A92 between Preston Roundabout and Balfarg Transport ...€¦ · A92 between Preston Roundabout and...

a

A92 between Preston Roundabout and Balfarg Transport Appraisal - Appendices A to E June 2011

Appendix A - Study Area Plan

Transport Scotland A92 between Preston Roundabout and Balfarg Transport Appraisal – Appendices A to E

Appendix B - Appendix B – Workshop Notes


Workshop Notes Meeting Location Balgeddie House Hotel

Glenrothes Client BEAR Scotland

Meeting Date/Time 3rd March 2010 09:30

Project A92 Preston to Balfarg STAG

Subject STAG Workshop Project No.

Participants

Julie MacDorran Robbie McGregor Kay Morrison Ron Page Colin Nikolic Steve Walker Douglas King Geoffrey Balshaw Alistair Clyne Bill Kay Ross Vettraino Andy Anderson Veronica Allan Ron Wilson Bob Blair Elaine McMillan

Notes Prepared By Gary Tait

File

cc:

1. Notes

Action Andy Anderson – Introduced the workshop with a brief description of the history behind the scheme, mentioning the previous reports that have been undertaken. Elaine McMillan – Described the purpose of the workshop with a brief description of STAG and how the workshop was to be carried out. The room was split into two groups. The first item on the agenda was the Identification of Problems: Summary of Problems from group discussions: Balfarg:

• Confusion over who has right of way during right turn in and out of Western Avenue

• Safety • Visibility • Speed of traffic • Frustration/Impatience • Perception of Danger associated with the junction, therefore people tend

to avoid it and use other routes • No access for pedestrians to cross or reach public transport links • Traffic stacking in central reserve.


1. Notes Action

• Access from Star Road – especially slow moving vehicles • Lack of signage • Traffic growth problems • Future land allocation problems

CADHAM

• No right turn into Cadham Road (People still turning right) • Not safe to turn right out of Cadham road onto A92 • Long queues • Car wash – Queues block visibility and people turning right into carwash

from A92 • People tend to avoid junction and head into town • Traffic flow on A92 causes frustration and risk taking by drivers turning

right out of Cadham • Speed of traffic southbound on A92

TULLIS RUSSELL ROUNDABOUT • A92 Southbound approaches roundabout as 2 lanes, however traffic

continuing on A92 the lanes reduce to one • Queuing from Markinch approach and difficulty joining roundabout and

heading north from Markinch • Pedestrian access near roundabout is limited

PRESTON

• Vehicles converging from 3 approaches heading northbound (Woodside approach causes issues)

• Capacity problem at peak times BANKHEAD

• Capacity problem at peak times • Roundabout layout – camber issue • Number of approaches (7) • Pedestrian movements

GENERAL PROBLEMS IN AREA

• Pedestrian Access – Crossing points and links to public transport • Lack of suitable bus stops • Provision for cyclists • Peak travel journey times • Queuing at peak times

OBJECTIVE SETTING Attendees were then asked to consider potential draft objectives. Attendees were advised that at this stage it was more important to consider the issues the objectives are trying to capture rather than focusing on appropriate wording. The draft objectives which came forward at the workshop are as follows:

• Improve access to/from north Glenrothes and Markinch • Make road network simpler to use • Free flow of traffic – Improve journey times • Clarity – Improved signage • Improve access to public transport on the A92 • Improve road safety for all users on the A92 • Reduce conflict and risk


1. Notes Action

• Reduce driver frustration and indecision • Pedestrian access – crossing points and links to public transport • Master plan for the route/area • Reduce traffic speed

Transport Scotland and Jacobs advised that they would work together to finalise SMART objectives which capture the evidence-based problems and opportunities. The draft objectives would be a starting point. The next item on the agenda was option generation. The discussion took place in groups and the potential options are summarised as follows: OPTION GENERATION BALFARG

• Speed reduction measures on approachs • Roundabout (possibly overkill) • Signalised roundabout – Part time operation • Incorporate bus lay-by at stopped up Star farm • Traffic signalisation – Peak times • Right turn ban out of Western Ave onto A92 • Improved signage and linage as a minimum option • Pedestrian access – Consideration of a footbridge

CADHAM

• Improve visibility at corner • Traffic signalised junction • Relocate car wash access • Road order to stop stopping on A92 (improve ban on right turn movements

from A92) • Speed reduction on approach from south (VAS) • Link Cadham road to Tullis Russell roundabout • Ban right turn out of Cadham • Mini roundabout • Footways and crossing points to be considered.

TULLIS RUSSELL

• Review signing and lining (2 lanes into 1 revision)

PRESTON ROUNDABOUT

• Improve access from Leven road A92 WHOLE ROUTE

• Dual Carriageway from Preston to Balfarg • Bus priority route from Western Ave to town centre – Takes public

transport off of A92. • Public access priority at all junctions – Footways, cycleways and crossing

points The impact of options, for example banning turning movements, should be tested through transport modelling work.


Appendix C - Part 1 Appraisal Summary Tables


1

Proposal Details Name and address of authority or organisation promoting the proposal: (Also provide name of any subsidiary organisations also involved in promoting the proposal) Transport Scotland

Proposal Name: Balfarg – Roundabout Option Name of Planner: Joanne Seath Capital costs/grant £3,816,000 (incl 44% OB) Annual revenue support £0

Proposal Description:

Construction of a roundabout on the existing A92 with arms on Western Avenue and Star Road. The roundabout would be centred on the existing junction with Star Road realigned to feed into the four arm roundabout. The dual carriageway section that was reduced to single lane dualling would revert back to the 2 lane dual carriageway from south of the existing junction. This option would require some engineering works and a small area of land would be required.

Estimated Total Public Sector Funding Requirement:

Present Value of Cost to Govt. £3,816,000

Funding Sought From: (if applicable) N/A Amount of Application: £3,816,000

Background Information

Geographic Context: Glenrothes is a large town within Fife, with a population of over 44,500. The A92 is the main transport link to and from Glenrothes north towards Dundee and south towards Kirkcaldy. The River Leven passes through Glenrothes. Surrounding Glenrothes the land is primarily agricultural land in the form of crop and grazing fields.

Social Context: The Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD 2009) offers a comprehensive picture of relative area deprivation. It shows that there are 2 data zones in Glenrothes falling within the 5% most deprived in Scotland (out of 325), 5 within the 15% most deprived in Scotland (out of 651) and 4 within the 20% most deprived in Scotland out of (976).

Economic Context:

Glenrothes' economy is largely reliant on light industry and public sector jobs with moderate levels of construction, commercial office, retail and other service sector employment. Unemployment levels are slightly higher than the Scottish average, however the town provides the highest number of jobs (approx 36,000) and the largest net inflow of commuters when compared with any single settlement in Fife. Major employers in the area include the Tullis Russell Paper mill, Fife Council and several high tech industrial companies.


2

Planning Objectives

Objective: Performance against planning objective:

Reduce identified road accident risks while undertaking junction turning manoeuvres on the A92.

This intervention removes the conflicting right turn movements from the A92 onto the side roads and from the side roads to the A92, which should eliminate this type of accident from the junction. It also removes the right of way confusion, which may arise at present between right turning traffic from the A92 to Western Avenue and right turning traffic from Western Road to the A92. Pedestrian crossing would still be uncontrolled although traffic speeds at the pedestrian crossing points are likely to be reduced.

