Supplementary Agenda Document Pack - Moray Council - 27/03/2024
Moray Council · 27 March 2024
Back to Moray Council — 27 March 2024 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Moray Council Wednesday, 27 March 2024 SUPPLEMENTARY AGENDA The undernoted reports have been added to the Agenda for the meeting of the Moray Council to be held at Council Chambers, Council Office, High Street, Elgin, IV30 1BX on Wednesday, 27 March 2024 at 09:30. BUSINESS 5a. Cloddach Bridge Business Case Report by Depute Chief Executive (Economy, Environment and Finance) 3 - 152 Page 1
Page 2
Page 2
Page 3
REPORT TO: SPECIAL MORAY COUNCIL ON 27 MARCH 2024 SUBJECT: CLODDACH BRIDGE BUSINESS CASE BY: DEPUTE CHIEF EXECUTIVE (ECONOMY, ENVIRONMENT, AND FINANCE) 1. REASON FOR REPORT 1.1 To inform the Council of the draft business case for the replacement of Cloddach Bridge and to decide whether the Council will provide funding for the replacement. 1.2 This report is submitted to Council in terms of Section III (F) (15) of the Council’s Scheme of Administration relating to management and implementation of the requirements of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. 2. RECOMMENDATION 2.1 It is recommended that Council: (i) note the findings of the draft Economic and Financial Case from the Business Case to replace Cloddach Bridge; (ii) note that the community has been unable to source funding to date; (iii) make a decision on whether to resource the remaining £2.737million required to fully fund the design and construction of a replacement bridge from Council capital funding; and (iv) if agreeing to resource the remaining £2.737million, for the reasons set out in para 3.15 also agree to delegate authority to the Head of Environmental and Commercial Services in consultation with the Council Leader and Chief Executive for approval and submission of the Full Business Case to the Department for Transport (DfT). 3. BACKGROUND 3.1 Following a special inspection in February 2022, Cloddach Bridge was closed to vehicular traffic in the interest of public safety. Item 5a. Page 3
Page 4
3.2 Cloddach Bridge is not considered a high priority for maintenance works by the Council and is categorised as Standard-low under the Council’s Bridge Maintenance Prioritisation Policy. This Policy was agreed at a meeting of Economic Development and Infrastructure Services Committee on 2 May 2023 (paragraph 12 of the minute refers). 3.3 In March 2023, UK Government announced grant funding of up to £1.5 million for the repair of Cloddach Bridge, subject to a Full Business Case based on the five case model set out in the Green Book and match funding of at least 50%. 3.4 At the meeting of Moray Council on 28 June 2023 Members agreed to commission a pre-feasibility study to ascertain if investment in a Full Business Case would be of value (paragraph 8 of the minute refers). 3.5 At the meeting of Moray Council on 25 October 2023, Members agreed to note the pre-feasibility study and to progress a Full Business Case into the repair of Cloddach Bridge with funding of £120,000 from the community and £60,000 by the Council (paragraph 10 of the minute refers). 3.6 At this meeting Members were advised that it would take 26 weeks to develop a Full Business Case for the repair of Cloddach Bridge. The final draft of the Full Business Case will be delivered to Officers on 14 April 2024 and must be submitted to UK Government on 16 April 2024 for approval. This timeline does not allow sufficient time for the finalised business case to be considered by the Council before being submitted to UK Government. 3.7 The business case is sufficiently developed to allow Members to consider the economic case, which demonstrates value for money and the financial case which covers funding. Economic Case 3.8 The economic case considers two main elements, the cost of repairing the bridge and the benefits associated with a fully operational bridge. 3.9 An outline design for the replacement bridge, which is based on the preferred option in the Pre-feasibility Study, was developed as part of the business case and a copy of this is provided for information in Appendix A. To ensure the cost of the bridge is as close to current market value as possible, the outline design was sent to one of the Council’s framework contractors to price. The cost of repairing Cloddach Bridge, including an allowance for risk is £4.237million. A copy of the draft Financial Case is provided in Appendix B. 3.10 Risk for this project has been calculated in line with guidance set out in the Green Book. The risk allowance for this project includes a quantified risk register and Optimism Bias. The quantified risk register allocates a cost to the known risks associated with this project and this allows Optimism Bias to be reduced. Optimism Bias is the demonstrated systematic tendency for appraisers to be over-optimistic about key project parameters, including capital costs, operating costs, project duration and benefits of delivery. The Page 4
Page 5
Green Book recommends applying specific adjustments for this at the outset of an appraisal. Following the guidance set out in the Green Book the Optimism Bias for this project is 42%. It is standard practice to apply Optimism Bias when estimating costs for civil engineering projects and this is routinely used in setting budget estimates for council projects. 3.11 The benefits of having a fully operational bridge at Cloddach have been assessed based on journey time savings. A copy of the draft Economic Case is provided in Appendix C. 3.12 Based on these two elements, the benefit cost ratio for the repair of Cloddach Bridge is 3.6 which is positive and represents value for money. Financial Case 3.13 As stated in paragraph 3.3 the Full Business Case is a five case model, which includes the Financial Case and the Financial Case must identify how the project will be funded. If the Business Case is approved by DfT, the UK Government will contribute £1.5million grant funding to the cost of repairing the bridge. At the time of writing the report Heldon Community Council has not confirmed any match funding contribution. On 20 December 2023 the Community Council was asked to confirm any funding contribution by 15 March 2024 in order to allow reports and recommendations to Council to be finalised in line with the overall programme timeline and submission of the business case to the DfT. The Community Council has suggested potential funding avenues that could be explored (refer Appendix D) but no funding is currently identified. Therefore, the only potential funding source to match the UK Government funding is Council capital funding. 3.14 If members wish to progress the construction of a replacement bridge at Cloddach they must agree to commit the additional £2.737m funding required to undertake the works. This commitment must be made before the Financial Case can be finalised. The financial implications of this are set out in detail in paragraph 4(c), and it remains the case that the bridge would not be prioritised for capital investment through the approved Bridge Maintenance Prioritisation Policy. 3.15 If members commit the additional funding required to progress the construction of the replacement bridge, arrangements need to be made to finalise the Full Business Case and approve it for submission to the DfT. It is recommended that the route to achieve this would be to delegate authority to approve the Full Business Case to the Head of Environmental and Commercial Services in consultation with the Council Leader and Chief Executive, as there is insufficient time in the programme to convene a meeting of Council and circulate the final documentation in time for consideration by Elected Members. 4. SUMMARY OF IMPLICATIONS (a) Corporate Plan and 10 Year Plan (Local Outcomes Improvement Plan (LOIP)) “Building a better future for our children and young people in Moray” Page 5
Page 6
(b) Policy and Legal Under the Council’s Bridge Maintenance Prioritisation Policy, Cloddach Bridge is classed as Standard: Low in terms of its priority level. In terms of the Short to Medium term Financial Strategy, reducing the Capital Plan is a key contributor to achieving a balanced budget by the end of 2025/26. Given the reductions in capital spend for 2024/25, there has already been a reduction in allocated funding for prioritised bridge repairs. (c) Financial implications The Council’s Capital Plan approved on 28 January 2024 gives high level approval for capital expenditure. Financial regulations require subsequent approval of the detail of expenditure for each asset class, supported by an appropriate level of justification for the work proposed. This is brought to service committees after the annual budget is set. There is no currently committed budget to undertake works on Cloddach Bridge. It is noted that Council on 28 June 2023 (para 10 of the minute refers) carried forward £1.5million capital from the 22/23 capital budget into 23/24 provisionally in relation to Cloddach Bridge, agreeing that any firm commitment would be subject to further decision making. When the capital plan for 2024/25 was being prepared it was known that the £1.5 million provisionally set aside in 2023/24 would not be spent in that financial year and consequently £1.5 million has been included in the bridges line of the capital plan, again as a provisional sum contingent on further approval. Through development of the Business Case the cost of repairing the bridge has been refined and Moray Council is required to fund £2.737million to progress this work. Given the other calls on council funding and the requirement to make significant financial savings for 2024/25 and 2025/26, there are clear financial impacts in committing funding to this project. As a rule of thumb, capital expenditure of £1 million will add additional £70,000 revenue expenditure in the subsequent and thereafter following years. Given the rising cost of borrowing and continued financial constraints on the Council’s revenue budget, the Council on 28 January 2024 approved a reduction in capital expenditure over the indicative ten year financial plan and this will reduce the sums available to spend on bridges which are prioritised in terms of the Bridge Maintenance Prioritisation Policy in 2024/25. Although allocation of the cap by asset class for 2025/26 onwards has not yet been agreed, it is very likely that this will restrict spending on bridges for 2025/26 onwards. When the Council approved the budget for 2024/25 on 28 February 2024 (paragraph 7 of the draft Minute refers) it balanced only by using reserves. The indicative 3 year budget shows a likely requirement to continue to make savings in the order of £13 million in the next two years. All financial decisions must be made in this context and only essential additional expenditure should be agreed in the course of the year. In making this determination the committee should consider whether the financial risk to the Council of incurring additional Page 6
Page 7
expenditure outweighs the risk to the Council of not incurring that expenditure, as set out in the risk section below and whether a decision on funding could reasonably be deferred until the budget for future years is approved. As the budget has been balanced using reserves and reduced free general reserves to the policy minimum, this will increase savings required in 2025/26 by £86,000 if approved. (d) Risk Implications There is a risk that should it make funding available to support this project notwithstanding the earlier decision in February 2024, the Council is seen as departing from its established Bridge Maintenance Prioritisation Policy. While it could be suggested that the offer of government funding makes this project exceptional, any funding contributed by the Council would still be applied to a bridge which would not otherwise be accorded priority status and given that there has already been a reduction in capital budget for 2024/25 compared to the bridge maintenance programme requirements, this may ultimately be to the potential detriment of other bridges and communities across Moray, particularly in the context of a reducing Capital Plan. (e) Staffing Implications Staff resources within the Consultancy Section are fully utilised and if construction of a new bridge at Cloddach is progressed this will require one of the projects planned for 2024/25 to be deferred. There are maintenance works to three projects planned for 2024/25 at Auchriachan Bridge, Blackhills Culvert and New Bishopmill Bridge. Auchriachan Bridge is categorised as important and is in poor condition. This bridge currently has a temporary repair, which was undertaken as emergency works and there are concerns that if a more robust repair is not undertaken soon it may be necessary to close the bridge to vehicular traffic, with a diversion route of approximately 20 miles. Blackhills Culvert is categorised as important and is in very poor condition. This culvert provides sole access to property. New Bishopmill Bridge is categorised as vital and is in poor condition with a collapsed bearing. It is unlikely that its condition would require the bridge to be closed in the near future but if this changes there is a reasonably short diversion route available. As such the planned maintenance work to New Bishopmill Bridge would be deferred. It is also likely that we would need to outsource a number of the Principal Inspections planned for 2024/25 to consultants, at increased cost to the council (f) Property Cloddach Bridge currently vests with the Council in its role as Road Authority. If the bridge is closed and the road is Stopped Up, the land on which is has been constructed must be reinstated and returned to the landowner. (g) Equalities/Socio Economic Impact If the bridge remains closed to vehicular traffic, a maximum diversion of 6 miles may affect some car users. Page 7
