Appendix 2 - Active Travel Prioritised Delivery Plan
Perth and Kinross Council · 28 May 2025
Back to Economy and Infrastructure Committee — 28 May 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Perth & Kinross Council Perth & Kinross Active Travel Prioritisation Delivery Plan Summary Report Reference: REP / 001 1 | 24 March 2025 © Arup This report takes into account the particular instructions and requirements of our client. It is not intended for and should not be relied upon by any third party and no responsibility is undertaken to any third party. Job number 305915-00 Ove Arup & Partners Limited 4th Floor 10 George Street Edinburgh EH2 2PF United Kingdom arup.com
Page 2
REP / 001 | 1 | 24 March 2025 | Ove Arup & Partners Limited Document Verification Project title Active Travel Prioritisation Document title Summary Report Job number 305915-00 Document ref REP / 001 File reference 001 Revision Date Filename V1 26/03 Description First draft for client review Prepared by Checked by Approved by Name Anna Dougan John Townsend Mark Bowman Signature Filename Description Prepared by Checked by Approved by Name Signature Filename Description Prepared by Checked by Approved by Name Signature Issue Document Verification with Document ✓
Page 3
REP / 001 | 1 | 24 March 2025 | Ove Arup & Partners Limited Contents Click or tap here to enter text. 3 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Project Background 1 1.2 Report Structure 1 2. Multi-Criteria Assessment Methodology 3 2.1 Specifying the List of Routes 3 2.2 Data Collection / Compilation 3 2.2.1 ArcGIS Pro and Feature Manipulation Engine 4 2.3 Cost 4 2.4 Active Mode Appraisal Toolkit 4 2.5 Questions and Criteria 4 2.6 Scoring Method / Weighting 5 2.6.1 5/3/1 Criteria 6 2.6.2 Weightings 6 2.7 Collaboration 6 3. Prioritisation 10 4. Summary 10 4.1 Incorporating Additional Routes 10 Click or tap here to enter text. Tables Table 1: Data sources. 3 Table 2: Assessment Criteria. 5 Table 3: Scoring Criteria. 7 Table 4: List of projects ranked by standardised (per km) score, including tiering. 11 Figures Figure 1. Map of all routes within the MCA. The colours of the routes are to visually distinguish between routes and have no other meaning. Routes with dashed lines are those which overlap at some point with others. 2 Figure 2. Project Stages. 3 Drawings No table of figures entries found.
Page 4
REP / 001 | 1 | 24 March 2025 | Ove Arup & Partners Limited Pictures No table of figures entries found. Photographs No table of figures entries found. Attachments No table of figures entries found.
Page 5
Perth & Kinross Council Active Travel Prioritisation REP / 001 | 1 | 24 March 2025 | Ove Arup & Partners Limited Summary Report Page 1 1. Introduction Arup has been commissioned by Perth and Kinross Council (PKC) to develop an Active Travel Prioritisation Delivery Plan for active travel routes identified in masterplans and strategies across the PKC area, as well as other route proposals developed by the PKC Network Team and local community groups. 1.1 Project Background A number of Active Travel Masterplans (ATMs) have previously been developed for the Perth and Kinross region. These include: • Perth Cycle Network Masterplan (2018), which aims to create a coherent cycle network in Perth by defining route alignments, identifying major destinations, and assessing the likely benefits. • Kinross-shire Active Travel Masterplan (2024), which identifies and prioritises active travel interventions to encourage short everyday journeys, as well as placemaking interventions. • Tactran Regional Active Travel Network (2023), which establishes a framework for developing regional active travel routes, with the aim of providing connections between settlements, neighbourhoods, and major trip destinations. This covers the local authorities of Angus, Dundee City, Perth and Kinross, and Stirling. The interventions proposed in these masterplans are a starting point to enable PKC to identify funding opportunities to develop feasibility and design of potential options, undertake public and stakeholder consultation, and move towards implementation. The purpose of this commission is to develop a robust and evidence-led Multi-Criteria Assessment (MCA) to prioritise routes in the ATMs and additional routes identified by the PKC Network Team and local community groups. The methodology used to develop the prioritisation is informed by and aligns with key policies and objectives outlined in the Perth and Kinross Mobility Strategy. This strategy sets out future direction and policy focus for transport in the Perth and Kinross Council area. 1.2 Report Structure This report summarises the methodology of the Multi-Criteria Assessment and the recommended prioritised delivery of interventions. 1. Introduction 2. Multi-Criteria Assessment Methodology 3. Prioritisation 4. Summary
Page 6
Perth & Kinross Council Active Travel Prioritisation REP / 001 | 1 | 24 March 2025 | Ove Arup & Partners Limited Summary Report Page 2 Figure 1. Map of all routes within the Multi Criteria Assessment Framework. The colours of the routes are to visually distinguish between routes and have no other meaning. Routes with dashed lines are those which overlap at some point with others.