Rationale for Selection or Rejection of Proposal:

This option performs well against the Transport Planning Objective and the STAG criteria, especially with regard to safety benefits as the junction removes the right turn conflicts from both sides of the junction. It is therefore recommended that this option is progressed to the detailed appraisal stage.

Implementability Appraisal

Technical: This option does not require any untried technical knowledge or experience to implement.

Operational: The operational costs of the roundabout will be integrated with ongoing maintenance costs on the A92.

Financial:

Construction of the roundabout option at Balfarg junction is estimated to cost £3.8M including optimism bias. Ongoing operation and maintenance costs would be integrated into ongoing maintenance budgets on the A92 and would be unlikely to result in a significant increase in maintenance costs over the current situation. Costs associated with accidents at the junction are likely to reduce. Construction of the roundabout may require some additional land.

Public: Several studies have been completed on the A92, which have been made public. Proposals to dual the A92 were rejected by Scottish Ministers but a package of safety and operational improvements was proposed at that stage. The roundabout proposal forms part of these improvements.

STAG Criteria

Criterion Assessment Summary Supporting Information

Environment: Neutral

This proposal will have a minimal additional land requirement and therefore the majority of the proposed roundabout would be constructed on existing highway land resulting in negligible environmental impact in land terms. Traffic speeds will decrease on the A92 on the approach to the roundabout and some queuing will occur at the roundabout. Queuing by right turning traffic however, should decrease. The environment is therefore assessed to have no overall benefit or impact from this scheme.


3

Safety: Moderate Benefit

Development of a roundabout at the Balfarg Junction would eliminate the conflict experienced by right turning traffic from the A92 to the side roads and from the side roads onto the A92 resulting in a reduction in related accidents. The roundabout may also reduce the risk of conflicts between vehicle and pedestrian movements as speeds on the A92 should reduce on the approach to the roundabout. The requirement for traffic on the A92 to slow down and give way to other traffic at the roundabout may result in an increase in shunt type accidents on the approach to the roundabout. There will be no change to security with this proposal.

Economy: Minor Benefit

This proposal would reduce the delay to right turning traffic from the A92 to Western Avenue and Star Road and from Western Avenue and Star Road to the A92. Implementation of the roundabout will result in through traffic on the A92 having to slow down and give way to some turning traffic resulting in a minimal journey time increase. Improvements to the junction may improve the attractiveness of land to the north of Glenrothes for development in the future.

Integration: Neutral This proposal is unlikely to significantly affect integration.

Accessibility and Social Inclusion: Minor Benefit This proposal will improve accessibility to/from Western Avenue and Star Road. No significant benefits or impacts are forecast for social inclusion.


4


Proposal Name: Balfarg – Traffic Signals at Western Avenue only Name of Planner: Joanne Seath Capital costs/grant £ 650,000 (incl 44% OB) Annual revenue support £0

Proposal Description: This option involves the provision of signal control on the A92/Western Avenue junction. The A92/Star Road would remain as a priority junction.


Present Value of Cost to Govt. £ Funding Sought From: (if applicable) N/A Amount of Application: £ 650,000


Geographic Context: Glenrothes is a large town within Fife, with a population of over 44,500. The A92 is the main transport link to and from Glenrothes north towards Dundee and south towards Kirkcaldy. The River Leven passes through Glenrothes.. Surrounding Glenrothes the land is primarily agricultural land in the form of crop and grazing fields.


Economic Context:


Planning Objectives

Objective: Performance against planning objective: Reduce identified road accident risks while undertaking junction turning manoeuvres on the A92.

This intervention may reduce conflicts being experienced by right turning traffic from the A92 onto Western Avenue and from Western Avenue to the A92. The potential for conflicts being experienced by right turning traffic between the A92 and Star Road would remain although the signal control at the Western Avenue junction may provide additional gaps in traffic to benefit this movement. As the main pedestrian desire line and existing uncontrolled pedestrian crossing is at the south of the junction, the risk of potential conflict at this location remains unchanged.


5


This option while performing well against the Transport Planning Objectives and STAG criteria does not provide the same level of benefits as the roundabout option. This is mainly due to the potential for right turn conflicting movements remaining unchanged at the A92/Star Road part of the junction. It is therefore recommended that this option is not progressed to detailed appraisal stage.


Technical: This proposal does not utilise any methods or technology that are not tried and tested. Operational: This proposal will result in an additional annual maintenance cost for the traffic signals. Financial: Implementation of this proposal is forecast to cost £0.7M.

Public: Several studies have been completed on the A92, which have been made public. Proposals to dual the A92 were rejected by Scottish Ministers but a package of safety and operational improvements was proposed at that stage.

STAG Criteria



This proposal will be developed using the existing road space and therefore will not have any land related additional environmental impact. The provision of traffic signals will result in additional queuing traffic on the A92 however, delays to right turning traffic from the A92 to Western Avenue should be minimised. The overall environmental impact is therefore assessed as neutral.

Safety: Minor Benefit

The provision of traffic signals on the A92/Western Avenue will improve safety at this location, specifically for traffic turning right from the A92 to Western Avenue and from Western Avenue to the A92. Conflicts will remain for pedestrians and right turning traffic from the A92 to Star Road and from Star Road to the A92 however.

Economy: Neutral

This proposal will introduce delays and result in minor journey time increase for some through traffic on the A92 that will be stopped at the traffic signals. Delays for right turning traffic at the Western Avenue junction should reduce. The provision of signal control at the junction may assist in opening up some areas to the north of Glenrothes for development. Overall, the economic impact of the traffic signals is likely to be neutral.

Integration: Neutral This proposal is unlikely to have any significant effect on integration.

Accessibility and Social Inclusion: Minor Benefit The provision of traffic signals on the A92/Western Avenue junction may improve accessibility to areas accessed from Western Avenue. No other changes to accessibility are forecast. This scheme will have no benefit or impact on social inclusion.


6


Proposal Name: Balfarg – Traffic Signals Name of Planner: Joanne Seath Capital costs/grant £1,140,000 (incl 44% OB) Annual revenue support £0

Proposal Description: This option involves the provision of signal control on the A92/Western Avenue junction and the A92/Star Road.







Economic Context:


Planning Objectives



This intervention may reduce the potential for conflict being experienced by right turning traffic to and from the A92. Provision for pedestrians could also be included in the signal phasing.


This option performs acceptably against the Transport Planning Objectives and STAG criteria. It is therefore recommended that this option is progressed to detailed appraisal stage.


7


Technical: This proposal does not utilise any methods or technology that are not tried and tested. Operational: This proposal will result in an additional annual maintenance cost for the traffic signals. Financial: Implementation of this proposal is forecast to cost £1.1M.


STAG Criteria



This proposal will be developed using the existing road space and therefore will not have any land related additional environmental impact. The provision of traffic signals will result in additional queuing traffic on the A92 however, delays to right turning traffic from the A92 to Western Avenue should be minimised. The overall environmental impact is therefore assessed as neutral.

Safety: Medium Benefit The provision of traffic signals at Balfarg will improve both safety and perceptions of safety at this location, specifically for traffic turning right to and from the A92.