Page 8
(h) Climate Change and Biodiversity Impacts If a replacement bridge is progressed, where possible we would seek to recycle and/or reuse the waste material generated through demolition of the existing bridge. (i) Consultations Depute Chief Executive (Economy Environment and Finance), Head of Environmental and Commercial Services, Chief Financial Officer, Legal Services Manager, Equal Opportunities Officer and the Democratic Services Manager have been consulted and their comments incorporated into the report. 5. CONCLUSION 5.1 The Economic case for replacement of Cloddach Bridge has a Benefit Cost Ratio of 3.6. 5.2 The cost of replacing the bridge, including an allowance for risk is £4.237million. Up to 50% of this will be funded by UK Government, if the Full Business Case is approved, capped at £1.5 million. 5.3 To finalise the Financial Case and enable the Full Business Case to be submitted to UK Government, the Council must commit to funding the remaining £2.737million required to replace the bridge. Author of Report: Debbie Halliday, Consultancy Manager Background Papers: Ref: SPMAN-524642768-1031 Page 8
Page 9
BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT EP Stay MP 45.563 SV FH Overhead Telecom N ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ASSUME DEPTH OF MASS CONCRETE 1.3M BELOW FOUNDATION TO ROCK HEAD Item 5a. Page 9
Page 10
Page 10
Page 11
Cloddach Bridge Replacement - Full Business Case Financial Case Chapter 1 This section sets out the financial implications of replacing Cloddach Bridge in terms of capital and revenue costs. The cost breakdown is included in Appendix x. 1.1 Capital Cost 1.1.1 Pre-construction Costs (revenue cost) Pre-construction cost include all costs associated with the design, delivery and promotion of the scheme prior to the appointment of a suitable experienced contractor. A number of investigative surveys have been undertaken, including a ground investigation, extended phase 1 ecology surveys and a flood study. Remaining activities to be undertaken during the pre-construction phase include the costs associated with the procurement of a Design and Build Contractor. 1.1.2 Cost of Construction (capital cost) The cost of construction has been estimated by one of the council’s framework contractors. The costs have been estimated based on outline drawing 158148-FAI-CLO-DR-1700-01, which includes estimated concrete volumes and reinforcement densities associated with the new bridge construction. The cost estimate includes all required preliminaries, temporary works and road and bridge construction elements. Allowance for inflation and risk have both been included within the sum for risk. 1.1.3 Other Capital Costs To ensure that the capital cost estimate is robust a provisional sum of £100,000 has been added to the direct works cost estimate for diversion costs associated with the existing services (water main and BT overhead line). A summary of the capital costs is shown in Table X below. 1.1.3 Risk A risk register was initially developed as part of the prefeasibility business case included in Appendix X. Risks have been reviewed through risk workshops with inputs from representatives from the Moray Council, consulting engineers and Moray Council framework contractors. Further discussion of how the quantified risk allowance has been calculated is included in the Management Case. Preconstruction Costs £30,000 Construction Costs £2,654,345 Risk £467,975 TOTAL £3,152,320 Table 1.1 Capital Cost Summary Table Item 5a. Page 11
Page 12
Cloddach Bridge Replacement - Full Business Case Financial Case Chapter 1.2 Whole Life Cost (WLC) A whole life cost analysis of the structure was carried out in accordance with CD 355 ‘Application of whole life costs for design and maintenance of highway structures’. The evaluation period is taken over 60 years as recommended in CD 355, rather than the entire expected life of the structure. The analysis evaluation period of 60 years was considered, with an inflation rate of 3.5% up to 30 years of service life and then 3% for the subsequent years of service. The costs have then been discounted in accordance with The Green Book. The maintenance cost associated with regular General and Principal Inspections at an interval of 2 and 6 years respectively according to CS 450 has been applied. Operation and maintenance cost estimates have been included within the costing estimates. Option Whole Life Cost Estimate Minimum width integral bridge £84,840 Table x Summary of Whole Life Costs Therefore an additional £84,840 is added to the council revenue costs for the project Full details of the Whole Life Cost estimate is included in Error! Reference source not found.. 1.3 Inflation To present costs in real terms, the impact of inflation has been considered within the risk allowance included in this business case. The estimates were produced at a 2024 price base, with a 7% annual rate of inflation assumed. 1.4 Optimism Bias An allowance for Optimism Bias (OB) in line with recommendations in the HM Treasury Green Book (Green Book) has been provided within the capital cost estimate. As the project has been developed from feasibility, the optimism bias has been adjusted in line with the Green Book Supplementary Guidance. Based on the calculation provided in table XXX below an OB value of 42% has been added to the capital and whole life cost estimates. Contributory Factor Contribution to Optimism Bias Mitigation Factor Procurement Procurement 2 1 2 Project Specific Design Complexity 8 0.8 6.4 Degree of Innovation 9 1 9 Environmental Impact 5 0.5 2.5 Client Specific Inadequacy of the Business Case 35 0.2 7 Funding Availability 5 0 0 Project Management Team 2 0 0 Page 12
Page 13
Cloddach Bridge Replacement - Full Business Case Financial Case Chapter Poor Project Intelligence 9 0.6 5.4 Environment Site Characteristics 5 0.8 4 External Influences Economic 3 0 0 Legislation / Regulations 8 0 0 Technology 8 0 0 Other (specify) 1 0 0 TOTAL 36.3 MITIGATED OPTIMISM BIAS (100-36.3)*66 = 42% Note that the % contribution to Optimism Bias. values in the table below have been taken from Table 2 and the Mitigation factor represents the degree to which contributory factors are managed. Overall budget costs including risk and 42% optimism bias are summarized in Table x. Preconstruction Costs £30,000 Construction Costs £2,654,345 Risk £467,975 Optimism Bias £1,114,825 TOTAL £4,237,145 Full details of the cost estimate are included in Error! Reference source not found. of this report. 1.5 Funding – Capital Costs On 21 March 2023, the UK Government announced £1,500,000 grant funding for the repair of Cloddach Bridge. The Department for Transport have provided guidance regarding the terms and conditions of the grant funding. These conditions are listed below. The grant funding available has a strong expectation to provide vehicular access. This funding is up to a maximum of £1,500,000 and is subject to 50% match funding being provided. A full business case (FBC) must be submitted to secure the grant funding. No funding is available from the UK treasury to develop the business case. The grant will be limited to the amount stated in the business case, i.e. the UK Government will not underwrite any risk that costs associated with the bridge works exceed £3m. The grant funding is available for this financial year, however, if information detailing how the match funding will be sourced and when the works can be implemented is provided, a mechanism may be possible to allow transfer of funding to the Council with ongoing monitoring of delivery. The grant funding available to undertake works to Cloddach Bridge apply only to the construction work on the bridge, which would include project team costs. The funding is capped at £1,500,000 and is subject to 50% match funding. After the funding has been allocated no funding to cover additional costs that may arise during construction works on the bridge will be made available by UK Government. Moray Council are seeking the full available grant contribution of £1,500,000 from the UK Government towards the Capital costs of the scheme. The Moray Council are responsible for Page 13
Page 14
Cloddach Bridge Replacement - Full Business Case Financial Case Chapter sourcing the remaining budget of £2,737,145. A special meeting of the Moray held on 27th March during which …. 1.6 Funding -Whole Life Costs Moray Council will be responsible for future operating costs of the bridge, maintenance costs of the bridge. 1.7 Spend Profile The project has been progressed to date based on the UK Governments qualified offer of grant funding in order to repair the bridge. The progression of the project to construction is depending on this funding, which is available for a single financial year. Scheme Element Total 2024/25 2025/26 Preconstruction £30,000 £30,000 0 Construction £2,654,345 £2,654,345 0 Page 14
Page 15
Live: 31558008 v 1 Cloddach Bridge – Business Case, Elgin Traffic & Economics Assessment March 2024 Item 5a. Page 15
Page 16
158148/GL/T/R01.6 – Traffic & Economics Assessment Report Cloddach Bridge – Business Case, Elgin CONTROL SHEET CLIENT: Moray Council PROJECT TITLE: Cloddach Bridge – Business Case, Elgin REPORT TITLE: Traffic & Economics Assessment Report PROJECT REFERENCE: 158148 DOCUMENT NUMBER: 158148/GL/T/R01.6 Original Issue Issue 1 DRAFT Name Signature Date Prepared by Liam Milne Signature held on file 31/01/2024 Checked by John Craft Signature held on file 31/01/2024 Approved by John Craft Signature held on file 31/01/2024 Update Record Issue Date Status Description Signature 2 13/03/2024 DRAFT General Report Updates and inclusion of Small Scheme Assessment Prepared By L Milne Checked J Craft Approved J Craft 3 15/03/2024 FINAL Updates for client comments Prepared By L Milne Checked J Craft Approved J Craft 4 18/03/2024 FINAL Updates for client comments Prepared By L Milne Checked J Craft Approved J Craft 5 19/03/2024 FINAL Updates for client comments Prepared By L Milne Checked J Craft Approved J Craft 6 20/03/2024 FINAL Updates of Small Scheme Assessment Costs Prepared By L Milne Checked J Craft Approved J Craft Page 16
Page 17
158148/GL/T/R01.6 – Traffic & Economics Assessment Report Cloddach Bridge – Business Case, Elgin This document has been prepared in accordance with the Fairhurst Quality and Environmental Management System and in accordance with the instructions of the client, Moray Council, for the client’s sole and specific use. Any other persons who use any information contained herein do so at their own risk. Any information provided by third parties and referred to herein has not been checked or verified by Fairhurst unless otherwise expressly stated within this report. Unless otherwise agreed in writing, all intellectual property rights in, or arising out of, or in connection with this report, are owned by Fairhurst. The client named above has a licence to copy and use this report only for the purposes for which it was provided. The licence to use and copy this report is subject to other terms and conditions agreed between Fairhurst and the client. Fairhurst is the trading name of Fairhurst Group LLP, a limited liability partnership registered in Scotland with the registered number SO307306 and registered office at 43 George Street, Edinburgh EH2 2HT. Page 17
Page 18
