When there are major issues, such as the closure of Friarton Bridge on the A90 due to

high winds or major roadworks, traffic has to divert through the city centre resulting

in journey times of 1.5 – 2 hours. Due to the lack of a suitable alternative east-west

route into the centre of Perth, traffic uses B and C class roads to avoid the congestion

in the city centre and to also access special events taking place at Perth Racecourse

and Scone Palace.

Against a background of increasing population and economic growth, background

growth in traffic on the national trunk road network in and around Perth has been

modelled and shows that the current network will have severe operational difficulties

before 2018 and, given forecast development scenarios, gridlock will become

common place. As a result there are consequential impacts on air quality within the




8

city’s Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) and there is not the opportunity for

any further bus-priority and cycling/walking enhancements.

The problems identified, include:

Cycling and Walking – accessibility issues within Perth and severance by the A9;

Bus Network – lack of priority; strategic and local congestion;

Rail network – frequency and journey times limited by sections of single track;

Strategic Road Network – congestion at A9 western bypass, Crieff Road junction,

Broxden Roundabout, Inveralmond Roundabout;

Local Road Network – congestion at junctions with A9, Crieff Road/Newhouse Rd,

A93/A94 approach to Perth Bridge, A85 Crieff Road Corridor, Dunkeld Rd, Perth

Bridge, Queens Bridge, Charlotte Street/Atholl/Tay/George Street;

Freight Access – key point congestion, lack of priority, whole city and outskirts; and

Air Quality– formally declared to include city centre and wider area of Perth.

In summary, the current capacity of the transport network, across all modes, is

considered inadequate to deal with an increase in the number of person and vehicle

trips, which are predicted to increase if the development and population targets for

Perth and the surrounding area are to be met. Development and population

requirements are set out in the Perth & Kinross Structure Plan and Local Plans. If

development were permitted with no change to the transport network it is

anticipated that the problems would become greater and new transport / movement

problems would emerge.

Census data and roadside surveys show dependence on the car for trips from the

surrounding area due to Perth supports a relatively rural and dispersed population in

its hinterland. For the city centre walking levels are relatively high.

Physical constraints around Perth include the River Tay, Kinnoull Hill and the rail

line. These limit the opportunities to locate new development as well as the

opportunities to improve the transport network to address current and anticipated

problems. As a consequence development has tended to concentrate towards the

north and west of the city.

4.2 Locality & Topography

The city of Perth is strategically placed in terms of its surrounding transport

infrastructure. The city is surrounded by the A9, A90, A93 and A94. There are also

rail links to the north (Inverness), to the east (Dundee) and to the south

(Edinburgh/Glasgow).

The other main settlements within or adjacent to the study area are Scone (to the

north east) and Luncarty (to the north). Both towns are within easy commuting

distance from Perth. The commuters to Perth from Scone are significantly impacted

upon by congestion within Perth and, in particular, at both the Perth and Queens

bridges.

Kinnoull Hill lies to the north of the A90 and east of Perth and presents an

obstruction to the provision of a complete bypass/ring road around Perth. The peak




9

of Kinnoull Hill lies some 222 metres above mean sea level and is surrounded by

steep slopes. The land to the north east of Perth is relatively flat with gentle slopes

and is fairly typical of undulating countryside in Perthshire.

The study area carries high quality environmental status, with the key designations

listed as follows:

• The River Tay (Special Area of Conservation)

• Scone Palace

• Scone Palace Historic Garden and Designed Landscape (Designed Landscape)

• Ancient and Semi-Ancient Woodlands

• Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAMs) & Listed Buildings

In addition, there are a number of leisure & recreational facilities which lie within the

study area. The main facilities can be identified as follows:

• Perth Racecourse

• Quarrymill Woodland Park

• North Insh Golf Course

• Caravan Park (adjacent to Perth Racecourse)

4.3 Existing Roads and Structures

The key existing roads within the limits of the study area were identified as; the A9

Perth to Inverness Trunk Road, the A93, the A94, A912 Dunkeld Road, Ruthvenfield

Road, Bute Drive and Stormontfield Road (Figure 4.1).

In addition, the two existing bridges providing connectivity between the east and the

west are Perth Bridge and Queens Bridge, both located within the centre of Perth.

4.3.1 A9 Perth to Inverness Trunk Road

The A9 Perth to Inverness Trunk Road bypasses Perth to the west of the city between

the major roundabouts of Broxden and Inveralmond with a grade separated junction

at the A85 Crieff Road between them. It is a rural dual carriageway that extends

beyond the limits of the study area. This is a key strategic transport route which links

Perth with Inverness and the Highlands. It also provides links southwards to the

M90 (to Aberdeen/Dundee/Edinburgh) and the M9 (to Glasgow).

Within the study area the cross section includes two 7.3m wide carriageways, with

hard strips and soft verges on either side. There are sections with widened verges to

permit forward visibility. The central reservation is surfaced with single sized

chippings, and also incorporates a wire rope road restraint system. There is a

footpath to the east side of the trunk road connecting Luncarty with Perth.

There is a grade separated junction providing access to Luncarty at the north end of

the study area while Inveralmond roundabout, located in the middle of the study

area, has been signalised. In addition to the various lay-bys located along the route,

there are a number of gaps in the central reserve to permit access to side roads.




10

Plate 4.1: Existing Road Network and Bridge Crossings

4.3.2 A93

The A93 is a rural single carriageway which links Perth to Blairgowrie and beyond to

Braemar. As the A93 leaves Perth, the carriageway is generally 7.3m wide. There is a

2.5m wide verge on the east side and a 2.0m wide footway on the west side. To the

north of Old Scone the carriageway width is generally 6.5m with narrow verges at

both sides.

The existing vertical alignment on the A93 is very steep as it leaves Quarrymill on the

approach to the entrance to Scone Palace, beyond which the vertical alignment is

relatively flat. There is a boundary wall to Scone Palace grounds running parallel to

the A93 on the west side with post and wire fencing along the east side.

There is only one main junction within the study limits, a staggered at-grade junction

at Old Scone. The road to the east provides a link to Scone, with the road to the west

providing a link to Stormontfield. Both of these routes are unclassified roads.

4.3.3 A94

The A94 is a rural single carriageway road which links Perth with Forfar. As the

route leaves Perth, the carriageway is 8.6m wide, with a 1.5m wide footway (plus

additional 1.0m verge) on the west side and a 3.0m verge on the east side. The

carriageway is 9.0m wide as it leaves Scone, consisting of a two lane exit from the

existing roundabout and a one lane approach to it. There is a 1.5m wide footway

(plus 1.0m verge) on the west side and 3.5m verge on the east side of the A94 at this

location.




11

The main junctions along the route include:

• Signalised junction at Perth (A93/A94)

• At-grade T-junction at Pickstonhill (unclassified road to the east)

• Various at-grade junctions within Scone

• At-grade roundabout to north of the Scone Park & Ride

4.3.4 Dunkeld Road

Dunkeld Road (A912) links the A9 at Inveralmond Roundabout to the Perth city

centre. This route is an urban single carriageway, with numerous at grade junctions,

including roundabouts, signalised and priority junctions, to facilitate access to the

local side roads. The width of the carriageway generally varies from 7.3m to 11.5m.

The existing road corridor is surrounded by both business and residential properties.

4.3.5 Ruthvenfield Road

Ruthvenfield Road is local distributor road that extends from Inveralmond

Roundabout, passing though Inveralmond Industrial Estate then Ruthvenfield, before

forming a t-junction with Castle Brae, which in turn leads to the A85. Ruthvenfield

Road varies in width throughout, but generally has a 7.3m wide carriageway, with

2.0m wide footways to one side.

4.3.6 Bute Drive

Bute Drive is local distributor road through the residential area known as Muirton.

The carriageway is 7.3m wide, with 2.5m wide footways to either side. Bute Drive is

adjacent to, and is the main access for, Perth Grammar School.

4.3.7 Stormontfield Road

Stormontfield Road which links Stormontfield, to the north, with Old Scone, to the

south is a single carriageway and is generally 4.7m wide, with narrow verges to

either side. There are agricultural fields, bounded by post and wire fences, on either

side of the road for much of the route. This route also provides the main access to

Perth Racecourse.

4.3.8 Perth Bridge (A85 West Bridge Street)

Perth Bridge comprises of nine masonry arches. The bridge was opened in 1771 with

provision for a carriageway only. Footpaths were added to both sides of the bridge in

1869. Figure 4.2 opposite shows Perth Bridge.

Perth Bridge is located at the north eastern corner of Perth city centre. The bridge

connects the A989 on the west bank of the River Tay to the A93 and A85 (Dundee

Road) on the east bank. Today, the bridge has two traffic lanes, one for westbound

traffic and one for eastbound. Ornamental lighting columns are located on top of the

parapets, and thus both footpaths are unobstructed.

The bridge is now 240 years old and its general condition was observed as being

satisfactory.




12

Figure 4.2: Perth Bridge (A85 West Bridge Street).

4.3.9 Queen’s Bridge (A93 South Street)

Queen’s Bridge (Figure 4.3 over the page) was opened in 1960 to replace its

predecessor Victoria Bridge. The three span bridge is constructed of reinforced

concrete with a pre-stressed concrete deck.

The west abutment is combined with the river wall whilst the east abutment is

independent and sits on the east bank of the River Tay. The bridge has two concrete

piers and both are located within the River Tay. The bridge currently has three lanes

of traffic, two for eastbound traffic and one lane for westbound. There are footpaths

on both sides of the carriageway. Lighting columns are provided on both footpaths

and are located at the carriageway edge.

Queen’s Bridge is located approximately 400m to the south of Perth Bridge, and

carries traffic in/out of the middle of Perth City centre. The bridge connects the A989

on the west bank of the River Tay to the A85 (Dundee Road) and the A93 on the east

bank.

The bridge is now 51 years old and its general condition was observed as being

satisfactory.




13

Figure 4.3: Queen’s Bridge (A93 South Street).

4.3.10 Existing River Crossing

The only crossings of the River Tay in the study area are the two bridge crossings in

the centre of Perth discussed above, these are the Perth and Queens Bridges. The

River Almond is crossed by the A9 Dual carriageway approximately 380m north of

Inveralmond roundabout.

4.3.11 Perth to Inverness Railway Line

The Perth to Inverness Railway line runs parallel to the A912 (Dunkeld Road) and the

A9 Trunk Road throughout the northern limits of the study area. There are locations

where the railway line and the trunk road are in close proximity to each other. In

addition, the level of the railway line in relation to the trunk road varies throughout.

4.3.12 Existing Utilities

During the constraints review of the study area, all of the known or identified utilities

within the study area are shown on Drawing TKPKFA-004J-000-014 (Volume 2,

Appendix A).

4.4 Environmental

Within 2km of the route corridors there is one Natura 2000 site – the River Tay

Special Area of Conservation (SAC). See Volume 2, Appendix B2 for further details

on the designation and its qualifying interests. There are also two Sites of Special

Scientific Interest (SSSI) – Kinnoull Hill and Almondbank SSSIs. These designations

(SAC and SSSIs) do not lie within the identified route corridors. Other nature

conservation considerations that need to be assessed as part of the DMRB study




14

include areas of woodland that are listed on the Ancient, and Semi-Natural Ancient

Woodland Inventory. Figure 4.4 shows the location of SSSI sites.

Figure 4.4: SSSI sites.

The proposed route corridors cross several watercourses, with the River Tay and the

River Almond being the most significant. The watercourses and the surrounding

study area is also known to accommodate several Rights of Way and proposed Core

Paths.

The study area contains numerous cultural heritage designations with Scheduled

Monuments, Listed Buildings and both the Scone Palace and Battleby Gardens and

Designed Landscape all located within the core Perth area and all potentially affected

either directly or indirectly by the proposed route corridors. Given the historical

significance of the Perth area there is also the potential for the study area to contain

undiscovered archaeological remains.

Perth and Kinross Council completed a detailed assessment of air quality in 2005, and

subsequently declared an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) for Nitrogen

Dioxide (NO2) and Particulate Matter (PM10) in 2006.

The environmental designations identified for the study area are shown on Figure

TKPKFA\ENV\1\001 (Volume 2, Appendix B1).




15

4.4.1 Existing Watercourses

Figure 4.5: Existing Watercourses.

There are a number of watercourses within the study area (Figure 4.5), with the most

significant being the River Tay. The River Tay is the longest river in Scotland and is

designated as a SAC. The river starts in the Highlands and flows through Perth to

the mouth of its estuary near Dundee. The River Tay flows to the east of the A9 and

the railway line and is approximately 100m wide throughout the study area.

Other watercourses within the study area are:

• River Almond (one of the main tributaries to the River Tay)

• Burn to Bertha Loch

• St Martin’s Burn

• Gelly Burn/ Whiggle Burn

• Cramock Burn

• Catmoor Burn

• Annaty burn

Figure 4.6 show the extents of the flood plain during flooding events as sourced from

SEPA’s Indicative River & Coastal Flood Map.




16

Figure 4.6: SEPA Flood Map

4.5 Existing Constraints Summary

Due to the extents of the study area, there are numerous constraints as summarised

on Drawing TKPKFA-004J-000-013 (Volume 2, Appendix C) that will influence the

decision of which of the corridors is selected as the preferred option while Drawing

TKPKFA-004J-000-017 (Volume 2, Appendix C) shows the socio and environmental

constraints.

The most significant constraint is considered to be the River Tay, the largest of all the

Special Areas of Conservation, and will impact on all the corridors.

Outwith the watercourses, the next significant constraint are the grounds of Scone

Palace. Due to the area that the grounds occupy, avoiding Scone Place in its entirety

will be highly unlikely.

In addition there are overhead power lines to the west and east of the River Tay,

located within the study area.




17

5 Description of Alternative Schemes

The PTTI STAG identified a long list of 50 potential interventions to address the

network capacity issues and split them into nine Types of Intervention as summaries

in Table 5.1 below.

Type of Intervention Intervention

Improved pedestrian network – along routes

Improved pedestrian network – pedestrian footpath/routes

only

Pedestrianise city centre streets

Pedestrian safety/crossings on routes to the city

Safer crossing facilities on routes to the city

Pedestrian/cycle bridge over the River Tay

Traffic calming

Streetscape/landscaping

Pedestrian ferry across the River Tay

Cycle network improvements (including beyond the city

centre, big employment sites), including on and off-road

improvements on the main routes into the city centre

Stagger school opening times

School Travel Plans

Travel Plans (businesses)

Behaviour change – awareness raising and information

provision

Pedestrian/ Cycling

Freight Strategy (including possible restrictions at peak-

times)

Bus priority on key routes into the city (Dunkeld Road;

Crieff Road and Glasgow Road)

Bus priority to Inveralmond Industrial Estate

Bus only access into the city centre

Bus priority at signals

New bus services

New bus routes

Bus

Increased frequency of bus services




18


Improving public transport to the rural hinterland

More accessible buses (DDA compliant)

Dial-a-bus/Taxicard scheme

Demand responsive (for example Dial-a-Bus, patient

transport services, taxi)

Increase in parking spaces at existing Park & Ride sites.

New Park & Ride sites as per the TACTRAN RTS

Park & Ride

Enhance services to/quality at existing Park & Ride sites

Additional local rail stations

Rail service improvements – local; regional and national

Enhanced Perth – Edinburgh rail service

Reinstatement of the Perth – Dunfermline rail line

Rail

Rail freight improvements/interchange

Improved parking at public transport nodes

Improved bus station facilities

Improved personal safety for bus users/pedestrians/cyclists;

bus passenger infrastructure

Integrated rail/bus/coach interchange

Interchange

Rural public transport interchange

Free bus travel

Review pricing structure of rail services

Public Transport Fares

Review public transport fares relative to parking charges

Improved traffic management e.g. ITS; traffic signals

Real-time information at bus stops

Variable Message Signs for car parks

Other information systems – vehicle messaging

Signing strategy

Traffic management plan requirement for special events;

licenses etc

Traffic management

Priority vehicle lanes for buses; HGV/lorries; taxis; high

occupancy vehicles




19


Roadspace reallocation (consider all modes).

Access restrictions on specific streets

City centre access restrictions – limit city centre access to

delivery vehicles/local access only; low emission vehicles;

bus/taxi only routes; closure of key routes/through routes

Congestion charging

Car ownership – permit access

Out of town freight consolidation centre

Car parking strategy, including city centre parking (limit

maximum stay); increase city centre parking charges; limit

on-street parking

Enforcement of restrictions

Parking policy/measures

Car parking restrictions for new developments

Road network – junction improvements

A9 Western bypass junction improvements e.g.

enhancement/reconfiguration of Crieff Road/A9 junction

New River Tay bridge within city – link to Dunkeld Road

from east (A93)

New River Tay bridge north of city – north of Inveralmond

junction (A9) between Perth and Luncarty

Improvements of the existing bridges in the centre of Perth

New tunnel under Kinnoull Hill

Inner ring road – one way, no through trips

New Outer Perth by-pass on western side of Perth

Harbour access improvements

Traffic calming

Road network – new links/changes

Streetscape/landscaping

Development control/management policy

Planning policy/transport policy consistency

Developer contribution policy

Public transport accessibility in the design of new

developments

Restrictions on out of town developments

Land use/development management

Public transport tax on all new developments




20


New secondary school locations

Air Quality Management Area

Demolish buildings in Air Quality Management Area

(AQMA) inhibiting dispersal of emissions and causing

pollution

Errol Airport Improve transport links from Perth to Errol Airport

Table 5.1: Long List of Interventions

5.1 Part 1 Appraisal

Before the above Long List of Interventions could be assessed eight Transport

Planning Objectives were developed:

TPO 1: To improve and maintain the efficiency of the strategic transport network

TPO 2: To improve and maintain the efficiency of the local transport network

TPO 3: To enable more effective management of incidents and events

TPO 4: To work towards meeting national air quality standards and prevent further

breach/exceedance

TPO 5: To reduce transport emissions which contribute to climate change, in line

with National Guidance

TPO 6: To improve the safety of the strategic and local transport network

TPO 7: To increase the proportion of short trips by more sustainable modes

TPO 8: To improve accessibility to key facilities (e.g. health, education, leisure

facilities, key employment areas, the City Centre and tourist attractions)

In addition to the above Transport Planning Objectives the Long List of Interventions

was assessed against the following STAG criteria:

STAG 1: Environment

STAG 2: Safety

STAG 3: Social Inclusion & Accessibility

STAG 4: Integration

STAG 5: Economy

Following the assessment against the above Transport Planning Objectives and STAG

Criteria the Long List of Interventions was condensed into the seven Key Themes:

KEY THEME 1: Pedestrian/ cycle network improvements

KEY THEME 2: Demand management measures, to include parking policy, travel

plans

KEY THEME 3: Bus network improvements, to include park and ride expansion

KEY THEME 4: Traffic management to include access restrictions




21

KEY THEME 5: Road network improvements, to include junction improvements and

new road links

KEY THEME 6: Rail based public transport.

KEY THEME 7: Land use/ development management

These Key Themes were also assessed against the Transport Planning Objectives and

STAG Criteria as outlined in Tables 5.2 & 5.3 below.

Key Theme 1

Key Theme 2

Key Theme 3

Key Theme 4

Key Theme 5

Key Theme 6

Key Theme 7

TPO 1 O O � � � � ?

TPO 2 � � � � � O �

TPO 3 O O O � � O O

TPO 4 � � � � ? O �

TPO 5 � � � � ? � �

TPO 6 � O O O � O O

TPO 7 � � � O O O �

TPO 8 � O � � � O �

Table 5.2: Assessment of Key Themes against Transport Planning Objectives

Key:

� - contribution; O – no/neutral contribution; ? –unknown

Key Theme 1

Key Theme 2

Key Theme 3

Key Theme 4

Key Theme 5

Key Theme 6

Key Theme 7

STAG 1 + ++ ++ ++ - - /- - - + +

STAG 2 + O O O + O O

STAG 3 O O/- + O/- ++ + O

STAG 4 + O ++ O O O +

STAG 5 + - ++ O ++ O O

Table 5.3: Assessment of Key Themes against STAG Criteria

Key:

+++ major benefit; ++ moderate benefit; + minor benefit; O neutral; - minor

negative; - - moderate negative: - - - major negative.




22

Utilising the above assessment of the Key Themes and Long List of Interventions a

series of Options were developed. The main infrastructure elements of the various

Options are:

• Cross Tay Link Road

• A9/A85 Crieff Road junction improvement.

• Western Edge link.

• New M90/A912 junction at Friarton.

5.1.1 Cross Tay Link Road

The Cross Tay Link Road (CTLR) is targeted at relieving east-west movements across

the Queens and Perth Bridges in the Perth city centre and providing increased

opportunity for the development of “sustainable” measures to “lock in” these

benefits.

5.1.2 A9 / A85 Crieff Road Junction Improvements

At this stage in the PTTI STAG assessment no details of the likely extent of these

improvements were defined.

5.1.3 Western Edge link

The Western Edge Link extending south west from the CTLR junction on the A9 to

the west of Inveralmond Industrial Estate and then south east until it connects into

the A9 / A85 Crieff Road Junction Improvements.

5.1.4 New M90/A912 junction at Friarton

Consideration was given to a new junction at Friarton providing access to and from

Perth along the A912 to the M90.

5.2 Part 2 Appraisal

The outcome of the Part 2 Appraisal of the various Options is outlined in Table 5.4

below.

Option Description Result of Assessment

A Sustainable transport package:

Pedestrian/cycle network.

Bus/P&R network.

Traffic management.

Plus:

City centre junction improvements.

In isolation these measures would

fail to provide a transport network

capable of supporting the increase

in demand on the transport network

and ongoing development of Perth.

However, in accordance with local,

national and regional policy they

are integral to all the options.




23


B Cross Tay Link Road between the

A9 trunk road (North of

Inveralmond Roundabout) to the

A94 north of Scone with a new

junction to the A9 + Option A +

A9/A85 Crieff Road junction

improvement.

Rejected - Without the Western

Edge Link it would not be possible

to achieve the development

proposals for the area around

Inveralmond Industrial Estate and

the A85 (Crieff Road) to the

north/north-west of the city centre.

C Cross Tay Link Road between the

A9 trunk road (North of

Inveralmond Roundabout) to the

A94 north of Scone with a new

junction to the A9 + Option A +


improvement + Western Edge Link.

Taken forward

D Cross Tay Link Road between the

A9 trunk road (existing Luncarty

junction) to the A94 north of Scone +

Option A + A9/A85 Crieff Road

junction improvement.

Rejected - Without the Western

Edge Link it would not be possible

to achieve the development

proposals for the area around

Inveralmond Industrial Estate and

the A85 (Crieff Road) to the

north/north-west of the city centre.

E Cross Tay Link Road between the

A9 trunk road (existing Luncarty

junction) to the A94 north of Scone +

Option A + A9/A85 Crieff Road

junction improvement + Western

Edge link.

Taken forward

F Cross Tay Link Road from the A912

(Dunkeld Road) to the A94 (north of

Scone) + Option A + A9/A85 Crieff

Road junction improvement +

Western Edge link.

Rejected - The alignment for this

route would have had significant

severance impacts on Scone Palace

and was therefore rejected on

environmental grounds and not

assessed in detail at Part 2.

G Cross Tay Link Road from the A912

(Dunkeld Road) to the A94 south of

Scone + Option A + A9/A85 Crieff

Road junction improvement +

Western Edge link.

Taken forward

H Cross Tay Link Road from

Inveralmond roundabout to the A94

(north of Scone) + Option A +


improvement + Western Edge link.