Page 7
Perth & Kinross Council Active Travel Prioritisation REP / 001 | 1 | 24 March 2025 | Ove Arup & Partners Limited Summary Report Page 3 2. Multi-Criteria Assessment Methodology This section outlines the evidence-led methodology that has been used to analyse and prioritise the routes. It was agreed with PKC officers that a data led MCA was the most appropriate method to compare the routes as it enables a consistent and transparent approach to comparing and prioritising interventions, while also allowing for policy objectives to underpin and inform the process. The stages of the development of the MCA, weighting and tiering can be seen in Figure 2. 2.1 Specifying the List of Routes It was agreed that only route-based interventions would be included as part of the prioritisation, and that other types of active travel proposals (such as wayfinding, new crossings, cycle parking, etc.) would be excluded. This was to ensure consistency in the scoring approach while also supporting the delivery of the larger scale route-based interventions. It was also decided that only the primary routes from the Perth Cycle Masterplan would be brought into the prioritisation assessment. The secondary routes followed very similar alignments to the primary routes and therefore would not provide significant differentiation in the scoring. The finalised list of 47 routes contained projects from the following strategies: • Perth Cycle Network; • Tactran regional Active Travel Network; • Kinross-shire Active Travel Masterplan; and • Additional Routes provided by PKC for inclusion in the MCA. 2.2 Data Collection / Compilation Prior to undertaking the analysis and scoring, data was collated to understand the current transport, demographic and economic context of the council area, as well as to inform the assessment process. Data was sourced from a variety of publicly available open sources, as well as existing data from previous ATMs. The routes were mapped in ArcGIS Pro, along with any supporting data sources. Table 1 outlines the data which was used in the MCA. Table 1: Data sources. Type of Data Source Adopted Road Boundary PKC Typical Costs of Cycling Interventions Department for Transport (DfT), Office for National Statistics, recent project experience Railway Lines ArcGIS Open Data Trunk Roads Transport Scotland SIMD Scottish Government Population National Records Scotland Figure 2. Project Stages. Figure 2. Project Stages.