158148/GL/T/R01.6 – Traffic & Economics Assessment Report Cloddach Bridge – Business Case, Elgin CONTENTS 1 Introduction ________________________________________________________________________ 1 Scope of Assessment 1 2 Existing Conditions _________________________________________________________________ 3 Introduction 3 Background 3 Traffic Conditions 3 3 Description of Options _______________________________________________________________ 9 Introduction 9 Description of Options 9 Cost Estimates 9 4 Traffic Modelling ___________________________________________________________________ 11 Introduction 11 Journey Times 11 Traffic Data 15 5 Traffic & Economic Assessment ______________________________________________________ 19 Introduction 19 Impact on Traffic Flows 20 Impact on Bus Routes 22 Impact on Non-motorised Users 22 Impact on Road Safety 23 Economic Performance of Options 24 6 Traffic and Economic Assessment Summary ___________________________________________ 27 Scope 27 Existing Conditions 27 Scheme Options 28 Cost Estimates 28 Traffic Modelling 28 Traffic Assessment 29 Economic Assessment 29 Overall Summary 30 Page 18
Page 19
158148/GL/T/R01.6 – Traffic & Economics Assessment Report Cloddach Bridge – Business Case, Elgin APPENDICES APPENDIX A Bridge Closure News Article APPENDIX B Fairhurst Drawing 158148/sk1202 APPENDIX C Fairhurst Drawing 158148/sk1204 APPENDIX D Elgin City Bus Map APPENDIX E Elgin Core Path Plan APPENDIX F Elgin Active Travel Map APPENDIX G Road Collision Data APPENDIX H Proposed Layout APPENDIX I Local Model Validation Report APPENDIX J Alternative Route Inspection Outputs APPENDIX K ATC Data APPENDIX L Gravity Model APPENDIX M Small Scheme Application Toolkit Page 19
Page 20
158148/GL/T/R01.6 – Traffic & Economics Assessment Report Cloddach Bridge – Business Case, Elgin 1 1 Introduction Scope of Assessment This assessment report outlines the traffic and economic assessment inputs for the Cloddach Bridge – Strategic Business Case and has been prepared in accordance with Department for Transport (DfT) Transport Assessment Guidance (TAG). Cloddach Bridge is a three-span structure carrying a single carriageway road over the River Lossie. The bridge is located on an unnamed road (C2E) to the west of the B9010, south of Elgin. The bridge’s location is shown in Figure 1-1. Figure 1-1: Location Plan As described in the DfT’s document ‘TAG Unit A1.1 Cost-Benefit Analysis’ dated May 2023, a cost benefit analysis should include the following: • the impacts of a scheme should be based on the difference between forecasts of the Without-Scheme and With-Scheme cases; • impacts should be assessed over a defined appraisal period, capturing the planned period of scheme development and implementation and typically ending 60 years after scheme opening; • the magnitude of impacts should be interpolated and extrapolated over the appraisal period drawing on forecasts for at least two future years; Page 20
Page 21
158148/GL/T/R01.6 – Traffic & Economics Assessment Report Cloddach Bridge – Business Case, Elgin 2 • values placed on impacts should be in the perceived costs, factor costs and market prices unit of account, converted as appropriate from factor costs using the indirect tax correction factor; • values should be in real prices, in the Department’s base year, accounting for the effects of inflation; • streams of costs and benefits should be in present values, discounted to the Department’s base year; • results should be presented in the appropriate cost-benefit analysis metrics, normally a Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR); and • Sensitivity testing should be undertaken to reflect uncertainty. Page 21
Page 22
158148/GL/T/R01.6 – Traffic & Economics Assessment Report Cloddach Bridge – Business Case, Elgin 3 2 Existing Conditions Introduction This section summarises the existing traffic conditions in relation to the existing highway network in and around Elgin. Background The bridge provided access to the B9010 north and southbound for residents in rural communities including Birnie, Thomshill, Glenlatterach and Bardonside. Since 1996 Cloddach Bridge has been subject to a weight restriction. Initially 7.5 tonnes, this was subsequently lowered to 3.0 tonnes in 2019. A further inspection in 2022 reported that the structure was in a poor condition. Due to safety concerns, Moray Council (MC) authorised the closure of the bridge to all vehicular traffic on the 4th February 2022. Cloddach Bridge remains open to active travel users. The bridge closure to traffic includes a signed alternative route for vehicles travelling to the A941 to enter Elgin from the south and then taking the A96 west back to the B9010. This diversion has a length of approximately 6 miles and anecdotal evidence suggests journey times are extended by up to 15 minutes during peak times. The diversion route is shown in news article contained in Appendix A. Traffic Conditions Traffic Flows MC have a comprehensive collection of permanent Automatic Traffic Counter (ATC) sites in Elgin, as shown in drawing 158148/sk1202 contained in Appendix B. The information provided highlights average daily flows per month, generally from 2014 to 2023. Additional information is available from ‘one-off’ ATC surveys. Junction turning count (JTC) traffic surveys were undertaken on behalf of MC in 2018 in support of an update to the strategic Elgin Town Centre Model. The extent of the affected area for motor vehicles due to the bridge restrictions (closure) within Elgin is shown in drawing 158148/SK1204 contained in Appendix C. Key routes have been considered. The existing annual average weekday traffic flows on the following roads within the study are shown in Table 2-1. Page 22
Page 23
158148/GL/T/R01.6 – Traffic & Economics Assessment Report Cloddach Bridge – Business Case, Elgin 4 Table 2-1: Existing Traffic Flows (ATC Sites) Site Reference Locations Date Range Average Annual Weekday Traffic Volume 00000007 (Site 7) A941 near Birkenhill House Jan 2014 – Apr 2023 7, 602 vehicles (May 2018) 00000010 (Site 10) A941 near Hay Place Jan 2014 – Apr 2023 7,619 vehicles (May 2018) 00000017 (Site 17) Linkwood Road east of A941 Jan 2014 – Jan 2021 10,485 vehicles (May 2018) 00000018 (Site 18) U171e – Maisondieu Road Jan 2014 – May 2023 9, 203 vehicles (May 2018) 00000027 (Site 27) Glen Moray Drive south of Mossend Place Jan 2014 – Oct 2022 5,929 vehicles (May 2018) 00000028 (Site 28) Thornhill Road east of A941 Jan 2014 - Mar 2023 8, 393 vehicles (May 2018) 24112001 C2E Cloddach Bridge 30 Nov – 6 Dec 2020 764 vehicles Specific Junction Turning Counts (JTC) were undertaken at the junctions shown in Table 2-2. Table 2-2: Existing Traffic Flows (JTC Surveys) Junction Date 12-hour Traffic Volume Birnie Road / Sandy Road / C2E Wed 30 May 2018 4913 vehicles (Birnie Road) Glenlossie Road / C2E Tue 28 Nov 2023 1014 vehicles (C2E North) A941 / Rashcrook Road Tue 28 Nov 2023 370 vehicles (Rashcrook Road) A further set of ATC surveys (located on the C2E to the north of the Golf Club driving range) show the traffic flows contained in Table 2-3. Page 23
Page 24
158148/GL/T/R01.6 – Traffic & Economics Assessment Report Cloddach Bridge – Business Case, Elgin 5 Table 2-3: Additional Automatic Traffic Count Data Details Site Reference Location Date Range 5-Day Average 12-Hour Flows 21021704 C2E south of the Golf Range 20-26 Feb 2017 1335 20170220 C2E near Royal Troon Drive 22-27 Feb 2017 1087 20072105 C2E near Royal Troon Drive 21-27 July 2021 1160 20072101 C2E south of Golf Club access 21-27 July 2021 1958 Bus Services The bus services within Elgin, which are considered to be influenced by the opening / closure of Cloddach Bridge, primarily follow the route along the A96 and A941 from the north to south. These services also route via New Elgin, with the largest land use being residential and therefore generates the largest demand for public transport services. The most frequent buses that route through Elgin town centre, which travel primarily along the A96 corridor, are Stagecoach Bluebird services 10 / 10A / 10B, 34 and 35. These services provide a combined frequency of up to 3 services per hour via the A96. These bus services offer travel to local and regional towns such as Forres, Nairn, Keith, Huntly and Fochabers, whilst also offering travel further afield to Aberdeen and Inverness. Stagecoach Bluebird services 33A / 33C and 36 each offer hourly bus services which route via the main residential settlements within Elgin. Bus service group 33 routes between Elgin and Lossiemouth via the main road corridors within New Elgin, offering a regular service for local residents to / from Elgin town centre and Lossiemouth. Bus service 36 similarly routes via New Elgin, whilst travelling to the south of the town to Dufftown and Aberlour. The local bus service summary is shown in Table 2-4. The Elgin City Bus Map is contained in Appendix D. Page 24
Page 25
158148/GL/T/R01.6 – Traffic & Economics Assessment Report Cloddach Bridge – Business Case, Elgin 6 Table 2-4: Bus Services Bus Service Bus Stops Weekday Frequency 10 A96 Corridor Approx. every hour 10A A96 Corridor Up to 4 daily services 10B A96 Corridor Up to 5 daily services 32 A96 Town Centre 1 daily service 33A A96, A941, Edgar Road, Springfield Road, Thornhill Road Approx. every hour 33C A96, A941, Edgar Road, Springfield Road, Thornhill Road Approx. every hour 34 A96 Town Centre Approx. every hour 35 A96 Corridor Approx. every hour 36 A941, Maisondieu Road, Linkwood Road, Thornhill Road Approx. every hour M96 A96 Corridor Approx. every 2 hours M98 A96 Corridor 2 daily services X35 A96 Corridor 2 daily services Non-Motorised Users The Elgin Core Path Plan indicates that there is a recognised ‘existing path’ providing a connection between Elgin and the Cloddach Bridge via the C2E. The ‘existing path’ extends towards the B9010 via the C2E and routes north on the B9010 and towards Mosstowie via the Birchpark property access road. The Elgin Core Path Plan is contained in Appendix E. The Elgin Active Travel Map indicates that the road corridor between Elgin and the B9010 via Cloddach Bridge is a waymarked cycle route on a minor road. The Elgin Active Travel Map is contained in Appendix F. There is no available data for non-motorised users via Cloddach Bridge. Road Collisions Information was requested from MC that includes road traffic collision incidents for 2013-2022 inclusive. Full details of the road collision data are contained in Appendix G. A road traffic collision is an incident involving one or more vehicles, occurring on the public Page 25
Page 26
158148/GL/T/R01.6 – Traffic & Economics Assessment Report Cloddach Bridge – Business Case, Elgin 7 highway, resulting in personal injury that is recorded by the Police. The area of interest contains a section of the A96 within Elgin Town Centre, the A941, which is a one of the primary links to Elgin from the south and the B9010 Pluscarden Road, which provides access to Elgin Town Centre from the west. The information contains a unique reference, the number of vehicles involved, date, time and location for each incident. In the ten-year period, there were a total of 64 incidents, Fairhurst undertook a screening exercise and identified two further incidents, taking the total to 66. Of these collisions, 29 resulted in damage only (43.9%) to 50 vehicles. No causation has been stated, nor description of circumstances leading to the collisions, therefore no road user behaviour conclusions can be ascertained. There are no details to be able to consider any effects relating to vehicle condition. The weather, road surface conditions and light conditions are also not stated, however, could also be a causation factor. There is no distinction of which mode of travel the injured people were using, therefore no consideration of vulnerable users can be extracted. MC data highlights that there were 37 collisions (56.1%), between 2013 and 2022, involving 66 vehicles that led to an injury of 56 persons. Of those injured, there were two fatalities (3.6%), twenty-one were seriously injured (37.5%) and thirty-three slightly injured (58.9%). It is common to compare road collision statistics with national figures. A comprehensive review of road safety is contained in the Moray Road Safety Plan to 2030 report. This study uses high-level statistics that does not distinguish between rural and urban roads, as the available data does not include road classification and the study area is split between both rural and urban areas. In terms of general national statistics, The Scottish Government published information indicating nationally that a total of 1659 fatalities (with 204 occurring in 2014) and 24133 seriously injured (2949 occurring in both 2013 and 2014) were recorded during the period between 2013 and 2022. In terms of the Moray Council area, The Scottish Government data shows that a total of 43 fatalities and 389 seriously injured during the same period of time. Population statistics show that Scotland’s population increased by circa 152,000 to 5,413,900 in 2021 and the average population between 2013 and 2021 (no data available for 2022) was 5,413,900. During the same time period the Moray Council area increased to 96,410 from 94,360, averaging at 95,550 persons. The study area (Elgin South) had a population of 12204 (2021), averaging 12,813 persons. Page 26