Economy: Neutral

This proposal will introduce delays and result in minor journey time increase for some through traffic on the A92 that will be stopped at the traffic signals. Delays for right turning traffic at the Western Avenue junction should reduce. The provision of signal control at the junction may assist in opening up some areas to the north of Glenrothes for development. Overall, the economic impact of the traffic signals is likely to be neutral.


Accessibility and Social Inclusion: Minor Benefit The provision of traffic signals at the Balfarg junction may improve accessibility to areas accessed from Western Avenue and Star Road. No other changes to accessibility are forecast. This scheme will have no benefit or impact on social inclusion.


8


Proposal Name: Balfarg – Grade Separation Option Name of Planner: Joanne Seath Capital costs/grant £12,960,000 (incl 44% OB)

Annual revenue support £0 Proposal Description:

This option would involve constructing an overbridge to cross the A92 to link Western Avenue and Star Road. Link roads would also be constructed to link the A92 with the new overbridge. The construction of the overbridge will allow for the existing single lane dualing to revert back to the 2 lane dual carriageway from south of the existing junction. This option would require significant engineering works through the construction of a new bridge spanning the 4 lanes of the existing A92 and link roads at either end to tie the bridge into the existing road network and would also require additional land purchase.







Economic Context:



9

Planning Objectives



This intervention removes the conflicting right turn movements from the A92 onto the side roads and from the side roads to the A92, which should eliminate this type of accident from the junction. It may also reduce the risk of conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles however, pedestrians will need to cross the top of the slip roads.


This option performs well against the Transport Planning Objective and some of the STAG Criteria. A significant environmental impact and cost of implementation exists and the additional benefits to be gained are marginal. Therefore this option has not been progressed to the detailed appraisal stage.


Technical: This is the most technical challenging of all of the options. The grade separation would use proven technologies and methods but significant structural works would be required.

Operational: The development of a grade separated junction would have an increased maintenance cost associated with it.

Financial: This option would have a significant capital cost of approximately £12.96M. It is unlikely that funding could be found for such a scheme, especially in the present economic climate.

Public: Several studies have been completed on the A92, which have been made public. Proposals to dual the A92 were rejected by Scottish Ministers but a package of safety and operational improvements was proposed at that stage

STAG Criteria


Environment: Major Impact The development of a grade separated junction would have a significant visual impact on the local area and would require use of additional land that is currently used for agriculture or green space.

Safety: Moderate Benefit The grade separation of the junction would remove the conflicts currently experienced by right turning traffic. The risk of conflicts between the pedestrians and the mainline flows would be removed, with a related improvement in pedestrian safety.


10

Economy: Minor Benefit Journey times on the A92 will be maintained and journey times to/from the side routes will be improved however, this improvement is not expected to be any more that that forecast with the at grade roundabout option.

Integration: Neutral This option is unlikely to significantly affect integration.

Accessibility and Social Inclusion: Minor Benefit Some improvement in accessibility to Western Avenue and Star Road is expected with this option. Any benefits from this will however, be limited.


11


Proposal Name: Balfarg – Banned Right Turns Name of Planner: Joanne Seath Capital costs/grant £200,000 (incl 44% OB) Annual revenue support £0

Proposal Description: The right turns at the junction of Western Avenue with the A92 would be banned and physically prevented by stopping up the gaps in the central reserve.


Present Value of Cost to Govt. £200,000

Funding Sought From: (if applicable) N/A Amount of Application: £200,000




Economic Context:


Planning Objectives



This intervention removes the conflicts currently experienced by right turning traffic to and from the A92.


12


This option performs well against the Transport Planning Objective and one of the STAG Criteria. It is therefore recommended that this option is progressed to detailed appraisal stage.


Technical: This option would utilise technically proven methods.

Operational: The ongoing operational costs would be integrated into the maintenance budgets of Fife Council and Transport Scotland.

Financial: Construction of the banned turns option at Balfarg junction is estimated to cost £0.2M including optimism bias. Ongoing operation and maintenance costs would be integrated into ongoing maintenance budgets on the A92 and would be unlikely to result in a significant increase in maintenance costs over the current situation.

Public: Banned turns could result in a detour of up to 2 miles for A92 southbound traffic destinating on Western Avenue.

STAG Criteria



This proposal will be developed using the existing road space and therefore will not have any land related additional environmental impact. The banned turns will lead to additional travel for some traffic generating an increase in vehicle emissions. The overall environmental impact is therefore assessed as a Minor Impact.

Safety: Medium Benefit Traffic turning right is the predominant source of injury accidents (14 out of 22).

Economy: Minor Impact Traffic currently using the right turns would re-route through alternative junctions such as Cadham Road, Tullis Russell roundabout


Accessibility and Social Inclusion: Neutral This proposal is unlikely to have any significant effect on Accessibility and Social Inclusion.


13


Proposal Name: Balfarg – Banned Right Turn out of Western Avenue only Name of Planner: Joanne Seath Capital costs/grant £100,000 (incl 44% OB) Annual revenue support £0

Proposal Description: The right turn out of Western Avenue at its junction with the A92 would be banned and physically prevented.







Economic Context:


Planning Objectives



This intervention removes the conflict currently experienced by right turning traffic to the A92.


14


This option performs acceptably against the Transport Planning Objective and one of the STAG Criteria. It is therefore recommended that this option is progressed to detailed appraisal stage.




Financial: Construction of the banned turn option is estimated to cost £0.1M including optimism bias. Ongoing operation and maintenance costs would be integrated into ongoing maintenance budgets on the A92 and would be unlikely to result in a significant increase in maintenance costs over the current situation.

Public: Banned turns could result in a detour of up to 1 mile for Western Avenue traffic turning right onto the A92 depending on their destination

STAG Criteria


Environment: Neutral This proposal will be developed using the existing road space and therefore will not have any land related additional environmental impact. The banned turns will lead to some additional travel for some traffic generating an increase in vehicle emissions but much less than for both banned turns.

Safety: Minor Benefit Traffic turning right is the predominant source of injury accidents (14 out of 22). This option will address a proportion of those potential accidents.

Economy: Neutral Traffic currently using the right turns would re-route through alternative junctions such as Cadham Road Preston roundabout


Accessibility and Social Inclusion: Neutral This proposal is unlikely to have any significant effect on Accessibility and Social Inclusion.


15


Proposal Name: Cadham – Traffic Signals Option Name of Planner: Joanne Seath Capital costs/grant £680,000 (incl 44% OB) Annual revenue support £0

Proposal Description: This option is the provision of a signal controlled junction at Cadham Road. It would require some localised widening of the carriageway to accommodate a right turn lane from the A92 to Cadham Road.







Economic Context:


Planning Objectives



This intervention will provide controlled movements at the Cadham junction potentially reducing the risk of accidents involving right turn movements at this junction. The safety risks for pedestrians crossing the A92 may also be reduced by a controlled crossing.


16


This option performs well against the Transport Planning Objective and provides benefits when assessed against the STAG objectives, especially safety and accessibility. It is therefore recommended that this option is progressed to detailed appraisal stage.


Technical: This option would utilise tried and tested methods and technology. There will be a small amount of additional land required to provide a right turn lane from the A92 southbound.

Operational: The introduction of traffic signals at this junction would have an additional annual operating and maintenance cost associated with it.

Financial: Implementation of this proposal is forecast to cost £0.7M.