Page 8
Perth & Kinross Council Active Travel Prioritisation REP / 001 | 1 | 24 March 2025 | Ove Arup & Partners Limited Summary Report Page 4 Transport Hubs UK Government Collision Hotspots Department for Transport (DfT) Amenities, Leisure, GPs, Hospitals, Green Spaces, Schools Open Street Map and Open Data – Improvement Service Employment Tactran Story Map National Cycle Routes and Core Paths Sustrans Open Data, Scottish Government Air Quality Management Area PKC Rural Areas National Records Scotland Car / Van Ownership National Records Scotland Visitor Attractions Association of Leading Visitor Attractions Urban / Rural Area Classifications Scottish Government Planned Developments PKC Active Travel Route Extents PKC, Tactran Roads and Highways OS Open Data 2.2.1 ArcGIS Pro and Feature Manipulation Engine An ArcGIS Pro database was set up for use during the project. Any spatial data utilised was collated into this database, to allow visual mapping of data alongside the routes. Given the number of projects being assessed and the data-driven approach to the MCA, a Feature Manipulation Engine (FME) workspace was used to automate most of the processes outlined in Table 3. FME is a software platform developed for geospatial data integration and can be used to automate data processing and transformation tasks. This significantly improved the efficiency and accuracy of the assessment process. 2.3 Cost High level cost estimates for each route were developed using DfT cost estimates (2017) amended for inflation using the ‘Building Cost Inflation Index’, as well as recent project experience. All estimates were based on routes adhering to Cycle by Design guidance, such as having a protected space for cycling alongside roads with high vehicle numbers and/or speeds. 2.4 Active Mode Appraisal Toolkit After assessment of the available data and discussion with the PKC client team, it was agreed that the Active Mode Appraisal Toolkit (AMAT) would not be used to calculate the Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of the routes. This decision was taken both due to the lack of high-quality data required to accurately calculate the BCR, but also as the MCA itself provided an assessment of the impact and costs of the proposed routes. 2.5 Questions and Criteria The assessment criteria for the MCA were developed through: • Reviewing assessment criteria used in the Perth, Kinross-shire, and Tactran active travel masterplans; • Aligning with Transport Planning Objectives in the PKC Mobility Strategy; • Applying best practise criteria relating to the delivery and impact of active travel routes; and
Page 9
Perth & Kinross Council Active Travel Prioritisation REP / 001 | 1 | 24 March 2025 | Ove Arup & Partners Limited Summary Report Page 5 • Working with available data. For example, there was no available data relating to existing active travel conditions on each route or potential political support meaning evidence led scores could not developed based on these factors. The eight assessment criteria selected to inform the MCA are shown in Table 2 below. Criteria Sub-Criteria Question Deliverability Adopted Road How much of the route is on PKC adopted road? Cost What is the anticipated cost of the route? Additional Permissions Will the route require significant additional permissions? E.g. from Network Rail or Transport Scotland? Social Deprivation SIMD 1-2 Will the route serve areas with high levels of deprivation? Potential Users Population How many people will be able to access the route? Public Transport Transport Hubs Does the route connect to the wider public transport network? Safety Collision Hotspots Will the route improve safety in an area with frequent road traffic accidents? Connectivity Amenities / Leisure Does the route connect people to amenities and leisure facilities? Employment Does the route connect people to their workplaces? Access to GPs Does the route connect people to GPs? Access to Hospitals Does the route connect people to hospitals? Education Does the route provide a safe connection to schools and educational facilities? Planned Developments Will the route provide connections to new developments? Other Active Travel Infrastructure Does the route connect with the wider active travel network? Air Quality Management AQMA Will the route help to reduce traffic in areas with poor air quality? Rurality Rural area Does the route provide connections to rural areas? Table 2: Assessment Criteria. For each of the criteria and sub-criteria a data-driven methodology was developed to quantify the impact of each proposed route. Refining the criteria was an iterative process dependant on the usability and availability of recent, high-quality data, as well as continuous input from PKC officers. The scoring approach for each of the criteria has been specified in as much detail as possible, to remove any subjectivity from the scoring. Table 3 shows the MCA criteria name, the relevant question, and the methodology used for scoring. 2.6 Scoring Method / Weighting Each of the sub-criteria was given a score of high/medium/low (5/3/1) based on the methodology outlined in Table 3. Key scoring metrics (such as counts of amenities, population, and distance to key sites) were
Page 10