Page 27
158148/GL/T/R01.6 – Traffic & Economics Assessment Report Cloddach Bridge – Business Case, Elgin 8 Comparing the killed and seriously injured (KSI) local road statistics for the entire ten- year period, the national figures indicate a fatality rate of 1 per 3,263 persons, the council figure calculates at 1 per 2,222 persons and the study area 1 per 6,091 persons. For the seriously injured, the national figures indicate an injury rate of 1 per 224 persons, the council area rate calculates as 1 per 246 persons and the study area 1 per 388 persons. It is considered that the council area has less persons seriously injured in traffic collisions than the national average, however, the persons killed statistic per head of population is worse. This could be due to the council area consisting of mostly rural roads and these generally involve faster vehicle speeds and increased levels of injuries. Nevertheless, the roads in the south of Elgin have less persons injured (KSI) than both the national and council averages. It is possible to provide a high-level review of the road environment based on the location and in relation to current width, alignment, layout, surroundings, signing and road markings. An online review highlights that the road environment appears to be suitable and is less likely to be contributing to traffic collisions. Page 27
Page 28
158148/GL/T/R01.6 – Traffic & Economics Assessment Report Cloddach Bridge – Business Case, Elgin 9 3 Description of Options Introduction This section presents the options that have been considered as part of the project. Description of Options In the Pre-Feasibility Study, the following options were discussed: Option 1 Baseline Do Minimum - included for comparison purposes. This option does not permit the bridge to reopen to vehicular traffic. Option 2 Repairs to the existing bridge Option 3a New Overbridge including demolition of existing bridge (non-integral) Option 3b New Overbridge including retention of existing bridge (non-integral) Option 4a New integral bridge structure two lanes – full demolition of existing bridge Option 4b New integral bridge structure single lane – full demolition of existing bridge Options 1 and 2 do not allow for the reopening of the bridge to vehicular traffic and are therefore considered to be the Without-Scheme options. Option 4b was identified as the preferred option during the pre-feasibility study and therefore forms the basis of the With- Scheme assessment. The proposed layout is contained in Appendix H. Cost Estimates A detailed explanation of the cost estimates is included in the Financial Case section of this Business Case report. The capital cost is based on the outline design for a minimum width bridge (Option 4b) provided by MC’s term contractor, which is shown in Table 3-1. Page 28
Page 29
158148/GL/T/R01.6 – Traffic & Economics Assessment Report Cloddach Bridge – Business Case, Elgin 10 Table 3-1: Option Cost Estimate Summary Item With-Scheme Construction £2,654,345 Land & Property £30,000 Preparation & Administration £30,000 Traffic related maintenance £278,317 TOTAL £3,014,735 The total cost above includes for inflation. The cost estimate for the Without-Scheme scenario ranges between £769,578 and £2,804,566. The lower range includes the option of demolition within 10 years and the upper range includes the repair of the existing structure and the continued use as a footway / cycleway. It should be noted that none of the Without-Scheme options include the reopening of the bridge to vehicles. The Without-Scheme costs do not include optimism bias. Optimism bias is the demonstrated systematic tendency for appraisers to be overly optimistic about key parameters. Theories on cost overruns suggest there are several means by which optimism bias could be caused, including the psychological tendency for humans and organisations to favour optimism, the economic rationale of advancing projects in which organisations have interests in, and the strategic behaviour of stakeholders involved in the planning and decision-making processes. Optimism bias has been considered with the justification presented within the Financial Case section of the Business Case. This includes a review of the capital cost estimate in accordance with the HM Treasury Green Book and the draft report suggests a value of 42% that would accompany a capital cost based on the outline design for a minimum width bridge (Option 4b) provided by MC’s term contractor. This value provides a greater account to cost estimate uncertainty when compared with the TAG Unit document ‘Scheme Costs’ (A1.2) of 32% (TAG Unit A1.2 Table 8) assuming fixed link (bridge) project (TAG Unit A1.2 Table 6) and Stage 2 (outline) progress (TAG Unit A1.2 Table 7). Page 29
Page 30
158148/GL/T/R01.6 – Traffic & Economics Assessment Report Cloddach Bridge – Business Case, Elgin 11 4 Traffic Modelling Introduction Fairhurst developed a traffic model using available 2018 Junction Turning Count (JTC) information, which is detailed in the Local Model Validation Report (LMVR) and contained in Appendix I. Overall, the model provides a mixed performance in terms of validation and further discussion determined that the failure of the traffic model stems from a lack of relevant historical traffic data in the study area. The approving authorities agreed to determine the economic case using an alternative method developed by the DfT. The DfT’s small scheme appraisal toolkit provides a proportionate method to monetise the impacts of small highway and bus improvement schemes. The impact of the scheme is monetised by inputs to the toolkit based on demand, journey times and travel distance, evidenced from modelled or observed data. The funding sought for this type of assessment should not exceed £20m. It has been agreed between DfT and MC that Fairhurst can use this toolkit to generate the present value of costs and resultant benefits to cost ratio in light of the difficulties encountered when completing the Paramics traffic model. This will be achieved using version 4.00 2022 edition of the toolkit. Journey Times On-line journey planner resources have been used to determine the extent of the road network that offers journey time savings should the bridge be reopened. The screening process included start and finish points on either side of Cloddach bridge and inspection of routes and estimated times, which generally suggest that the railway is the natural boundary. This has resulted in a proposed scope area that encompasses the south area of Elgin. The alternative route inspection outputs are contained in Appendix J, which detail an assessment of drivetimes during each time period. The routes are also shown in Figure 4-1. Page 30
Page 31
158148/GL/T/R01.6 – Traffic & Economics Assessment Report Cloddach Bridge – Business Case, Elgin 12 Figure 4-1: Typical Journey Routes (Without and With-Scheme) Journeys to / from Maisondieu Road have a similar duration using the A941 Station Road via B9010, Wittet Drive and Wards Road to those trips via the bridge, it is therefore proposed to assume in this study that trips to this area are less likely to use the bridge. It is also noted that trips to The Wards industrial area are also similar. Furthermore, there are potential journey time savings for trips to/from the A96 East Road / Ashgrove Road junction, however, as the majority of this saving is likely to be in the journey to/from Linkwood Road and the volume of trips observed using the bridge reaching this point of the road network will be small, any extension to the study scope in this area would be of little value. It should be noted that a distance of circa 310m is ‘missing’ from the journey planner durations due to the software recognising that vehicles cannot use the bridge at the present time. However, this represents less than 40s journey time at 30mph or less than 20s at the national speed limit, which is considered to have little effect on driver route choice. Detailed inspection of journey times follows. Global Positioning System (GPS) information was obtained to inform an update of the Elgin Town Model by Jacobs and provides a variety of statistics (link distance, travel time, travel speeds and statistical indicators) of Tom Tom navigation unit users, collected between Sept 2017 and June 2018, when the bridge was still open to traffic. The data has been provided by MC, for use in the study, and is presented in separate time periods that are Page 31
Page 32
158148/GL/T/R01.6 – Traffic & Economics Assessment Report Cloddach Bridge – Business Case, Elgin 13 considered suitable for matching with the proposed input time periods to the toolkit, as shown in the Table 4-1. Table 4-1: Time Period Comparison GPS data Traffic data time period 0000-0500 Night 0800-0900 AM Peak 0900-1000 1000-1300 Inter-peak 1300-1600 1630-1730 PM Peak 1730-1830 1900-2400 Night The average link travel time has been used to determine route travel time duration for each time period and for the Without-Scheme and the With-Scheme scenarios. The assumption is that traffic volumes in the town and road infrastructure have not substantially changed, therefore there should be sufficient confidence in the GPS data for use against the normalised bridge traffic data at opening year (2025). The project timescales preclude the extension of the GPS data. However, infilling data gaps has used the observed link speeds at the current termination of data, to represent journeys as follows: A941 between Birkenhill Wood and Rashcrook Road (Link ID 322 toward Elgin and Link ID 325 leaving Elgin); C2E ‘Glenlossie Road’ / U119E Birkenbaud Road / C2E Rashcrook Road between the Elgin Golf Club driving range and A941 / B9010 (Link ID 241 toward Elgin and Link ID 243 leaving Elgin); and, The B9010 between the C2E and the Birchpark property access road (Link ID 295 toward Elgin and Link ID 294 leaving Elgin). Table 4-2 displays details of the gap filling journeys associated with each route. Page 32
Page 33
158148/GL/T/R01.6 – Traffic & Economics Assessment Report Cloddach Bridge – Business Case, Elgin 14 Table 4-2: Gap Filling Journey Times Route Journey time AM Inter PM Night B9010/C2E to Birchpark access road 67 63 60 59 Birchpark access road to B9010/C2E 66 65 65 55 B9010/C2E to Driving Range 140 138 129 133 Driving Range to B9010/C2E 147 141 131 138 B9010/C2E to A941 via Rashcrook Road 314 304 282 296 A941 to B9010/C2E to via Rashcrook Road 309 301 281 293 A941 at Rashcrook Road to Birkenhill Wood 111 110 107 100 A941 at Birkenhill Wood to Rashcrook Road 109 107 103 103 The GPS data was inspected to validate the on-line journey planner assumptions. It confirmed that journey times to/from the Wards Road / The Wards junction were shorter via the B9010. However, it also confirmed that journeys to the Laichmoray Roundabout were slightly shorter via the bridge. Accordingly, this route has been added to the potential journey time saving routes. Following the above finding, additional checks were undertaken to ensure that alternative routes to Linkwood via Edgar Road were not shorter than those via the A941, and it was confirmed that, based on the GPS data, the A941 was the more likely route to be used to reach Linkwood Road via the B9010. The resultant journey times including gap filling are shown in Table 4-3. Page 33
Page 34
158148/GL/T/R01.6 – Traffic & Economics Assessment Report Cloddach Bridge – Business Case, Elgin 15 Table 4-3: Route Journey Times From To AM Inter PM Night Via B9010 Via C2E Via B9010 Via C2E Via B9010 Via C2E Via B9010 Via C2E Cloddach Bridge A941 / Maisondieu Road 483 425 494 406 459 380 411 352 A941 / Maisondieu Road Cloddach Bridge 442 399 447 397 436 380 395 354 Cloddach Bridge Linkwood Road 520 390 536 372 500 346 443 326 Linkwood Road Cloddach Bridge 489 368 493 362 480 345 430 328 Cloddach Bridge Glen Moray Drive 496 275 521 269 476 254 425 252 Glen Moray Drive Cloddach Bridge 483 286 `492 274 473 260 419 258 Cloddach Bridge Thornhill Road 618 267 639 259 600 247 527 244 Thornhill Road Cloddach Bridge 612 270 605 258 580 245 513 243 To account for Saturday and Sunday journey time inputs to the toolkit, it is assumed that 90% of traffic would be subject to interpeak and 10% night-time journey times, based on the ATC daily vehicle profiles. Traffic Data MC have provided Automatic Traffic Count (ATC) data in the study area, as shown in drawing 158148/SK1202. An extract showing the proposed screenline is shown in Figure 4-2: Page 34