STAG Criteria



This proposal is unlikely to have any significant environmental impacts. The traffic signals will result in additional stationary traffic on the main A92 but delays to traffic from Cadham Road should be reduced. The proposal only requires a small amount of additional land to form a right turning lane from the A92 to Cadham Road.

Safety: Minor Benefit

The provision of a signal controlled junction may reduce conflicts between A92 traffic and turning traffic from Cadham Road, resulting in improved safety levels. The traffic signals will, however, disrupt the free flowing traffic on the A92 and may result in some additional shunt type accidents on the approach to the signals.

Economy: Neutral

This option should reduce delays experienced by trips from Cadham Road. The re-introduction of right turning movements from the A92 southbound to Cadham Road would also reduce journey times for trips making this movement. Journey times on the A92 will however, be affected by any delays at the signal controlled junction.

Integration: Neutral This proposal is unlikely to have any significant effect of integration.

Accessibility and Social Inclusion: Minor Benefit This option will allow the re-introduction of right turning movements from the A92 southbound to Cadham Road improving accessibility. There are no forecast effects on social inclusion.


1

Appendix D - Traffic Modelling Report


2

A92 Preston to Balfarg

Traffic Modelling

1.1 Introduction

1.1.1 This chapter details the traffic modelling undertaken to provide quantitative analysis of the options that were selected in the Part 1 Appraisal to be taken forward to part 2.

1.2 Model Selection

1.2.1 A review of existing models identified that the study area is contained within three wide area transport models. There is also a traffic model of the A92 corridor between Preston and Balfarg. Some of the junctions are also modelled individually.

1.2.2 The model selected for the appraisal was the A92 Preston to Balfarg traffic model. This model is able to provide the capability to:

• Differentiate between the options • Demonstrate any inter-relationships of the options with either the existing junctions or

other options

1.2.3 The limitations of this model which should be borne in mind in both the analysis undertaken and for any subsequent detailed design work are:

• As a corridor model it is unable to implicitly account for any wide-area route choices that vehicle may make.

• As a corridor traffic model it is unable to account for changes in mode or destination choice.

• The base year traffic demands are for 2000 and growth to 2005 using National Road Traffic Forecasts (NRTF) High Growth. As such, the original demands predate the upgrade of the Tullis Russel junction to a roundabout and the re-configuration of Preston and Balfarg junctions.

1.2.4 The model is able to provide quantitative outputs for the economic (using PEARS) and operational impacts of the different options.

1.2.5 As none of the models available are able to provide accident analysis, a separate accident model was prepared using Network Evaluation from Surveys and Assignment (NESA), taking traffic demand from the traffic model.

1.2.6 For the purposes of appraisal, the opening year of the scheme was assumed to be 2012.

1.3 Base Model Development

1.3.1 The model network [network supply] is a 2010 base year network.

1.3.2 The traffic flows applied to the model [network demand] are based on demand matrices developed in earlier projects.

1.3.3 The demand in the 2010 Base model were taken from the 2005 forecast model for the A92(T), Preston and Markinch Junction Improvements Study undertaken by Fife Council [June 2003]. These demands were created by applying NRTF High Growth to a 2000 Base year demand matrix that was developed from observed data.

1.3.4 The initial intention was to update the 2005 demands to a 2010 base year based on the analysis of available Automatic Traffic Count (ATC) data combined with national trends in car trip making (for parts of the network not covered by counters). Within the model area there are three permanent sites which form part of the Scottish Trunk Road Database (SRTDb) and three temporary sites which are set up for a fortnight each year by Fife Council (although not all sites have a complete record).

1.3.5 The analysis of ATC data in the area is illustrated in Figure 1.1. This demonstrates considerable variation for those sites where data is available.


3

Figure 1.1: Annual Average Weekday Traffic Flow comparisons 2006 to 2009

AAWDTVehicles

1255813881

10.5% 1343313002

-3.2%

961110064

4.7%

978610337

5.6%

1202011950

-0.6%1206712315

2.1%

2006 Average Month

2009 Average Month

% Change

BackgroundNTS Car TripsSource: NTS0103 2009Index: 1996 = 100

2006 1012007 962008 962009 93

2007 Average Month

5044

5486

12334

12438

6497

6305

4985

5231

6514

6485

-1.2%

-4.6%

5.6%

4.3%

No data

No data

AAWDTVehicles

1255813881

10.5% 1343313002

-3.2%

961110064

4.7%

978610337

5.6%

1202011950

-0.6%1206712315

2.1%

2006 Average Month

2009 Average Month

% Change

BackgroundNTS Car TripsSource: NTS0103 2009Index: 1996 = 100

2006 1012007 962008 962009 93

2007 Average Month

5044

5486

12334

12438

6497

6305

4985

5231

6514

6485

-1.2%

-4.6%

5.6%

4.3%

No data

No data

1.3.6 Against a background of falling car trips at a national level, a mixture of growth and decline in

traffic flows at the local level, and an absence of up-to-date junction turning counts; it was considered more robust to retain the existing factored 2005 demand matrices rather than to undertake a complex estimation procedure using the available data which could potentially create severe distortions to the underlying travel patterns.

1.4 Future Year Traffic Demand Development

1.4.1 An opening year of 2012 has been assumed for the purposes of appraisal with a design year of 2027.

1.4.2 From 2012 to a design year of 2027, NRTF ‘Central’ growth rate of 0.5% was intended to be used leading to overall growth of 8%.

1.4.3 However, on running the future year models with these demands severe delay was observed on the corridor most notably at the Preston Roundabout. This would lead to inaccurate economic results. Hence, the decision was made to run the future year models with the 2005 demands; in effect assuming there would be no traffic growth.

1.4.4 Whilst this assumption will be suitable for understanding the relative costs and benefits of the options in Part 2 of this appraisal, this limitation will need to be reconsidered should an option proceed to more detailed design. It is recommended that a hierarchical modelling approach is adopted (probably with the SEStran Regional Transport Model) to provide traffic growth forecasts.

1.5 Future Year Options

1.5.1 Five individual options emerged from the part 1 appraisal for further quantitative analysis. These are:

Balfarg

Preston


4

• Option A includes a new four arm roundabout at the A92 / Western Avenue junction, which also includes the re-alignment of Star Road to tie In to the east of the new roundabout.

• Option B is a new pair of signalised junctions at Star Road and Western Avenue. • Option C bans right turns from the A92 to Western Avenue, and right turns out of Western

Avenue. • Option D bans the right turn from the A92 to Western Avenue only. • Option E has signals installed at the A92/Cadham Road junction.

1.5.2 Options A, B, C and D are for Balfarg with Option E for Cadham Road. Three of the four Balfarg options were combined with Option E for appraisal, namely options A and E, options B and E, and options C and E.

1.6 Results

Transport Economic Efficiency

1.6.1 Tables A.1 to A.8 in Annex 1 show the Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) results for the 8 options tested. These are summarised in the Appraisal Summary Tables (AST) and Option Summary Table.

1.6.2 All the options show an overall negative Present Value of Benefits (PVB). This means that all the options impose, on society as a whole, more disbenefits than benefits.

1.6.3 Table 1.1 shows how the PVB is broken down (for those impacts which have been quantified in fiscal terms) across the Environment, Safety and Economy sub-objectives.