Rejected - The alignment for this

route would have had significant

severance impacts on Scone Palace

and was therefore rejected on

environmental grounds and

therefore not assessed in detail at

Part 2.

I Option C + New M90/A912 junction

at Friarton.

Taken forward




24


J Option E + New M90/A912 junction

at Friarton.

Taken forward

K Option G + New M90/A912 junction

at Friarton.

Taken forward

Table 5.4: Options and Result of Assessment

5.3 Shaping Perth’s Transport Future Strategic Environmental Assessment

Perth & Kinross Council requested that a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)

of the recommendations from the PTTI STAG was carried out with the

Environmental Report being published in October 2010.

Following consultation, an Addendum to the Environmental Report was published in

2011 and recommended that an amended CTLR Corridor option located between

Option C (I with the inclusion of new slip roads at Friarton) and E (or J with the

inclusion of new slip roads at Friarton) which takes account of the environmental

constraints identified in the environmental assessment is progressed to the DMRB

stage and assessed against the original three route corridors.

This amended Corridor reflects the SEA’s preferred corridor on environmental

grounds, however the SEA reporting recognised that further assessment work, to be

completed as part of the DMRB study, would be required to assess this corridor

against other factors such as engineering, traffic and economic impacts and

constraints.

5.4 Shaping Perth’s Transport Future Strategy

This high level strategy document, published October 2010, brought together the

findings from the previous studies into a single document to support the consultation

process. Following publication of the Local Development Plan Main Issues Report,

October 2010, and subsequent consultations (summarised in the Shaping Perth’s

Transport Future Consultation Statement, November 2011) the finalised Shaping

Perth’s Transport Future Strategy was published in November 2011.

5.5 Design Manual for Roads & Bridges Stage 1 Preliminary Assessment

This DMRB Stage 1 Preliminary Assessmentwill consider the following five Corridors

taken forward from the PTTI STAG (Table 5.4) as well as two amended corridor

based on the recommendations in the SEA and as summarised in Shaping Perth’s

Transport Future Strategy:

• Corridor C – Option 1 (Corridor C1): Cross Tay Link Road between the A9

trunk road (North of Inveralmond Roundabout) to the A94 north of Scone with

a new junction to the A9 + Western Edge link. Refer to Section 5.6.

• Corridor C – Option 2 (Corridor C2): Corridor C1, as outlined above, widened

to the north as it approaches the River Tay and A9 + Western Edge link. Refer

to Section 5.7.




25

• Corridor E – Option 1 (Corridor E1): Cross Tay Link Road between the A9

trunk road (existing Luncarty junction) to the A94 north of Scone + Western

Edge link. Refer to Section 5.8.

• Corridor E – Option 2 (Corridor E2): Corridor E1, as outlined above, widened

to the south as it approaches the River Tay and A9 + Western Edge link. Refer

to Section 5.9.

• Corridor G: Cross Tay Link Road from the A912 (Dunkeld Road) to the A94

south of Scone + Western Edge link. Refer to Section 5.10.

The following elements have been excluded from this DMRB Stage 1 Assessment:

• Option A, Sustainable Transport Package: The provision of the CTLR and

removal of traffic travelling through the centre of Perth would provide the

opportunity to improve the public transport, walking and cycling networks in

and around Perth. The development of these measures, otherwise referred to

as the City Enhancements package, to lock-in the benefits is at an early stage. As

these works do not form part of a particular corridor and would therefore not

impact on the decision making process for the recommendation of which

corridor should be taken forward it was not considered appropriate to include

Option A as part of this assessment.

• A9/A85 Crieff Road junction improvement: These works are subject to a

separate DMRB Scheme Assessment process.

• New M90/A912 junction at Friarton: These works represent a long-term

aspiration to provide new slips to / from the M90 southbound/northbound. As

these works do not form part of a particular corridor and would therefore not

form part of the decision making process for the recommendation of which

corridor should be taken forward it was not considered appropriate to include

them in this assessment. If these proposals were progressed at a later date the

new junction would be subject to a separate DMRB Scheme Assessment

process.

5.5.1 Do-Minimum

While it is standard practice to include a Do-Minimum scheme in a DMRB Stage 1

Assessment this option was not considered appropriate for taking forward to further

study in the PTTI STAG and as such has not been considered as part of this

assessment.




26

5.6 Corridor C

For ease of reference the Western Edge Link, as described in Section 5.1.3, has been

incorporated into Corridor C1.

Figure 5.1 Corridors C1 & C2

As shown in Figure 5.1, Corridor C commencing north of the proposed Crieff Road

Junction on the A9, runs north-westwards, crossing the River Almond west of

Inveralmond Industrial estate until a point south of Bertha Loch where it swings

round in an easterly direction before crossing the A9 dual carriageway, the railway

line and the River Tay. The corridor then continues in a south easterly direction

crossing the A93 north of Old Scone before terminating on the A94, northeast of New

Scone.

5.6.1 Corridor C2

During the assessment of Corridor C1 it became clear there were a number of issues

that placed the viability of this corridor in doubt. One of the key issues identified

followed the publication of the Strategic Transport Projects Review and in particular

Intervention 16.

Intervention 16 of the Strategic Transport Projects Review stated that both Broxden

and Inveralmond Roundabouts would be grade separated. Grade separating

Inveralmond Roundabout would result in a decreased weaving length on the A9

between the Inveralmond and a new junction in Corridor C as discussed in

Section 6.4.4.




27

As a result a Corridor C2 was developed as shown in Figure 5.1 and as described

below.


incorporated into Corridor C2.

Corridor C2 follows the line of Corridor C1 but extends further north to allow for a

potential route:

• Between the Scheduled Monuments sited east of the River Tay

• Further from Scone Palace

• Which reduces the impact on the Designed Landscape

• Meets the standards set out in the DMRB with regard to junction spacing

between the proposed junction on the A9 and any future grade separation of

Inveralmond Roundabout (Intervention 16 of the Strategic Transport Projects

Review)

• Allow a simpler structure as the corridor crosses the A9, railway and River Tay

• Avoid impacting on Broxy Kennels

5.7 Corridor E


incorporated into Corridor E1.

As shown in Figure 5.2, Corridor E commencing north of the proposed Crieff Road

Junction on the A9 then runs north-westwards, crossing the river Almond west of

Inveralmond Industrial estate. It then heads northwards crossing the Redgorton area

before sweeping to the east to cross the A9 dual carriageway and the main Highland

rail line between Inverness and Perth, south east of Luncarty. The corridor then

continues in a south easterly direction, crossing the A93 north of Old Scone and

terminating on the A94, northeast of New Scone.

5.7.1 Corridor E2

During the assessment of Corridor E it became clear there were a number of issues

that placed the viability of this corridor in doubt. As a result an Corridor E2 was

developed as shown in Figure 5.2. The Corridor E2 follows the line of Corridor E1

but extends further north and south to allow for a potential route:

• South of the settlement of Redgorton

• North of the settlement of Redgorton

• Avoid the existing bridge over the A9 at the Luncarty junction




28

Figure 5.2: Corridors E1 & E2

5.8 Corridor G

Figure 5.3: Corridor E

As shown in Figure 5.3, Corridor G is a much shorter Corridor compared to the other

Corridors. It runs in a west/east alignment but only links the A912 Dunkeld Road to

the A94 south of Scone. Corridor G crossed the River Tay at such a location that it

divides the existing North Inch Golf Course before continuing to tie into the A94.

As the Western Edge Link is not Contiguous with Corridor G it has been considered

separately in this instance.




29

5.8.1 Western Edge Link

As indicated in Figure 5.4 the Western Edge Link extending south west from the

CTLR junction on the A9 to the west of Inveralmond Industrial Estate and then south

east until it connects into the A9 / A85 Crieff Road Junction Improvements.

Figure 5.4: Western Edge Link

5.9 Preliminary Cost Estimate

The Cost Estimates for Corridors C, E & G contained in the PTTI STAG are outlined

in Table 5.5 below.

Corridor C

(£M)

Corridor E

(£M)

Corridor G

(£M)

Base Costs 62.7 65.3 35.2

Optimism Bias % 45% 51% 47%

Optimism Bias £ 28.5 33 16.7

Total 91.2 98.3 51.9

Table 5.5: PTTI STAG Cost Estimate




30

The Preliminary Cost Estimates in Tables 5.5 & 5.6 have been based on the

assumption the CTLR and Western Edge Link will be rural single carriageways with

a design speed of 100kph and the road cross section will typically consist of a 7.3m

carriageway, 1.0m hard strips and 2.5m verge.

The Preliminary Cost Estimates in Table 5.6 exclude all land costs, design fees, site

supervision, VAT and are based on 2011 Prices but do include the Western Edge

Link.

The base cost of Corridors C2 and E2 have been assumed, at this stage, to be the

average of the cost of Corridors C1 and E1.

As the level of design carried out as part of this study has not substantially changed

since completion of the PTTI STAG the Optimism Bias utilised in Table 5.5 has been

retained in Table 5.6.

Corridor C1

(£M)

Corridors C2/E2

(£M)

Corridor E1

(£M)

Corridor G

(£M)

Base Costs 61.00 62.35 63.70 45.50

Optimism Bias % 45% 48% 50% 47%

Optimism Bias £ 27.50 29.60 31.90 21.40

Total 88.50 91.95 95.60 66.90

Table 5.6: Preliminary Cost Estimate




31

6 Engineering Assessment

6.1 Geology and Geomorphology

Information on geology and geomorphology has been obtained from the British

Geological Survey, Ordnance Survey, historical ground investigation and in part by

site walkover. A broad assessment of engineering issues relating to geology and

geomorphology has been made for the proposed corridors to identify problems likely

to arise.

The bedrock throughout the site is Scone Formation (Garvock Group) of Lower

Devonian age comprising mainly purplish grey cross-bedded sandstone with intra-

formational limestone debris. The British Geological Survey (Sheet 48W Solid

Edition) indicates that beds of sandstone typically dip at between 15 and 20 degrees

towards the northwest. Occasional quartz-dolerite dykes are indicated within the

sandstone unit trending roughly east to west. The historical ground investigations

indicate that bedrock is at significant depth beneath the site other than on the higher

ground north of Scone around Muirward Wood. It is considered unlikely that either

mining or quarrying has been carried out in the vicinity of the corridors under

consideration.

The Devonian sandstone is classed as a concealed aquifer with limited or local

potential in which flow is dominantly in fissures and other discontinuities. It is

‘highly permeable’ and of ‘intermediate to high leaching potential’. Consultation will

be required with SEPA in relation to highway drainage and protection of abstraction

wells but this applies equally to the corridors under consideration.

The superficial deposits across the study area arise from a complex glacial-post

glacial environment that is described in some detail by the British Geological Survey

(Sheet 48W Drift Edition), but for the purposes of an engineering assessment can be

usefully summarised in two phases.

The first phase is glacial meltwater from a retreating Scottish ice sheet cutting into

glacial till and depositing sands and gravels within broad valleys, those currently

occupied by the River Tay and River Almond. These glacial deposits are considered

‘good ground’ for the purposes of highway engineering whereby slopes can be cut

relatively steeply; excavated materials can be re-used in the works; foundations for

embankments and structures can be located at shallow depth; and relatively thin road

pavements can be adopted. The engineering issues that would need to be addressed

relate to separating excavated materials, excavating hard ground, boulder sized

obstructions, mitigating ingress of groundwater to excavations and working on steep

slopes.

This ‘medium dense to very dense sand and gravel’ (fluvio-glacial) and ‘firm to very

stiff sandy clay’ (glacial till) is evident in two principal sections as shown on Drawing

TKPKFA/004/SK/103 (Volume 2, Appendix D).

There is elevated and rising ground east of the River Tay. Corridors C1, C2, E1 and

E2 extend over river terraces of fluvio-glacial outwash from the Stormontfield Road

Junction onto the glacial till underlying the rolling agricultural fields north of Scone

and through to the A94 Junction. Corridor G would run off the Tay Crossing onto this

fluvio-glacial outwash and thereafter the glacial till through to the A94 Junction.




32

There is slightly elevated undulating ground between the River Almond and the

River Tay, in the vicinity of Bertha Loch, Redgorton and Luncarty. Corridors C1, C2,

E1 and E2 encounter this ‘good ground’ but Option E benefits most in that the

crossing of the A9 and mainline railway located south of Luncarty, is founded

directly on these deposits. Historical boreholes (Perth Bypass Report) record 10m of

medium dense to dense sand and gravel (fluvio-glacial) over more than 10m of stiff

very sandy clay (glacial till).

The second phase represents a series of marine incursions, which introduced deposits

of ‘loose silt and sand’ (late glacial) and ‘soft silt and clay’ (post glacial). The thin

layering (laminations) in these deposits is interpreted as repeated discharges of

material into a marine delta which advanced down the Tay Valley. The Site of Special

Scientific Interest at Almondbank, adjacent to the proposed crossing of the River

Almond, is significant because it records a further layer of sand and gravel burying

these marine clays. This has been interpreted as a late outwash of streams from a

remnant glacier.

As the sea level receded, these deposits have been in part re-worked by the Tay and

its tributary the River Almond as alluvium, both estuarine and river alluvium. These

late glacial and post glacial deposits can be considered ‘difficult ground’ for

earthworks and structures associated with road construction resulting in:

• Foundations for heavy structures needing to be piled through to stronger

layers;

• Cuttings needing to be at slack slopes albeit being on flatter ground these are

less pronounced

• Excavated material being less suitable for engineering fill and requiring

disposal

• Embankments requiring either ground treatment to improve foundation

conditions or more land take to accommodate slacker slopes; and

• Road pavements break up unless the foundation is improved.

Other engineering issues relate to settlement or vibration damaging either the new

construction or adjacent facilities, notably the mainline railway or services

(buried/overhead pylon); stability of excavations; and ingress of groundwater to

slopes and excavations.

Made Ground, arising from the activities of man, will also be present by way of

embankment fill, building construction, flood prevention, and disposal of waste

materials. These can be variable in degree of compaction and composition, and

potentially contain contaminants and pollutants. Preliminary inspection of historic

plans has not revealed any significant industrial areas. However, this can only be

determined by desk study and ground investigation.

Areas of ‘difficult ground’ are encountered more in Corridors C1 and G than with

Corridor E1, as the marine incursions did not extend up to Luncarty, albeit some river

alluvium does. The principal sections containing ‘difficult ground’ as highlighted on

Drawing TKPKFA/004/SK/103 (Volume 2, Appendix D) are:




33

• A912 Dunkeld Road to Tay River Crossing. A borehole in the vicinity of Perth

Grammer School records soft silt and clay over loose sand to a depth in excess

of 10m and this is likely to increase in thickness at the river crossing itself.

• A9 Crieff Road Junction to River Almond Crossing. High embankments are

required here as the A9 Trunk Road runs off a fluvioglacial terrace, elevated

some 17m above the floodplain of the River Almond (13mOD). Historical

boreholes reveal some 27m of soft to firm silt and clay (post glacial) and loose

silt and sand (late glacial) overlying stiff glacial till.

• Bertha Loch to Tay River Crossing to Stormontfield Junction. Boreholes in the

vicinity of the A9 Interchange and Railway Bridge reveal less than 2m of firm

laminated silt and clay (late glacial), which could be readily removed.

However, the depth of soft ground at the Tay River Crossing may be

significantly thicker, some 34m thick in historical boreholes (North Muirton

Industrial Park Report) located 1km down river. This soft ground is likely to

extend north of Perth Racecourse to Stormontfield Road.

• Tay River Crossing. High approach embankments may require to be

constructed above the flood plain of the River Tay, which may require flood

protection. No boreholes are available yet from the adjacent ‘area of future

development’, but alluvium is indicated at the river crossing, albeit this may be

of limited depth.

6.2 Hydrology Drainage

Potential impacts on watercourses are discussed throughout this report although the

detailed impacts in relation to hydrology of each of the identified corridors will be

determined during future stages. However, it is anticipated that there will not be any

factors preventing suitable networks being produced in order to achieve effective

drainage solutions. Even though the River Tay and its various tributaries present a

constraint to the corridor options, they also present a potential drainage solution in

terms of outfall locations.

6.3 Public Utilities

Drawing TKPKFA-004J-000-014 (Volume 2, Appendix A) shows all the known

existing public utilities that lie within the study area. The most notable existing

utility here is the overhead power line to the west and east of the River Tay. The

power lines continue towards the north of the study area and are predominantly

located within the extents of Corridors E1 and E2.

There are numerous additional utilities within each corridor that will require further

investigation during future stages and it must be noted that undiscovered or

unrecorded utilities cannot be discounted.

6.4 Corridor C1

As shown in Figure 6.1, Corridor C1 commences north of the proposed Crieff Road

Junction on the A9 runs north-westwards, crossing the river Almond west of

Inveralmond Industrial estate until a point south of Bertha Loch where it swings

round in an easterly direction before crossing the A9 dual carriageway and the

railway line followed by the River Tay crossing. The corridor then continues in a




34

south easterly direction and crosses the A93 north of Old Scone before terminating on

the A94, northeast of New Scone.

Corridor C1 connects to the proposed Crieff Road grade separated interchange

(subject of a separate DMRB process) providing connectivity to the western

development area. This link will require significant volumes of fill.

Figure 6.1: Corridor C1

6.4.1 River Almond Crossing

Travelling north west the corridor crosses the River Almond approximately 200m

from the western edge of the existing Inveralmond Industrial Estate on the northern

edge of Perth. A bridge with a span of approximately 30m would be required to cross

the River Almond west of existing housing at Double Dykes (currently occupied by

the travelling community).

The area in which the bridge would be constructed currently consists of farm fields

on both sides of the river. Existing trees and vegetation along the north bank of the

river would have to be removed in order to construct the bridge with the existing

banks sloping gently at approximately 15 degrees. The south bank has very little

vegetation but slopes at approximately 40 degrees. There is an existing cycle track on

the top of the south slope with the south bank protected by gabion baskets and

mattresses, whilst the north bank appears to be unprotected.

The existing Ruthvenfield Road on the south bank of the river would not be affected

by the bridge, but would be affected by the corridor. A new junction, possible an at-

grade roundabout, would be proposed to connect Ruthvenfield Road with the CTLR.




35

There are low level high voltage overhead power lines to the south and east of the

proposed site which may be impacted by a new bridge. Permanent relocation of these

overhead power cables cannot be discounted. There are high level high voltage

overhead power lines and pylons to the west of this site but these would not be

impacted by bridge works. It should be noted that the presence of unrecorded or

unknown utilities at the site cannot be discounted.

Liaison and discussion with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) will

be required. It is likely an application for a licence under the Water Environment

(Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations will be necessary. It is noted that the

River Almond is within the River Tay Special Area of Conservation (SAC), which

stipulates that careful consideration of the construction methods and season for

construction is required in order not to disturb salmonidae and other fish in the river.

Additionally, the bridge site is likely to be within approximately 300m of the

Almondbank Geological Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

Geological conditions at the site of the bridge are mainly consist of alluvium, Late

Glacial Raised Marine deposits and Glacial Till. Bedrock is recorded at approximately

40m below existing ground level, and piling is the most likely foundation type.

Construction of a bridge over the River Almond within Corridor C1 would have the

following Constraints, Advantages and Disadvantages:

6.4.1.1 Constraints

• Construction can only take place during periods of low flow in the river

• Existing overhead low level high voltage power lines and poles located in close

proximity to the south and east of the bridge site

• Restrictions imposed by SEPA may affect both the design and construction

phases

• River crossing must not have any footprint in the existing watercourse

• Close proximity to existing housing to the east of the site

• Close proximity to the Almondbank Geological Site of Special Scientific

Interest (SSSI)

• Close proximity to Ancient Woodland

• Potential impact on wildlife

• Existing cycle track on the south bank of the River Almond would either have

to be spanned by the new bridge or permanently re-routed

• Construction access on the south side of the River Almond is likely to be via

the existing road network through Inveralmond Industrial Estate or along

Ruthvenfield Road. Access on the north side of the river is likely to be via an

existing access track which passes through farm fields

• Avoidance of pollution of the watercourse during construction

• Avoidance of disturbance to existing watercourse banks and beds




36

• Any new structure should not compromise any future river management

proposals

6.4.1.2 Advantages

• The bridge site lies at the edge of existing farm fields and would not have any

impact on existing buildings within the Inveralmond Industrial Estate

• The south side of the site can be easily accessed via the existing local road

network

• The site of the structure does not impact any geological sites or mineral

reserves

6.4.1.3 Disadvantages

• Potential construction impact on existing overhead low level high voltage

power lines and poles.

• The River Almond which lies within the River Tay Special Area of

Conservation (SAC) and careful consideration of construction methods and

sensitivity with regard to existing the potential impact on wildlife would be

required

• The river crossing should not have any supports in the watercourse and thus

the bridge must span the watercourse and would require large foundations

• There are houses immediately to the east of the corridor and construction noise

and disturbance by construction traffic is likely

• Existing south bank slope protection would most likely be disturbed by

construction and would require replacement

• Any construction related spillages could cause adverse impact through

pollution of the watercourse

• Construction would require the removal of Ancient Woodland

• Land currently used for agriculture is likely to be impacted by bridge

construction

• Moderate adverse visual impact. Scottish National Heritage (SNH) would

prefer any new structure to be clad to mitigate the visual impact

6.4.2 Bertha Loch

Corridor C continues, passing to the east of the existing Bertha Loch. An existing

burn allows water to flow eastwards from the Bertha Loch to the River Tay and must

be accommodated.

A large diameter or rectangular box culvert could be installed at this site. The existing

burn bed should be maintained as far as practicable, and also used as lining on the

inside of any new culvert. The existing banks of the burn should remain as far as

practicable.

There are high level high voltage overhead power lines and pylons running

southwest to northeast located to the east of the site, but these would not be impacted




37

by the culvert works. The presence of unrecorded or unknown utilities cannot be

discounted.



(Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations will be necessary.

Geological conditions will be very similar to that at the site of the bridge over the

River Almond. The structure would be small and thus spread foundations would be

the most likely foundation type.

Construction of a culvert within Corridor C1 would the following Constraints,

Advantages and Disadvantages:

6.4.2.1 Constraints


• Avoid altering burn flow characteristics which could lead to erosion of the

burn bed and/or banks

• SEPA may impose conditions relating to any new construction in, over and

adjacent to the watercourse

• Existing overhead high level high voltage power lines and pylons located in

close proximity to the site of the structure


• Avoid disturbance to existing watercourse banks and bed

• Close proximity to Ancient Woodland


• A new culvert could potentially alter flow characteristics and lead to erosion of

the burn bed and/or banks if not carefully managed

6.4.2.2 Advantages

• There are no houses or buildings within the immediate area

• A preformed circular or rectangular box culvert offers the simplest and

quickest solution to maintain flow in the burn and the construction impact can

be minimised


reserves


• The structure lies within the River Tay Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and

careful consideration of construction methods and sensitivity with regard to

the potential impact on wildlife would be required

• Construction would require the reinstatement of an existing access track

• Land currently used for agriculture will be impacted by bridge construction





38


pollution of the watercourse.

6.4.3 Corridor C1 - A9 Junction, Rail & River Tay Crossings

The corridor then crosses relatively flat terrain before sweeping east toward the

existing A9.

A new junction will be required connecting the CTLR to the A9. The railway line is

immediately adjacent to the east of the A9 with the River Tay just to the east of that.

The A9, railway line and River Tay are at their closest within Corridor C1.

As a result of the proximity of the A9, railway line and River Tay a relatively complex

structure will be required to allow the CTLR to connect to the A9 and then cross the

railway line and River Tay.