Page 35
158148/GL/T/R01.6 – Traffic & Economics Assessment Report Cloddach Bridge – Business Case, Elgin 16 Figure 4-2: Study Scope The permanent sites contain data for each month and the summary outputs are contained in Appendix K, resulting in the ability to match the data with the specific site (Dec 2020). These sites represent anticipated destinations that would benefit from the bridge opening to motorised traffic, coinciding with destinations that would be common using either route. Generally, Birkenhill House represents trips to/from the south (A941), Maisondieu Road / Linkwood Road / Thornhill Road trips to/from the east and Glen Moray trips in the Edgar Road area. A neutral month for a typical year has been used in later calculations, represented by May 2018. These show that the following proportions are as follows: A941 near Birkenhill House – 18.0% Thornhill Road east of A941 – 19.9% Linkwood Road east of A941 – 24.8% U171e – Maisondieu Road – 23.2% Glen Moray Drive south of Mossend Place – 14.1% A Junction Traffic Count (JTC) survey was undertaken at the junction of Glenlossie Road / C2E on Tuesday 28th November 2023 between 7am and 7pm, this has been used to validate journey routing assumptions. This shows the existing use, with the bridge closed, Page 35
Page 36
158148/GL/T/R01.6 – Traffic & Economics Assessment Report Cloddach Bridge – Business Case, Elgin 17 confirming route choice for users of the C2E east of the bridge, which is assumed to be complimentary to those potential users west of the bridge. The figures indicate that a daily split of 88% to/from the north, compared with 12% to/from the south. The proportions are shown in gravity model contained in Appendix L. It is noted that the C2E Cloddach West of Cloddach Bridge ATC (24112001) site represents data gathered over one week. Typical December traffic volumes reduce ahead of the Christmas break, resulting in the average flow being one of the lowest months for traffic movements during each year, this trend is displayed in the permanent site data. Focussing on the Thornhill Road site (Site 28), which is considered to be less susceptible to e.g. retail activities on Edgar Road, the increase in traffic from December 2020 traffic volume to the typical year / neutral month is circa 15.6%. However, taking the timing of the survey into account, it is likely that some shopping activity peaking would be present in the count (particularly the weekend), accordingly it has been concluded that no adjustment to the bridge traffic flows to represent a neutral month would be required. It is noted that trips to/from the south represent a production/attraction of 18%, whilst the C2E JTC survey indicates 12%. In discussion with MC, it is understood that some trips south do not use the Birkenbaud Road due to its geometry. Therefore, the difference (6%) has been routed north initially via Birnie Road before heading south, adjusting the journey time savings accordingly. A review of historic traffic trends using a further set of ATC surveys (located on the C2E to the north of the Golf Club driving range), as shown in Table 2-3, has also been undertaken. This review comments on data consistency and, if required, determine whether a factor would be required to ‘normalise’ the 2020 ATC volumes for the ATC site west of Cloddach Bridge (24112001). The JTC survey results for the junction of Glenlossie Road / C2E produced two-way traffic counts of 1014 vehicles and 875 vehicles to the north and south of the junction, respectively. Based on the comparison with the two-way traffic flows in Table 4-5, no direct correlation can be made between the recent JTC survey figures and the two-way ATC flows. The survey results may have been impacted by continued construction activity or other unknown events. Given that the flows are inconsistent, they have been excluded from the study. Page 36
Page 37
158148/GL/T/R01.6 – Traffic & Economics Assessment Report Cloddach Bridge – Business Case, Elgin 18 Traffic data requires to be input to the toolkit for the opening year (2025). Discussions with MC have determined that National Road Traffic Forecasts (NRTF) central traffic growth in the area would only be experienced in areas where there is major house building. In that regard, a review of the Glassgreen area (LDP Site Ref R20), which is designated for 195 houses, has been undertaken. This highlights that Royal Troon Drive etc. (accessed via the C2E) was fully occupied at some point between February 2021 and May 2021. Fyvie Green etc. (vehicle access via Dunnotter Way) is nearing completion at the time of writing. It is considered that increases in traffic on the bridge would be likely, were it to be reopened, with local traffic taking advantage to route westward compared to the 2020 count volumes. A new school (Glassgreen Primary LDP Site Ref CF4) is also included within the Site R20 boundary, adjacent to Fyvie Green. However, the approved Elgin South Masterplan update (2021) relocates this school into the future development area. There would be no impact on opening year (2025) traffic flows on the bridge for that land use, as a consequence. Overall, it is considered that these developments represent ‘a near certain’ land use change between the bridge traffic survey and the opening year. Whilst the rate of house building would not be seen as ‘major’, it is concluded that the application of NRTF ‘low’ growth (1.032) on the bridge’s surveyed traffic is appropriate to predict flows in the opening year (2025). There is also a ‘most likely’ scenario, during the lifetime of the bridge that planned areas for community expansion in the south of Elgin will come forward (e.g., LONG2) and employment (e.g., I16 and LONG3) that could also benefit from the bridge reopening. It is understood that the toolkit includes prediction of growth beyond the opening and that is considered to be sufficient to allow for these LDP areas. Page 37
Page 38
158148/GL/T/R01.6 – Traffic & Economics Assessment Report Cloddach Bridge – Business Case, Elgin 19 5 Traffic & Economic Assessment Introduction This section describes the findings of the traffic and economic assessment for the Cloddach Bridge options. It includes a description of the modelling undertaken and the economic performance of option. It is recognised that the Without-Scheme scenario also includes capital costs, e.g. to maintain the existing structure and to continue to provide footway / cycleway access only, or to demolish it. It is common practice to include these investment costs in the Without-Scheme and subtract these from the With-Scheme. However, the toolkit does not allow for the entry of costs associated with the Without-Scheme, any cost reallocation from the Without-Scheme to the With-Scheme budgets are not recognised in the following calculations and therefore represents a robust approach within this study. Uncertainty and sensitivity testing is undertaken to consider uncertainty in local factors and national demand growth. It is recognised that the toolkit does not appear to allow for sensitivity testing. Section 4 of this report details how this study has used appropriate growth factors suitable for the level of development in the local area, and without inclusion of future LDP areas. In addition, the level of uncertainty associated with the traffic predictions has also concluded that whilst a non-neutral to neutral month factor would have been appropriate, further consideration of the timing of the bridge surveys would warrant retaining the observed volumes. Both of these should contribute toward improve the certainty of the input. It should be noted that any uncertainty to values applied to the impact are inherent in all schemes using the toolkit, therefore there are no issues with the resulting outputs. Cost Benefit Analysis provides a comparison of a number of metrics, with the two most commonly used metrics are the ‘benefit-cost ratio’ (BCR) and the ‘net present value’ (NPV). The following are components: Present Value of Benefits – (PVB) Summing the stream of discounted benefits over the appraisal period results in the ‘present value of benefits’ (PVB), the value of a benefit in the base year equivalent to the stream of estimated benefits. Present Value of Costs – (PVC) A stream of scheme, future operating, maintenance and renewal costs should be estimated over the same appraisal period as the benefits and discounted in the same way as PVB. Page 38
Page 39
158148/GL/T/R01.6 – Traffic & Economics Assessment Report Cloddach Bridge – Business Case, Elgin 20 Net present value – NPV is simply calculated as the sum of future discounted benefits minus the sum of future discounted costs: PVB – PVC. A positive NPV means that discounted benefits outweigh discounted costs and, in a world with no budgetary constraints there would be a case for taking forward all projects with a positive NPV (providing the net monetised benefit outweighed any net negative non-monetised factors). Benefit-cost ratio - BCR is given by PVB / PVC and so indicates how much benefit is obtained for each unit of cost, with a BCR greater than 1 indicating that the benefits outweigh the costs. Impact on Traffic Flows The reopening of the bridge will return traffic to selected roads in the south of Elgin, whilst simultaneously relieving the B9010, Wittet Drive / Wards Road and the A941 (north of Rashcrook Road). Based on the Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) statistics received from MC, the proportion of traffic where Cloddach Bridge traffic would be re-routed to (as opposed to via the B9010) has been estimated using the two-way flows at five ATC counters. The permanent locations are on Maisondieu Road, Linkwood Road, Thornhill Road, Glen Moray Drive and the A941 at Rashcrook Road. The proportions of the diverted traffic via Cloddach Bridge are shown in Table 5-1. Page 39
Page 40
158148/GL/T/R01.6 – Traffic & Economics Assessment Report Cloddach Bridge – Business Case, Elgin 21 Table 5-1: Proportions of Diverted Traffic from Cloddach Bridge Origin / Destination Existing Route (Bridge Closed) Proposed Route (Bridge Open) Proportion Maisondieu Road B9010, Wards Road, A941 C2E, Birnie Road, A941 23.2% Linkwood Road B9010, Wards Road, A941 C2E, Birnie Road, A941 24.8% Thornhill Road B9010, Wards Road, A941 C2E, Birnie Road 19.9% Glen Moray Drive B9010, Wards Road, The Wards, Edgar Road C2E, Sandy Road 14.1% A941 at Rashcrook Road B9010, Wards Road, A941 C2E, Birnie Road, A941 6.0% C2E, Rashcrook Road 12.0% As a result of bridge opening, all existing traffic travelling from the south on the B9010 and routing to within the study area (i.e., to the south of the railway and west of the A941) would be diverted via the Cloddach Bridge and the C2E. Notably, there would be a significant proportional reduction of traffic on the A941 between Maisondieu Road and Linkwood Road and a small proportional increase in traffic on the A941 between Linkwood Road and Thornhill Road due to the route diversion. The route diversion also leads to a reduction of traffic on the B9010. Under the With- Scheme scenario there would also be less vehicles on the A941 between Rashcrook Road and Thornhill Road and also between Linkwood Road and Maisondieu Road. Elsewhere on the A941, there would an increase in traffic between Thornhill Road and Linkwood Road. Significant traffic increases will occur on the C2E, Rashcrook Road and Birnie Road due to the opening of Cloddach Bridge. The vehicle volumes for the Without-Scheme and the With-Scheme scenarios are shown in Table 5-2. Page 40
Page 41