Table 1.1: Summary of Transport Economic Efficiency Results

Scheme Present ValueOption Environment Safety Economy Total Cost of Costs

A -0.03 3.25 -6.24 -3.02 -2.35 -5.37B -0.05 2.27 -8.72 -6.50 -0.48 -6.98C -0.13 -4.81 -19.88 -24.82 0.58 -24.24D 0.00 -0.97 -5.80 -6.77 -0.08 -6.85E -0.01 -0.40 -1.22 -1.63 -0.42 -2.05A + E -0.03 2.85 -7.22 -4.40 -2.78 -7.18B + E -0.06 1.87 -12.16 -10.35 -0.89 -11.24C + E -0.22 -5.21 -59.01 -64.44 0.62 -63.82

Present Value of Benefits

A92 Journey Time Analysis

1.6.4 Figures 1.2 to 1.5 illustrate the change in journey times along the A92 corridor from south of Preston to north of Balfarg.


5

Figure 1.2: A92 Northbound – AM peak hour (08:00 to 09:00)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

Distance (m)

Tim

e (s

)

Option 3Option 2Option 1Option EOption DOption COption BOption ABase

PrestonRoundabout

TullisRussell

Balfarg

Figure 1.3: A92 Southbound – AM peak hour (08:00 to 09:00)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

Distance (m)

Tim

e (s

)


PrestonRoundabout

TullisRussell

Balfarg


6

Figure 1.4: A92 Northbound – PM peak hour (17:00 to 18:00)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

Distance (m)

Tim

e (s

)


PrestonRoundabout

Balfarg

TullisRussell

Figure 1.5: A92 Southbound – PM peak hour (17:00 to 18:00)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

Distance (m)

Tim

e (s

)


PrestonRoundabout

TullisRussell

Balfarg

Accident Analysis

1.6.5 For the accident analysis a separate NESA model was developed. The traffic demands used in the models were the same as that used for the economic analysis.

1.6.6 Table 1.2 summarises the change in the number and severity of accidents over the standard 60 year appraisal period used for the Transport Economic Efficiency tables.


7

1.6.7 The reported change in accidents uses the default accident rates in NESA as recommended. Comparisons of observed accident rates at the Balfarg and Cadham Road junctions were made with those in NESA. The accident rate at Balfarg is very similar to that in NESA. The accident rate at Cadham Road is much lower than that in NESA.

1.6.8 All of the options show an absolute increase in the number of accidents. Option A however does have a decrease in the number of casualties in all severity classifications [this may appear to contradict the increase in the number of accidents however; different junction configurations affect the number of casualties per accident].

Table 1.2: Summary of Accident Changes over a 60 year period

Option Link Junction Total Fatal Serious Slight Total

A -0.8 2.8 2.0 -2.4 -14.8 -21.6 -38.8B 37.4 41.3 78.7 -5.1 -15.8 89.2 68.3C 60.6 34.6 95.2 2.0 14.2 125.6 141.8D 14.3 3.3 17.6 0.5 3.0 24.2 27.7E -0.3 14.4 14.1 0.0 -0.1 25.7 25.6A + E -1.1 17.2 16.1 -2.4 -14.9 4.1 -13.2B + E 37.1 55.7 92.8 -5.1 -15.9 114.9 93.9C + E 60.3 49.0 109.3 2.0 14.1 151.3 167.4

Change in severity of casualtiesChange in Number of Accidents


8

Annex 1 – Option TEE Tables

Table A.1 : Costs, Benefits & Economic Returns – Preston to Balfarg Option A

TABLE A: ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY OF THE ROAD SYSTEM (in Market Prices)

IMPACT Table Ref. TOTAL

Cars & Private LGV

Goods Vehs & Business LGV

Bus & Coach

CONSUMER USER BENEFITS

User Benefits: Travel Time (including junction delays) (1) -2.61 -2.43 - -0.18 Vehicle Operating Costs (2) -0.18 -0.18 - - Travel Time & Vehicle Operating Costs: During Construction (3) During Maintenance (4) Net Consumer User Benefits -2.79

BUSINESS USER BENEFITS

User Benefits: Travel Time (including junction delays) (5) -3.21 -2.91 -0.26 -0.04 Vehicle Operating Costs (6) -0.22 -0.15 -0.07 - Travel Time & Vehicle Operating Costs: During Construction (7) During Maintenance (8) Net Business User Benefits Private Sector Provider Impacts Operating Costs (9) -0.02 - - -0.02 Other Business Impacts: Developer & Other Contributions (10) 0.00 - - 0.00 Net Business Impact -3.45

Total Present Value of TEE Impacts (11) -6.24

This analysis is based on CENTRAL traffic growth Costs are in 2002 prices in multiples of a million pounds and are discounted to 2002 Evaluation Period is 60 years First Scheme Year is 2012 Current Year is 2010 Discount Rate is 3.5% for first 30 years, thereafter 3.0% for 46 years, thereafter 2.5%


9

TABLE B: PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


Local Government Funding Investment Costs (Capital Costs) (12) Operating Costs (13) Maintenance Costs: Non-Traffic (Group 1) (14) Traffic Related (Group 2) (15) Developer & Other Contributions (16) Net Impact Central Government Funding Investment Costs (Capital Costs) (17) 2.50 Operating Costs (18) Maintenance Costs: Non-Traffic (Group 1) (19) Traffic Related (Group 2) (20) Developer & Other Contributions (21)

Indirect Tax Revenues (22) -0.15 (inc. indirect tax revenue during maintenance)

Net Impact 2.35 Present Value of Costs (PVC) 2.35


TABLE C: ANALYSIS OF MONETISED COSTS AND BENEFITS


TEE IMPACTS Consumer User Impacts (24) -2.79 Business User Impacts (25) -3.43 Private Sector Provider Impacts (26) -0.02 Accident Benefits (27) 3.25 (inc. accident benefits during maintenance)

Emissions Benefits (27A)

-0.03

Present Value of Benefits (PVB) (28) -3.02

Government Funding

Present Value of Costs (PVC) (23) 2.35

Overall Impact

Net Present Value (NPV) (29) -5.37 Benefit to Cost Ratio To Government (BCRGOVT) (30)

-1.29

Benefit to Cost Ratio To Funding Authority

(BCRFA) (31) -1.15

This analysis is based on CENTRAL traffic growth Costs are in 2002 prices in multiples of a million pounds and are discounted to 2002 Evaluation Period is 60 years First Scheme Year is 2012 Current Year is 2010 Discount Rate is 3.5% for first 30 years, thereafter 3.0% for 46 years, thereafter 2.5% Benefit Cost Ratio to Government (BCRGOVT) includes Indirect Tax Revenue (ITR) based on the formula: BCRGOVT = PVB/PVCinc. ITR

Benefit Cost Ratio to Funding Authority (BCRFA) excludes Indirect Tax Revenues (ITR) based on the formula: BCRFA = (PVB – PVCinc. ITR + PVCexc. ITR)/PVCexc. ITR


10

Table A.2 : Costs, Benefits & Economic Returns – Preston Balfarg Option B



Cars & Private LGV


Bus & Coach








11











-0.05


Government Funding


Overall Impact


-13.43


(BCRFA) (31) -8.39




12

Table A.3 : Costs, Benefits & Economic Returns – Preston Balfarg Option C



Cars & Private LGV


Bus & Coach








13





Net Impact -0.58 Present Value of Costs (PVC) -0.58




TEE IMPACTS Consumer User Impacts (24) -9.41 Business User Impacts (25) -10.39 Private Sector Provider Impacts (26) -0.08 Accident Benefits (27) -4.81 (inc. accident benefits during maintenance)