Within Corridor C1 the A9 runs in a cutting between what appears to be natural

ground to the west and the railway to the east. While the topography to the west is

an advantage reducing the required earthworks it will be a significant disadvantage

to the east.

The clearance required over the railway line will result in the crossing of the A9 being

significantly higher than would normally be expected as well as increasing the

complexity of the structure.

It is noted that consideration is being given to an expansion of Luncarty to the south

of its current boundary. It has been mooted that any such development would

benefit from connecting into the CTLR at its junction with the A9. Given the

complexity and likely level of the A9 junction, such a connection will be difficult and

potentially expensive to add at a later date. As such it is recommended that if a

connection is likely to be required at a future date it is considered as part of the

design process for the A9 junction.

If the structure was constructed along the centre line of Corridor C1 it would be

approximately 1.3km north of Inveralmond roundabout. An initial assessment of the

weaving length between the proposed junction on the A9 and the existing

Inveralmond Roundabout suggest that a standard diamond shaped grade separated

interchange would provide a weaving length in the order of 800m as discussed with

Transport Scotland in March 2010.

On rural dual carriageways, a weaving length of at least 1km between junctions

should be provided to meet current standards. The 1km distance is intended to

ensure that weaving manoeuvres performed by drivers entering and exiting can be

performed safely and do not interfere with the free flow of vehicles on the dual

carriageway.

If the bridge was to be constructed further north and / or a different form of grade

separation, possibly utilising loops, was provided it is anticipated that a weaving

length of 1km could be achieved.

This requirement has a direct bearing on how close the proposed A9/CTLR junction

can be to the Inveralmond junction. However, a lesser weaving length may be

permitted in certain circumstances.




39

The above was recognised by Transport Scotland’s Standards Branch during

consultation on the junction spacing for the upgrading of the existing A9/A85 Crieff

Road junction where the principle of a weaving length of between 710m and 870m to

Inveralmond Roundabout was agreed.

If Corridor C1 is taken forward detailed discussions are required with Transport

Scotland’s Standards Branch on this issue.

As noted above it may be possible to achieve a weaving length of 1km by moving the

junction towards the northern edge of Corridor C1. When considering the potential

for moving the junction north it should be noted there is a property, Broxy Kennels,

located adjacent to the northern edge of the Corridor. While it is anticipated that a

direct impact with Broxy Kennels can be avoided, it is acknowledged there will be an

adverse impact on the property.

Corridor C1 provides an opportunity to upgrade access to the Racecourse, Caravan

site as well as Scone Palace which in may have a positive impact on their ability to

attract visitors.

The Constraints, Advantages and Disadvantages of Corridor C1 are:

6.4.3.1 Constraints

• Vertical alignment of new River Tay crossing must provide the required

minimum clearance over the river

• High level of railway line

• Proximity of Broxy Kennels to Corridor C1

• River crossing must not have a footprint in the existing watercourse





proposals

• Avoid disturbance to existing watercourse banks and beds


6.4.3.2 Advantages

• Noise and air pollution during construction would only affect a limited

number of properties

• Rural location and no adverse affect on existing principal roads during

construction other than A9


reserves

• Improved access to the Racecourse, caravan site and Scone Palace




40


• Existing access that can be utilised by construction traffic by is very limited

• The river crossing would be over 100m long and require large and costly

foundations



prefer any new structure over the River Tay to be clad to mitigate the visual

impact

• The close proximity of the A9, railway line and River Tay would result in a

more complex structure

• The A9 / railway bridge would be a high and complex structure

• Closure of the Luncarty slips

• Complexity of connecting to potential housing development to the south of

Luncarty

6.4.4 Corridor C2 - A9 Junction, Rail & River Tay Crossings

Intervention 16 (A9 Upgrading from Dunblane to Inverness) of the Strategic

Transport Projects Review (STPR) published by Transport Scotland in December 2008

included for the grade separation of Broxden and Inveralmond Roundabouts.

Figure 6.2: Potential Grade Separation of Inveralmond Roundabout




41

As noted in Section 3 it was not possible to incorporate the recommendations of the

STPR within the PTTI STAG. However, subsequent preliminary work was carried

out to indentify the potential impact of grade separating Inveralmond Roundabout

(Figure 6.2 & Volume 2, Appendix E). This work indicated the cost of providing a

fully compliant grade separated junction at Inveralmond that allowed A9 to A9

priority would cost in the region of £127M.

It should be noted this cost is only indicative and more detailed studies are required

to identify robust costs for decision making purposes.

One option considered, as part of this DMRB Assessment, was to provide a new at

grade roundabout rather than a grade separated junction to connect Corridor C1 to

the A9.

Transport Scotland’s currently policy is to remove impediments to free flowing traffic

on the A9, as envisaged by Intervention 16 of the STPR, and the construction of a new

at grade roundabout would go against this policy. As such this option is not

considered appropriate for further consideration.

To allow an assessment of junction spacing it was agreed with Transport Scotland’s

Standards Branch it would be assumed that priority would be given to the A9 to

A912 Dunkeld Road manoeuvre rather than giving it to the A9 to A9 movement

(Figure 6.3).

Figure 6.3: Grade Separation of Inveralmond A9 – A912 Dunkeld Road

To accommodate the above Corridor C was widened to the north creating a new

corridor (Corridor C2) as indicated in Figure 6.4.

To accommodate a 1km weaving length to a grade separated Inveralmond

Roundabout requires the new junction to be located to the north of Corridor C2. As

can be seen in Figure 6.5 a junction located in this vicinity would result in the

associated northbound merge impacting on the settlement of Redgorton.




42

Figure 6.4: Corridors C1 & C2

Figure 6.5: Possible junction location




43

It may be practical to reduce the impact on the Redgorton by use of a junction

arrangement other than a standard diamond formation. However, as can be see from

Figure 6.5 it is not possible to access the junction from the east without passing

between the scheduled monuments (marked as hatched areas in Figure 6.5) causing

severance of the policies as well as impacting on the Designed Landscape.

Consultation with Historic Scotland indicates this would be unacceptable to them.

It is noted that upgrading Stormontfield Road (the easternmost of the two alignments

indicated in Figure 6.5) would follow an existing severance but it is also

acknowledged the required upgrading would exasperate the current situation.

Both alignments would pass very close to the properties to the east of the railway line

(The Whinnies, Denmarkfield and a farmstead), and to the King’s Stone and the

undesignated Standing Stones. As the land between the properties and the River Tay

is generally lower than the properties, it is anticipated the required earthworks and

the height of the river crossing for the southern route could result in a direct impact

on the properties as well as the undesignated Standing Stones.

The existing access to the properties to the east of the A9 would need to be closed due

to its proximity to the new junction. As such traffic on the A9 accessing the

properties would need to utilise the new junction. To accommodate this an access

onto the CTLR between the River Tay and the railway would be required.

In addition to any actual direct impact on the properties, the severance, noise and air

quality impacts likely to result from the CTLR passing so close to the properties are

considered to be unacceptable.

A junction at this location would also require the closure of the Luncarty slips due to

the close proximity of both junctions. Discussions with Transport Scotland has

indicated this is not considered a reason for objecting to a junction in this vicinity.

It is noted than the railway line is in cutting adjacent to the junction location

discussed above with the road bridge connecting the A9 and the properties to the east

of the railway line being at the same general level as the A9. Such a level difference

would significantly simplify and lower the required structure when compared

against the structure required for Corridor C1.

A junction on the A9 at this vicinity would also simplify linking the junction to any

proposed development to the south of Luncarty.

Corridor C2 provides an opportunity to upgrade access to the Racecourse, Caravan

site as well as Scone Palace which in may have a positive impact on their ability to

attract visitors.




44

The Constraints, Advantages and Disadvantages of Corridor C2 are:

6.4.4.1 Constraints








proposals



• The Ancient Monument to the east of the River Tay must be avoided

• The Designed Landscape to the east of the River Tay

6.4.4.2 Advantages




reserves

• The separation of the River Tay from the Railway line simplifies the structures

required

• The level of the railway line would simplify and lower the proposed junction

bridge

• Improved access to the Racecourse, caravan site and Scone Palace


• Noise and air pollution during construction would have a significant impact on

a limited number of properties

• The routing of the CTLR to the east of the River Tay would result in significant

severance issues to a limited number of properties

• The routing of the CTLR to the east of the River Tay may result in a direct

impact on a limited number of properties

• The routing of the CTLR to the east of the River Tay is likely to result in

significant noise and air quality issues to a limited number of properties

• Access to the properties to the east of the railway line would be more indirect

utilising the proposed junction


foundations




45

• Land currently used for agriculture will be impacted by bridge construction.



impact.

6.4.5 River Tay – A93

Having crossed the River Tay, the corridor extends east for some 1.6km towards

Stormontfield Road, passing north of Perth Racecourse and Cramock Burn and

minimising the impact to semi-ancient/ancient wooded areas to the north, as shown

in Figure 6.6 below.

The corridor passes through slightly undulating farm land which rises from

approximately 10 metres to 30 metres above mean sea level from west to east

respectively. The corridor will meet Stormontfield Road to the north of the existing

access to Perth Racecourse. It is anticipated this junction will be an at-grade

roundabout. At this location, the ground is relatively flat with what is expected to be

minor earthworks required.

Figure 6.6: Corridors C1 & C2, River Tay to A93.

Both Corridor C1 and C2 continues in an easterly direction for approximately 1.7km

and is taken through slightly undulating farm land, north of Balboughty Farm, before

reaching the A93 (Figure 6.6). The existing ground levels rise from approximately 30

metres to 50 metres above mean sea level from west to east respectively.

Corridor C1 minimises the impact on nearby woodland, Ancient Monuments and a

listed building. It is envisaged that an at-grade roundabout will be required to




46

connect the CTLR with the A93. The exact location for the junction will require

careful consideration as the A93 has a sinuous horizontal alignment. Local

realignment of the A93 may be required.

Consultation with Historic Scotland indicates that they believe Corridor C1 would

result a direct physical impact to the nationally important Scone Palace Gardens and

Designed Landscape resulting in a significant adverse impact. The corridor would

result in the severance of the designation which would separate Scone Palace from its

northern policies.

If Corridor C1 is taken forward detailed consultation is required with Historic

Scotland to identify mitigation measures. It is noted however, that Historic Scotland

currently views the impacts as ones that can not be reduced through mitigation,

given the impact upon the legibility and character of the designation.

Given Historic Scotland’s view on mitigation, if Corridor C1 is taken forward, it is

recommended work is carried out to identify the reasons the area received its

designation as well as changes in land use since then allowing consideration of the

designation in its current context.

Corridor C2 extends north of the Scheduled Monuments (Figure 6.6) to allow for a

route that connects to a northern junction on the A9 as discussed in Sections 6.4.3 and

6.4.4. It is noted, as discussed previously, that Historic Scotland may object to the

severance issues with any proposed linkage passing between the Ancient Monuments

as well as the severance of the Designed Landscape from Scone Palace as discussed

for Corridor C above. If Corridor Amended C is taken forward it is recommended

the study into the evolving land use discussed above is undertaken.

6.4.6 A93 – A94

The remaining section of both Corridor C and Amended C continue in a south

easterly direction for approximately 1.8km (Figure 6.7, over the page). The corridors

passes through slightly undulating farmland and wooded areas, the most significant

being Muirward Wood, north of Scone and the Cramock Burn. The existing ground

level rises from approximately 50 metres to 90 metres above mean sea level from west

to east respectively.

It is anticipated an at-grade roundabout will be provided to connect the CTLR with

the A94 to the north west of Scone.




47

Figure 6.7: Corridors C1 & C2, A93 to A94.

6.5 Corridor E

Figure 6.8: Corridors E1 & E2




48

As shown in Figure 6.8, Corridor E commencing north of the proposed Crieff Road

Junction on the A9 runs north-westwards, crossing the river Almond west of

Inveralmond Industrial estate. It then heads northwards crossing the Redgorton area

before sweeping to the east to cross the A9 dual carriageway and the rail line between

Inverness and Perth, south east of Luncarty. The corridor then continues in a south

easterly direction, crossing the A93 north of Old Scone and terminating on the A94,

northeast of New Scone.

Corridor E connects to the proposed Crieff Road grade separated interchange (subject

to a separate DMRB process) by way of the Western Edge Link providing

connectivity to the western development area.

There will be significant fill required to construct the southern most element of the

Corridor E.

6.5.1 River Almond Crossing

Corridor E follows Corridor C over this section and as such the issues associated with

it are the same as those described in Section 6.4.1. To prevent excessive repetition

this text has not been reproduced here.

6.5.2 Bertha Loch

Corridor E follows Corridor C over this section and as such the issues associated with

it are the same as those described in Section 6.4.2. To prevent excessive repetition

this text has not been reproduced here.

6.5.3 Corridor E1 - A9 Junction / Rail Crossing

As can be seen from Figure 6.9 Corridor E1 directly impacts on the settlement of

Redgorton. Consultation with local residents, summarised in Shaping Perth’s

Transport Future Consultation Statement (Volume 2, Appendix F), highlighted

significant public opposition to this corridor and is not considered to be a viable

option.

The Constraints, Advantages and Disadvantages of Corridors E1 at this location are:

6.5.3.1 Constraints

• Redgorton and adjacent properties

• Existing infrastructure including A9 trunk road, A9 southbound on-slip from

Luncarty, Perth to Inverness railway line, settlements and individual

properties, local roads, buried utilities alongside the existing A9 carriageway,

overhead high voltage power lines to the east of the railway

• Vertical alignment of new structures at an interchange must provide the

required minimum clearances over the realigned and existing A9 trunk road

and the Perth to Inverness railway line and under overhead power lines

• Level of existing railway line approximately 1m below the level of existing A9

• Existing cycle track/footpath alongside southbound carriageway of existing A9.





49

6.5.3.2 Advantages

• Less complex structures required than for Corridor C


reserves.


• Significant direct impact on Redgorton

• Significant direct and indirect impact on other settlements and individual

properties

• Closure of the existing Luncarty slips

• Possible requirement for the demolition of the existing Luncarty junction

bridge

• Potential impact on existing high voltage overhead power cables to the east of

the railway line


• Moderate adverse visual impact


6.5.4 Corridor E2 - A9 Junction / Rail Crossing

To allow the identification of a corridor that would provide the opportunity for a

northern route of the CTLR while addressing the concerns of the public Corridor E2

(Figure 6.9) was developed.

The key to identifying the viability of a Corridor E2 is the location of the A9/CTLR

grade separated junction and the interaction of the bridge and associated slips with

the various settlements in the area.

Two alternative strategies were examined:

• between Redgorton and Luncarty and

• to the south of Redgorton.

6.5.4.1 Junction South of Redgorton

Locating the proposed A9/CTLR junction far enough south of Redgorton to prevent it

from having a direct impact on the settlement would require it to be located at the

same location as for Corridor C2 as indicated on Figure 6.10.

As can be seen from Figure 6.10 while the junction largely avoids any direct impact

on Redgorton it is extremely close to it and direct impacts are likely. It should also be

noted that this junction location would result in very similar impacts to those

discussed in Section 6.4.4 for Corridor C2.

A junction at this location would also require the closure of the Luncarty slips due to

the close proximity of both junctions.




50

Figure 6.9: Corridor E2

Figure 6.10: Corridor E2, Potential Junction Location south of Redgorton




51

The Constraints, Advantages and Disadvantages of a junction south of Redgorton

within Corridor E2 are:

6.5.4.1.1 Constraints








proposals



• The Ancient Monument to the east of the River Tay must be avoided

• The Designed Landscape to the east of the River Tay

6.5.4.1.2 Advantages




reserves

• The separation of the River Tay from the Railway line simplifies the structures

required

• The level of the railway line would simplify and lower the proposed junction

bridge

• Access to any development south of Luncarty is significantly simplified when

compared to Corridor C1

• Reduced impact on the Ancient Monuments and Designed Landscape when

compared to Corridors C1 & C2

• Reduced impact on the properties to the east of the railway line when


6.5.4.1.3 Disadvantages

• Noise and air pollution during construction would have a significant impact on

a limited number of properties

• The routing of the CTLR to the east of the River Tay would result in significant

severance issues to a limited number of properties

• The routing of the CTLR to the east of the River Tay may result in a direct

impact on a limited number of properties




52

• The routing of the CTLR to the east of the River Tay is likely to result in

significant noise and air quality issues to a limited number of properties

• Access to the properties to the east of the railway line would be more indirect

utilising the proposed junction


foundations

• Land currently used for agriculture will be impacted by bridge construction.



impact.

6.5.4.2 Junction North of Redgorton

Locating the junction to the north of Redgorton as indicated in Figure 6.11 is likely to

require the demolition of the Luncarty junction bridge as well as the closure of its

slips.

Figure 6.11: Corridor E2, Potential Junction Location north of Redgorton

As can be seen from Figure 6.11 there are a large number of settlements to the west of

the A9 which means it is unlikely that an alignment can be identified that would not

directly impact on either settlements or individual properties. If such an alignment is

possible while meeting standards it will have a significant indirect impact on those

settlements and individual properties.

In addition to any direct or indirect impacts there will be issues of severance and

potential increased noise and air pollution. Based on the consultation responses to

Corridor E1 it is considered that a junction located north of Redgorton would not be

acceptable to the public.




53

The A9 and the railway line are between 20m – 30m apart, with the River Tay

approximately 1km east of the A9. The spacing of the A9, railway line and River Tay

will simplify the structures required.

The corridor impacts existing low level high voltage overhead power cables on the

east side of the railway which run parallel to the railway. It is likely that some of the

existing poles and cables would have to be permanently relocated.

The interchange structures must provide the required minimum vertical clearances

over the A9 and the existing railway. There are several buried utilities running

parallel alongside the existing A9 road. These include utilities such as water

distribution mains, rising mains, Fulcrum low pressure mains and telecoms cables.

The presence of unrecorded or unknown utilities cannot be discounted.

There is an existing cycle track/footpath alongside the existing southbound

carriageway of the A9.

Geological conditions at the site of the interchange consist mainly of Glacial

Meltwater deposits and glacial till. Bedrock is recorded at approximately 30m below

existing ground level. However, it is feasible that spread foundations would be the

most likely foundation type.

The Constraints, Advantages and Disadvantages of Corridors E2 at this location are:

6.5.4.2.1 Constraints

• Existing infrastructure including A9 trunk road, A9 southbound on-slip from

Luncarty, Perth to Inverness railway line, settlements and individual

properties, local roads, buried utilities alongside the existing A9 carriageway,

overhead high voltage power lines to the east of the railway

• Vertical alignment of new structures at an interchange must provide the

required minimum clearances over the realigned and existing A9 trunk road

and the Perth to Inverness railway line

• Vertical alignment of the corridor must provide the minimum clearance under

overhead power lines

• Level of existing railway line

• Existing cycle track/footpath alongside southbound carriageway of existing A9.


6.5.4.2.2 Advantages

• Less complex structures required than for Corridor C1

• The impact of properties to the east of the railway line is significantly reduced

when compared to Corridor E2 south of Redgorton

• Access to any development south of Luncarty is significantly simplified when

compared to Corridor C1


reserves




54

• Reduced impact on the Ancient Monuments and Designed Landscape when


• Reduced impact on the properties to the east of the railway line when


6.5.4.2.3 Disadvantages

• Significant direct and indirect impact on settlements and individual properties

• Closure of the existing Luncarty slips

• Possible requirement for the demolition of the existing Luncarty junction

bridge

• Potential impact on existing high voltage overhead power cables to the east of

the railway line


• Moderate adverse visual impact

6.5.5 Corridors E1 & E2 - River Tay Crossing

From the railway line the corridors head east for about 1km crossing the River Tay,

and meet Stormontfield Road approximately 250m east of the River Tay.

Due to the corridor alignment the River Tay crossing is likely to require a bridge with

a single span in the order of 125m to 150m and may be curved on plan. The required

vertical height clearance over the River Tay would dictate the height of the bridge

abutments and approach embankments. The length of the bridge would result in

large and costly foundations.




Any crossing of the River Tay crossing would be close to a small number of houses

and boating sheds on both banks of the river, which would be impacted by noise and

air pollution both during construction and once in operation. The stretch of river

either side of the crossing is currently used for fishing purposes.

Existing overhead high level high voltage power lines and pylons may be impacted

depending on the route within the corridor selected. Initial discussions with Scottish

and Southern Electricity indicate that appropriate clearance can be achieved without

the need to amend the overhead lines.

The structure over the River Tay is likely to require the removal of existing trees on

both banks of the River Tay.

Geological conditions in the area consist mainly of Glacial Meltwater deposits and

glacial till. It is likely that piled foundations would be required.

The crossing of the River Tay within Corridors E1 and E2 would have the following

Constraints, Advantages and Disadvantages:




55

6.5.5.1 Constraints







• Construction access is limited with direct impact on Luncarty and small

number of houses on the banks of the River Tay


proposals



prefer the structure to be clad to mitigate the visual impact


6.5.5.2 Advantages

• Limited direct or indirect impact on settlements or individual properties

• Noise and air pollution during construction would only affect a limited

number of properties


construction


reserves


• The river crossing should not have any supports in the watercourse and thus

the new bridge would be the longest of the corridors considered at some 125 -

150m long

• Construction access is limited to existing narrow country roads. Access to the

east bank is by Stormontfield Road passing a small number of existing houses.

Access to the west bank is by existing country roads and would involve

construction traffic passing through Luncarty




impact

• An existing access track on the west bank of the River Tay would have to be

rerouted




56

6.5.6 Corridors E1 & E2 - River Tay to A93

Corridors E1 and E2 pass south of Waulkmill and to the north of Gelly Burn

(Figure 6.12). The corridor passes through slightly undulating farm land which falls

from approximately 30 metres to 20 metres above mean sea level from west to east

respectively.

It is noted that both Corridors E1 and E2 skirt the Designed Landscape to the south.

It is anticipated that the junction with Stormontfield Road will be an at-grade

roundabout. At this location, the ground is relatively flat and minor earthworks

would be expected, but this will depend on the vertical alignment requirements for

the crossing of the River Tay.

Figure 6.12: Corridor E from the River Tay to A93

The next section of the corridors continues in an easterly direction for approximately

2.3km. through slightly undulating farm land, north of Blairhall and Gelly Burn,

before reaching the A93 just south of Scones Lethendy. The existing ground levels

rise from approximately 20 metres to 50 metres above mean sea level from west to

east respectively.

The corridors then skirt the north sides of Drumshogle Wood, Gelly Brae Wood and

the Blairhall Plantation and should have little impact on them. It is anticipated an at-

grade roundabout will be provided to connect with the A93. The exact location for

the junction will require careful selection as the A93 has a fairly sinuous horizontal

alignment.

Moving east the corridors cross the Gelly Burn (which becomes Whiggle Burn) to the

south east of the A93 road with the Gelly Burn/ Whiggle Burn flowing westwards to

the River Tay. It must be noted that the Gelly Burn skirts the southern boundary of

this corridor from the point where it crosses the River Tay to its junction with the

A93. Careful consideration of route selection within this corridor is vital to ensure the

Gelly Burn/ Whiggle Burn isn’t adversely impacted.


burn bed should be maintained as far as practicable and also used as lining on the

inside of any new culvert. The existing banks of the burn should remain as far as

practicable.







57

There are no existing utilities recorded at the potential location of the crossing.

However the presence of land drains, unrecorded or unknown utilities cannot be

discounted.

Geological conditions will be of a similar nature to that at the site of the bridge over

the River Tay. The structure would be small and thus spread foundations would be

the most likely foundation type.