Perth & Kinross Council Active Travel Prioritisation REP / 001 | 1 | 24 March 2025 | Ove Arup & Partners Limited Summary Report Page 6 calculated using an automated FME workflow, as described in Section 2.2.1. Scores of 5/3/1 were then assigned in the MCA Workbook Excel file based on the scoring thresholds set out in Table 3. Given that some of the criteria have multiple sub-criteria, the following formula was used to ensure that each of the criteria had an equal weighting in the final score: Criteria Score = Sum of sub-criteria scores / Number of Sub-Criteria The final score for each route was the sum of all the criteria scores, divided by the length of the route. The “per KM” approach was agreed in collaboration with PKC officers to ensure that the prioritisation was not biased towards longer routes. 2.6.1 5/3/1 Criteria The following approach was taken to ensure consistency when choosing thresholds for the scores of one, three, or five: • Where the raw data for a given criteria was within a small range of integer values, the score thresholds were chosen manually to obtain a reasonable spread. For example, almost all routes were near either zero, one, or two schools, and so the following thresholds were chosen to assign scores in a way which split the data evenly: o Score 1: Near zero schools. o Score 3: Near one or two schools. o Score 5: Near more than two schools. • Where the raw data for a given criteria had a broad range of values, the score thresholds were set at the 30th and 70th percentile values of the range of the data recorded. This approach was chosen to maintain consistency when scoring across a varied range of criteria, and to ensure that outlying values did not unfairly skew the thresholds for what was considered a high, medium or low score. An exception was made to this approach when the raw data for a given criteria contained a significant number of zero-values. In this case, a score of one was given to any route with a value of zero, and the cut-off between a score of three and five was the 50th percentile non-zero value. Details of the scoring thresholds for each criteria can be found in Table 3. 2.6.2 Weightings To tailor the results of the MCA to support different planning objectives, a variable weighting approach was tested, where different criteria could be given a higher or lower weighting in the final score. A range of different approaches were tested, including weighting all criteria equally, prioritising deliverability over all other criteria, and weighting each criteria according to how well they aligned with the PKC Mobility Strategy Transport Planning Objectives. It was found that varying the weightings had a negligible impact on the final rankings, and so an equal weighting was chosen for the final prioritisation results. Note that the weightings can still be adjusted in the accompanying Excel Workbook. 2.7 Collaboration As previously mentioned, the development of the MCA was an iterative process which involved regular collaboration with the PKC officers to refine and finalise the methodology. In addition to an online inception meeting there were regular online catch-up meetings to discuss project progress and make key decisions. An in-person workshop was held on 6th February 2025 in the PKC office in Pullar House, Perth with PKC officers, including representatives from planning, roads, and greenspace teams. The purpose of this workshop was to share the draft MCA and prioritisation, and to discuss potential changes to weighting the scores.
Page 11
Perth & Kinross Council Active Travel Prioritisation REP / 001 | 1 | 28 February 2025 | Ove Arup & Partners Limited Summary Report Page 7 Table 3: Scoring Criteria. Criteria Sub-Criteria Methodology 1 3 5 Deliverability Adopted Road The total length of the route which is not within the PKC Adopted Highway Boundary, and is not on a trunk road. Greater than 0.8km. Between 0.1 and 0.8km (where 0.1km is the lowest non-zero value, and 0.8km is the 50th percentile non-zero value). 0km. Cost High level cost estimate for delivering the route to Cycle by Design guidance (e.g. protected space for cycling alongside roads with high vehicle volumes and/or speeds). Cost estimates developed using DfT cost estimates (2017) amended for inflation using the 'Building Cost Inflation Index' combined with recent project experience. The estimated cost of the route is greater than £8,695,520. The estimated cost is between £5,553,160 and £8,695,520 (where £8,695,520 is the 70th percentile value). The estimated cost of the route is less than £5,553,160 (the 30th percentile value). Additional Permissions (such as Network Rail or Transport Scotland) The number of times a route crosses under or over a railway. The length of route within 100m of a trunk road. The route crosses a railway line in more than one location. The route crosses a railway line in one location. The route does not cross a railway line. More than 0.8km of route aligns with a trunk road. Between 0.04km and 0.8km of the route (where 0.04km is the smallest non-zero length, and 0.8km is the 50th percentile non-zero length) aligns with a trunk road. The route does not align with a trunk road. Social Deprivation SIMD 1-2 The length of each route within Data Zones with SIMD score of 1- 2. 0km. Between 0.01km and 0.17km (where 0.01km is the lowest non-zero score, and 0.17 is the 50th percentile non-zero score). Greater than 6.315km.