-0.13


Government Funding

Present Value of Costs (PVC) (23) -0.58

Overall Impact


42.65


(BCRFA) (31) -174.64




14

Table A.3 : Costs, Benefits & Economic Returns – Preston Balfarg Option D



Cars & Private LGV


Bus & Coach


User Benefits: Travel Time (including junction delays) (1) -3.26 -3.27 - 0.01 Vehicle Operating Costs (2) 0.05 0.05 - - Travel Time & Vehicle Operating Costs: During Construction (3) During Maintenance (4) Net Consumer User Benefits -3.21


User Benefits: Travel Time (including junction delays) (5) -2.55 -2.07 -0.48 Vehicle Operating Costs (6) -0.05 -0.03 -0.02 - Travel Time & Vehicle Operating Costs: During Construction (7) During Maintenance (8) Net Business User Benefits -2.60 Private Sector Provider Impacts Operating Costs (9) 0.01 - - 0.01 Other Business Impacts: Developer & Other Contributions (10) 0.00 - - 0.00 Net Business Impact -2.59




15




Indirect Tax Revenues (22) 0.01 (inc. indirect tax revenue during maintenance)





TEE IMPACTS Consumer User Impacts (24) -3.21 Business User Impacts (25) -2.60 Private Sector Provider Impacts (26) 0.01 Accident Benefits (27) -0.97 (inc. accident benefits during maintenance)


0.0


Government Funding


Overall Impact


-84.62


(BCRFA) (31) -96.86




16

Table A.4 : Costs, Benefits & Economic Returns – Preston Balfarg Option E



Cars & Private LGV


Bus & Coach








17











-0.01


Government Funding


Overall Impact


-3.91


(BCRFA) (31) -3.48




18

Table A.5 : Costs, Benefits & Economic Returns – Preston Balfarg Options A and E



Cars & Private LGV


Bus & Coach








19











-0.03


Government Funding


Overall Impact


-1.58


(BCRFA) (31) -1.43




20

Table A.6 : Costs, Benefits & Economic Returns – Preston Balfarg Options B and E



Cars & Private LGV


Bus & Coach








21











-0.06


Government Funding


Overall Impact


-11.63


(BCRFA) (31) -8.37




22

Table A.7 : Costs, Benefits & Economic Returns – Preston Balfarg Options C and E



Cars & Private LGV


Bus & Coach








23





Net Impact -0.62 Present Value of Costs (PVC) -0.62






-0.22


Government Funding

Present Value of Costs (PVC) (23) -0.62

Overall Impact


103.92


(BCRFA) (31) -107.15




24

Appendix E - Part 2 Appraisal Summary Tables


Part 2 Appraisal Summary Table Proposal Details Name and address of authority or organisation promoting the proposal: (Also provide name of any subsidiary organisations also involved in promoting the proposal)

Transport Scotland Buchanan House Glasgow

Proposal Name: Balfarg – Roundabout Option Name of Planner: Joanne Seath Capital costs/grant (undiscounted) Including 44% Optimism Bias 2011 £110,000 2012 £660,000 2013 £3,100,000

Annual revenue support £0 Proposal Description:

Construction of a roundabout on the existing A92 with arms on Western Avenue and Star Road. The roundabout would be centred on the existing junction with Star Road realigned to feed into the four arm roundabout. The dual carriageway section that was reduced to single lane dualling would revert back to the 2 lane dual carriageway from south of the existing junction. This option would require some engineering works and a small area of land would be required.

Total Public Sector Funding Requirement:

Present Value of Cost to Government £-2,350,000

Funding Sought From: (if applicable) N/A Amount of Application: Sum £3,870,000 (incl 44% OB)




Economic Context:

Glenrothes' economy is largely reliant on light industry and public sector jobs with moderate levels of construction, commercial office, retail and other service sector employment. Unemployment levels are slightly higher than the Scottish average; however the town provides the highest number of jobs (approx 36,000) and the largest net inflow of commuters when compared with any single settlement in Fife. Major employers in the area include the Tullis Russell Paper mill, Fife Council and several high tech industrial companies.


Planning Objectives

Objective: Performance against planning objective: Reduce identified road accident risks while undertaking junction turning manoeuvres on the A92 by 2013.

This intervention removes the conflicting right turn movements from the A92 onto the side roads and from the side roads to the A92, which should eliminate this type of accident from the junction. It also removes the right of way confusion, which arises at present between right turning traffic from the A92 to Western Avenue and right turning traffic from Western Road to the A92. Pedestrian crossing would still be uncontrolled although traffic speeds at the pedestrian crossing points are likely to be reduced. Whilst there is a very small increase in vehicle accidents, the number of casualties per vehicle and the severity of the injuries sustained would both decrease.


This option delivers a medium benefit against the Transport Planning Objectives and a minor benefit against the STAG Safety criterion. It has little or no impact on the STAG criteria of Accessibility and Social Inclusion, Environment and Integration. Against the Economy criterion, this option deliver a medium impact. This option is not recommended.


Technical: This option does not require any untried technical knowledge or experience to implement.

Operational: The operational costs of the roundabout will be integrated with ongoing maintenance costs on the A92.

Financial:

Construction of the roundabout option at Balfarg junction is estimated to cost £3.8M including optimism bias. Ongoing operation and maintenance costs would be integrated into ongoing maintenance budgets on the A92 and would be unlikely to result in a significant increase in maintenance costs over the current situation. Costs associated with accidents at the junction are likely to reduce. Construction of the roundabout will require some additional land.

Public: Several studies have been completed on the A92, which have been made public. Proposals to dual the A92 were rejected by Scottish Ministers but a package of safety and operational improvements was proposed at that stage. The roundabout proposal forms part of these improvements.

Environment

Mitigation Options Included: (Costs & Benefits) No mitigation considered necessary.

Sub-criterion Qualitative Information Quantitative Information Significance of Impact

Noise and Vibration No significant impact identified Not calculated Neutral


Global Air Quality – CO2 +612 tonnes over 60 years -£30,000

Local Air Quality – PM10 and NO2 No air quality issues identified in this area. Not calculated Neutral

Water Quality, Drainage and Flood Defence No significant impact identified Not calculated Neutral

Geology No significant impact identified Not calculated Neutral Biodiversity No significant impact identified Not calculated Neutral

Visual Amenity No significant impact identified Not calculated Neutral

Agriculture and Soils

The majority of the proposed roundabout would be constructed on existing highway land with minimal additional land-take.

Not calculated Minor impact

Cultural Heritage No significant impact identified Not calculated Neutral Landscape No significant impact identified Not calculated Neutral Physical Fitness No significant impact identified Not calculated Neutral

Monetised summary = -£30,000

Monetary Impact Ratio = -0.13

Safety

Sub-criterion Item Qualitative Information Quantitative Information

Change in Annual Personal Injury Accidents

The accident appraisal was undertaken using NESA. Over the 60 year period there is a slight increase in the number of accidents.

+2 accidents per 60 years Accidents

Change in Balance of Severity

Whilst there is an increase in the number of accidents, the number of casualties decreases. This is due to a decrease in the number of casualties per accident. For this option, all categories of casualty severity show a decrease over the 60 year appraisal period.