158148/GL/T/R01.6 – Traffic & Economics Assessment Report Cloddach Bridge – Business Case, Elgin 22 Table 5-2: 24-Hour Two-Way Vehicle Volumes Corridor Without-Scheme With-Scheme B9010 788 0 Wards Road west of The Wards 788 0 Wards Road east of The Wards 678 0 C2E east of Cloddach Bridge 0 788 Birnie Road 0 583 Rashcrook Road 0 95 A941 north of Rashcrook Road 142 47 A941 between Thornhill Road and Linkwood Road 299 379 A941 between Linkwood Road and Maisondieu Road 495 183 Impact on Bus Routes There are several bus services which will be affected by the anticipated change in traffic flows due to the opening of Cloddach Bridge. The shortest route between the B9010 to Maisondieu Road, Linkwood Road and Thornhill Road in the With-Scheme scenario results in an increase in vehicles on the C2E, Rashcrook Road and Birnie Road, which affects Stagecoach bus services 33A, 33C and 36. Bus 33A offers weekday services between 6am and midnight, whilst the 33C operates from approximately 7am until 6pm. Stagecoach bus service 36 routes through Elgin between 5.30am and 7pm on weekdays. It is expected that up to a combined 3 bus services per hour would be affected by the increase in traffic volumes due to the opening of the Cloddach Bridge, on the A941 between Thornhill Road and Linkwood Road. It is anticipated that there would be an increase of approximately 72 vehicles would occur on this link between 7am and 7pm. It is expected that the increase would have an immaterial impact on the road network and thus existing bus services would not be affected. Impact on Non-motorised Users There is no available data for existing non-motorised users, therefore the impacts cannot be quantified. Clearly the increase in traffic will have an impact on any current walking and cycling trip between the B9010 and Birnie Road / A941. It is noted that there is a formal Page 41
Page 42
158148/GL/T/R01.6 – Traffic & Economics Assessment Report Cloddach Bridge – Business Case, Elgin 23 cycle route but the traffic volumes do not exceed 1,000 vehicles (two-way) per day, which meets the Cycle by Design low service criteria for a mixed street. Walking trips are generally assumed to have a reduced level of service. Impact on Road Safety The distribution of traffic following the reopening of the bridge is anticipated to increase 12-hour traffic on the C2E Glenlossie Road, north of the route to the bridge 123% (using 2023 JTC survey information) and Birnie Road by 11% (using 2018 JTC survey information). These two roads have infrequent collisions and the junction of the A941 / Birnie Road / Thornhill Road has no collision recorded between 2013 and 2022. No road safety concerns are apparent from the location, road geometry or frequency highlighted by the data provided. The amount of traffic on Rashcrook Road increases by 23% (using 2023 JTC survey information) due to the bridge reopening. The single collision (in 2014), whilst resulting in a fatality, is infrequent and therefore no road safety concerns are apparent from the location, road geometry or frequency highlighted by the data provided. The bridge reopening will lead to a small reduction in traffic volumes on the A941 between Thornhill Road and Rashcrook Road where there have been one collision resulting in slight injury, eight collisions resulting in serious injury and one fatality. The reduction in traffic could represent a small benefit to existing users. It is noted that the rerouting of traffic onto Rashcrook Road traffic does require vehicles to join the A941 at the site at which there was a fatality. However, the collision record at this junction is infrequent and there are no road safety concerns apparent from the road geometry or frequency highlighted by the data provided. An increase in traffic on the A941 between Linkwood Road and Thornhill Road is anticipated due to the reopening of the bridge. There are only slight injury collisions in this section with five recorded collisions, which is also considered to be infrequent. The final section of the A941, between Linkwood Road and Wards Road will benefit from a reduction in traffic, which the data shows there were three collisions resulting in serious injuries and one collision resulting in a slight injury. The anticipated reduction in traffic could represent a benefit to existing users. The B9010 has one collision, that resulted in a serious injury, this also represents an infrequent occurrence. Wards Road has no collisions recorded for the period between 2013 and 2022. Both roads will see a reduction in traffic, representing a benefit to the remaining users. Page 42
Page 43
158148/GL/T/R01.6 – Traffic & Economics Assessment Report Cloddach Bridge – Business Case, Elgin 24 Overall, there are no road safety concerns regarding the reopening of the bridge to traffic. Economic Performance of Options Introduction To assess the economic impact of changes in journey times and Vehicle Operating Costs (VOC), the DfT Small Scheme Application toolkit (version 4.00 2022) was used to process inputs based on demand, journey times and travel distance, evidenced by modelled or observed data. The toolkit calculates the value of the expected costs and benefits for users, private operators and the Government, both Local and Central, over a given appraisal period. To allow consistency and comparison between different projects, these costs and benefits are discounted and presented in 2010 values and prices. Where the lifetime of a bridge is expected to be 100 years, typical assessments for highway schemes are considered over 60 years. The toolkit considers an appraisal period of 60 years, which is considered appropriate for this study. The following values are quoted in 2010 prices. Economy The monetised impacts reported relate to business users (those travelling for work purposes) with the net business impact £3,190,238, which represents benefits due to journey time savings and vehicle operating costs. There is no private sector investment in this project. Environment Benefits to the environment, that have been monetised, include noise (£11,662), air quality (£30,000) and greenhouse gas emissions (£471,417) and total £513,079. Social This category includes the following items: • Commuting and other users’ benefits £5,243,322 • Accidents benefits from reduced journeys £144,266 Physical activity and journey quality have not been estimated. Page 43
Page 44
158148/GL/T/R01.6 – Traffic & Economics Assessment Report Cloddach Bridge – Business Case, Elgin 25 Public Accounts The public accounts impacts are a combination of local and central government funding and indirect taxes, which accrue to the Treasury. The cost to broad transport budget is calculated as £2,284,400. The toolkit highlights that the Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) of the With-Scheme is positive with total benefits of £8,433,560. This is summarised in Table 5-3 and the output for each option is contained in the Appendix M. Table 5-3: Summary of Economic Efficiency of the Transport System (TEE) Benefits to Travel Total Non-business commuting £1,730,708 Non-business other £3,512,615 Business £3,190,238 Private sector £0 TOTAL £8,433,560 The public accounts (PA) are summarised in Table 5-4. PA impacts that do not directly affect the transport budget, such as Indirect Tax Revenues which accrue to the Treasury, and impacts on transport users and providers that might commonly be referred to as costs, such as fuel costs or public transport operating costs, are included in the PVB. The scheme does not currently lead to changes in public sector revenues (for example tolling options). Table 5-4: Summary of PA Public Accounts Results Total Investment Costs £1,679,142 Indirect tax revenues £623,094 The analysis of monetised costs and benefits (AMCB) are summarised in Table 5-5. This combines information from the TEE and PA tables with monetised estimates of other impacts (such as accidents and greenhouse gases). It should be noted that as there are no significant road traffic collision risks assumed. Page 44
Page 45
158148/GL/T/R01.6 – Traffic & Economics Assessment Report Cloddach Bridge – Business Case, Elgin 26 Table 5-5: Summary of Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits (AMCB) AMCB Results Total Noise £11,662 Local Air Quality £30,000 Greenhouse Gases £471,417 Journey Quality - Physical Activity - Accidents £144,266 Economic Efficiency: Consumer Users (Commuting) £1,730,708 Economic Efficiency: Consumer Users (Other) £3,512,615 Economic Efficiency: Business Users and Providers £3,190,238 Wider Public Finances (Indirect Taxation Revenues) £623,094 PVB £8,467,811 PVC £2,284,400 NPV £6,183,411 BCR 3.7 The overall economic analysis indicates that there would be a good benefit passed to vehicle users with the reopening of the bridge. Page 45
Page 46
158148/GL/T/R01.6 – Traffic & Economics Assessment Report Cloddach Bridge – Business Case, Elgin 27 6 Traffic and Economic Assessment Summary Scope This assessment report outlines the traffic and economic assessment inputs for the Cloddach Bridge – Strategic Business Case and has been prepared in accordance with Department for Transport (DfT) Transport Assessment Guidance (TAG). Existing Conditions The bridge previously provided access to the B9010 north and southbound for residents in rural communities including Birnie, Thomshill, Glenlatterach and Bardonside. Due to safety concerns, Moray Council (MC) authorised the closure of the bridge to all vehicular traffic on the 4th February 2022. The bridge closure to traffic includes a signed alternative route for vehicles travelling to the A941 to enter Elgin from the south and then taking the A96 west back to the B9010. This diversion has a length of approximately 6 miles and anecdotal evidence suggests journey times are extended by up to 15 minutes during peak times. MC have a comprehensive collection of permanent Automatic Traffic Counter (ATC) sites in Elgin. The information provided highlights average daily flows per month, generally from 2014 to 2023. Additional information is available from ‘one-off’ ATC surveys undertaken in 2017 and 2021. Junction Turning Count (JTC) traffic surveys were undertaken on behalf of MC in 2018 in support of an update to the strategic Elgin Town Centre Model. Fairhurst also commissioned JTC surveys at selected junctions that were undertaken in 2023. Traffic flows on the bridge averaged 764 vehicles two-way per day (2020) and the A941 supported circa 7,600 vehicles two-way per day (2018). Glenlossie Road / C2E had 1014 two- way vehicles (7am-7pm, 2023) and Rashcrook Road at the A941 had 370 vehicles (7am-7pm, 2023). The 2018 survey of Birnie Road showed it carried 4913 two-way vehicles (7am-7pm). Twelve bus services were investigated with most providing an hourly frequency. Non-motorised users have been able to continue to use the bridge, but there are no existing volumes known. Road safety investigation identified there were 37 collisions on the roads to the south of Elgin Town Centre that resulted in injury to 56 persons. It is considered that the council area has less persons seriously injured in traffic collisions than the national average, however, the Page 46
Page 47
158148/GL/T/R01.6 – Traffic & Economics Assessment Report Cloddach Bridge – Business Case, Elgin 28 persons killed statistic per head of population is worse. This could be due to the council area consisting of mostly rural roads and these generally involve faster vehicle speeds and increased levels of injuries. Nevertheless, the roads in the south of Elgin have less persons injured per head of population than the national average. An online review highlights that the road environment appears to be suitable and is less likely to be contributing to traffic collisions. Scheme Options This study considers the option that enables the Cloddach Bridge to reopen to vehicular traffic, also includes increasing the weight limit to 40 Tonnes, which includes a new integral bridge structure single lane and full demolition of existing bridge. Cost Estimates The capital cost is provided by MC’s term contractor and based on the outline design for a minimum width bridge (Option 4b). For the purposes of transport economics, the total investment is £3,014,735, which includes for inflation. An additional 42% has been used to represent optimism bias. Traffic Modelling Fairhurst developed a traffic model using available 2018 JTC information, which is detailed in the Local Model Validation Report (LMVR). Overall, the model provides a mixed performance in terms of validation and further discussion determined that the failure of the traffic model stems from a lack of relevant historical traffic data in the study area. The approving authorities agreed to determine the economic case using an alternative method developed by the DfT. The DfT’s small scheme appraisal toolkit provides a proportionate method to monetise the impacts of small highway and bus improvement schemes. The impact of the scheme is monetised by inputs to the toolkit based on demand, journey times and travel distance, evidenced from modelled or observed data. To provide the inputs, journey time information in the form of GPS surveys was used with additional roads to complete the data set. This identified journey times for likely destinations in the south of Elgin, comparing the journeys via the B9010 and the reopened bridge. In general, it has been found that both journey times and distances reduce by one third with the bridge being reopened. Page 47