Page 12
Perth & Kinross Council Active Travel Prioritisation REP / 001 | 1 | 28 February 2025 | Ove Arup & Partners Limited Summary Report Page 8 Criteria Sub-Criteria Methodology 1 3 5 Potential Users Population Each route had a 400m buffer applied. For each route, the population metric was the sum of the proportion of the population of each Output Area within the buffer. Fewer than 888 people. Between 888 and 3804 people (30th and 70th percentile). Greater than 3804 people. Public Transport Transport hubs An 800m buffer was applied to each route. The total number of park and rides, railway stations and bus stations within the buffer was used as the scoring metric. Zero public transport hubs. One or two public transport hubs. Greater than two public transport hubs. Safety Collision Hotspots The number of collision "hot-spots" within a 100m buffer of each route, with a hot-spot defined as three or more collisions with a 100m diameter circle. Zero collision hotspots. One collision hot spot. More than one collision hot spot. Connectivity Amenities / leisure The total number of amenities within a 100m buffer of the route. Amenities include community centres, shops, pharmacies, police stations, places of worship, post offices, cafes, cinemas, etc. Fewer than 3.5 amenities (where 3.5 is the 30th percentile count). Between 3.5 and 20.5 amenities (where 20.5 is the 70th percentile count). Greater than 20.5 amenities. Employment The total number of jobs at major employment sites within a 400m buffer of the route. Zero jobs Between 640 and 2605 jobs (where 640 is the smallest non-zero value, and 2605 is the 50th percentile non-zero value). Greater than 2605 jobs. Access to GPs Total number of GPs within an 800m buffer of the route. No GPs. One or two GPs. Greater than two GPs. Access to Hospitals Total number of hospitals within an 800m buffer of the route. Zero hospitals. One hospital. More than one hospital. Education Total number of educational facilities (primary schools, secondary schools, higher and further education facilities) within a 200m buffer of the route. No educational facilities. One or two educational facilities. Greater than two educational facilities.
Page 13
Perth & Kinross Council Active Travel Prioritisation REP / 001 | 1 | 28 February 2025 | Ove Arup & Partners Limited Summary Report Page 9 Criteria Sub-Criteria Methodology 1 3 5 Connectivity (continued) Planned Developments Total number of "Proposed" or "Major" developments within a 400m buffer of the route. One or fewer proposals or developments. Two or three proposals or developments. Greater than three proposals or developments. Other AT Infrastructure Total length of the route which overlaps with the National Cycle Network, Core Path Network or River Tay Way, with a 100m buffer applied. A separate 5/3/1 score was calculated for the three infrastructure types, and the final score was the average of these three, rounded to the nearest of one, three or five. 0km NCN overlap. Between 0.2km and 0.66km (where 0.2km is the lowest non-zero value, and 0.66km is the 50th percentile non-zero value). Greater than 0.66km. Less than 1.225km Core Path overlap (where 1.225km is the 30th percentile value). Between 1.225km and 3.470km Core Path overlap (where 3.470km is the 70th percentile value). Greater than 3.470km overlap with Core Paths. 0km RTW overlap. Between 0.2km and 0.74km RTW overlap (where 0.2km is the smallest non-zero value, and 0.74km is the 50th percentile non-zero value). Greater than 0.74km RTW overlap. Air Quality Management AQMA Total length of the route within the Perth Air Quality Management Area. 0km in AQMA. Between 0.090km and 2.88km in AQMA (where 0.09km is the smallest non-zero value, and 2.88km is the 50th percentile non-zero value). Greater than 2.88km in AQMA. Rurality Rural area The total length of the route in rural Data Zones. Less than 2.34km in a rural area (where 2.34km is the 30th percentile value). Between 2.34 km and 7.21km in a rural area (where 7.21km is the 70th percentile value). Greater than 7.21km in a rural area.