Corridors E1 and E2 would have the following Constraints, Advantages and

Disadvantages:

6.5.6.1 Constraints

• Crossings of watercourses have the potential for altering flow characteristics

and lead to erosion of the burn bed and/or banks



• Within Ancient Woodland and Gardens and Designed Landscape


proposals

6.5.6.2 Advanatges

• There are no settlements or individual properties within the immediate area

• A preformed circular or rectangular box culvert offers the simplest and

quickest solution to maintain flow in the burn and the construction impact can

be minimised


reserves

• Has the least impact on the Designed Landscape




• Construction related spillages could cause adverse impact through pollution of

the watercourse

• Unknown land drains could be affected


6.5.7 Corridors E1 & E2 – 93 to A94

The remaining section of these corridors continues in a south easterly direction for

approximately 2km where it meets the A94 (Figure 6.13). This corridor passes

through slightly undulating farmland and wooded areas, the most significant being

Muirward Wood, north of Scone and the Cramock Burn. The existing ground level

rises from approximately 50 metres to 90 metres above mean sea level from west to




58

east respectively. It is anticipated an at-grade roundabout will be provided to

connect with the A94 to the north west of Scone.

Figure 6.13: Corridor E between A93 and A94

Corridors E1 and E2 would have the following Constraints, Advantages and

Disadvantages:

6.5.7.1 Constraints


• Within Ancient Woodland and Gardens and Designed Landscape


proposals

6.5.7.2 Advanatges

• There are no settlements or individual properties within the immediate area

• Has a slightly lower impact on the Designed Landscape than Corridors C1 & 2






• Unknown land drains could be affected


• Impacts on the Designed Landscape




59

6.6 Corridor G

Figure 6.14: Corridor G

As shown in Figure 6.14, Corridor G is a much shorter corridor compared to the

others. It runs in a west/east alignment linking the A912 Dunkeld Road to the A94

south of Scone. Corridor G crosses the River Tay after dividing the North Inch Golf

course before connecting to the A93 and then A94.

As the Western Edge Link is not Contiguous with Corridor G it has been considered

separately in this case (Section 6.7)

A new junction will be required on Dunkeld Road at the west end of the proposed

corridor. This proposed junction is likely to be an at-grade roundabout, situated

within the available land located to the east of Dunkeld Road, which would result in

the junction being in close proximity to business units and residential housing.

However, due to proximity of local amenities, construction is likely to affect the

school and local housing.

The construction of the CTLR between the housing estate and the school would sever

existing paths and is likely to cause severance between the housing and the school.

Any such severance could have an adverse impact on the safety of children attending

the school. If this corridor was taken forward it is recommended a detailed safety

study is carried out to identify any risks and appropriate mitigation measures.

A short link of approximately 300m would be provided east of Dunkeld Road to

connect with Bute Drive. There is a strip of undeveloped land between a housing

estate and a band of trees which may be sufficient to accommodate any route

however it is highly likely there will be a need to remove some or all of the trees to

accommodate the CTLR. Careful design will be required to mitigate the noise and

visual impact in relation to the nearby housing and school.

The east end of this link would tie in to Bute Drive possibly by means of an at-grade

roundabout. As the existing road is higher than the surrounding land at this location,

the provision of a roundabout would result in significant earthworks to tie-in with

Bute Drive.




60

6.6.1 West Bank

The corridor would require an approach embankment to be constructed on the

existing North Inch Golf Course. An embankment on the golf course would directly

affect several existing holes requiring redesign and reconstruction of the course.

The west abutment for the bridge would be located on an existing public cycle track/

footpath running alongside the River Tay. The abutment would be approximately

100m-150m from a school and five inhabited cottages. There would be significant

impact through noise pollution and air quality to the public both during construction

and when the corridor was in operation.

There are two small existing buildings adjacent to the river in very close proximity to

the location of any bridge abutment. These buildings are for the North Muirton Water

Intake Pumping Station and are operated by Scottish and Southern Energy Limited

(SSE). Additionally, there is a SEPA monitoring station on the river bank to the south

of the abutment.

There are two existing buried surface water ducts and one foul sewer located

alongside the existing cycle track/ footpath adjacent to the River Tay. The surface

water ducts are shown as out-falling to the River Tay to the south of the proposed

abutment. The foul sewer continues southwards and connects into a combined sewer.

The presence of unrecorded or unknown utilities cannot be discounted. Information

received from Openreach shows proposed underground cables to be installed

alongside the existing water ducts and foul sewer.

The corridor would require the removal of existing trees from the golf course in the

location of the approach embankment, and removal of a length of existing natural

stone wall from the top of the river bank.

Geological conditions in the area consist mainly of Glacial Raised Marine deposits

and glacial till. It is likely that the bridge abutment would require piled foundations.

The following Constraints, Advantages and Disadvantages of Corridor G at this

location are:

6.6.1.1 Constraints

• Existing school buildings, cottages, public golf course, public roads, cycle

tracks and footpaths on the west of the River Tay





• Existing pumping station buildings operated by Scottish and Southern Energy

Limited on west bank of the River Tay

• Existing buried surface water ducts and foul sewer alongside cycle track on the

west bank of the River Tay


proposals




61




6.6.1.2 Advantages


reserves

• Some trees would need to be removed but none are identified as Ancient

Woodland


• Direct physical impact on North Inch Golf Course, existing public cycle tracks

and footpaths



existing fish (salmon) required

• Minimum vertical clearance must be provided over the River Tay which will

require a high structure. The distance between River Tay and A93 is quite short

and as the corridor would be at height, this could result in the need for a grade

separated roundabout and associated structures at the junction with the A93

• Existing buildings, plant, utilities etc for pumping station on west bank of river

may have to be demolished and reconstructed

• Existing buried water ducts on west bank of river must be permanently

relocated

• The river crossing must not have any supports in the watercourse, thus

requiring a long span in the order of 110m. This will result in the need for

heavy construction plant and machinery and inherent noise impact on the

public adjacent to the site

• A long span bridge would require large and costly foundations

• Construction would require the removal of trees. However these trees are not

part of Ancient Woodland

• Schools and public amenities on west bank of River Tay would be impacted by

noise pollution during construction and when in operation

• North Inch golf course would require redesign and reconstruction





• Approach embankment on the west side of the river would visually restrict the

public in nearby cottages and schools




62

6.6.2 East Bank

The corridor requires a bridge abutment and approach embankment at the southern

extremity of the Designed Landscape and there would be direct impact on the

existing access road to the grounds of Scone Palace at Queens Drive (Figure 6.15).

Figure 6.15: East Bank.

The abutment is likely to be high to accommodate the required vertical clearance over

the River Tay. Structural foundations for the bridge would be deep, large and costly.

As noted in Figure 6.15 an existing water/ sewage treatment works is located close to

any abutments or approach embankments. Further to the south there are existing

houses operated by Capability Scotland (Upper Springland).

There is the possibility of noise impact and reduction of the air quality to the public in

the southern area of Scone Palace grounds. Noise impact to the existing water/

sewage treatment works is not considered a major issue. The housing at Upper

Springland is sufficiently distant from the site not to be affected during construction

or when the road is in operation.

There are no known existing utilities that would impact on a crossing of the River Tay

within the corridor. However, the presence of unrecorded or unknown utilities

cannot be discounted.

Construction access and construction of the east abutment would require the removal

of existing trees from within the grounds of Scone Palace.

Geological conditions in the area consist mainly of Glacial Meltwater deposits and

glacial till. It is likely that piled foundations would be required.

The following Constraints, Advantages and Disadvantages of Corridor G at this

location are:

6.6.2.1 Constraints








63


proposals

• Close proximity of existing water/sewage treatment works on east bank of

river




6.6.2.2 Advantages


reserves

• Some trees would need to be removed but none are identified as Ancient

Woodland


• The east end of the bridge is located within the southern end of the Scone

Palace Designed Landscape

• Direct physical impact on Designed Landscape



existing fish (salmon) required

• Minimum vertical clearance must be provided over the River Tay which will

require a high structure. The distance between River Tay and A93 is quite short

and as the corridor would be at height, this could result in the need for a grade

separated roundabout and associated structures at the junction with the A93

• The river crossing must not have any supports in the watercourse, thus

requiring a long span in the order of 110m. This will result in the need for

heavy construction plant and machinery and inherent noise impact on the

public adjacent to the site

• A long span bridge would require large and costly foundations

• Construction would require the removal of trees. However these trees are not

part of Ancient Woodland

• The public entrance and gate to the grounds of Scone Palace (junction of

existing A93 road and southern end of Queen’s Drive) may need to be

relocated to the north





• Approach embankment on the west side of the river would visually restrict the

public in nearby cottages and schools




64

6.6.3 River Tay to A94

Once the River Tay has been crossed, the corridor continues in an easterly direction

for approximately 1.2km until it connects with the A93 north of Quarrymill.

The topography changes on the east side of the River Tay to slightly undulating

countryside. To reach the A93 the corridor must pass through the grounds of Scone

Palace, albeit on the outskirts. The existing ground rises from approximately

5 - 10 metres to 20 metres above mean sea level from the River Tay to the A93

respectively.

The corridor then continues in an easterly direction for approximately 1.2km through

predominately agricultural land. The ground rises from approximately 20 metres to

40 metres above mean sea level as the corridor heads eastwards. There is a narrow

strip of woodland immediately east of the A93 which is followed by rolling

countryside.

This part of the corridor lies to the north of the wooded walk area at Quarymill and

Annaty Burn. This is a popular area for walkers and there is a small visitor centre

which is open during the summer months. Careful consideration will have to be

given to the corridor adjacent to the north edge of the Forest Walks to mitigate visual

impact as well as noise pollution. This segment of the proposed corridor will pass

through slightly undulating farm land and will following the existing terrain down to

the point where it crosses the Annaty Burn. Figure 6.16 shows Quarrymill in relation

to the corridor.

Figure 6.16: Quarrymill.

The corridor crosses the Annaty Burn on the south west edge of Scone. The Annaty

Burn flows westwards to the River Tay and must be accommodated as part of the

corridor.


burn bed should be maintained as far as practicable, and also used as lining on the

inside of any new culvert. The existing banks of the burn would remain as far as

practicable.







65

There is an existing footpath which follows the alignment of the burn and which

crosses the burn via a small footbridge at the approximate location of the culvert. The

footpath must be accommodated as part of the works.

There is an existing surface water drainage duct and a combined sewer towards the

north of the corridor. There is also a combined sewer to the south. The two combined

sewers connect further west. Additionally, the presence of unrecorded or unknown

utilities cannot be discounted.

Geological conditions will not be dissimilar to that at the site of the bridge over the

River Tay.

Once the Annaty Burn has been crossed, the corridor continues east, extending over

slightly undulating farm land again until it ties in with a proposed junction with the

A94, most probably an at grade roundabout. The roundabout can be situated between

the houses along the A94 or constructed off line to the east of the A94. It is possible

that the local road/access to Murrayshall Golf and Country Club could also be from

part of the new roundabout. Figure 6.17 below shows the location of the main

entrance to Murrayshill Golf Course.

Figure 6.17: Murrayshall Golf Course.

The constraints, Advantages and disadvantages of this section of Corridor G are:

6.6.3.1 Constraints

• Construction of the culvert can only take place during periods of low flow in

the river

• A new culvert could potentially alter flow characteristics and lead to erosion of

the burn bed and/or banks

• Direct impact on the Designed Landscape

• Existing surface water drainage and combined sewer

• Maintaining a footpath alongside the burn





66


• Minimising disturbance to agricultural land



proposals

6.6.3.2 Advantages

• Any culvert would be located on the extremities of Scone and there are no

houses or buildings within 100m of the area

• A preformed circular culvert or rectangular box offers the simplest and

quickest solution to maintain flow in the burn and the construction period can

be minimised

• The corridor does not impact any geological sites or mineral reserves

• While some trees would need to be removed none are identified as Ancient

Woodland

6.6.3.3 Disadvantages:

• It is noted that the Annaty Burn is within the River Tay Special Area of

Conservation (SAC). This requires careful consideration of construction

methods and the season in which the structure is built in order not to disturb

salmonidae and other fish in the river

• Construction will require the removal of existing woodland around the area of

the structure

• Any new culvert could potentially alter flow characteristics and lead to erosion

of the burn bed and/or banks

• Existing surface water drainage and combined sewer may have to be

permanently relocated

• Existing footpath must be rerouted and accommodated as part of the works

• Construction would have direct impact on the Designed Landscape and

require the removal of existing trees



• Land currently used for agriculture is likely to be impacted




67

6.7 Western Edge Link

As shown in Figure 6.18 the possible corridors for the Western Edge Link are the

same as those considered between Crieff Road and the A9 for Corridors C1, C2

(Section 6.4), E1 and E2 (Section 6.5).

Figure 6.18: Western Edge Link




68

7 Environmental Assessments

7.1 Description of the Local Environment / Baseline Conditions

Within 2km of the corridors there is one Natura 2000 site – the River Tay Special Area

of Conservation (SAC) – see Volume 2, Appendix B2 for further details on the

designation and its qualifying interests. There are also two Sites of Special Scientific

Interest (SSSI) – Kinnoull Hill and Almondbank SSSIs. Other nature conservation

considerations that need to be assessed as part of the DMRB study include areas of

woodland that are listed on the Ancient, and Semi-Natural Ancient Woodland

Inventory.

The proposed corridors cross several watercourses, with the River Tay and the River

Almond being the most significant. The watercourses and the surrounding study

area is also known to accommodate several Rights of Way and proposed Core paths.

The study area contains numerous cultural heritage designations with Scheduled

Monuments, Listed Buildings and both the Scone Palace and Battleby Gardens and

Designed Landscape all located within the core Perth area and all potentially affected

either directly or indirectly by the proposed corridors. Given the historical

significance of the Perth area there is also the potential for the study area to contain

undiscovered archaeological remains.

Perth and Kinross Council completed a detailed assessment of air quality in 2005, and

subsequently declared an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) for Nitrogen

Dioxide (NO2) and Particulate Matter (PM10) in 2006.

The proposed corridors and environmental designations identified for the study area

are shown on Figure TKPKFA\ENV\1\001 (Volume 2, Appendix B1). The corridors

presented have been altered when compared to those published in the Shaping

Perth’s Transport Future Strategy (2010), the alterations have been necessitated by

junction spacings on the A9. As a result of the alterations to the corridors some

Scheduled Monuments (SM) now lie within the boundaries of Corridors C2 and E2,

however, the national importance of these monuments is recognised and no direct

impacts will occur to them despite the corridor extents covering all or part of a SM.

7.2 Assessment of Environmental Effects

7.2.1 Generic Impacts

Many of the identified impacts to the ecology and nature conservation of the study

area are similar between the route corridors. For example, each of the route corridors

will involve the construction of a new bridge over the River Tay Special Area of

Conservation (SAC) as well as an additional crossing of the River Almond which is

also a part of the River Tay SAC, and therefore have the potential to be a harmful

development affecting a protected habitat of international importance.

The River Tay SAC boundary covers an area of 9,497 hectares and includes many of

its tributaries, including the River Almond, the Annaty Burn and St Martin’s Burn.

The River Tay supports a high-quality Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) population as

well as three types of Lamprey (Brook, Sea and River).




69

Otters (Lutra lutra) are listed as a qualifying species on the SAC citation, and the

route corridors are likely to be at least within the territories of local populations of

otters.

An Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.)

Regulations 1994 will be required for the final route corridor chosen and any

development will not be consented unless appropriate mitigation is put in place and

the integrity of the SAC can be shown to be unaffected by the proposals. An

Appropriate Assessment Screening Assessment has been undertaken and is included

within Appendix B2 of this report, as the DMRB assessment develops further more

detailed assessments will be required in line with the DMRB Volume 11, Section 4 -

HD 44/09 Assessment of Implications (of Highways and/or Roads Projects) on

European Sites (Including Appropriate Assessment).

At this stage, detailed information on the location of protected species has not been

gathered, however it is acknowledged that surveys for protected species and habitats

will be required to be undertaken to inform the detailed design of the scheme no

matter which corridor is taken forward to the DMRB Stage 2 Route Option

Assessment. Consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage and the Perth & Kinross

Council Biodiversity Officer will be required to establish the scope of any surveys

(which may include otters, badgers, bats, red squirrels, fish and reptiles). The

National Biodiversity Network (NBN) Gateway holds records of species within a

10km transect, but this 10km scale will not benefit the route corridor assessment, and

further site studies will be required at later stages in the project, regardless of the

selected corridor.

Surveys for the following species are likely to be required to inform the Stage 2 and

Stage 3 Environmental Assessments as they are known to be present within the study

area:

• Otter;

• Badger;

• Birds;

• Amphibians;

• Water voles;

• Breeding birds;

• Fish (salmon and lamprey);

• Bat; and

• Red squirrel.

Following the completion of surveys for protected species, an appropriate mitigation

strategy will require to be devised to reduce / avoid impacts to species and their

associated habitats.

Each of the proposed route corridors also severs areas of high agricultural value

which are identified as being Prime Quality Agricultural Land, there is also the

potential for the corridors to cause the severance of fields and field boundaries. This

resource is important at a national level and as such appropriate mitigation and




70

consultation (with affected landowners, Perth & Kinross Council and the Scottish

Government) will be required to ensure the viability of farmholdings is not affected

by the scheme.

7.2.2 Corridors C1 and C2 Impacts

The presence of a route alignment within these corridors will potentially result in

localised increases to noise and vibration levels at sensitive residential properties

including ‘The Kennels’ to the north of the River Almond, Balboughty, and properties

within New Scone, Denmarkfield and New Mains. The final impacts will be

dependent on the detailed route alignment and appropriate noise and vibration

assessments for predicted traffic flows and construction noise will be required.

Initial air quality assessment work undertaken during the Perth Traffic & Transport

Issues STAG2 shows that Corridor C1 performs the best in terms of the assessment of

impacts to both local and global air quality with traffic also being removed from the

AQMA which covers the city centre. Although the initial assessments carried out

during the Perth Traffic & Transport Issues STAG show that emissions will rise

overall as a result of the implementation of the corridor, this was accounting for the

additional traffic generated by the committed, allocated and aspirational

development contained within the Local Development Plan and as such included

significant increases in vehicle numbers on the transport network.

Route alignments within Corridors C1 and C2 have the potential to cause both direct

and indirect impacts to proposed core path routes and Rights of Way, and any Cross

Tay Link Road (CTLR) alignments identified within the corridors should be routed to

minimise severance, and to either maintain or enhance the safety of its users. The

identified core paths potentially impacted include:

• METH/2

• LUNC/113

• LUNC/114

• LUNC/119

• LUNC/102

• LUNC/2

• SCON/139

• SCON/140

2 Perth Traffic & Transport issues Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance (STAG)

Report (2010). Halcrow Group Ltd.




71

• SCON/11

• SCON/12

Route alignments within Corridors C1 and C2 will potentially impact upon five

asserted Rights of Way (2/1, 2/2, 36/2, 39/11, and 39/12) during the construction and

operation phases (mitigation measures for the protection of these facilities are set out

in Section 7.3).

Corridors C1 and C2 has the potential to directly impact upon seven named

watercourses of varying size as well as the localised groundwater reserves of the area.

The corridors requires the construction of bridges over the River Tay and River

Almond (both of which form part of the River Tay SAC, see Volume 2, Appendix B2

for further details).

The routing of the Corridors take them through two areas identified by SEPA as

being at risk of flooding3 along the River Almond and the River Tay. The

implementation of an alignment within these corridors will require mitigation to

ensure that the risk of flooding is not materially increased downstream. Consultation

will be required with SEPA throughout the design process.

Any CTLR alignment will impact upon areas of woodland listed on the inventories of

Ancient and Semi Natural Ancient Woodland leading to the potential fragmentation

of habitats (mitigation measures will be required to be incorporated to help reduce /

avoid these impacts). Key areas of woodland identified as having a high sensitivity

to development include the woodland at Berthapark and Muirward Wood both of

which are severed by corridors C1 and C2. Consultation on any route alignments to

be carried forward in the DMRB Stage 2 Route Option Assessment will be required

with both SNH and the Forestry Commission

The Perth & Kinross Council Local Development Plan Main Issues Report (LDP MIR)

site assessment report identifies that UKBAP Priority Species have been recorded on

or near the Berthapark Ancient Woodland site including brown hare, otter, red

squirrel, bullfinch, linnet, song thrush, spotted flycatcher, skylark, tree sparrow,

pipestrelle bat and water vole.

The corridors will result in a direct physical impact to the nationally important Scone

Palace Gardens and Designed Landscape resulting in a significant adverse impact.

The corridors would result in the severance of the designation which would separate

Scone Palace from its northern policies. The potential major negative impact to Scone

Palace Gardens and Designed Landscape has been identified by Historic Scotland as

one that could not be reduced through mitigation, given the impact upon the

legibility and character of the designation. In addition there is also the potential for

3 www.sepa.org.uk – Indicative River & Coastal Flood Map




72

impacts (both direct and indirect) to seven Scheduled Monuments within the

boundaries of the designed landscape, 4 Listed Buildings and numerous sites listed

on the Perth & Kinross Heritage Trust Historic Environment Record sites.

The Corridors results in direct impacts upon the Area of Great Landscape Value

(AGLV) to the north west of Perth. Whilst this will result in a direct impact to this

landscape feature appropriate mitigation such as screening planting and the use of

the existing topography will be used to incorporate the scheme into the wider

landscape. A detailed landscape mitigation strategy will be incorporated into the

final DMRB Stage 3 Assessment of any route corridor within the Corridors.

The alignments also have the potential to result in direct impacts to properties

(including Broxy Kennels and properties at Denmarkfield) located within the

corridors, during the Stage 2 and 3 DMRB assessments route alignments should be

considered which avoid impacts to these properties.

7.2.3 Corridors E1 and E2 Impacts

The Corridors also result in impacts to cultural heritage receptors with indirect

impacts to Battleby Designed landscape and direct impacts to Scone Palace Gardens

and Designed Landscape (limited to north eastern and north western corners of the

designation) and potentially direct / indirect impacts to the Category B Listed

Blairhall Farmhouse and Belvedere House which both lie within the boundaries of

the corridors. Appropriate routing of any detailed alignments will need to be

considered to avoid direct impacts where possible, and a detailed mitigation strategy

will be required. Also located within the boundaries is the Grassy Walls Scheduled

Monument (SM), however direct impacts to this designation can be avoided through

routing any alignment to the north of Drumshogle Wood. Impacts to the setting of

the Grassy Walls SM, as well as three other SMs may occur.

The corridors will primarily impact upon six named watercourses as well as

groundwater reserves. The proposed corridor will require a road crossing of both the

River Tay and River Almond (both of which form part of the River Tay SAC).

The routing takes them through three areas identified by SEPA as being at risk of

flooding along the River Almond, River Tay and the Gelly Burn. Mitigation will be

required to ensure that the risk of flooding is not materially increased downstream

and consultation with SEPA will be required throughout the design process.

There is the potential to cause impacts to proposed Core Path routes and Rights of

Way, and any alignments within the corridor should be routed to minimise the

severance, and to either maintain or enhance the safety of its users. The identified

core paths potentially impacted include:

• METH/2

• LUNC/113

• LUNC/124

• LUNC/114

• LUNC/120

• LUNC/102




73

• LUNC/119

• LUNC/100

• LUNC/116

• LUNC/2

• SCON/140

• SCON/11

• SCON/12

There is the potential to impact upon five asserted Rights of Way (2/1, 2/2, 36/2, 39/11,

and 39/12) during the construction and operation phases

The CTLR will contribute to removing traffic from the city centre and as such will

help to result in positive impacts to emissions within the designated AQMA. These

impacts will not be as beneficial as those identified for Corridors C1 and C2 with less

traffic utilising them as an alternative to the bridges within the city centre. As with

Corridors C1 and C2, although the initial assessments carried out during the Perth

Traffic & Transport Issues STAG show that emissions will rise overall this was

accounting for the additional traffic generated by the committed, allocated and

aspirational development contained within the Local Development Plan and as such

included significant increases in vehicle numbers on the transport network.