-2.4 Fatal per 60 years -14.8 Serious per 60 years -21.6 Slight per 60 years


Total Discounted Savings £3,250,000 Security No security issues identified. Not calculated

Monetised summary = £3,250,000

Monetary Impact Ratio = 1.38

Economy (Transport Economic Efficiency)


Travel Time

The predominant traffic movements at Balfarg are northbound and southbound on the A92. These vehicles currently pass through the junction unimpeded within a speed limit of 50mph. This option requires all these vehicles to slow down sufficiently to negotiate the roundabout. Traffic from Western Avenue heading north on the A92 would also encounter a give-way at the roundabout compared to the free-flow manoeuvre currently available.

-£5,820,000

User Charges Not applicable to this option. £0

Vehicle Operating Costs -£400,000

User Benefits

Quality / Reliability Benefits Observation of the model does not indicate any capacity issues with this option.

Investment Costs Not calculated as none of the interventions are expected to vary in this regard. £0

Operating & Maintenance Costs

Bus travel times through Balfarg roundabout increase with resulting increases in fuel use and maintenance costs.

-£20,000

Revenues Not calculated as none of the interventions are expected to vary in this regard. £0

Private Sector Operator Impacts

Grant/Subsidy payments Not calculated as none of the interventions are expected to vary in this regard. £0


Monetised summary -£6,240,000

Monetary Impact Ratio -2.66

Economy (Wider Economic Benefits)

Sub-criterion Item Qualitative information Quantitative information

Agglomeration economies (WB1) No significant impact identified Not calculated

Increased output in perfectly competitive markets (WB3) No significant impact identified Not calculated Wider Economic Benefits

Wider benefits arising from improved labour supply (WB4) No significant impact identified Not calculated

Monetised summary Not calculated

Monetary Impact Ratio Not calculated

Economy (Economic Activity and Location Impacts)


Local Economic Impacts No significant impact identified Not calculated

National Economic Impacts No significant impact identified Not calculated

Economic Activity and Location Impacts

Distributional Impacts No significant impact identified Not calculated

Integration


Services & Ticketing No Impact Not calculated Transport Interchanges

Infrastructure & Information No Impact Not calculated


Land-use Transport Integration

No Impact Not calculated

Policy Integration No Impact Not calculated

Accessibility & Social Inclusion


Public Transport Network Coverage No Impact Not calculated

Community Accessibility

Access to Other Local Services No Impact Not calculated

Distribution/Spatial Impacts by Social Group No Impact Not calculated

Comparative Accessibility Distribution/Spatial Impacts by Area No Impact Not calculated

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)

Summary of SEA outcome where appropriate None undertaken

Cost to Public Sector

Item Qualitative information Quantitative information Public Sector Investment Costs 2002 Values and Prices. -£2,500,000

Public Sector Operating & Maintenance Costs 2002 Values and Prices. £0

Grant/Subsidy Payments 2002 Values and Prices. £0

Revenues 2002 Values and Prices. £0

Taxation impacts 2002 Values and Prices. £150,000


Monetised Summary

Present Value of Transport Benefits

Total PVB = -£3,020,000 (Negative values = disbenefits)

Present Value of Cost to Government

Total PVC = -£2,350,000 (Negative values =cost to government)

Net Present Value Total NPV = -£5,370,000

Benefit-Cost to Government Ratio Ratio = -1.29

Benefit-Cost to Government Ratio (including WEBs) Ratio = -1.29

Benefit-Cost to Funding Agency Ratio Ratio = -1.15




Proposal Name: Balfarg Traffic Signals Name of Planner: Joanne Seath Capital costs/grant (undiscounted) Including 44% Optimism Bias 2011 £70,000 2012 £190,000 2013 £880,000 Annual revenue support £0

Proposal Description: Provision of traffic signal control for the junctions of the A92 at Western Avenue and Star Road.


Present Value of Cost to Govt. £-480,000

Funding Sought From: (if applicable) Transport Scotland Amount of Application: £1,140,000




Economic Context:

Glenrothes' economy is largely reliant on light industry and public sector jobs with moderate levels of construction, commercial office, retail and other service sector employment. Unemployment levels are slightly higher than the Scottish average; however the town provides the highest number of jobs (approx 36,000) and the largest net inflow of commuters when compared with any single settlement in Fife. Major employers in the area include the Tullis Russell Paper mill, Fife Council and several high tech industrial companies.


Planning Objectives


This intervention reduces conflicts currently experienced by right turning traffic to and from the A92. Provision for pedestrians could also be included in the signal phasing. Traffic lights however, do introduce a new set of risks particularly for rear-end shunts. The number of vehicles involved in accidents is predicted to increase. In terms of casualties, fatal and serious injuries are reduced and slight injuries increase.


This option delivers a minor benefit against the Transport Planning Objective and a minor benefit against the STAG Safety criterion. It has little or no impact on the STAG criteria of Accessibility and Social Inclusion, Environment and Integration. Against the Economy criterion, this option delivers a medium impact. This option is not recommended.


Technical: This proposal does not utilise any methods or technology that are not tried and tested.

Operational: This proposal will result in an additional annual maintenance cost for the traffic signals.



Environment



Noise and Vibration No significant impact identified Not calculated Neutral Global Air Quality – CO2 +1046 tonnes over 60 years -£50,000




Geology No significant impact identified Not calculated Neutral

Biodiversity No significant impact identified Not calculated Neutral

Visual Amenity No significant impact identified Not calculated Neutral

Agriculture and Soils No significant impact identified Not calculated Neutral

Cultural Heritage No significant impact identified Not calculated Neutral

Landscape No significant impact identified Not calculated Neutral

Physical Fitness No significant impact identified Not calculated Neutral



Safety


Change in Annual Personal Injury Accidents Undertaken using NESA. +78.7 accidents per 60 years

Change in Balance of Severity Undertaken using NESA.

-5.1 Fatal per 60 years -15.8 Serious per 60 years +89.2 Slight per 60 years

Accidents

Total Discounted Savings £2,270,000

Security No security issues identified. Not calculated

Monetised summary = £2,270,000

Monetary Impact Ratio

= 4.73




Travel Time

The predominant traffic movements at Balfarg are northbound and southbound on the A92. These vehicles currently pass through the junction unimpeded within a speed limit of 50mph. The introduction of traffic signals imposes additional delay on these vehicles. In addition, the platooning effect resulting from the signals leads to additional delays at the Tullis Russel and Preston roundabouts.

-£8,100,000



User Benefits




Bus travel times through Balfarg signals increase with resulting increases in fuel use and maintenance costs.

-£30,000










Increased output in perfectly competitive markets (WB3) No significant impact identified Not calculated

Wider Economic Benefits










Integration






Policy Integration







Access to Other Local Services No Impact Not calculated Distribution/Spatial Impacts by Social Group No Impact Not calculated Comparative Accessibility

Distribution/Spatial Impacts by Area No Impact Not calculated




Item Qualitative information Quantitative information

Public Sector Investment Costs 2002 Values and Prices. -£740,000






Monetised Summary




Total PVC = -£480,000 (Negative values =cost to government)








Proposal Name: Balfarg Banned Right Turns Name of Planner: Joanne Seath Capital costs/grant (undiscounted) Including 44% Optimism Bias 2011 £43,000 2012 £160,000 Annual revenue support £0 Proposal Description:

The right turns at the junction of Western Avenue with the A92 would be banned and physically prevented by stopping up the gaps in the central reserve.