Page 48
158148/GL/T/R01.6 – Traffic & Economics Assessment Report Cloddach Bridge – Business Case, Elgin 29 Traffic data for the bridge was factored using NRTF to the opening year (2025) using low growth. Traffic Assessment As a result of bridge opening, all existing traffic travelling from the south on the B9010 and routing to within the study area (i.e., to the south of the railway and west of the A941) would be diverted via the Cloddach Bridge and the C2E. Notably, there would be a significant proportional reduction of traffic on the A941 between Maisondieu Road and Linkwood Road and a small proportional increase in traffic on the A941 between Linkwood Road and Thornhill Road due to the route diversion. The route diversion also leads to a reduction of traffic on the B9010 in Elgin. Under the With-Scheme scenario there would also be less vehicles on the A941 between Rashcrook Road and Thornhill Road and also between Linkwood Road and Maisondieu Road. Elsewhere on the A941, there would an increase in traffic between Thornhill Road and Linkwood Road. Significant traffic increases will occur on the C2E, Rashcrook Road and Birnie Road due to the opening of Cloddach Bridge. It is expected that up to a combined 3 bus services per hour would be affected by the increase in traffic volumes due to the opening of the Cloddach Bridge, on the A941 between Thornhill Road and Linkwood Road. However, it is expected that the increase would have an immaterial impact on the road network and thus existing bus services would not be affected. The impact on existing walking trips and cycling trips cannot be quantified, however, as there is no traffic currently on the bridge, it can be concluded that these road users will experience a reduction in the level of service. It is noted that the bridge hosts a section of a signposted cycle route but the increase in traffic volumes due to bridge opening do not exceed 1,000 vehicles (two-way) per day, which meets the Cycle by Design low service criteria for a mixed street. Overall, there are no road safety concerns regarding the reopening of the bridge to traffic. Economic Assessment The cost benefit analysis identifies that the present value of costs to be circa £2.3 million and the present value of benefits to be circa £8.5 million (over 60 years). The net present value is calculated to be circa £6.2 million and the benefits to cost ratio 3.7. Page 48
Page 49
158148/GL/T/R01.6 – Traffic & Economics Assessment Report Cloddach Bridge – Business Case, Elgin 30 Overall Summary This study considers the option that enables the Cloddach Bridge to reopen to vehicular traffic, also includes increasing the weight limit to 40 Tonnes, which includes a new integral bridge structure single lane and full demolition of existing bridge. In general, it has been found that both journey times and distances reduce by one third with the bridge being reopened. Whilst three roads in the south of Elgin do experience increases in traffic, the impact is considered manageable and the overall impact on traffic is generally to the benefit of most users. Impacts on existing bus services is considered negligible. There will be a reduction in the level of service to existing walking and cycling trips on the bridge. There are no road safety concerns with the reopening of the bridge. The transport economics cost for the scheme is circa £2.3 million (2010 prices), whilst the benefits are circa £8.5 million (over 60 years). The resultant net present value is positive, circa £6.2 million (2010 prices), and the benefits to cost ratio 3.7, which is considered to be good. Page 49
Page 50
Appendix A Bridge Closure News Article Page 50
Page 51
Page 51
Page 52
Page 52
Page 53
Page 53
Page 54
Appendix B Fairhurst Drawing 158148/sk1202 Page 54
Page 55
Page 55
Page 56
Appendix C Fairhurst Drawing 158148/sk1204 Page 56
Page 57
Page 57
Page 58
Appendix D Elgin City Bus Map Page 58
Page 59
Continues to Burghead ElginMoray Leisure Centre 33C Continues to Lossiemouth 33A 32 33C 33A 33C 33A 36 36 Continues to Rothes 35 X10 38 Continues to Aberdeen Continues to Buckie Continues to Buckie St Giles Shopping Centre Moray College Elgin Springfield Retail Park Moray Sports Centre Dr Gray’s Hospital Continues to Forres X10 31 Bus station 34 33C 33C 33C 33C 33A 33A 33A 33A RAF Childcare Centre M uirton Rd Stotfield Rd Clifton Rd Queen St Boyd Anderson Dr Lossiemouth Buckie TescoF Highfield Medical CentreG Burns SquareH Buckie RathvenD Milton DriveE Buckie Seafield HospitalA East Church St McKaysB Craigbo TerraceC Barhill Rd 35 38 Seafield Hospital A B C D E F G H 35 W Church St E Church St MainRd Milton Dr. High St Douglas Cres. Buckie Forres Continues to Kinloss Thornhill Rd 31 A96 Victoria Rd High St Nairn Road Grantown RdGrant Dr Pilmuir Rd North St Borough Briggs Rd Lesmurdie Rd Woodside Terrace Riverside Drive East Rd A96 Reiket Ln Pinefield Cr. Pinefield Parade Manitoba AveLinkwood Rd Maisondieu Rd Hay St Edgar Rd Springfield Rd Glen Lossie Dr Elgin Correct at time of print; 6/04/2020 For more detailed journey planning and real-time updates download the Stagecoach Bus App. Page 59
Page 60
Appendix E Elgin Core Path Plan Page 60
Page 61
CP-EG01 CP-EG02 CP-EG02 CP-EG74 CP-EG74 CP-EG74 Map 7 Map 30 Map 30 Map 5 Map 10 Map 30 ® Date:January 2024 Map 6Scale: Moray Core Path Plan Pluscarden & Miltonduff Area 1:20,000 © Crown copyright and database rights 2024 Ordnance Survey AC0000806936 Moray Council. You are not permitted to copy, sub-licence, distribute or sell any of this data to third parties in any form. Layers Core Paths- Off road Core Paths - Public roads/ Roadside paths Start Finish Points Existing Paths Core Paths outwith Moray National Park Boundary Moray BoundaryPage 61
Page 62
CP-SP01 CP-SW04 CP-SP22 CP-SP20 CP-SP19 CP-EG02 CP-SP21 CP-EG07 CP-EG73 CP-SP01 CP-SP21 CP-SW 04 CP-SW04 CP-SW04 CP-EG05 CP-EG01 CP-SP36 CP-EG75 HIGHLAND CORE PATHS PLAN AREA Map 5 Map 6 Map 10 Map 11 Map 35 Map 3 Map 29 Map 31 Map 32 ® 1:60,000Scale: Date:January 2024 Map 30 Moray Core Path Plan Mannoch Area © Crown copyright and database rights 2024 Ordnance Survey AC0000806936 Moray Council. You are not permitted to copy, sub-licence, distribute or sell any of this data to third parties in any form. Layers Core Paths- Off road Core Paths - Public roads/ Roadside paths Start Finish Points Existing Paths Core Paths outwith Moray National Park Boundary Moray Boundary Page 62
Page 63
Appendix F Elgin Active Travel Map Page 63
Page 64
PUBLIC TRANSPORT Traveline Scotland – www.travelinescotland.com ScotRail – www.scotrail.co.uk Stageoach – www.stagecoachbus.com Citylink – www.citylink.co.uk Moray Council - www.moray.gov.uk/moray_standard/page_1679.html OTHER USEFUL WEBSITES Sustrans Scotland – www.sustrans.org.uk/scotland Cycling Scotland – www.cycling.scot Paths for all – www.pathsforall.org.uk Energy Saving Trust – www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/scotland Cycle Streets – Journey planning – www.cyclestreets.net USING THIS MAP This active travel map highlights suggested routes for cycling in and around Elgin. Where possible, it identifies traffic-free routes which are recommended for walking too. The map also shows quieter roads which people may prefer for cycling. Elgin and the surrounding area is a great place to walk and cycle, where many people choose to make their journeys actively. This map shows how easily you can reach key destinations by bike or on foot. This map was produced by: HITRANS (Highlands and Islands Regional Transport Partnership) 2nd Floor, 7 Ardross Terrace, Inverness, IV3 5NQ www.hitrans.org.uk HITRANS THE HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS TRANSPORT PARTNERSHIP SAFETY AND COURTESY When you’re cycling make sure you’re easily visible to other road users – wear bright or reflective clothing and use front and rear lights when riding in the dark. Check the Highway Code or information on walking, cycling and safe driving around cyclists. www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk e easily visible ts when riding in Why choose Active Travel? It’s free! Walking is the natural choice for short, everyday journeys, and you don’t have to worry about parking! It is often quicker to travel around town by bike than by bus or car. It helps you stay fit and healthy. Incorporating exercise into your daily routine helps you to achieve the recommended 150 minutes of exercise a week which will help keep you mentally and physically healthy. It benefits the environment. Active travel contributes to quieter streets and cleaner air. Driving less could mean a mixture of walking, cycling, e-biking, car sharing and using public transport for some of your journeys. Elgin - Hopeman 7.5 miles / 12 km Follow the NCN1 as far as the junction with B9012, then follow this to Hopeman and pick up coastal path. Elgin - Lossiemouth 6 miles / 9.5 km Cycle path along A941 then B9135 into Lossiemouth. Elgin - Spey Bay 11 miles / 7.5 km Follow NCN1 Lossiemouth Loop 14 miles / 22.4 km From the west beach, via the airfield, Duffus castle and back. Elgin - Experience 13 miles /20.8 km A waymarked route through Moray’s historic capital and its scenic surrounding countryside.. Elgin - Pluscarden Abbey 7 miles / 11 km Take the B9010 out of Elgin, then follow signs for the Abbey. Elgin - Duffus Castle 5 miles / 8 km Follow B9012. Elgin - Spynie Palace 2.5 miles / 4 km Cycle path towards Lossiemouth then minor road to the east. Elgin - Fochabers 9 miles / 14.5 km NCN1 to B9013, then South East to Animal Country Hotel, then North to Mosstodloch and cycle path to Fochabers. GOOD CYCLING ROUTES FROM ELGIN LOCAL BIKE SHOPS Cycle Circle 7 High Street, Elgin, IV30 1EQ t: 01343 549656 w: www.cycle-circle.co.uk Halfords Lossie Wynd, North Elgin, IV30 1GU t: 01343 552030 w: www.halfords.com Bike Revolution Shore Street, Lossiemouth, IV31 6PB t: 01343 549571 w: www.outfitmoray.com Bike Repair Stand Cooper Park CooperPark Borough Briggs Oak Wood The Wards Cemetery Moray Sports Centre Moray Sports Centre Golf Course Pitgaveny Wood River Lossie 0 0 ½ mile 1 km New Elgin Tyock Moycroft Linkwood Pinefield Bishopmill New Elgin Tyock Town CentreTown Centre Moycroft Linkwood Pinefield Bishopmill Moray Leisure Centre Elgin Academy College College Sch. Sch. Sch. Sch. Sch. Sch. Sch. Sch. Hospital JohnstonsCathedral Moray Leisure Centre Elgin Academy College College Sch. Sch. Sch. Sch. Sch. Sch. Sch. Sch. Hospital JohnstonsCathedral Pitgaveny Road Calcots Road Lesmurdie Road Newmill Road Pansport Road Maisondieu Road Moss Street Edgar Road Glen Moray Drive Sandy Road Birnie Road Thornhill Road Linkwood Road The Wards Wards Road Linkwood Road B9103 Birnie Road Covesea Road Morriston Road Brumley Brae Morriston Road Oldmills Road Reiket Lane Pluscarden Road B9010 B9012 Duffus Road North Street Lossiemouth Road A96 East Road A941 Main Street New Elgin Road South College Street Alexandra Rd Station Rd Hay Street Northfield Ter West Road West Road A96 A941 To Forres Nairn Inverness To Burghead To Aberlour Dufftown To Lossiemouth To Kingston /Buckie/ Aberdeen All services are subject to change. Please check before you travel. Get live bus times on the app. Pay contactless on most services. Elgin Bus Station Alexandra Rd, Elgin IV30 1PW Stagecoach: web: www.stagecoachbus.com tel: 01343 544222 email: bluebird.enquiries@stagecoachbus.com Get the free app for journey planning, live times and etickets Moray Council Bus Times Page: www.moray.gov.uk/moray_standard/page_1679.html tel: 0300 123 4565 334 363 3636 36 366 334 366 363 334 334 35 35 10 10 10 Inverness - Elgin - Aberdeen Elgin - Findhorn - Forres Elgin - Burghead Pinefield - Elgin - Lossiemouth Elgin North Circular Elgin - Aberdeen via Coast Elgin - Aberlour/Dufftown Elgin - Buckie Circular Bus station Train station Elgin - Garmouth/Kingston Elgin - Archiestown/Knockando - Aberlour Elgin - Tomintoul 31 31 38 38 34 34 34 32 33A/C 33A/C 33A/C 33A/C 33A/C 33A/C 32 32 Stagecoach Bluebird Services Moray Council Services Deveron Coaches ELGIN BUS SERVICES © www.helenstirlingmaps.com 2020 . Contains Ordnance Survey Data. Crown Copyright and Database right 2020 MODMOD RAF LossiemouthRAF Lossiemouth 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 THES ORRES Lossiemouth ELGIN Fochabers Burghead Mosstodloch Lhanbryde Garmouth Hopeman Cummingston Duffus Spey Bay Findhorn Kingston Thomshill rd Kinloss Dallas Kellas Alves Miltonduff Birnie Pittendreich Barnhill Roseisle Findrassie Old Duffus Salterhill Quarrywood Ardgye Cloves