Any CTLR alignment will impact upon areas of woodland listed on the inventories of

Ancient and Semi Natural Ancient Woodland leading to the potential fragmentation

of habitats (mitigation measures will be required to be incorporated to help reduce /

avoid these impacts). Key areas of woodland identified as having a high sensitivity

to development include the woodland at Berthapark and Muirward Wood to the

north of Scone both of which will be severed.

A key area of woodland listed on the Ancient and Semi-Natural Ancient Woodland

Inventories is located at Berthapark and would be severed. The Perth & Kinross

Council Local Development Plan Main Issues Report (LDP MIR) site assessment

report identifies that UKBAP Priority Species have been recorded on or near the site

including brown hare, otter, red squirrel, bullfinch, linnet, song thrush, spotted

flycatcher, skylark, tree sparrow, pipestrelle bat and water vole.

Consultation will be required throughout the DMRB process with both SNH and the

Forestry Commission to ensure that impacts to woodland are appropriately

mitigated.

However, Corridors E1 and E2 also cover the settlements of Redgorton and

Denmarkfield and as such has the potential to result in a significant negative,

permanent impact upon the population of the area. Any route alignment within this

corridor would result in increased noise and vibration, reduced air quality and

significant landscape and visual impacts to the residents of the village.

The corridors will result in direct impacts upon the Area of Great Landscape Value

(AGLV) to the north west of Perth. Whilst this will result in a direct impact to this

landscape feature appropriate mitigation such as screen planting and the use of the

existing topography will be used to incorporate the scheme into the wider landscape.




74

7.2.4 Corridor G Impacts

The impacts of the Western Edge Link associated with Corridor G (Section 6.7) have

been discussed in Sections 7.2.2 and 7.2.3.

Corridor G will result in adverse impacts to the natural and cultural heritage features

of the area with key impacts being the severance of the entrance to Scone Palace

Gardens & Designed Landscape and the crossing of the River Tay and potentially the

Annaty Burn (both of which form part of the River Tay SAC).

Within Corridor G the following proposed core paths are at risk of suffering direct /

indirect impacts from alignments within Corridor G:

• NMUR/100

• NMUR/2

• NMUR/2

• SCON/109

• SCON/1

• SCON/2

• SCON/1

Alignments within Corridor G have the potential to affect three asserted Rights of

Way (2/2, 39/1 and 39/2). Impacts to route 39/2 can be removed by the routing of any

alignment within Corridor G to the north of Quarrymill Woodland Park. This citing

of the route alignment will also aid in reducing the impacts to areas listed on the

Inventory of Ancient Woodland within Corridor G.

Although no direct impacts to settlements or dwellings are anticipated with Route

Corridor G, potential indirect impacts such as increased noise and reduced air quality

may occur to residential properties in North Muirton and to sensitive community

receptors such as Perth Grammar School and the North Inch Community Campus

and Nursery.

Corridor G will result in impacts to two named watercourses (the River Tay and the

Annaty Burn), both of which form part of the River Tay SAC. A road crossing of each

of these watercourses will be required for any alignment within Corridor G and

without mitigation adverse impacts will be experienced. Mitigation measures will be

required to ensure that where areas of floodplain are lost the likelihood of flooding

downstream is not increased, and appropriate drainage will also be required to

ensure that water quality is not reduced.

Given the location of Corridor G, any route identified is unlikely to alleviate the

existing and future traffic pressures within Perth, with traffic still requiring to route

along Dunkeld Road to the Inveralmond Roundabout (2 key bottlenecks within the

existing transport network). As a result alignments in Corridor G will likely result in

an adverse impact to local air quality within the AQMA leading to the potential for

future exceedences of National Air Quality Objectives.

Corridor G will not result in any significant impacts to listed buildings or Scheduled

Monuments, however the severance of the Scone Palace Gardens and Designed




75

landscape will significantly affect the entrance to the designation and as such will

result in a significant adverse impact which will be difficult to mitigate.

7.3 Mitigation

7.3.1 Generic Mitigation Measures

Given the broad route corridors that are currently under consideration, the mitigation

measures identified at this stage of the assessment process will not be prepared in

great detail and should not be considered to be a final, committed mitigation strategy.

Rather, the mitigation measures presented should be used as a starting point for the

development of a detailed mitigation strategy as more detailed route alignments are

developed through the DMRB process. These mitigation measures have taken

cognisance of the mitigation strategy which is set out within the Shaping Perth’s

Transport Future Strategic Environmental Assessment4.

The following broad mitigation measures have been identified at this stage of the

assessment process:

• Direct impacts to the settlements of Redgorton and Denmarkfield should be

avoided, should alignments within Corridors C2, E1 or E2 be taken forward.

• The minimisation of land-take especially in areas of, or adjacent to, sites of

significant environmental value, for example Scone Palace Gardens &

Designed landscape and the River Tay SAC

• The use of the woodland tool developed by SNH should be prioritised in

developing route alignments within the corridors. The tool will allow the

degree of habitat fragmentation to be identified depending upon the

alignments identified, and locations for the incorporation of mitigation

measures to enhance biodiversity or create new habitat connections between

woodlands

• Woodland surveys should be undertaken to ascertain areas of least sensitivity

and to inform the identification of areas for new woodland planting

• Where habitat and / or woodland loss occurs, replacement planting of native

species and the creation of similar habitats to those lost will be required to be

included within the final alignment design, the use of the woodland tool and

woodland surveys identified above will help to identify appropriate locations.

Design alignments should seek to avoid the loss of areas listed on the

Inventories of Ancient and Semi- Natural Ancient Woodland

4 Shaping Perth’s Transport Future Strategic Environmental Assessment (2010). Perth &

Kinross Council.




76

• Cumulative impacts to woodland areas, such as Berthapark and Muirward

Wood, resulting from the CTLR and proposals within the upcoming Perth &

Kinross Council Local development Plan (Proposed Plan) will also require

consideration as part of mitigation strategy

• The timing and phasing of the works should avoid vegetation removal during

the breeding bird season (March to September inclusive), and works affecting

watercourses during the salmon spawning season. Pre-construction checks

should be undertaken ahead of any vegetation to be removed outside of

nesting season

• Trees, shrub and hedgerow planting should be utilised to help screen adverse

visual impacts and to aid in integrating structures (such as bridges and grade

separated junctions) into the surrounding environment

• Any embankments / cuttings required for the scheme should be designed to fit

within the surrounding topography and to integrate the scheme into the

affected landscape character area. The guidance for roads development within

the Tayside Landscape Character Assessment should been referred to in the

selection and design of a selected route alignment

• A programme of ecological surveys will be required and may include

including otter, badger, bat, red squirrel, salmon, lamprey and breeding birds.

Appropriate, detailed mitigation for the protection / avoidance of impacts to

these species (if present) will be recommended and incorporated into the final

route design

• It is recommended that the proposed CTLR should be a single span structure

with no bridge piers located within the boundaries of the SAC

• SUDS will be required at appropriate locations along the new CTLR to reduce

the potential for the contamination of watercourses and field drains. A

drainage assessment will be required to detail appropriate locations

• The appointed contractor for the construction of the CTLR will be required to

produce a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) which will

detail pollution avoidance and mitigation measures for all elements potentially

giving rise to pollution. The CEMP will incorporate mitigation measures as

detailed in SEPA’s Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPGs)

• The designer and contractor should create and update a Site Waste

Management Plan (SWMP) for the project, detailing how wastes will be

minimised and handled appropriately

• As site compounds will be required for the works these should be located away

from the River Tay SAC and other watercourses (distance to be agreed with

SNH), and within the working corridor where possible in order to reduce the

required land-take

• A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) should be undertaken prior to construction

• The detailed design of the CTLR should ensure that there is no downgrading in

water quality status occurs




77

• Where the culverting of field drains or watercourses is required the provision

of safe passage for otters and / or other mammals such as badgers should be

included in the culvert design

• Best Practicable Means should be utilised across the working sites during the

construction period to minimise impacts to air quality and the generation of

dust, as well as to reduce levels of noise and vibration

• Where agricultural land-take is required route alignments should be designed

to follow field boundaries where possible to ensure that the viability of fields is

maintained. If a route alignment severs a farmholding then an appropriate

crossing should be provided to maintain connectivity

• Route alignments should be identified that minimise the loss of Prime Quality

Agricultural Land

• The design solution for the CTLR should minimise direct impacts to paths

(Proposed Core Paths and Rights of Way)

• Provision of route diversions during the construction phase to retain access

• Provision of cycle lanes (or connections with existing cycle network) along

length of CTLR should be considered

• Provision of appropriate and safe crossing points of the proposed CTLR should

be considered

• Screen planting and habitat creation to help enhance the amenity value of the

path networks (existing and proposed) should be considered

• Where route alignments are identified that will impact on the setting of

cultural heritage features (such as Blairhall Farmhouse) appropriate screening

should be implemented to mitigate this adverse impact

It should be noted that Historic Scotland have advised that there is no available

mitigation that would reduce the significant negative impact caused by the routing of

an alignment within Corridor C. The severance to Scone Palace Garden & Designed

landscape and the separation of the palace from the northern polices by this route

corridor is deemed to be so severe that no mitigation will reduce this impact

magnitude.

The identification of route alignments is a key mitigation consideration. Any

alignments identified should seek to avoid direct impacts upon dwellings or

settlements in the area as well as minimising land-take from sensitive environmental

areas.

A committed mitigation schedule will be developed in consultation with the statutory

environmental consultees and, where required other local interest groups (for

example the North Tayside Badger Group) throughout the Stage 2 and 3

Environmental Assessments and will be reported in the associated Environmental

Statement.




78

7.3.2 Mitigation for the reduction of impacts to the River Tay special Area of conservation

Table 7.1 below is an excerpt from the Shaping Perth’s Transport Future SEA Habitats

Regulations Appraisal and sets out the potential impacts to the River Tay SAC from

the corridors and outline mitigation measures for the offsetting, reducing or avoiding

impacts to the River Tay SAC. As more detailed alignments are prepared through the

DMRB Stage 2 Route Option Assessment the mitigation strategy will further develop

and be informed by site visits and further consultation with SNH. The mitigation

measures included within Table 7.1 are therefore set at a necessarily high level for

this stage in the assessment process and should not be considered part of a

committed mitigation schedule.




79

Potential Direct / Indirect effects on the River Tay SAC

Proposed Mitigation

Water Pollution Risk (affecting habitats and species)

Pollution (both chemical and particulate – could

include suspended solids and increased sediment

load).

Pollution events caused by construction activities

(e.g.) fuel spills and leakages.

Pollution from increased run-off / erosion.

Contamination from waste materials.

Pollution associated with the construction of

concrete structures – i.e. bridge structure over the

River Tay.

Contractors are to use best practice site management techniques, consultation with SEPA should be maintained

throughout construction;

Construction equipment and all fuels / oils should be stored on site in an appropriate sub-catchment with

impermeable surfaces;

A pollution incident response plan should be prepared in consultation with SEPA in case of spillage;

Oil pollution prevention equipment should be available throughout the duration of the works;

All plant and machinery should be well maintained and regularly checked for defects;

Waste material from site should be re-used within the scheme where possible;

Any culverting of watercourses which enter the River Tay SAC should be designed to best practice guidelines;

All earth bunds and spoil storage areas located and managed to minimise run-off and erosion

All works are to be undertaken in accordance with PPG5: ‘Works In, Near or Liable to Affect Watercourses’;

It is recommended that the proposed CTLR should be a single span structure with no bridge piers located within the

boundaries of the SAC;

Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) are to be used where appropriate (locations to be agreed in consultation

with SEPA); and

A Construction Environmental Management Plan is to be prepared by the appointed Contractor for the works.

Ecology – Habitat Effects

Direct loss of habitat that supports the SAC

qualifying feature otter and fish species.

Impacts to habitats adjacent to the River Tay SAC.

The severance or fragmentation of existing wildlife

corridors and connected habitats.

Hydrological impacts – raised / lowered water

tables, habitat deterioration, and / or impacts to

food sources.

Ecological surveys (Phase I Habitat and appropriate protected species surveys) should be undertaken to inform the

design of the final scheme and a detailed mitigation strategy prepared (may include measures such as mammal

fencing and culverts);

Loss of habitats should be restricted to the minimum possible (e.g. minimum vegetation clearance and loss of mature

trees), site restoration should be undertaken following the completion of the works and habitat enhancement

opportunities maximised;

Through the use of SUDS further habitat enhancement opportunities should be exploited and optimised;

Best proactive measures should be implemented on site to minimise the potential for pollution incidents impacting

habitats / food sources;


boundaries of the SAC; and




80


Proposed Mitigation

Topsoil seedbank to be stripped, stored and replaced on site after construction to aid vegetation growth

Ecology – Species Effects (Salmon and Lamprey)

Changes to water flow and sedimentation rates.

Water pollution causing toxicity events on salmon

and / or lamprey, either directly or indirectly

through the food chain.

Disturbance to salmon / lamprey using areas

where construction activities take place.

Undertake salmon and lamprey surveys to help inform the design of the scheme, surveys should be discussed in

advance with SNH and the Tay District Salmon Board;

Sensitive timing of works (particularly avoid key periods of salmon and lamprey spawning);

Design the drainage to avoid adverse impacts on all roadside habitats of international sites.

Avoid dust and other pollution of water courses using standard dust suppression techniques


boundaries of the SAC;

Should the crossing be likely to affect the River Tay banks or channel then the crossing should be re-located to an area

of unsuitable habitat for lampreys and salmon. The bridge design would also need to ensure that flow and

sedimentation changes are within acceptable limits in consultation with both SEPA and SNH;

The Contractor will take full account of the requirements of the SEPA Environment Agency's Pollution Prevention

Guidelines (PPGs), especially SEPA’s Pollution Prevention Guidance Note 5: Works in, Near or Liable to Affect

Watercourses; and

Changes to the bed morphology in works areas will be minimised by retaining the existing bed substrate and channel

slope wherever possible.

Ecology – Species Effects (Otter)

Habitat loss.

Habitat fragmentation between feeding and

sheltering habitat.

Removal of safe passage up and down stream.

Loss of holts and couches.

Otter surveys to be undertaken to inform the design of the final option. Surveys should be undertaken upstream and

downstream of the proposed crossing (exact survey extents to be agreed with SNH during the detailed design stage);

Detailed design of the final CTLR should account for the presence of holts / couches which should be avoided by the

final route corridor where possible;

Mammal proof fencing should be erected around construction compounds throughout the works, and if required

should also be incorporated into the final scheme design (dependant upon the results of the otter surveys);


boundaries of the SAC, this will allow otters safe passage along the river banks;

If culverts are required they should be designed to incorporate mammal ledges;

Construction compounds should be located in areas of low sensitivity in terms of their impact to protected species;

Ensure areas of high otter activity within the vicinity of the works are not obstructed;

Avoidance of night working in areas used by otters; and

River bank habitat restoration after construction




81


Proposed Mitigation

Disturbance to habitat and / or food chain.

Road traffic strikes.

Water pollution causing toxicity events on otter,

either directly or indirectly through the food chain.

Noise & Vibration (Otter and fish species)

Increased noise from road traffic using the new

bridge and associated approach roads.

Increased noise and vibration from the

construction of bridge pillars and supports.

Prepare a Construction Environmental Management Plan, which specifies maximum noise levels and ensure

compliance with all relevant legislation;

Undertake surveys where necessary to identify which of the species in the survey are most sensitive to noise and

choose timing of construction accordingly;

Follow best practice guidance on noise and vibration management and mitigation. Remind all site employees of their

obligation to minimise noise on site by the use of signs and site inductions; and

Careful selection of working methods and programme, including planning the routes and times of deliveries to

minimise nuisance to protected species.

Light Pollution (Otter)

Light spillage onto the River Tay SAC during

construction and operation impacting upon

qualifying species.

Lighting design should be sensitive to wildlife presence. Appropriate cut-off lighting should be used to minimise and

direct light scatter away from otter holts, couches and areas of high protected species activity.




82

To date no formal consultation has been undertaken as part of the DMRB Stage 1

Preliminary Assessment process, however consultation comments received during

the preparation of the Perth Traffic & Transport Issues STAG, and the Shaping

Perth’s Transport Future SEA have been utilised to inform this assessment.

Furthermore throughout the development of these documents a series of consultation

events have been held and the information gathered during these sessions has also

been used to inform this study. Key consultation that has been undertaken to inform

the development of the CTLR corridors has included:

7.3.3 Perth Traffic & Transport Issues STAG

• June 2007 – Consultation on the options included in the STAG Part 1 Appraisal

• May 2008 – Consultation on the options included in the STAG Part 2 Appraisal

7.3.4 Shaping Perth’s Transport Future Strategy and SEA

• December 2009 – Consultation on the SEA Scoping Report

• February 2010 - SEA Scoping Workshop

• April 2010 – Individual consultation session with Historic Scotland regarding

the CTLR corridors to be assessed within the SEA Environmental Report

• May 2010 – Individual consultation session with SNH on the scope of the

Habitats Regulations Appraisal

• November 2010 – Consultation on the SEA Environmental Report

• June 2011 – Consultation on the SEA Environmental Report Addendum

7.3.5 Public Exhibitions

As part of the consultation on the Perth & Kinross Council Local Development Plan

Main Issues Report, public exhibitions took place throughout Perth & Kinross

between October and December 2010. Information specific to the transport proposals

set out in Shaping Perth’s Transport Future was displayed at a number of the public

exhibitions, including:

• Kinnoull – 11 October

• Coupar Angus – 12 October

• Scone – 13 October

• Stanley – 14 October

• Almondbank – 21 October

• Perth – 23 October

• Perth – 11 November

• Blairgowrie – 18 November

• Luncarty – 9 December

The public exhibitions were attended by PKC Transport Planning Officers and also

Halcrow project team members.




83

With regard to the transport proposals, the public exhibitions sought to provide the

general public with the opportunity to gather information on the proposals as well as

share their views. Specifically, the exhibitions provided the public with:

• An understanding of the problems and constraints experienced by the

transport network at present and potential options to improve the network in

the future

• An opportunity to comment on proposals for the future transport network in

the context of Perth and its immediate surroundings

• An understanding of the next steps and timescales for reporting

7.3.6 Stakeholder Workshop

As part of the consultation process, a workshop was arranged with key stakeholders.

The workshop took place on 25 January 2011 in Perth with the objectives to:

• Share information on the proposals set out in Shaping Perth’s Transport Future

• Provide the opportunity for different stakeholders to come together to discuss

the proposals and share their views

• Gather direct input to the consultation on Shaping Perth’s Transport Future

The outcomes of the workshop included the following:

• Stakeholders consider they have had an opportunity to have their say and are

confident their comments will be considered

• Perth & Kinross Council have further understanding of the points of

agreement / consensus and also points where differing views remain across

different stakeholder groups to help provide an informed view of the key

issues which require particular focus and effort to resolve going forward

7.3.7 Further Consultation

It is recommended that further consultation is undertaken with the statutory

consultees and the non-statutory environmental groups throughout the DMRB Stage

2 and 3 assessments.

7.4 Statement of Determination

This is a relevant project falling within either Schedule I (in the case of Corridors E1

and E2) or Schedule II (in the case of corridors C1, C2 and G) of the Town and

Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2011

that:

• Directly affects a “Sensitive Area”

• Exceeds 1 ha in area




84

7.4.1 Characteristics of the scheme

7.4.1.1 Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 and The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2011

The project has been subject to screening using the Annex III criteria from the EIA

Regulations to determine whether a formal Environmental Impact Assessment is

required under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 as amended by The Town and Country

Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2011. With

Corridors E1 and E2 being a Schedule I Development (an EIA is mandatory for all

Schedule I developments) and Corridors C1, C2 and G being Schedule II

developments (EIA is dependant upon the size and sensitivity of the environment)

that will result in significant impacts upon the environment it has been determined

that an Environmental Impact Assessment would be required for an alignment

within any of the corridors.

7.4.1.2 The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994

The Regulations place a statutory duty on the competent authority (in this case Perth

& Kinross Council), to meet the requirements of Directive 92/43/EEC on the

Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Flora and Fauna (the Habitats

Directive). Where it is considered that a project could result in significant effects on a

site designated for its European nature conservation interests (in this case the River

Tay SAC) and that the project is not directly connected with the management of the

site, the competent authority must make an Appropriate Assessment of the

implications for the site in view of the conservation objectives of the site. The

Appropriate Assessment Screening Matrix contained in Volume 2, Appendix B2 sets

out the initial screening of impacts to the River Tay SAC and deems that an

Appropriate Assessment would be required for route alignments within any of the

corridors which have been identified.

7.4.2 Location of the scheme

The proposed corridors have the potential to affect sites identified within the EIA

Regulations as being “Sensitive Areas”, these sites include:

• The River Tay SAC

• Scheduled Monument (SM) - Bertha Roman Fort

• SM – King’s Stone

• SM – Lochton House Enclosure

• SM – Lochton House

• SM – Blairhall Barrow cemetery and cursus

• SM – Sheriffton Barrow cemetery

• SM – Grassy Walls Roman Camp and prehistoric settlement

• SM – Gold Castle, enclosure

• SM – Balgarvie, unenclosed settlement




85

7.4.3 Characteristics of potential impacts of the scheme

Each of the corridors assessed within this Stage 1 Preliminary Assessment will result

in adverse impacts to the surrounding natural and cultural heritage of Perth without

the implementation of an effective mitigation strategy.

Each of the corridors identified for assessment runs through a sensitive landscape

and as such the selection of route alignments within these corridors should be guided

by the landscape character assessments undertaken covering the Perth area (see

Volume 2, Appendix B1), and the location of settlements within / adjacent to these

corridors. Direct impacts to settlements / dwellings should be avoided and if this

necessitates the alteration of the corridors identified for this Stage 1 Preliminary

Assessment then this should be a consideration in the Stage 2 Route Option

Assessments.

7.4.4 Corridors C1 and C2 Summary

The corridors will result in the significant severance of the Scone Palace Gardens &

Designed Landscape separating the Palace from its northern policies. In addition

these corridors will require to route through sensitive areas of Ancient and Semi-

Natural Ancient Woodland such as Muirward Wood and Berthapark. There is also

the potential for route alignments to impact upon the River Tay SAC where crossing

of the River Almond and River Tay are required and as such an Appropriate

Assessment will be required for any identified route alignments (Volume 2,

Appendix B2).

It is recommended that impacts to Ancient and Semi-Natural Ancient Woodland are

avoided where possible, where this is not deemed to be possible appropriate routes

should be selected to allow for habitat connectivity to be maintained through the

incorporation of mitigation measures, the final routes should be consulted upon with

SNH and the Forestry Commission.

Due to the significant impacts to the surrounding environment, any route alignment

identified will be subject to an EIA. Due to the significant impacts identified, it was

recommended that a corridor outwith Corridor C1 be considered with a more

northern alignment passing to the north of the Scheduled Monuments within the

grounds of the Scone Palace Gardens & Designed landscape considered ie

Corridor C2.