Page 14
Perth & Kinross Council Active Travel Prioritisation REP / 001 | 1 | 28 February 2025 | Ove Arup & Partners Limited Summary Report Page 10 3. Prioritisation After each route had been scored and weighted the final ranked list was split into three tiers to clearly distinguish a group of priority projects and allow opportunity for a strategic approach to delivery which builds upon the MCA. The first tier was defined by the significant difference in score between the top seven routes and the remaining list. The second and third tiers were defined to ensure an even split between the remaining tiers. The final ranked list of routes, including tiering, can be found in Table 4. 4. Summary The prioritisation methodology resulted in the identification of 7 first tier routes, 20 second tier routes, and 19 third tier routes. The additional routes provided by the PKC Network Team and those within the Perth Cycle Masterplan all received high scores. This is due to their relatively short length and proximity to areas with high population density and onwards connectivity, meaning they score highly in terms of deliverability and impact. 4.1 Incorporating Additional Routes The Excel Workbook allows for the incorporation of future additional routes into the existing prioritisation by manually inputting the relevant raw data. Note that this will require the user to generate their own data, however the calculation of scores will be automated by the Workbook. Note that the existing data and score thresholds specified within the workbook are representative of January and February 2025, and so a fair comparison with newer projects and project data may not be possible if newer data sources are used for future projects and the scoring is not updated for all routes.
Page 15
Perth & Kinross Council Active Travel Prioritisation REP / 001 | 1 | 28 February 2025 | Ove Arup & Partners Limited Summary Report Page 11 Table 4: List of projects ranked by standardised (per km) score, including tiering. Tier Project ID Masterplan Description Overall Score Per km Score Route Length (km) Tier 1 1 AD3 Additional Routes Tay Street to North Inch 22.0 27.5 0.8 1 AD4 Additional Routes Marshall Place Road 21.7 27.1 0.8 1 Phase 2 ID 20 Kinross-shire AT masterplan Between Kinross Park & Ride and Kinross High Street 18.9 26.9 0.7 1 AD2 Additional Routes Woodside to Coupar Angus Phase 2 12.0 15.0 0.8 1 AD7 Additional Routes Errol To Grange 12.6 14.0 0.9 1 AD1 Additional Routes Scone to Scone Airport 16.3 11.6 1.4 1 Phase 3 ID 34 Kinross-shire AT masterplan Kinross and Milnathort 24.0 9.6 2.5 Tier 2 2 PCN_6 Perth Cycle Network Burghmuir to City Centre - Burghmuir Jeanfield Road 22.7 7.6 3 2 PCN_5 Perth Cycle Network Broxden to City Centre - Glasgow Road A83 31.9 7.3 4.4 2 PCN_2 Perth Cycle Network Scone to City Centre - Scone Road A94 31.8 6.8 4.7 2 AD5 Additional Routes The Feus A824 12.0 6.7 1.8 2 PCN_3 Perth Cycle Network Walnut Grove to City Centre - Dundee Road A85 27.9 6.6 4.2 2 PCN_7 Perth Cycle Network Burghmuir to City Centre - Burghmuir Jeanfield