Present Value of Cost to Govt. £580,000 This option accrues a benefit rather than a cost to government through increased tax revenues from additional fuel use

Funding Sought From: (if applicable) Transport Scotland Amount of Application: £203,000




Economic Context:



Planning Objectives


This intervention removes the conflict currently experienced by right turning traffic to and from the A92. However, vehicles that current undertake these manoeuvres would be rerouted through other junctions. This puts more traffic on the roads and at other junctions with a net increase in risk. This results in an increase in vehicle accidents and an increase in the number of casualties in all classes of severity.


This option does not deliver the Transport Planning Objective. It does not deliver any benefits against the STAG criteria. This option is not recommended.




Financial: Construction of the banned turns option at Balfarg junction is estimated to cost £0.2M including optimism bias. Ongoing operation and maintenance costs would be integrated into ongoing maintenance budgets on the A92 and would be unlikely to result in a significant increase in maintenance costs over the current situation.

Public: Banned turns could result in a detour of up to 2 miles for A92 southbound traffic destinating on Western Avenue.

Environment








Geology No significant impact identified Not calculated Neutral Biodiversity No significant impact identified Not calculated Neutral Visual Amenity No significant impact identified Not calculated Neutral Agriculture and Soils No significant impact identified Not calculated Neutral Cultural Heritage No significant impact identified Not calculated Neutral Landscape No significant impact identified Not calculated Neutral Physical Fitness No significant impact identified Not calculated Neutral


Monetary Impact Ratio = 224.14* A positive ratio results from a cost to society with regards to the environment and a positive benefit to government resulting from an increase in fuel use.

Safety




+2 Fatal per 60 years +14.2 Serious per 60 years +125.6 Slight per 60 years

Accidents

Total Discounted Savings -£4,810,000


Monetised summary = -£4,810,000

Monetary Impact Ratio = 8.29 * * A positive ratio results from a cost to society with regards to accidents and a positive benefit to government resulting from an increase in fuel use.




Travel Time

This option leads to considerable detours for traffic unable to turn right at Balfarg junction. This leads to them travelling to Tullis Russell roundabout and making a U-turn.

-£17,530,000



User Benefits




Bus travel times through Tullis Russell roundabout increase with resulting increases in fuel use and maintenance costs.

-£80,000





Monetary Impact Ratio 34.28 * * A positive ratio results from a cost to society with regards to travel time and a positive benefit to government resulting from an increase in fuel use.
















Integration



Infrastructure & Information No Impact Not calculated Land-use Transport Integration


Policy Integration



Monetised Summary




Total PVC = £580,000 (Negative values =cost to government)


Benefit-Cost to Government Ratio

Ratio = 42.65 * * A positive ratio results from a cost to society with regards to environment, safety and travel time but a positive benefit to government resulting from an increase in fuel use.

Benefit-Cost to Government Ratio (including WEBs) Ratio = 42.65





Proposal Name: Balfarg Banned Right Turn out of Western Avenue only. Name of Planner: Joanne Seath

Capital costs/grant (undiscounted) Including 44% Optimism Bias 2011 £21,000 2012 £79,000 Annual revenue support £0


The right turn out of Western Avenue at its junction with the A92 would be banned and physically prevented.







Economic Context:



Planning Objectives


This intervention removes the conflict currently experienced by right turning traffic to the A92. However, vehicles that current undertake this manoeuvre would be rerouted through other junctions. This puts more traffic on the roads and at other junctions with a net increase in risk. This results in an increase in vehicle accidents and an increase in the number of casualties in all classes of severity.






Financial: Construction of the banned turn option at Balfarg junction is estimated to cost £0.1M including optimism bias. Ongoing operation and maintenance costs would be integrated into ongoing maintenance budgets on the A92 and would be unlikely to result in a significant increase in maintenance costs over the current situation.

Public: Banned turns could result in a detour of up to 1 miles for Western Avenue traffic to go via Queensway or Cadham Road.

Environment




Global Air Quality – CO2 -47 tonnes over 60 years Less than £5,000





Monetised summary = not calculated as less than £5,000

Monetary Impact Ratio = n/a

Safety




+0.5 Fatal per 60 years +3.0 Serious per 60 years +24.2 Slight per 60 years

Accidents

Total Discounted Savings -£970,000







Travel Time

This option leads to considerable detours for traffic unable to turn right at Balfarg junction. This leads to them travelling to Tullis Russell roundabout and making a U-turn.

-£5,810,000


Vehicle Operating Costs £0

User Benefits




Bus travel times through Tullis Russell roundabout increase with resulting increases in fuel use and maintenance costs.

£10,000





















Integration



Infrastructure & Information No Impact Not calculated Land-use Transport Integration


Policy Integration

















Taxation impacts 2002 Values and Prices. -£10,000


Monetised Summary












Proposal Name: Cadham Road Traffic Signals Name of Planner: Joanne Seath Capital costs/grant (undiscounted) Including 44% Optimism Bias 2011 £72,000 2012 £600,000 Annual revenue support £0


This option is the provision of a signal controlled junction at Cadham Road. It would require some localised widening of the carriageway to accommodate a right turn lane from the A92 to Cadham Road.







Economic Context:



Planning Objectives


This intervention will provide controlled movements at the Cadham junction enabling safe right turn movements and safe egress from Cadham Road. The safety of pedestrians crossing the A92 will be improved by a controlled crossing. However, traffic on the A92 will be at higher risk than at present. The number of accidents at the junction is likely to increase as will the number of casualties.




Technical: This option would utilise tried and tested methods and technology. There will be a small amount of additional land required to provide a right turn lane from the A92 southbound.

Operational: The introduction of traffic signals at this junction would have an additional annual operating and maintenance cost associated with it.



Environment











Safety




No change Fatal per 60 years -0.1 Serious per 60 years +25.7 Slight per 60 years

Accidents

Total Discounted Savings -£400,000







Travel Time

The predominant traffic movements at Cadham Road are northbound and southbound on the A92. These vehicles currently pass through the junction unimpeded within a speed limit of 40mph. The introduction of traffic signals imposes additional delay on these vehicles. In addition, the platooning effect resulting from the signals leads to additional delays at the Tullis Russel and Preston roundabouts.

-£1,090,000



User Benefits




Bus travel times through Cadham Road junction increase with resulting increases in fuel use and maintenance costs.

-£10,000



Grant/Subsidy payments Distinguish between grant and ongoing revenue support. Identify potential developer contributions. £0






Agglomeration economies (WB1) No significant impact identified Not calculated Increased output in perfectly competitive markets (WB3) No significant impact identified Not calculated











Integration






Policy Integration





Public Transport Network Coverage No Impact Not calculated Community Accessibility

Access to Other Local Services No Impact Not calculated

Distribution/Spatial Impacts by Social Group No Impact Not calculated Comparative Accessibility












Monetised Summary









A92 between Preston Roundabout and Balfarg Transport ...€¦ · A92 between Preston Roundabout and...

Documents

Transcript of A92 between Preston Roundabout and Balfarg Transport ...€¦ · A92 between Preston Roundabout and...