7.4.5 Corridor E1 and E2 Summary

The corridors will result in the largest amount of land-take and will also result in

significant irreversible impacts to the settlements of Redgorton and Denmarkfield,

causing community severance as well as localised impacts such as increased noise

and vibration, reduced air quality and significant visual impacts. In addition the

corridors also have the potential to result in direct impacts to the Category B Listed

Blairhall Farmhouse, and the north eastern section of the Scone Palace Gardens &

Designed landscape.

The corridor crosses the River Tay SAC in two places (crossing the River Tay and the

River Almond) and due to the potential for likely significant effects occurring upon

the designation, an Appropriate Assessment will be required for any route alignment

within this corridor (see Volume 2, Appendix B1 for further details).




86

Due to the required land-take and associated impacts to the natural and cultural

environments as well as the community impacts an EIA will be required for any

alignment within these corridors.

It was recommended that route alignments outwith Corridor E, ie Corridor E2, were

considered in order to remove the potential for direct impacts to the settlement of

Redgorton. An alignment with a grade separated junction to the south of this

settlement was considered (any alignment should seek to minimise / remove the

potential for direct impacts upon settlements). It is also recommended that any route

alignment identified is routed to avoid impacts to the Ancient and Semi-Natural

Ancient Woodland of the area (consultation with SNH and the forestry Commission

is recommended throughout the route alignment selection process to help identify

the most appropriate alignments).

7.4.6 Corridor G Summary

Corridor G will also result in adverse impacts to the natural and cultural heritage

features of the area with key impacts being the severance of the entrance to Scone

Palace Gardens & Designed Landscape and the crossing of the River Tay and

potentially the Annaty Burn (both of which form part of the River Tay SAC) which

will require Appropriate Assessment (see Appendix B).

Given the location of Corridor G, any route identified is unlikely to alleviate the

existing and future traffic pressures within Perth with traffic still requiring to route

along Dunkeld Road to the Inveralmond Roundabout (2 key bottlenecks within the

existing transport network). As a result alignments in Corridor G will likely result in

an adverse impact to local air quality within the AQMA leading to the potential for

future exceedences of National Air Quality Objectives.

The location of Corridor G and the potential for adverse impacts to areas of

environmental significance result in an EIA being required for any route alignments

in this corridor. It is recommended that any route alignment identified is aligned to

the north of Quarrymill Woodland Park to minimise impacts to this area of Ancient

Woodland and community importance. It is also recommended that consultation

with SNH, Historic Scotland and the North Inch Golf Club (who would be directly

affected by a route alignment within Corridor G) are undertaken to inform the

identification of route alignments.




87

8 Traffic and Economic Assessment

8.1 Existing Conditions

8.1.1 Introduction

Existing conditions within the study area in 2010 have been modelled by Transport

Planners, SIAS Ltd., on behalf on Perth and Kinross Council using the S-Paramics

micro-simulation program. Details of the base model development can be found in

SIAS’s Perth Wide Area 2010 Base S-Paramics Model - Base Model Development Report

document dated July 2011.

8.1.2 Study Area

The study area encompasses Perth and Scone and includes sections of the main

routes that lead in and around Perth, including the A9(T), A85(T), A93, A94, A90(T),

A989 and M90(T).

The extent of the study area is presented in Figure 8.1.

8.1.3 Base Model

The base model represents the study area using 128 zones - 23 of which are route

zones connecting to the external areas. The extent of the modelled network is

presented in Figure 8.2.

8.1.3.1 Time Periods

The AM and PM periods, 06:30 – 09:30 hours and 15:30 – 18:30 hours respectively,

have been modelled with the ‘core’ peak periods considered to be 07:00 – 09:00 hours

and 16:00 – 18:00 hours.

8.1.3.2 Traffic Flows

Traffic flows at key locations in the 2010 base model are shown in Table 8.1 and

Figure 8.3.




88

AM Period (07:00-09:00hrs) PM Period (16:00-18:00hrs)

Route Eb/Nb Wb/Sb 2-Way Eb/Nb Wb/Sb 2-Way

A9(T)

South of

Broxden Rb 2,810 2,230 5,040 2,100 2,670 4,770

North of

Broxden Rb 3,020 2,220 5,240 1,940 2,600 4,540

South of

Inveralmond

Rb

2,930 2,140 5,070 1,850 2,850 4,700

North of

Inveralmond

Rb

1,760 2,380 4,140 2,150 1,870 4,020

North of

Luncarty 1,280 1,090 2,370 1,190 1,240 2,430

A85(T)

West of A9(T) 1,330 1,210 2,540 1,210 1,420 2,630

East of A9(T) 1,210 1,110 2,320 1,040 1,190 2,230

Smeaton’s

Bridge 950 1,610 2,560 900 1,010 1,910

West of

M90(T) J11 1,260 1,270 2,530 1,220 970 2,190

A93

East of

Broxden Rb 1,790 1,740 3,530 1,380 1,850 3,230

Queen’s

Bridge 1,120 1,530 2,650 1,880 910 2,790

North of

Scone 300 610 910 430 430 860

A94

East of Scone 660 890 1,550 680 660 1,340

A90(T)

East of

M90(T) J11 3,940 3,330 7,270 2,830 3,160 5,990

Table 8.1: 2010 Base - Traffic Flows (vehicles) (Traffic flows based on the average of 6 model runs)




89



A912

South of

Inveralmond

Rb

1,630 2,340 3,970 2,140 1,570 3,710

North of

M90(T) J10 1,760 990 2,750 940 1,480 2,420

M90(T)

East of

Broxden Rb 2,910 3,170 6,080 2,920 2,370 5,290

South of

M90(T) J10 4,190 2,720 6,910 2,210 3,690 5,900

East of

M90(T) J10 3,490 2,860 6,350 2,380 2,980 5,360

Table 8.1 (Continued): 2010 Base - Traffic Flows (vehicles) (Traffic flows based on the average of 6 model runs)

The traffic flows presented in Table 8.1 indicate that significant volumes of traffic use

the road network within Perth City Centre and the wider Perth area during the ‘core’

peak periods.

8.1.4 Journey Times

Average modelled journey times on key routes in the AM and PM peak periods are

shown in Table 8.2. The extents of the key routes are shown in Figure 8.4.

Route Movement AM PM

JT Route 1 South to East 18m 38s 20m 12s

JT Route 2 East to South 21m 22s 16m 43s

JT Route 3 West to East 16m 10s* 22m 19s

JT Route 4 East to West 20m 49s 18m 32s

JT Route 5 North to East 17m 7s 20m 45s

JT Route 6 East to North 24m 47s* 16m 48s

JT Route 7 South to North 7m 10s 6m 23s

JT Route 8 North to South 6m 44s 7m 54s

Table 8.2: 2010 Base - Average Modelled Journey Times (mins / secs) (Journey times based on the average of 6 model runs) *Estimate of typical journey time as no trips complete this movement within the modelled period.




90

The average journey times presented in Table 8.2 include the significant delays that

are encountered by vehicles using both the trunk and local road network within the

Perth area in the AM and PM peak periods.

Of particular note is the significant variation in average journey times from the A9(T)

to A94 (Route 2), particularly in the southbound direction and from the A9(T) North

to A94 (Route 5), particularly in the eastbound direction, between the AM and PM

peak periods.

Average journey times are generally greater westbound during the AM peak period

and eastbound during the PM peak period, suggesting that the movement of traffic in

and around Perth and the wider area is largely tidal in nature.

8.1.5 Road Safety

A summary of accident numbers by severity on key routes within the study area for

the five year period 2006 to 2010 (to coincide with the 2010 modelled base year) are

presented in Figure 8.5 and by year in Table 8.3 below.

Year Fatal Serious Slight Total

2006 0 14 50 64

2007 0 24 51 75

2008 1 16 54 71

2009 0 10 49 59

2010* 2 8 43 53

Total 3 72 247 322

Table 8.3: Accident Summary (2006-2010) (* indicates modelled base year)

The accident summary above indicates that, generally, the number of accidents

occurring on the key routes within the study area has reduced over the 5 year period

2006 to 2010, however, some annual fluctuations are noted.

Of the three-hundred and twenty-two accidents that occurred in the five year period

2006 to 2010, sixty-seven (approximately 21%) involved a non-motorised user – forty-

two accidents involved the collision of a motor vehicle with a pedestrian (of which

fifteen resulted in a serious or fatal injury) and a further twenty-five accidents

involved the collision of a motor vehicle with a cyclist (of which seven resulted in a

serious injury).

8.2 Future Conditions

8.2.1 Introduction

Do-Minimum forecasts of future network improvements and traffic demand within

the study area in 2018 and 2033 have been modelled by SIAS.

8.2.2 Network Improvements




91

The Do-Minimum traffic models incorporate a number of committed enhancements

to the road network within Perth City Centre and the wider modelled network.

Details of the enhancements can be found in SIAS’s Perth’s Transport Future –

Summary of Models Tested and Network Alterations document dated September 2011.

It is anticipated that incorporation of these enhancements to the road network would

have a positive impact – potentially reducing congestion /queuing and increasing

journey time reliability.

The Do-Minimum models also include the proposed Crieff Road junction, which

comprises a new grade separated A9(T)/A85(T) interchange and link road to the

North of McDiarmid Park football stadium.

8.2.3 Future Traffic Demand

Details of the future traffic demand within the study area considered in the modelling

can be found in SIAS’s Perth’s Transport Future – Development Content – Crieff

Road Improvement Update document dated September 2011.

The future Do-Minimum scenario demand in 2018 (the expected opening year of the

new Cross Tay Link Road (CTLR)) consists of the following:

• The 2010 base matrix demand;

• NRTF low traffic growth on strategic trips (i.e. trips between external route

zones) between 2010 and 2018;

• All committed developments up to 2018; and

• Developments dependent on the proposed Crieff Road junction up to 2018.

Given constraints in the modelled network, the future demand for the Do-Minimum

scenario in 2033 (the expected design year of the CTLR) consists of the following:

• The 2010 base matrix demand;

• NRTF low traffic growth on strategic trips (i.e. trips between external route

zones) between 2010 and 2030;

• All committed developments up to 2030; and

• Developments dependent on the proposed Crieff Road junction up to 2030.

8.2.3.1 2018 Do-Minimum Traffic Flows

Traffic flows at key locations in the 2018 Do-Minimum model are shown in Table

8.4a. The differences between the flows in the 2018 Do-Minimum and 2010 Base

model are shown in Table 8.4b and Figure 8.6.




92



A9(T)

South of

Broxden Rb 3,210 2,620 5,830 2,300 2,890 5,190

North of

Broxden Rb 3,380 3,240 6,620 2,510 2,390 4,900

South of

Inveralmond

Rb

3,120 2,310 5,430 1,880 2,630 4,510

North of

Inveralmond

Rb

2,120 2,840 4,960 2,430 2,190 4,620

North of

Luncarty 1,540 1,300 2,840 1,340 1,450 2,790

A85(T)

West of A9(T) 2,390 1,930 4,320 1,520 2,380 3,900

East of A9(T) 1,230 1,100 2,330 1,050 1,630 2,680

Smeaton’s

Bridge 1,040 1,920 2,960 840 1,050 1,890

West of

M90(T) J11 1,430 1,470 2,900 1,180 1,180 2,360

A93

East of

Broxden Rb 2,610 2,270 4,880 1,570 2,810 4,380

Queen’s

Bridge 1,170 1,510 2,680 1,850 960 2,810

North of

Scone 360 700 1,060 460 500 960

A94

East of Scone 680 900 1,580 690 690 1,380

A90(T)

East of

M90(T) J11 4,840 4,150 8,990 3,300 3,840 7,140

Table 8.4a: 2018 Do-Minimum - Traffic Flows (vehicles) (Traffic flows based on the average of 10 and 14 model runs for the AM and PM periods respectively)




93



A912

South of

Inveralmond

Rb

1,840 2,470 4,310 2,160 1,700 3,860

North of

M90(T) J10 1,950 1,240 3,190 1,170 1,510 2,680

M90(T)

East of

Broxden Rb 3,920 3,770 7,690 3,410 2,890 6,300

South of

M90(T) J10 5,220 4,120 9,340 3,220 4,410 7,630

East of

M90(T) J10 4,390 3,650 8,040 3,000 3,580 6,580

Table 8.4a (Continued): 2018 Do-Minimum - Traffic Flows (vehicles) (Traffic flows based on the average of 10 and 14 model runs for the AM and PM periods respectively)



A9(T)

West of

Broxden Rb 400 390 790 200 220 420

North of

Broxden Rb 360 1,020 1,380 570 -210 360

South of

Inveralmond

Rb

190 170 360 30 -220 -190

North of

Inveralmond

Rb

360 460 820 280 320 600

North of

Luncarty 260 210 470 150 210 360

A85(T)

West of A9(T) 1,060 720 1,780 310 960 1,270

East of A9(T) 20 -10 10 10 440 450

Table 8.4b: Difference between 2018 Do-Minimum and 2010 Base Traffic Flows




94


Route Eb/Nb Wb/Sb 2-Way Eb/Nb Wb/Sb 2-

Way

A85(T)

Smeaton’s

Bridge 90 310 400 -60 40 -20

West of

M90(T) J10 170 200 370 -40 210 170

A93

East of

Broxden Rb 820 530 1,350 190 960 1,150

Queen’s

Bridge 50 -20 30 -30 50 20

North of

Scone 60 90 150 30 70 100

A94

East of Scone 20 10 30 10 30 40

A90(T)

East of

M90(T) J11 900 820 1,720 470 680 1,150

A912

South of

Inveralmond

Rb

210 130 340 20 130 150

North of

M90(T) J10 190 250 440 230 30 260

M90(T)

East of

Broxden Rb 1,010 600 1,610 490 520 1,010

South of

M90(T) J10 1,030 1,400 2,430 1,010 720 1,730

East of

M90(T) J10 900 790 1,690 620 600 1,220

Table 8.4b (Continued): Difference between 2018 Do-Minimum and 2010 Base Traffic Flows

The traffic flows in Table 8.4a and differences presented in Table 8.4b indicate that

traffic at key locations are generally greater in the 2018 Do-Minimum model than in

the 2010 Base model.




95

8.2.3.2 2033 Do-Minimum Traffic Flows

Traffic flows at key locations in the 2033 Do-Minimum model are shown in Table

8.5a. The differences between the flows in the 2033 Do-Minimum and 2010 Base

model are shown in Table 8.5b and Figure 8.7.



A9(T)

South of

Broxden Rb 3,390 2,810 6,200 2,330 2,970 5,300

North of

Broxden Rb 3,500 3,330 6,830 2,300 2,420 4,720

South of

Inveralmond

Rb

3,190 2,340 5,530 1,870 2,640 4,510

North of

Inveralmond

Rb

2,290 2,860 5,150 2,440 2,290 4,730

North of

Luncarty 1,680 1,330 3,010 1,360 1,540 2,900

A85(T)

West of A9(T) 2,440 1,990 4,430 1,510 2,320 3,830

East of A9(T) 1,240 1,120 2,360 1,050 1,660 2,710

Smeaton’s

Bridge 1,050 1,970 3,020 840 1,070 1,910

West of

M90(T) J11 1,430 1,520 2,950 1,190 1,200 2,390

A93

East of

Broxden Rb 2,580 2,310 4,890 1,500 2,900 4,400

Queen’s

Bridge 1,190 1,530 2,720 1,860 980 2,840

North of

Scone 370 710 1,080 470 510 980

A94

East of Scone 690 900 1,590 690 690 1,380

Table 8.5a: 2033 Do-Minimum - Traffic Flows (vehicles) (Traffic flows based on the average of 10 model runs)




96



A90(T)

East of

M90(T) J11 5,410 4,410 9.820 3,490 4,310 7,800

A912

South of

Inveralmond

Rb

1,870 2,440 4,310 2,150 1,730 3,880

North of

M90(T) J10 2,120 1,320 3,440 1,370 1,560 2,930

M90(T)

East of

Broxden Rb 4,170 4,010 8,180 3,590 2,960 6,550

South of

M90(T) J10 6,070 4,530 10,600 3,670 5,040 8,710

East of

M90(T) J10 4,950 3,850 8,800 3,170 4,030 7,200

Table 8.5a (Continued): 2033 Do-Minimum - Traffic Flows (vehicles) (Traffic flows based on the average of 10 model runs)



A9(T)

West of

Broxden Rb 580 580 1,160 230 300 530

North of

Broxden Rb 480 1,110 1,590 360 -180 180

South of

Inveralmond

Rb

260 200 460 20 -210 -190

North of

Inveralmond

Rb

530 480 1,010 290 420 710

North of

Luncarty 400 240 640 170 300 470

Table 8.5b: Difference between 2033 Do-Minimum and 2010 Base Model Traffic Flows




97



A85(T)

West of A9(T) 1,100 780 1,890 300 900 1,200

East of A9(T) 30 10 40 10 470 480

Smeaton’s

Bridge 100 360 460 -60 60 0

West of

M90(T) J10 170 250 420 -30 230 200

A93

East of

Broxden Rb 790 570 1,360 120 1,050 1,170

Queen’s

Bridge 70 0 70 -20 70 50

North of

Scone 70 100 170 40 80 120

A94

East of Scone 30 10 40 10 30 40

A90(T)

East of M90(T)

J11 1,470 1,080 2,550 660 1,150 1,810

A912

South of

Inveralmond

Rb

240 100 340 10 160 170

North of

M90(T) J10 360 330 690 430 80 510

M90(T)

East of

Broxden Rb 1,260 840 2,100 670 590 1,260

South of

M90(T) J10 1,880 1,810 3,690 1,460 1,350 2,810

East of M90(T)

J10 1,460 990 2,450 790 1,050 1,840

Table 8.5b (Continued): Difference between 2033 Do-Minimum and 2010 Base Model Traffic Flows




98

The traffic flows in Table 8.5a and differences presented in Table 8.5b indicate that

traffic at key locations are generally greater in the 2033 Do-Minimum model than in

the 2010 Base model.

8.2.4 Journey Times

8.2.4.1 2018 Do-Minimum Journey Times

Average modelled journey times on key routes in the 2018 Do-Minimum model peak

periods are shown in Table 8.6a. The differences between average journey times in

the 2018 Do-Minimum and 2010 Base model are shown in Table 8.6b.




JT Route 3 West to East 18m 21s 29m 57s



JT Route 6 East to North 28m 8s 16m 37s



Table 8.6a: 2018 Do-Minimum - Average Modelled Journey Times (mins / secs) (Journey Times based on the average of 10 and 14 model runs for the AM and PM periods respectively)







JT Route 6 East to North 3m 2s -11s



Table 8.6b: Difference between 2018 Do-Minimum and 2010 Base Average Modelled Journey Times (mins / secs)

The journey time differences presented in Table 8.6b indicate that average modelled

journey times for the key movements are generally greater in the 2018 Do-Minimum

model than in the 2010 Base model.




99

Further examination indicates that the increase in average modelled journey times is

generally more pronounced in the PM period and that increases of at least 5 minutes

may be experienced on the following routes:

• JT Route 1 - increase in the eastbound journey time of 8 minutes 30 seconds in

the PM period;


the PM period; and

• JT Route 7 - increase in the northbound journey time of 5 minutes 8 seconds

and 5 minutes 6 seconds in the AM and PM periods respectively.

Increases greater than 10 minutes may be experienced on the following routes:


in the AM period.

8.2.4.2 2033 Do-Minimum Journey Times

Average modelled journey times for key routes in the 2033 Do-Minimum model peak

periods are shown in Table 8.7a. The differences between average journey times in

the 2033 Do-Minimum and 2010 Base model are shown in Table 8.7b.







JT Route 6 East to North 28m 7s 16m 5s



Table 8.7a: 2033 Do-Minimum - Average Modelled Journey Times (mins / secs)







Table 8.7b: Difference between 2033 Do-Minimum and 2010 Base Average Modelled Journey Times (mins / secs)




100


JT Route 6 East to North 3m 20s - 43s



Table 8.7b (Continued): Difference between 2033 Do-Minimum and 2010 Base Average Modelled Journey Times (mins / secs)


journey times for the key movements are generally greater in the 2033 Do-Minimum

model than in the 2010 Base model.

Further examination indicates that the increase in average modelled journey times is

generally more pronounced in the PM period and that increases of between 5 and 10

minutes may be experienced on the following routes:


the AM period;

• JT Route 2 - increase in the southbound journey time of 5 minutes 6 seconds in

the AM period;

• JT Route 4 - increase in the westbound journey time of 7 minutes 36 seconds

and 8 minutes in the AM and PM periods respectively;


the PM period;


and 8 minutes 43 seconds in the AM and PM periods respectively; and

• JT Route 8 - increase in the southbound journey time of 6 minutes 20 seconds in

the PM period.

Increases greater than 10 minutes may be experienced on the following routes:


the PM period; and


the PM period.


in the AM period.




101

8.3 Effect of Options

8.3.1 Introduction

The route corridors appraised as part of the DMRB Stage 1 Scheme Assessment and

their impact on the road network within the study area are detailed in this chapter.

8.3.2 Route Corridors

For the purposes of the DMRB Stage 1 appraisal, the following route corridors have

been assessed:

• Corridor C

• Corridor E

• Corridor G

The route corridors are incorporated within the Do-Something traffic models, which

also include the proposed Crieff Road junction, the Western Edge Link Road and

committed enhancements considered as part of the Do-Minimum modelling.

The route corridors considered within the appraisal are presented in Figure 8.8. The

extent of the modelled Do-Something networks are presented in Figures 8.9 to 8.11.

8.3.3 Traffic Demand

The Do-Something scenario includes demand for the 2018 scheme opening year and

2033 design year – details of which can be found in Section 8.2.3.

8.3.4 Traffic Flows

8.3.4.1 2018 Do-Something Traffic Flows

Traffic flows at critical locations in the 2018 Do-Something Corridor C model are

shown in Table 8.8a and Figure 8.12. The differences between the flows in the 2018

Do-Something Corridor C and 2018 Do-Minimum model are shown in Table 8.8b and

Figure 8.12.