Road 33.4 4.7 7.1 2 AD6 Additional Routes Errol to Errol Station 16.5 4.6 3.6 2 PCN_1 Perth Cycle Network Luncarty to City Centre - Dunkeld Road A9 A912 30.5 4.1 7.4 2 PCN_4 Perth Cycle Network Bridge of Earn to City Centre - Edinburgh Road A912 33.1 4.0 8.2 2 Phase 3 ID 38 Kinross-shire AT masterplan Wester Balgedie and Milnathort 16.3 3.5 4.6 2 P16 Tactran Regional AT Network Methven to Almondbank 18.8 3.1 6 2 P12 Tactran Regional AT Network Stanley to Bankfoot (PKC and Cairngorms National Park Authority) 18.7 3.1 6 2 P5 Tactran Regional AT Network Blairgowrie - Craigie 21.3 3.0 7 2 D3 Tactran Regional AT Network Inchture to Ninewells (PKC, Dundee & Perth & Kinross Countryside Trust) 21.3 2.8 7.5 2 P21 Tactran Regional AT Network Abernethy to Newburgh 15.5 2.8 5.5 2 P4 Tactran Regional AT Network Coupar Angus to Blairgowrie 21.0 2.8 7.5 2 P10 Tactran Regional AT Network Pitlochry to Killiecrankie (PKC and Cairngorms National Park Authority) 18.4 2.6 7
Page 16
Perth & Kinross Council Active Travel Prioritisation REP / 001 | 1 | 28 February 2025 | Ove Arup & Partners Limited Summary Report Page 12 2 P9 Tactran Regional AT Network Logierait to Pitlochry (PKC and Cairngorms National Park Authoirty) 22.0 2.5 8.7 2 P3 Tactran Regional AT Network Alyth - Blairgowrie 21.3 2.5 8.5 2 Phase 3 ID 40 Kinross-shire AT masterplan Gateside Farm and Cleish 10.7 2.5 4.3 Tier 3 3 P20 Tactran Regional AT Network Bridge of Earn to Abernethy 17.2 2.5 7 3 P13 Tactran Regional AT Network Bankfoot to Dunkeld (PKC and Cairngorms National Park Authority) 24.1 2.4 10 3 P1 Tactran Regional AT Network Walnut Grove to St Madoes (PKC & Countryside Trust) 15.6 2.4 6.5 3 Phase 3 ID 35 Kinross-shire AT masterplan Kinross-shire to Fife 17.9 2.3 7.7 3 P14 Tactran Regional AT Network Stanley to Luncarty (PKC and Cairngorms National Park Authority) 18.1 2.3 8 3 P17 Tactran Regional AT Network Broxden to Forteviot 19.2 2.1 9 3 Phase 3 ID 33 Kinross-shire AT masterplan National Cycle Network Route 775 between Glenfarg and Glenfarg Railway Tunnels Circular Route 13.9 2.0 6.8 3 Phase 3 ID 43 Kinross-shire AT masterplan Gairney Bank, Scotlandwell, and the Westfield Energy Park 13.0 2.0 6.5 3 P15 Tactran Regional AT Network Crieff to Comrie 20.6 1.9 11 3 P6 Tactran Regional AT Network Craigie to Dunkeld 18.5 1.8 10 3 S1 Tactran Regional AT Network Dunblane to Braco 22.1 1.8 12.5 3 P18 Tactran Regional AT Network Forteviot to Auchterarder 20.6 1.6 12.5 3 Phase 3 ID41 Kinross-shire AT masterplan Gairney Bank, Scotlandwell, and the Westfield Energy Park 14.7 1.6 9.2 3 P11 Tactran Regional AT Network Killiecrankie to Pitagowan (PKC and Cairngorms National Park Authority) 19.0 1.6 12 3 P19 Tactran Regional AT Network Auchterarder to Braco 18.4 1.4 13 3 P2 Tactran Regional AT Network St Madoes - Inchture (PKC & Countryside Trust) 17.4 1.4 12.5 3 P8 Tactran Regional AT Network Logierait to Dunkeld 20.8 1.4 15 3 Phase 3 ID 42 Kinross-shire AT masterplan Kinross-shire and Clackmannanshire 17.1 1.4 12.4 3 P7 Tactran Regional AT Network Alberfeldy to Logierait 18.7 1.2 16