102



A9(T)

South of

Broxden Rb 3,210 2,610 5,820 2,330 2,920 5,250

North of

Broxden Rb 3,510 3,380 6,890 2,660 2,560 5,220

South of

Inveralmond

Rb

3,390 2,650 6,040 1,860 2,690 4,550

North of

Inveralmond

Rb

2,420 3,440 5,860 2,510 2,510 5,020

North of

Luncarty 1,540 1,310 2,850 1,360 1,450 2,810

A85(T)

West of A9(T) 2,290 1,840 4,130 1,480 2,590 4,070

East of A9(T) 1,210 1,020 2,230 990 1,760 2,750

Smeaton’s

Bridge 710 1,380 2,090 740 840 1,580

West of

M90(T) J11 1,360 1,420 2,780 1,360 1,200 2,560

A93

East of

Broxden Rb 2,600 2,280 4,880 1,540 2,760 4,300

Queen’s

Bridge 1,090 1,390 2,480 1,860 860 2,720

North of

Scone 260 550 810 370 450 820

A94

East of Scone 720 740 1,460 700 670 1,370

A90(T)

East of

M90(T) J11 4,850 4,140 8,990 3,400 3,840 7,240

Table 8.8a: 2018 Do-Something Corridor C - Traffic Flows (vehicles) (Traffic flows based on the average of 10 and 14 model runs for the AM and PM periods respectively)




103



A912

South of

Inveralmond

Rb

1,770 2,600 4,370 2,140 1,690 3,830

North of

M90(T) J10 1,950 1,250 3,200 1,170 1,530 2,700

M90(T)

East of

Broxden Rb 3,850 3,680 7,530 3,240 2,730 5,970

South of

M90(T) J10 5,210 4,120 9,330 3,220 4,480 7,700

East of

M90(T) J10 4,290 3,520 7,810 2,810 3,460 6,270

Cross Tay Link Road

CTLR Bridge 600 880 1,480 690 530 1,220

Table 8.8a (Continued): 2018 Do-Something Corridor C - Traffic Flows (vehicles) (Traffic flows based on the average of 10 and 14 model runs for the AM and PM periods respectively)



A9(T)

South of

Broxden Rb 0 -10 -10 30 30 60

North of

Broxden Rb 130 140 270 150 170 320

South of

Inveralmond

Rb

270 340 610 -20 60 40

North of

Inveralmond

Rb

300 600 900 80 320 400

North of

Luncarty 0 10 10 20 0 20

Table 8.8b: Difference between 2018 Do-Something Corridor C and 2018 Do-Minimum Traffic Flows (vehicles)




104



A85(T)

West of A9(T) -100 -90 -190 -40 210 170

East of A9(T) -20 -80 -100 -60 130 70

Smeaton’s

Bridge -330 -540 -870 -100 -210 -310

West of

M90(T) J11 -70 -50 -120 180 20 200

A93

East of

Broxden Rb -10 10 0 -30 -50 -80

Queen’s

Bridge -80 -120 -200 10 -100 -90

North of

Scone -100 -150 -250 -90 -50 -140

A94

East of Scone 40 -160 -120 10 -20 -10

A90(T)

East of M90(T)

J11 10 -10 0 100 0 100

A912

South of

Inveralmond

Rb

-70 130 60 -20 -10 -30

North of

M90(T) J10 0 10 10 0 20 20

M90(T)

East of

Broxden Rb -70 -90 -160 -170 -160 -330

South of

M90(T) J10 -10 0 -10 0 70 70

East of M90(T)

J10 -100 -130 -230 -190 -120 -310

Table 8.8b (Continued): Difference between 2018 Do-Something Corridor C and 2018 Do-Minimum Traffic Flows (vehicles)




105



Cross Tay Link Road

CTLR Bridge - - - - - -


The traffic flows in Table 8.8a and differences presented in Table 8.8b indicate:

• Increases in traffic on the A9(T) with an increase of approximately 270 vehicles

and 320 vehicles north of Broxden Roundabout in the AM and PM periods

respectively and an increase of approximately 900 vehicles and 400 vehicles

north of Inveralmond Roundabout in the AM and PM periods respectively;

• Reductions in traffic on the A85(T) within Perth City Centre with a reduction of

approximately 870 vehicles and 310 vehicles on Smeaton’s Bridge in the AM

and PM periods respectively;

• Reductions in traffic on the A93 with a reduction of approximately 200 vehicles

and 90 vehicles on Queen’s Bridge in the AM and PM periods respectively and

a reduction of approximately 250 vehicles and 140 vehicles north of Scone in

the AM and PM periods respectively;

• Reductions in traffic on the A94 east of Scone of approximately 120 vehicles in

the AM period;

• Reductions in traffic on the M90(T) with a reduction of approximately 160

vehicles and 330 vehicles east of Broxden Roundabout in the AM and PM

periods respectively and a reduction of approximately 230 vehicles and 310

vehicles east of the M90(T) Junction 10 in the AM and PM periods respectively;

and

• Approximately 1,480 vehicles use the new CTLR bridge in the AM period with

a corresponding flow of approximately 1,220 in the PM period.

Overall, the 2018 Do-Something Corridor C model shows a reduction in traffic flows

on the existing bridges within Perth City Centre within the AM and PM peak periods

which will result in a general reduction in the volume of traffic within the centre of

Perth.

Traffic flows at critical locations in the 2018 Do-Something Corridor E model are


Do-Something Corridor E and 2018 Do-Minimum model are shown in Table 8.9b and

Figure 8.13.




106



A9(T)

South of

Broxden Rb 3,210 2,620 5,830 2,350 2,920 5,270

North of

Broxden Rb 3,490 3,310 6,800 2,660 2,540 5,200

South of

Inveralmon

d Rb

3,340 2,500 5,840 1,840 2,610 4,450

North of

Inveralmon

d Rb

2,350 3,230 5,580 2,440 2,360 4,800

North of

Luncarty 1,540 1,300 2,840 1,350 1,450 2,800

A85(T)

West of

A9(T) 2,300 1,830 4,130 1,490 2,580 4,070

East of

A9(T) 1,210 1,030 2,240 1,010 1,780 2,790

Smeaton’s

Bridge 750 1,490 2,240 780 880 1,660

West of

M90(T) J11 1,380 1,440 2,820 1,370 1,200 2,570

A93

East of

Broxden Rb 2,570 2,280 4,850 1,520 2,750 4,270

Queen’s

Bridge 1,110 1,410 2,520 1,850 870 2,720

North of

Scone 260 590 850 380 460 840

A94

East of

Scone 700 760 1,460 700 680 1,380

Table 8.9a: 2018 Do-Something Corridor E - Traffic Flows (vehicles) (Traffic flows based on the average of 10 and 14 model runs for the AM and PM periods respectively)




107



A90(T)

East of M90(T)

J11 4,850 4,150 9,000 3,400 3,840 7,240

A912

South of

Inveralmond Rb 1,770 2,570 4,340 2,110 1,670 3,780

North of M90(T)

J10 1,940 1,260 3,200 1,500 1,180 2,680

M90(T)

East of Broxden

Rb 3,840 3,680 7,520 3,260 2,730 5,990

South of M90(T)

J10 5,210 4,120 9,330 3,220 4,480 7,700

East of M90(T)

J10 4,300 3,540 7,840 2,830 3,490 6,320

Cross Tay Link Road

CTLR Bridge 560 760 1,320 630 470 1,100

Table 8.9a (Continued): 2018 Do-Something Corridor E - Traffic Flows (vehicles) (Traffic flows based on the average of 10 and 14 model runs for the AM and PM periods respectively)



A9(T)

South of

Broxden Rb 0 0 0 50 30 80

North of

Broxden Rb 110 70 180 150 150 300

South of

Inveralmond Rb 220 190 410 -40 -20 -60

North of

Inveralmond Rb 230 390 620 10 170 180

North of

Luncarty 0 0 0 10 0 10

Table 8.9b: Difference between 2018 Do-Something Corridor E and 2018 Do-Minimum Traffic Flows (vehicles)




108



A85(T)

West of

A9(T) -90 -100 -190 -30 200 170

East of A9(T) -20 -70 -90 -40 150 110

Smeaton’s

Bridge -290 -430 -720 -60 -170 -230

West of

M90(T) J11 -50 -30 -80 190 20 210

A93

East of

Broxden Rb -40 10 -30 -50 -60 -110

Queen’s

Bridge -60 -100 -160 0 -90 -90

North of

Scone -100 -110 -210 -80 -40 -120

A94

East of Scone 20 -140 -120 10 -10 0

A90(T)

East of

M90(T) J11 10 0 10 100 0 100

A912

South of

Inveralmond

Rb

-70 100 30 -50 -30 -80

North of

M90(T) J10 -10 20 10 330 -330 0

Table 8.9b (Continued): Difference between 2018 Do-Something Corridor E and 2018 Do-Minimum Traffic Flows (vehicles)




109



M90(T)

East of

Broxden Rb -80 -90 -170 -150 -160 -310

South of

M90(T) J10 -10 0 -10 0 70 70

East of

M90(T) J10 -90 -110 -200 -170 -90 -260

Cross Tay Link Road

CTLR

Bridge - - - - - -





respectively and an increase of approximately 620 vehicles and 180 vehicles

north of Inveralmond Roundabout in the AM and PM periods respectively;




• Reductions in traffic on the A93 with a reduction of approximately 160 vehicles

and 90 vehicles on Queen’s Bridge in the AM and PM periods respectively and

a reduction of approximately 210 vehicles and 120 vehicles north of Scone in

the AM and PM periods respectively;


the AM period;





and



Overall, the 2018 Do-Something Corridor E model shows a reduction in traffic flows



Perth.




110

Traffic flows at critical locations in the 2018 Do-Something Corridor G model are


Do-Something Corridor G and 2018 Do-Minimum model are shown in Table 8.10b

and Figure 8.14.



A9(T)

South of

Broxden Rb 3,200 2,610 5,810 2,250 2,890 5,140

North of

Broxden Rb 3,370 3,440 6,810 2,510 2,480 4,990

South of

Inveralmond

Rb

2,750 2,410 5,160 1,630 2,360 3,990

North of

Inveralmond

Rb

1,850 2,500 4,350 2,070 1,890 3,960

North of

Luncarty 1,540 1,310 2,850 1,330 1,450 2,780

A85(T)

West of

A9(T) 2,130 1,890 4,020 1,300 2,540 3,840

East of A9(T) 1,250 1,060 2,310 1,020 1,690 2,710

Smeaton’s

Bridge 640 940 1,580 690 680 1,370

West of

M90(T) J11 1,440 1,460 2,900 1,370 1,220 2,590

A93

East of

Broxden Rb 2,800 2,240 5,040 1,640 2,720 4,360

Queen’s

Bridge 1,090 1,300 2,390 1,680 820 2,500

North of

Scone 360 710 1,070 500 500 1,000

A94

East of Scone 710 950 1,660 760 710 1,470

Table 8.10a: 2018 Do-Something Corridor G - Traffic Flows (vehicles) (Traffic flows based on the average of 10 and 14 model runs for the AM and PM periods respectively)




111



A90(T)

East of M90(T)

J11 4,850 4,150 9,000 3,330 3,840 7,170

A912

South of

Inveralmond Rb 2,050 2,300 4,350 2,160 1,460 3,620

North of M90(T)

J10 1,960 1,250 3,210 1,170 1,480 2,650

M90(T)

East of Broxden

Rb 3,790 3,660 7,450 3,200 2,800 6,000

South of M90(T)

J10 5,210 4,130 9,340 3,220 4,410 7,630

East of M90(T)

J10 4,290 3,580 7,870 2,880 3,570 6,450

Cross Tay Link Road

CTLR Bridge 680 1,390 2,070 820 730 1,550

Table 8.10a (Continued): 2018 Do-Something Corridor G - Traffic Flows (vehicles) (Traffic flows based on the average of 10 and 14 model runs for the AM and PM periods respectively)



A9(T)

South of

Broxden Rb -10 -10 -20 -50 0 -50

North of

Broxden Rb -10 200 190 0 90 90

South of

Inveralmond Rb -370 100 -270 -250 -270 -520

North of

Inveralmond Rb -270 -340 -610 -360 -300 -660

North of

Luncarty 0 10 10 -10 0 -10

Table 8.10b: Difference between 2018 Do-Something Corridor G and 2018 Do-Minimum Traffic Flows (vehicles)




112



A85(T)

West of

A9(T) -260 -40 -300 -220 160 -60

East of A9(T) 20 -40 -20 -30 60 30

Smeaton’s

Bridge -400 -980 -1,380 -150 -370 -520

West of

M90(T) J11 10 -10 0 190 40 230

A93

East of

Broxden Rb 190 -30 160 70 -90 -20

Queen’s

Bridge -80 -210 -290 -170 -140 -310

North of

Scone 0 10 10 40 0 40

A94

East of Scone 30 50 80 70 20 90

A90(T)

East of

M90(T) J11 10 0 10 30 0 30

A912

South of

Inveralmond

Rb

210 -170 40 0 -240 -240

North of

M90(T) J10 10 10 20 0 -30 -30

M90(T)

East of

Broxden Rb -130 -110 -240 -210 -90 -300

South of

M90(T) J10 -10 10 0 0 0 10

East of

M90(T) J10 -100 -70 -170 -120 -10 -130

Table 8.10b (Continued): Difference between 2018 Do-Something Corridor G and 2018 Do-Minimum Traffic Flows (vehicles)




113



Cross Tay Link Road

CTLR

Bridge - - - - - -



• Increases in traffic on the A9(T) north of Broxden Roundabout of

approximately 190 vehicles and 90 vehicles in the AM and PM periods

respectively;

• Reductions in traffic on the A9(T) north of Inveralmond Roundabout of


respectively;


approximately 1,380 vehicles and 520 vehicles on Smeaton’s Bridge in the AM


• Reductions in traffic on the A93 Queen’s Bridge of approximately 290 vehicles

and 310 vehicles on in the AM and PM periods respectively;

• Increases in traffic on the A94 east of Scone of approximately 80 vehicles and 90

vehicles in the AM and PM periods respectively;





and



Overall, the 2018 Do-Something Corridor G model shows a reduction in traffic flows



Perth.




114

8.3.4.2 2033 Do-Something Traffic Flows

Traffic flows at critical locations in the 2033 Do-Something Corridor C model are


Do-Something Corridor C and 2033 Do-Minimum model are shown in Table 8.11b

and Figure 8.15.



A9(T)

South of

Broxden Rb 3,400 2,810 6,210 2,450 3,010 5,460

North of

Broxden Rb 3,880 3,490 7,370 2,780 2,570 5,350

South of

Inveralmond

Rb

3,600 2,550 6,150 1,870 2,630 4,500

North of

Inveralmond

Rb

2,840 3,470 6,310 2,770 2,650 5,420

North of

Luncarty 1,680 1,330 3,010 1,370 1,540 2,910

A85(T)

West of A9(T) 2,050 1,970 4,020 1,190 2,410 3,600

East of A9(T) 1,870 1,310 3,180 1,950 1,530 3,480

Smeaton’s

Bridge 730 1,410 2,140 750 890 1,640

West of

M90(T) J11 1,370 1,500 2,870 1,440 1,290 2,730

A93

East of

Broxden Rb 2,500 2,380 4,880 1,410 2,990 4,400

Queen’s

Bridge 1,100 1,390 2,490 1,850 880 2,730

North of

Scone 290 520 810 400 480 880

A94

East of Scone 740 750 1,490 730 720 1,450

Table 8.11a: 2033 Do-Something Corridor C - Traffic Flows (vehicles) (Traffic flows based on the average of 20 model.)




115



A90(T)

East of

M90(T) J11 5,120 4,260 9,380 3,500 4,090 7,590

A912

South of

Inveralmond

Rb

1,770 2,470 4,240 2,250 1,630 3,880

North of

M90(T) J10 2,160 1,320 3,480 1,370 1,570 2,940

M90(T)

East of

Broxden Rb 3,830 3,730 7,560 3,330 2,540 5,870

South of

M90(T) J10 6,060 4,530 10,590 3,670 5,140 8,810

East of

M90(T) J10 4,570 3,580 8,150 2,900 3,680 6,580

Cross Tay Link Road

CTLR Bridge 870 1,050 1,920 800 740 1,540

Table 8.11a (Continued): 2033 Do-Something Corridor C - Traffic Flows (vehicles) (Traffic flows based on the average of 20 model runs.)



A9(T)

South of

Broxden Rb 10 0 10 120 40 160

North of

Broxden Rb 380 160 540 480 150 630

South of

Inveralmond

Rb

410 210 620 0 -10 -10

North of

Inveralmond

Rb

550 610 1,160 330 360 690

Table 8.11b: Difference between 2033 Do-Something Corridor C and 2033 Do-Minimum Traffic Flows (vehicles)




116



North of Luncarty

0 0 0 10 0 10

A85(T)

West of A9(T) -390 -20 -410 -320 90 -230

East of A9(T) 630 190 820 900 -130 770

Smeaton’s

Bridge -320 -560 -880 -90 -180 -270

West of

M90(T) J11 -60 -20 -80 250 90 340

A93

East of

Broxden Rb -80 70 -10 -90 90 0

Queen’s

Bridge -90 -140 -230 -10 -100 -110

North of Scone -80 -190 -270 -70 -30 -100

A94

East of Scone 50 -150 -100 40 30 70

A90(T)

East of M90(T)

J11 -290 -150 -440 10 -220 -210

A912

South of

Inveralmond

Rb

-100 30 -70 100 -100 0

North of

M90(T) J10 40 0 40 0 10 10

M90(T)

East of

Broxden Rb -340 -280 -620 -260 -420 -680

South of

M90(T) J10 -10 0 -10 0 100 100

East of M90(T)

J10 -380 -270 -650 -270 -350 -620





117



Cross Tay Link Road




• Increases in traffic on the A9(T) of approximately 540 vehicles and 630 vehicles

north of Broxden Roundabout in the AM and PM periods respectively, an

increase of approximately 620 vehicles south of Inveralmond in the AM period

and increases of approximately 1,160 vehicles and 690 vehicles north of

Inveralmond Roundabout in the AM and PM periods respectively;




• Reductions in traffic on the A93 of approximately 230 vehicles and 110 vehicles

on Queen’s Bridge in the AM and PM periods respectively and reductions of

approximately 270 vehicles and 100 vehicles north of Scone in the AM and PM

periods respectively;


the AM period;

• Reductions in traffic on the M90(T) of approximately 620 vehicles and 680

vehicles east of Broxden Roundabout in the AM and PM periods respectively

and reductions of approximately 650 vehicles and 620 vehicles east of the

M90(T) Junction 10 in the AM and PM periods respectively; and



Overall, the 2033 Do-Something Corridor C model shows a reduction in traffic flows



Perth.

Traffic flows at critical locations in the 2033 Do-Something Corridor E model are


Do-Something Corridor E and 2033 Do-Minimum model are shown in Table 8.12b

and Figure 8.16.




118



A9(T)

South of

Broxden Rb 3,400 2,810 6,210 2,460 3,020 5,480

North of

Broxden Rb 3,860 3,460 7,320 2,760 2,540 5,300

South of

Inveralmond

Rb

3,560 2,470 6,030 1,880 2,560 4,440

North of

Inveralmond

Rb

2,760 3,290 6,050 2,670 2,450 5,120

North of

Luncarty 1,680 1,330 3,010 1,370 1,540 2,910

A85(T)

West of

A9(T) 2,030 1,970 4,000 1,190 2,440 3,630

East of A9(T) 1,870 1,320 3,190 1,930 1,530 3,460

Smeaton’s

Bridge 780 1,500 2,280 800 900 1,700

West of

M90(T) J11 1,380 1,510 2,890 1,460 1,290 2,750

A93

East of

Broxden Rb 2,490 2,360 4,850 1,420 2,990 4,410

Queen’s

Bridge 1,110 1,410 2,520 1,830 890 2,720

North of

Scone 300 560 860 400 510 910

A94

East of Scone 740 780 1,520 730 760 1,490

A90(T)

East of

M90(T) J11 5,120 4,260 9,380 3,500 4,090 7,590

Table 8.12a: 2033 Do-Something Corridor E - Traffic Flows (vehicles) (Traffic flows based on the average of 20 and 18 model runs for the AM and PM periods respectively)




119



A912

South of

Inveralmond

Rb

1,770 2,430 4,200 2,230 1,610 3,840

North of

M90(T) J10 2,150 1,320 3,470 1,380 1,560 2,940

M90(T)

East of

Broxden Rb 3,830 3,740 7,570 3,340 2,570 5,910

South of

M90(T) J10 6,070 4,540 10,610 3,670 5,150 8,820

East of

M90(T) J10 4,580 3,600 8,180 2,920 3,740 6,660

Cross Tay Link Road

CTLR Bridge 830 950 1,780 750 660 1,410

Table 8.12a (Continued): 2033 Do-Something Corridor E - Traffic Flows (vehicles) (Traffic flows based on the average of 20 and 18 model runs for the AM and PM periods respectively)



A9(T)

South of

Broxden Rb 10 0 10 130 50 180

North of

Broxden Rb 360 130 490 460 120 580

South of

Inveralmond

Rb

370 130 500 10 -80 -70

North of

Inveralmond

Rb

470 430 900 230 160 390

North of

Luncarty 0 0 0 10 0 10

Table 8.12b: Difference between 2033 Do-Something Corridor E and 2033 Do-Minimum Traffic Flows (vehicles)




120



A85(T)

West of A9(T) -410 -20 -430 -320 120 -200

East of A9(T) 630 200 830 880 -130 750

Smeaton’s

Bridge -270 -470 -740 -40 -170 -210

West of M90(T)

J11 -50 -10 -60 270 90 360

A93

East of Broxden

Rb -90 50 -40 -80 90 10

Queen’s Bridge -80 -120 -200 -30 -90 -120

North of Scone -70 -150 -220 -70 0 -70

A94

East of Scone 50 -120 -70 40 70 110

A90(T)

East of M90(T)

J11 -290 -150 -440 10 -220 -210

A912

South of

Inveralmond Rb -100 -10 -110 80 -120 -40

North of M90(T)

J10 30 0 30 10 0 10

M90(T)

East of Broxden

Rb -340 -270 -610 -250 -390 -640

South of M90(T)

J10 0 10 10 0 110 110

East of M90(T)

J10 -370 -250 -620 -250 -290 -540

Cross Tay Link Road






121




respectively, an increase of approximately 500 vehicles south of Inveralmond

Roundabout in the AM period and increases of approximately 900 vehicles and

390 vehicles north of Inveralmond Roundabout in the AM and PM periods

respectively;

• Reductions in traffic on the A85(T) within Perth City Centre of approximately

740 vehicles and 210 vehicles on Smeaton’s Bridge in the AM and PM periods

respectively;

• Reductions in traffic on the A93 with reductions of approximately 200 vehicles

and 120 vehicles on Queen’s Bridge in the AM and PM periods respectively

and a reduction of approximately 220 vehicles north of Scone in the AM

period;

• An increase in traffic on the A94 east of Scone of approximately 110 vehicles in

the PM period;







Overall, the 2033 Do-Something Corridor E model shows a reduction in traffic flows



Perth.

Traffic flows at critical locations in the 2033 Do-Something Corridor G model are


Do-Something Corridor G and 2033 Do-Minimum model are shown in Table 8.13b

and Figure 8.17.




122



A9(T)

South of

Broxden Rb 3,400 2,810 6,210 2,320 2,970 5,290

North of

Broxden Rb 3,490 3,440 6,930 2,520 2,460 4,980

South of

Inveralmond

Rb

2,940 2,330 5,270 1,580 2,440 4,020

North of

Inveralmond

Rb

2,020 2,430 4,450 2,140 1,920 4,060

North of

Luncarty 1,680 1,330 3,010 1,310 1,540 2,850

A85(T)

West of A9(T) 2,000 2,100 4,100 1,020 2,500 3,520

East of A9(T) 2,010 1,490 3,500 1,980 1,730 3,710

Smeaton’s

Bridge 750 1,000 1,750 720 740 1,460

West of

M90(T) J11 1,470 1,530 3,000 1,470 1,320 2,790

A93

East of

Broxden Rb 2,880 2,350 5,230 1,560 2,920 4,480

Queen’s

Bridge 1,090 1,330 2,420 1,690 850 2,540

North of

Scone 370 710 1,080 500 510 1,010

A94

East of Scone 1,030 1,110 2,140 850 940 1,790

A90(T)

East of

M90(T) J11 5,120 4,260 9,380 3,430 4,100 7,530

Table 8.13a: 2033 Do-Something Corridor G - Traffic Flows (vehicles) (Traffic flows based on the average of 20 model runs.)




123



A912

South of

Inveralmond

Rb

2,100 2,390 4,490 2,310 1,430 3,740

North of

M90(T) J10 2,170 1,330 3,500 1,340 1,530 2,870

M90(T)

East of

Broxden Rb 3,760 3,730 7,490 3,310 2,690 6,000

South of

M90(T) J10 6,070 4,540 10,610 3,670 5,070 8,740

East of

M90(T) J10 4,560 3,630 8,190 2,990 3,850 6,840

Cross Tay Link Road

CTLR Bridge 960 1,500 2,460 900 860 1,760

Table 8.13a (Continued): 2033 Do-Something Corridor G - Traffic Flows (vehicles) (Traffic flows based on the average of 20 model runs.)



A9(T)

South of

Broxden Rb 10 0 10 -10 0 -10

North of

Broxden Rb -10 110 100 220 40 260

South of

Inveralmond

Rb

-250 -10 -260 -290 -200 -490

North of

Inveralmond

Rb

-270 -430 -700 -300 -370 -670

North of

Luncarty 0 0 0 -50 0 -50

Table 8.13b: Difference between 2033 Do-Something Corridor G and 2033 Do-Minimum Traffic Flows (vehicles)




124



A85(T)

West of

A9(T) -440 110 -330 -490 180 -310

East of A9(T) 770 370 1,140 930 70 1,000

Smeaton’s

Bridge -300 -970 -1,270 -120 -330 -450

West of

M90(T) J11 40 10 50 280 120 400

A93

East of

Broxden Rb 300 40 340 60 20 80

Queen’s

Bridge -100 -200 -300 -170 -130 -300

North of

Scone 0 0 0 30 0 30

A94

East of Scone 340 210 550 160 250 410

A90(T)

East of

M90(T) J11 -290 -150 -440 -60 -210 -270

A912

South of

Inveralmond

Rb

230 -50 180 160 -300 -140

North of

M90(T) J10 50 10 60 -30 -30 -60

M90(T)

East of

Broxden Rb -410 -280 -690 -280 -270 -550

South of

M90(T) J10 0 10 10 0 30 30

East of

M90(T) J10 -390 -220 -610 -180 -180 -360





125



Cross Tay Link Road




• Increases in traffic on the A9(T) north of Broxden Roundabout of


respectively;

• Reductions in traffic on the A9(T) of approximately 700 vehicles and 670

vehicles north of Inveralmond Roundabout in the AM and PM periods

respectively and reductions of approximately 260 and 490 vehicles south of

Inveralmond Roundabout in the AM and PM periods respectively;

• Reductions in traffic on the A85(T) within Perth City Centre of approximately

1,270 vehicles and 450 vehicles on Smeaton’s Bridge in the AM and PM periods

respectively;

• Reductions in traffic on the A93 Queen’s Bridge of approximately 300 vehicles

in both the AM and PM periods respectively;

• Increases in traffic on the A94 east of Scone of approximately 550 vehicles and

410 vehicles in the AM and PM periods respectively;







Overall, the 2033 Do-Something Corridor G model shows a reduction in traffic flows



Perth.

Each of the route corridors facilitate the transfer of trips from the existing bridges

within the city centre to the proposed CTLR, which will result in a general reduction

in traffic levels within the centre of Perth.

Corridor C shows a greater number of trips transferring from the existing bridges to

the proposed than Corridor E, which is to be expected given that Corridor C provides

a shorter, more direct, route between the A9(T) and the A94.

Corridor G facilitates the transfer of a greater number of trips from the existing

bridges than both Corridors C and E due to its proximity to the city centre and as

such Corridor G is expected to generate a larger increase in trips on the A912 south of

Inveralmond Roundabout than Corridors C and E.




126

8.3.5 Journey Times

Due to the CTLR route corridors being considered as part of the DMRB Stage 1

Scheme Assessment, key routes in the modelled Do-Something scenarios may vary

from those in the Do-Minimum scenario. The extents of the key routes within the Do-

Something scenario are shown in Figures 8.18 to 8.20.

8.3.5.1 2018 Do-Something Journey Times

Average modelled journey times on key routes within the 2018 Do-Something peak

periods are shown in Table 8.14a. The difference between journey times in the 2018

Do-Something and Do-Minimum models are shown in Table 8.14b.

Corridor C Corridor E Corridor G

Route Movement AM PM AM PM AM PM

JT Route 1

via CTLR

South to

East

17m

18s

14m

27s

17m

35s

15m

2s

11m

2s

17m

21s

JT Route 2

via CTLR

East to

South

12m

58s

15m

55s

14m

18s

16m

32s

17m

4s

19m

35s

JT Route 3

via CTLR

West to

East

10m

23s

14m

26s

13m

39s

14m

58s

34m

3s

26m

12s

JT Route 4

via CTLR

East to

West

10m

38s

11m

50s

12m

2s

13m

12s

15m

4s

20m

59s

JT Route 5

via CTLR

North to

East

6m

21s

6m

13s

5m

39s

5m

28s

16m

24s

17m

3s

JT Route 6

via CTLR

East to

North

6m

38s

6m

37s

6m

13s

6m

7s

14m

31s

11m

4s

JT Route 7 South to

North

12m

24s

10m

37s

12m

10s

10m

16s

12m

4s

12m

12s

JT Route 8 North to

South

8m

54s

12m

0s

8m

49s

11m

38s

10m

10s

14m

56s

Table 8.14a: 2018 Do-Something – Average Modelled Journey Times (mins / secs) (Journey Times based on the average of 10 and 14 model runs for the AM and PM periods respectively)




127



JT Route 1

via CTLR

South to

East

-5m

0s

-14m

15s

-4m

43s

-13m

40s

-11m

16s

-11m

21s

JT Route 2

via CTLR

East to

South

-12m

54s

- 2m

15s

-11m

34s

-2m

13s

-8m

48s 51s

JT Route 3

via CTLR West to East

-7m

58s

-15m

31s

- 4m

42s

-14m

59s

15m

42s

-3m

45s

JT Route 4

via CTLR East to West

-13m

18s

-11m

7s

-11m

54s

-9m

45s

-8m

52s

-1m

58s

JT Route 5

via CTLR

North to

East

-12m

2s

-18m

37s

-12m

44s

-19m

22s

-1m

59s

-7m

47s

JT Route 6

via CTLR

East to

North

-21m

30s

-10m

0s

-21m

55s

-10m

30s

-13m

37s

-5m

33s

JT Route 7 South to

North 6s -52s -8s

-1m

13s -14s 43s

JT Route 8 North to

South 35s -23s 30s -45s

1m

51s

2m

33s

Table 8.14b: Difference between 2018 Do-Something and 2018 Do-Minimum Average Modelled Journey Times (mins / secs)


journey times for the key movements are generally less in the 2018 Do-Something

model than in the 2018 Do-Minimum model.

Further examination indicates that changes in average journey times of between 5

and 10 minutes may be experienced on the following routes:

• Corridor C

- JT Route 1 via CTLR - reduction in the eastbound journey time of 5

minutes in the AM period; and


minutes 58 seconds in the AM period;

• Corridor E

- JT Route 4 via CTLR - reduction in the westbound journey time of 9

minutes 45 seconds in the PM period.

• Corridor G

- JT Route 2 via CTLR - reduction in the southbound journey time of 8







128


minutes 47 seconds in the PM period; and

- JT Route 6 via CTLR - reduction in the northbound journey time of 5


Changes in average journey times of between 10 and 20 minutes may be experienced

on the following routes:

• Corridor C


minutes 15 seconds in the PM period;






minutes 18 seconds and 11 minutes 7 seconds in the AM and PM periods

respectively;



respectively; and


minutes in the PM period.

• Corridor E











respectively; and



• Corridor G



respectively;




129

- JT Route 3 via CTLR - increase in the eastbound journey time of 15

minutes 42 seconds in the AM period; and


minutes 37 seconds in the AM periods.

Changes in average journey times greater than 20 minutes may be experienced on the

following routes:

• Corridor C


minutes 30 seconds in the AM period.

• Corridor E






130

8.3.5.2 2033 Do-Something Journey Times

Average modelled journey times on key routes within the 2033 Do-Something peak

periods are shown in Table 8.15a. The difference between journey times in the 2033

Do-Something and Do-Minimum models are shown in Table 8.15b.



JT Route 1

via CTLR

South to

East

16m

57s

17m

29s

17m

46s

17m

30s

23m

54s

27m

42s

JT Route 2

via CTLR

East to

South

12m

30s

16m

55s

13m

32s

17m

30s

18m

34s

21m

37s

JT Route 3

via CTLR

West to

East

13m

18s

17m

08s

15m

12s

17m

18s

28m

54s

35m

46s

JT Route 4

via CTLR

East to

West

13m

47s

16m

11s

14m

44s

16m

08s

18m

34s

21m

37s

JT Route 5

via CTLR

North to

East

6m

24s

6m

12s

5m

39s

5m

33s

17m

58s

18m

38s

JT Route 6

via CTLR

East to

North

6m

39s

6m

42s

6m

15s

6m

09s

14m

21s

12m

22s

JT Route 7 South to

North

12m

15s

13m

36s

12m

16s

12m

49s

13m

50s

15m

13s

JT Route 8 North to

South

8m

42s

13m

03s

8m

31s

12m

41s

11m

36s

17m

30s

Table 8.15a: 2033 Do-Something – Average Modelled Journey Times (mins / secs) (Journey Times based on the average of 20 model runs for Corridor s C and G and 20 and18 model runs for the AM and PM periods respectively for Corridor E )



JT Route 1

via CTLR

South to

East

-7m

31s

-15m

30s

-6m

42s

-15m

29s

0m

34s

-5m

17s

JT Route 2

via CTLR

East to

South

-13m

57s

-2m

42s

-12m

55s

-2m

07s

-7m

53s

1m

59s

JT Route 3

via CTLR

West to

East

-6m

45s

-18m

58s

-4m

51s

-18m

48s

8m

50s

0m

20s

JT Route 4

via CTLR

East to

West

-14m

37s

-10m

20s

-13m

40s

-10m

23s

-9m

50s

-4m

54s

JT Route 5

via CTLR

North to

East

-13m

04s

-19m

54s

-13m

49s

-20m

33s

-1m

30s

-7m

29s

Table 8.15b: Difference between 2033 Do-Something and 2033 Do-Minimum Average Modelled Journey Times (mins / secs)




131

Corridor C

Corridor E

Corridor G

Route

Movement

Corridor C


JT Route 6

via CTLR

East to

North

-21m

27s

-9m

22s

-21m

51s

-9m

55s

-13m

45s

-3m

42s

JT Route 7 South to

North

0m

47s

-1m

29s

0m

46s

-2m

16s

0m

47s

0m

07s

JT Route 8 North to

South

0m

20s

-1m

10s

0m

09s

-1m

32s

3m

14s

3m

16s

Table 8.15b (continued): Difference between 2033 Do-Something and 2033 Do-Minimum Average Modelled Journey Times (mins / secs)


journey times for the key movements are generally less in the 2033 Do-Something

model than in the 2033 Do-Minimum model.

Further examination indicates that changes in average journey times of between 5

and 10 minutes may be experienced on the following routes:

• Corridor C







• Corridor E





• Corridor G





- JT Route 3 via CTLR – increase in the eastbound journey time of 8 minutes

50 seconds in the AM period;






132



Changes in average journey times of between 10 and 20 minutes may be experienced

on the following routes:

• Corridor C









respectively; and



respectively.

• Corridor E


minutes 29 seconds PM period;







respectively; and



• Corridor G






133

Changes in average journey times greater than 20 minutes may be experienced on the

following routes:

• Corridor C



• Corridor E


minutes 33 seconds PM period.



8.3.6 Road Safety

The changes in the number of total personal injury accidents over the 60-year

assessment period are shown in Table 8.16.

Network No. of Accidents in 2018

No. of Accidents in

2033

60-Year Total No. of Accidents

Do-Minimum 59.9 61.4 3,649.9

Corridor C 56.5 57.8 3,443.8

Savings 3.4 3.6 206.1

Corridor E 57.1 58.6 3,489.6

Savings 2.8 2.8 160.3

Corridor G 57.9 59.3 3,530.2

Savings 2.0 2.1 119.7

Table 8.16: Accident Numbers and Savings

Examination of the accident numbers and savings indicates that each of the Do-

Something networks generate significant benefits in terms of the number of accidents

occurring over the 60-year assessment.




134

8.4 Economic Appraisal

8.4.1 Introduction

The economic appraisal of the CTLR route corridor options has been carried out in

line with the Department for Transport’s transport appraisal guidance (WebTAG)

and is based on the methodology set out in WebTAG Unit 3.16 Transport Appraisal in

the Context of Housing Development dated January 2010 for assessing the user benefits

of transport interventions.

8.4.2 Basis of the Economic Appraisal

The economic appraisal has been undertaken using the PEARS (Program for the

Economic Assessment of Road Schemes) program based on fixed trip methodologies

and is supported by an assessment of accidents and non-traffic related maintenance,

which has been undertaken using the COBA (COst Benefit Analysis) program.

The appraisal is based on the 3-hour weekday AM and PM periods modelled using

S-Paramics as it is likely that the majority of the benefits attributable to the CTLR and

the Western Edge Link Road will be accrued during these periods. An annualisation

factor of 253 (i.e. the number of weekdays in a single year, excluding 7 Bank

Holidays) has been used within the economic appraisal to estimate the annual

benefits.

Assessment years of 2018 (opening year), 2030 (final traffic year) and 2033 (design

year) have been adopted within the appraisal, which has been carried out for a 60-

year evaluation period assuming a current year of 2011.

8.4.2.1 Scheme Costs

The construction costs for the CTLR route corridor options and the Western Edge

Link Road included in the appraisal has been estimated using average 2010 cost rates

and includes optimism bias at 45% for Corridor C, 50% for Corridor E and 47% for

Corridor G.

The scheme cost in average 2010 prices (undiscounted) including optimism bias is:


Construction Cost £88.50m £95.55m £66.89m

Preparation & Supervision £2.99m £2.99m £2.24m

Total £91.49m £98.54m £69.13m

No allowance has been made for the purchase of land within the scheme cost as this

has not been quantified. For the purpose of the appraisal, it has been assumed that

the CTLR will be funded by the Local Authority and that 1% of the total scheme cost

will be incurred in 2014 and 2015, 39% in 2016 and 2017 and the remaining 20% in

2018.

8.4.3 PEARS Assessment

A PEARS assessment has been undertaken using PEARS 2009.1, which uses the

parameters and methodology presented in WebTAG Units 3.6.1 Values of Time and




135

Operating Costs dated April 2009 and WebTAG 3.3.5 The Greenhouse Gases Sub-

Objective dated April 2009.

The PEARS program translates vehicle trip information from S-Paramics models into

monetary values. As S-Paramics uses random number generators (known as random

‘seeds’) in its simulations to load traffic onto the road network, a different set of

vehicle trip details is output each time a model is run, generating different networks

costs.

For the purpose of the CTLR DMRB Stage 1 economic appraisal, the results of the

PEARS assessment are based on the average network costs from a series of model

runs for each assessment year in the Do-Minimum and Do-Something scenarios.




136

The results of the PEARS assessment are summarised in Table 8.17 below.

Transport Economic Efficiency


Consumer User Benefits

Travel Time 87.57 84.60 1.84

Vehicle Operating Costs 5.30 4.66 0.01

User Charges 0.00 0.00 0.00

Business User Benefits

Travel Time 117.57 115.88 -0.86

Vehicle Operating Costs 8.38 7.42 -0.20

User Charges 0.00 0.00 0.00

Private Sector Provider Impacts

Revenue 0.00 0.00 0.00

Operating Costs 0.23 -0.49 -0.55

Investment Costs 0.00 0.00 0.00

Grant/Subsidy 0.00 0.00 0.00

Developer Contributions 0.00 0.00 0.00

Public Accounts

Investment Capital 52.48 56.52 39.66

Indirect Tax Revenues 5.82 5.11 -0.04

Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits

Consumer User Benefits 92.88 89.26 1.85

Business User Benefits 125.96 123.30 -1.06

Private Sector Provider Impacts 0.23 -0.49 -0.55

Carbon Emission Benefits 1.11 0.98 -0.12

Table 8.17: PEARS Assessment: Economic Results (£m) (Monetary values are in average 2002 prices discounted to 2002 at 3.5% for 30-years and 3.0% for the remainder of the evaluation period)




137

Transport Economic Efficiency


Present Value of Benefits 220.18 213.05 0.12

Present Value of Costs 58.30 61.63 39.62

Net Present Value 161.88 151.42 -39.50

Benefit to Cost Ratio 3.78 3.46 0.00

Table 8.17 (Continued): PEARS Assessment: Economic Results (£m) (Monetary values are in average 2002 prices discounted to 2002 at 3.5% for 30-years and 3.0% for the remainder of the evaluation period)

The results presented in Table 8.17 indicates that, based on a 2018 opening year and a

60-year assessment period, Corridor C could deliver a Net Present Value (NPV) of

£161.88m and a Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) of 3.78, Corridor E could deliver a NPV of

£151.42m and BCR of 3.46 and Corridor G could deliver a NPV of -£39.50 and BCR of

0.00.

8.4.3.1 Indirect Tax Revenues Adjustment

Due to recent changes surrounding the consideration of Indirect Tax Revenues (ITRs)

within the economic appraisal methodology (as discussed within the PEARS User

Guidance), the results generated by PEARS have been adjusted to quantify the impact

of removing the ITRs from both the Present Value of Benefits (PVB) and the Present

Value of Costs (PVC).

Based on the average of the model runs, removing the ITRs of £5.82m for Corridor C,

£5.11m for Corridor E and -£0.04m for Corridor G from their respective PVB and PVC

gives the following results:


Average PVB £214.36m £207.94m £0.16m

Average PVC £52.48m £56.52m £39.66m

Average NPV £161.88m £151.42m -£39.50m

Average BCR 4.08 3.68 0.00

In line with the PEARS User Guidance, the adjusted results do not have an impact on

the reported NPVs for the route corridors, however, the adjustment has slightly

increased the BCRs.

Monetary values are in average 2002 prices discounted to 2002 at 3.5% for 30-years

and 3.0% for the remainder of the evaluation period.

8.4.4 Accident & Non-Traffic Related Maintenance Assessments

As PEARS does not calculate accident benefits and non-traffic related maintenance

costs, an assessment of these has been undertaken using COBA 11 Release 12.

The accident benefits are presented in Table 8.18.




138

Accident Numbers Corridor

Do-Minimum Do-Something Savings

Accident Benefits (£m)

C 3,649.9 3,443.8 206.1 7.39

E 3,649.9 3,489.6 160.3 5.69

G 3,649.9 3,530.2 119.7 4.28

Table 8.18: COBA Assessment: Accident Benefits (Monetary values are in average 2002 prices discounted to 2002 at 3.5% for 30-years and 3.0% for the remainder of the evaluation period)

The assessment indicates a decrease in the number of accidents occurring over the 60

year appraisal period for each of the three route corridors from 3,650 in the Do-

Minimum model to 3,444 in the Do-Something Corridor C model (a decrease of 206),

which equates to a benefit of £7.39m, 3,490 in the Do-Something Corridor E model (a

decrease of 160), which equates to a benefit of £5.69m and 3,530 in the Do-Something

Corridor G model (a decrease of 120), which equates to a benefit of £4.28m.

The assessment also indicates that additional maintenance costs of £3.14m for

Corridor C, £3.39m for Corridor E and £2.36m for Corridor G would be incurred over

the 60 year appraisal period.

8.4.5 Overall Economic Assessment

The accident and non-traffic related maintenance costs have been combined with the

adjusted economic results from the PEARS assessment, based on the average of the

model runs, to provide the following overall results of the economic assessment:


Average PVB £221.75m £213.63m £4.44m

Average PVC £55.62m £59.91m £42.02m

Average NPV £166.13m £153.72m -£37.58m

Average BCR 3.99 3.57 0.11

The overall results indicate that Corridor C could deliver a Net Present Value (NPV)

of £166.13m and a Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) of 3.99, Corridor E could deliver a NPV

of £153.72m and BCR of 3.57 and Corridor G could deliver a NPV of -£37.58m and

BCR of 0.11.

Monetary values are in average 2002 prices discounted to 2002 at 3.5% for 30-years

and 3.0% for the remainder of the evaluation period.

While the comparative economic performance of the corridor options is as

anticipated, the level of benefits for Corridor G indicated above may be

underestimated due to the nature of the modelling undertaken at this stage. As a

result, a review of the modelling shall be undertaken to confirm the level of benefits

that could reasonably be expected.




139

9 Recommendation

9.1 Corridor C1

Corridor C1 is recommended for taking forward to further study as it:

• Provides the greatest support to future development in and around Perth

• Provides the greatest relief in removing traffic travelling through the centre of

Perth

• Provides the greatest opportunity to improve the public transport, walking and

cycling networks and to capture their benefits

• Is most favourable in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, local air quality and

noise

• Has the least potential impact on settlements and individual properties

• Has economic benefits that outweigh the costs and therefore provides good

value for money

However it is noted Corridor C1 would:

• Result in significant impact to the Scone Palace Gardens and Designed


• Potentially impact on Broxy Kennels residential property located adjacent to

the A9

• Requires the most complex structure at as it crosses the River Tay, Railway line

and A9

• Result in significant adverse impacts to areas listed on the inventories of



9.2 Corridor C2

Corridor C2 is not recommended for taking forward to further study as it:

• Results in significant impact to the Scone Palace Gardens and Designed


• Potentially impacts on Broxy Kennels residential property located adjacent to

the A9

• Requires a complex structure at as it crosses the River Tay, Railway line and A9

• Result in significant adverse impacts to areas listed on the inventories of



• Has a significant impact on settlements, individual properties and scheduled

monuments

• Provides less support to future development in and around Perth than

Corridor C




140

• Provides less relief in removing traffic travelling through the centre of Perth

than Corridor C

• Provides less opportunity to improve the public transport, walking and cycling

networks and to capture their benefits than Corridor C

• Is not as favourable in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, local air quality and

noise as Corridor C

However it is noted Corridor C2 would:

• Provide economic benefits that outweigh the costs and therefore provides good

value for money

9.3 Corridor E1

Corridor E1 is not recommended for taking forward to further study as it:

• Results in a significant direct impact on Redgorton, other settlements and

individual properties

• Results in significant adverse impacts to areas listed on the inventories of




Corridor C


than Corridor C




noise as Corridor C

However it is noted Corridor E1 would:


value for money

• Result in less of an impact to the Scone Palace Gardens and Designed

Landscape and associated Scheduled Monuments than Corridor C

• Require a less complex structures at as it crosses the River Tay, Railway line

and A9 than Corridor C

• Support future development in and around Perth but offer lower relief in terms

of removing traffic travelling through the centre of Perth than Corridor C as a

more northern corridor is likely to be less attractive to users

9.4 Corridor E2

Corridor E2 is not recommended for taking forward to further study as it:

• Results in a significant indirect and direct impact on settlements and individual

properties




141

• Results in significant adverse impacts to areas listed on the inventories of




Corridor C


than Corridor C




noise as Corridor C



value for money

• Result in less of an impact to the Scone Palace Gardens and Designed

Landscape and associated Scheduled Monuments than Corridor C



• Support future development in and around Perth but offer lower relief in terms

of removing traffic travelling through the centre of Perth than Corridor C as a

more northern corridor is likely to be less attractive to users

9.5 Corridor G

Corridor G is not recommended for taking forward to further study as it:

• Would not address congestion problems at key locations on the local and trunk

road network, including Dunkeld Road and Inveralmond roundabout

• Would impact on environmental designations, in particular the entrance to

Scone Palace Gardens and Designed Landscape

• Would result in adverse impacts to Ancient Woodland at Quarrymill

Woodland Park. Any impacts to this would also have associated impacts on

biodiversity and habitat fragmentation. Appropriate mitigation would be

required as detailed in the SEA Environmental Report



value for money



shaping perth’s transport future design manual for roads & bridges scheme assessment · 2017....

Documents