Mains of Burgie Mains of Craigmill Auchtertyre Altonside on Urquhart Muir of Lochs Upper Dallachy Auchenhalrig Dipple Nether Dallachy Bogmoor Lochhill Orbliston Ordiquish Inchberry Coltfield Hempriggs Muirhead Covesea Fogwatt Whitewreath Longmorn Gordonstoun School Burghead Bay Spey Bay Glenlatterach Loch Spynie Millbuies Loch Loch na Bo River Lossie River Spey River Lossie Black Burn Monaughty Wood Alves Wood Roseisle Forest Quarrel Wood Findrassie Wood Pitgaveny Wood Wood of OrdiquishTeindland Wood Whiteash Hill Wood Balnacoul Wood Oakenhead Wood Lossie Forest Heldon Hill Brown MuirHart HillHill of Wangie A96 A96 A98 A941 A96 A941 B9015 B9015 B9015 B9010 B9010 B9010 B9089 B9013 B9012 B9040 B9135 B9103 B9104 Underpass Bike Revolution Spynie Palace Duffus Castle (ruin) Gordon Castle Baxters Ian Baxter Picnic Site Moray Monster Trails Ordiquish Car Park Moray Monster Trails Winding Walks Car Park Scottish Dolphin Centre Millbuies Country Park Covesea Skerries Lighthouse Bin Hill Arthur’s Bridge Roseisle Forest Glenburgie Roseisle Maltings Glen Elgin Miltonduff Pluscarden Abbey Birnie Kirk Windswept Brewing Company See Elgin Town Map See Elgin Town Map ‘A’ road road ‘B’ road Minor roads Track Path Railway / station Bus stop Settlement Woodland Parking / toilets General store School Camp / caravan site Visitor centre / museum Abbey, church / distillery Picnic site / cafe, restaurant Suggested Cycle Routes Waymarked Cycle Routes Map Key On a minor road On shared cycle / pedestrian path On other path suitable for cycling Speyside Way Moray Coast Trail National Cycle Route 1 (off road / on road) Bike shop Bike hire Bike repair Waymarked walks Mountain biking trails Elgin Experience Lossie Loop Moray Coast Cycle Route (deviation from Moray Coast Trail) A96 B9012 11 © www.helenstirlingmaps.com 2021. Published by HITRANS 2021 and Moray Council 2021 Contains Ordnance Survey Data. © Crown Copyright and Database Right 2020 Map compiled from O.S. Open Data 2020 ©Open Street Map Contributors. The representation of a road, track or path is not evidence of the existence of a right of way. The content of this map is believed to be correct at the time of printing. Nevertheless, the publisher cannot accept any responsibility for errors, omissions or changes or for any expense or loss thereby caused. Comments, corrections and updates are welcome at info@hitrans.org.uk. This map should not be reproduced without permission. O 5 km1 2 3 4 O 1 2 3 miles Map scale 1:80,000 How long will it take? 20 minutes of cycling will take you this far 1 hour of walking will take you this far - if you cycle at 6 miles per hour - if you walk at about 3 miles per hour ....or this far - if you cycle at 10 miles per hour To Forres Nairn Inverness To Rafford & Forres To Craigellachie To Keith Huntly Aberdeen To Buckie To Craigellachie Speyside Way and Moray Coast Trail to Buckie Moray Coast Cycle route to Cullen NCN 1 to Aberdeen Speyside Way to Aviemore, Dufftown, and Tomintoul Moray Coast Trail to Findhorn NCN 1 to Kinloss and Forres SIGNS YOU WILL SEE 1 Shared use route Walking and cycling traffic free. Contraflow Two-way cycling allowed on a one-way street. Cycle route ahead Warns drivers of riders on the road National Cycle Network Route 1: Inverness to Aberdeen See sustrans.org.uk/ncn/map No cycling Recommended cycle route Often marked with a dashed white line on the road. It’s an offence to close-pass someone cycling and you could get three points on your license and be fined £100. Always give at least 1.5 metres space when passing – this will usually mean crossing into the other lane. Wait at a safe distance until you have space and visibility to pass safely. Elgin Active Travel Map Walking and cycling routes in and around Elgin Page 64
Page 65
Appendix G Road Collision Data Page 65
Page 66
Cloddach Bridge Accident Study 2013-2022 Key: SlightInjury Accident Serious Injury Accident Fatal Injury Accident Damage Only Accident Page 66
Page 67
1Created by Elaine Penny on 20-Nov-2023 CRASH DETAILS Crash Id Accident Reference Collision Severity Number Of Vehicle Records Number Of Casualty Records Date Time Location - Easting Location - Northing 1st Road Number Accident Location 28 1301145 DamageOnly 1 0 17-Mar-2013 02:10 321533 859355 Unclassified Elgin to Birnie Road, Elgin 33 1301138 DamageOnly 2 0 15-Mar-2013 18:25 321802 861960 SC - Edgar Road, Elgin at its junction with the TA Centre 34 1301113 DamageOnly 2 0 15-Mar-2013 18:50 322260 861610 941 On the road outside No 31 Main Street 39 1300339 DamageOnly 2 0 25-Jan-2013 11:00 320923 862311 Mayne Road, Elgin, outside no 42. 45 1300264 DamageOnly 2 0 21-Jan-2013 17:00 321352 862619 941 South Street Elgin at it's roundabout junction with Hay Street, Elgin 47 1300208 DamageOnly 1 0 18-Jan-2013 00:02 321550 859377 The unclassified road from Elgin to Thomshill at its junction with the unclassified road to Cloddach quarry. 53 1300141 DamageOnly 2 0 13-Jan-2013 16:45 321085 862576 South Street, Elgin, Moray 30m West of its junction with Hawthorn Road 59 1300102 DamageOnly 2 0 01-Jan-2013 14:40 321984 862283 On the roundabout at the junction of Moss Street and Maisondieu Road, Elgin. 63 1301054 DamageOnly 1 0 13-Mar-2013 08:54 321675 859584 Unclassified road between Elgin and Thomshill near to Duffus Hillock Farm, Elgin, Moray 73 1600662 Slt 2 1 27-Jun-2016 15:20 320965 862606 96 Roundabout located betweenWest Street, A96, South Street and Pluscarden Road, Elgin Page 67
Page 68
2Created by Elaine Penny on 20-Nov-2023 102 1300828 DamageOnly 3 0 25-Feb-2013 17:00 321656 861904 Edgar Road, Elgin outside S and D Harper 125 1301328 DamageOnly 2 0 28-Mar-2013 16:00 321413 862490 941 A941 Hay Street at its junction with Moray Street,Elgin 184 1301935 DamageOnly 1 0 24-May-2013 12:30 322108 862053 Edgar Road with the junction to New Elgin Road, Elgin, Moray 195 1301533 Slt 2 1 15-Apr-2013 17:10 320687 862239 Wittet Drive, Elgin at its junction with Petrie Crescent, Elgin 196 1301540 DamageOnly 2 0 16-Apr-2013 09:30 321943 861766 Councillors Walk, Elgin 198 1301597 Slt 2 2 16-Apr-2013 14:00 323205 857480 941 The locus is the located on the A941 carriageway, 40 metres north west of the junction with the unclassified road to Wester Whitewreath, near Fogwatt, Moray. 218 1302231 DamageOnly 1 0 16-Jun-2013 04:00 321570 859000 Elgin to Thomshill Road, Elgin, Moray 247 1302054 DamageOnly 1 0 01-Jun-2013 21:25 322159 861208 Main Road, Elgin at its roundabout junction with Birnie Road. 248 1302154 DamageOnly 2 0 01-Jun-2013 16:45 321300 861740 Edgar Road, Elgin, at its junction with Glenmoray Drive, Elgin 270 1300133 DamageOnly 2 0 13-Jan-2013 12:30 322990 858191 941 The A941 Elgin to Rothes road at Longmorn is a single carriageway road governed by national speed limits. This incident took place at the mouth of the T-Junction leading to Lithe Lochan. 281 1302668 DamageOnly 1 0 18-Jul-2013 19:30 322179 861669 Convener Street at it's junction with Smith Street, New Elgin, Elgin, Moray. Page 68
Page 69
3Created by Elaine Penny on 20-Nov-2023 289 1302420 DamageOnly 2 0 26-Jun-2013 15:05 321138 862322 Forteath Avenue at its junction with Young Street, Elgin 299 1302039 DamageOnly 2 0 25-May-2013 12:00 322294 861479 Outside No 39 New Elgin Road 350 1302790 DamageOnly 1 0 28-Jul-2013 14:00 321173 862177 Wards Road, Elgin heading in the direction of Hay Street from the railway arch 369 1303337 DamageOnly 1 0 06-Sep-2013 16:10 321799 861022 Birnie Road, Elgin at its roundabout junction with Sandy Road, Elgin, Moray 373 1303381 DamageOnly 2 0 10-Sep-2013 13:00 322194 861458 941 Main Street, New Elgin, outside the chinese carryout 418 1303494 DamageOnly 2 0 18-Sep-2013 11:00 321375 862685 Batchen Lane, Elgin 440 1303809 Ser 1 1 26-Aug-2013 15:20 321947 862263 941 A941 Station Road, Elgin, approximately 30 metres west of the junction with New Elgin Road. 497 1303851 Ser 1 1 11-Nov-2013 14:30 322480 860138 941 A941 Rothes to Elgin Road 15 metres south of the unclassidfied entrance to Birkenhill Elgin Moray. 576 1401102 Slt 2 1 14-Aug-2014 18:00 321257 862750 96 High Street, Elgin at its roundabout junction with Alexandra Road, Elgin 592 1500908 Slt 2 1 15-Aug-2015 15:00 322182 861423 941 (A941) Main Street, New Elgin, near its junction with Land Street, Elgin, outside the Buccaneer Filling Station. 622 1401674 DamageOnly 3 0 05-Dec-2014 17:45 322711 859156 941 A941 near to Longmorn distillery. 626 1401508 Slt 2 2 21-Nov-2014 11:00 321717 861281 Sandy Road, Elgin, Moray approximately 35 metres north of its junction with Land Street, Elgin, Moray Page 69
Page 70
4Created by Elaine Penny on 20-Nov-2023 660 1401432 Slt 2 1 07-Nov-2014 15:45 322173 861420 Land Street at its junction with Main Street, Elgin, Moray 686 1401613 Slt 1 1 16-Dec-2014 11:30 321656 861904 Edgar Road, Elgin 706 1500005 Ser 3 3 05-Dec-2014 19:02 322711 859002 941 A941 Elgin to Rothes road approximately 150 metres north of Viewbank, Longmorn, Elgin, Moray 717 1500619 DamageOnly 2 0 19-May-2015 17:49 322184 861423 941 Main Street, approximately 12 meters south of its junction with Croft Road, New Elgin 731 1500811 Slt 1 1 20-Jul-2015 01:15 322059 862166 941 New Elgin Road, Elgin near to junction with Maisondeu Road 768 1500850 Slt 2 1 26-Jun-2015 07:45 322125 862030 941 The A941 New Elgin Road, Elgin, at its roundabout junction with Edgar Road 773 1501252 Ser 2 1 10-Nov-2015 10:20 320967 862607 96 A96 High Street, Elgin, at its roundabout junction with South Street, Elgin, Moray. 820 1600485 Ser 1 1 01-May-2016 04:00 323043 857892 941 A941 Rothes to Elgin Road, approximately 300 metres south of its junction with Lithe Lochan, Longmorn 866 1600940 Ser 1 2 20-Oct-2016 19:10 322115 862059 941 A941 New Elgin Road at its roundabout junction with Edgar Road, Elgin 891 1600668 Slt 1 1 21-Jul-2016 10:25 322319 861589 Bezack Street, New Elgin, Elgin 893 1501147 DamageOnly 2 0 06-Oct-2015 12:30 322191 861449 941 Main Street, New Elgin 929 1700482 Ser 2 1 06-May-2017 11:30 322001 862010 Edgar Road, Elgin at it's junction with Asda , Elgin 965 1500252 Slt 1 1 02-Mar-2015 16:45 320953 862619 96 A96 at the roundabout at Dr Grays Hospital, Elgin Page 70
Page 71
5Created by Elaine Penny on 20-Nov-2023 969 1700650 Slt 2 4 25-Jun-2017 00:35 321342 862624 941 A941 Northfield Terrace, at the mini roundabout with South Street, Elgin 989 1700207 Slt 2 1 16-Dec-2016 18:40 322253 861414 Junction with Bezack Street and Croft Road, New Elgin, Moray 991 1700549 DamageOnly 2 0 19-Jul-2017 10:40 322319 861589 Bezack Street, Elgin 1010 1400866 Ser 3 2 08-Jul-2014 15:14 322980 858183 941 A941 Rothes to Elgin road at junction with the Longmorn Distillery, Longmorn, Moray 1018 1800222 Slt 2 1 11-Feb-2018 14:40 322190 861438 941 Main Street at its staggered crossroads with Land Street and Croft Road, Elgin 1023 1800321 Ser 3 3 14-May-2018 15:40 322985 858179 941 A941, Rothes to Elgin Road at its junction to Longmorn Distillery, Elgin, Moray 1075 1700788 DamageOnly 1 0 20-Jun-2017 16:40 321530 859317 Unclassified road between Elgin and Thomshill, approximately 25 metres south of the Birnie Kirk junction 6428 954176 Ser 1 1 30-May-2020 16:30 322705 858854 941 A941 6650 1010181 Ser 1 1 26-Dec-2020 12:11 323058 857810 941 A941 6654 1053494 Fatal 2 1 08-Jun-2021 07:00 323129 857592 941 A941 AT JUNCTION WITH UNCLASSIFIED RASHCROOK ROAD 6655 1060087 Ser 2 1 27-Jun-2021 13:20 319906 861771 9010 PLUSCARDEN ROAD (B9010) NEAR JUNCTION WITH UNCLASSIFIED ROAD 6703 1900026 Ser 2 2 10-Jan-2019 15:50 321619 861891 Edgar Road, Elgin, Moray Page 71
Page 72
6Created by Elaine Penny on 20-Nov-2023 45495 1121057 Slt 2 4 10-Dec-2021 13:30 322674 859530 941 A941 AT JUNCTION WITH UNCLASSIFIED ROAD LEADING TO BURNSIDE OF BIRNIE 45498 1100938 Slt 2 1 18-Oct-2021 19:27 320964 862606 96 A96 AT JUNCTION WITH SOUTH STREET 50370 1171190 Fatal 1 1 26-Apr-2022 09:58 321686 859859 THE UNCLASSIFIED THOMSHILL TO ELGIN ROAD ADJACENT TO ELGIN GOLF CLUB, ELGIN, MORAY 50395 1193180 Slt 2 2 28-Jun-2022 10:24 320581 862366 9010 PLUSCARDEN ROAD (B9010) NEAR JUNCTION WITH WITTET DRIVE 51759 1235258 Slt 2 1 26-Oct-2022 18:23 321538 861721 THE MEWS AT ITS JUNCTION WITH GLEN MORAY DRIVE, ELGIN, MORAY 51838 1258424 Slt 2 1 30-Dec-2022 14:10 321975 862275 941 A941 AT JUNCTION WITH STATION ROAD (A941) VEHICLE DETAILS Crash Id Vehicle Reference Number Type of Vehicle Manoeuvres 28 1 Car4W AhRhB 33 1 Car4W AhOth 33 2 Car4W WgTnR 34 1 Car4W Parkd 34 2 Car4W Rever 39 1 Parkd Page 72
Page 73
7Created by Elaine Penny on 20-Nov-2023 39 2 Car4W Rever 45 1 Car4W AhOth 45 2 Car4W TRght 47 1 Car4W AhOth 53 1 Car4W Parkd 53 2 Car4W AhOth 59 1 Car4W Start 59 2 Car4W Start 63 1 Car4W AhRhB 73 1 Car4W AhOth 73 2 Car4W AhOth 102 1 Car4W AhOth 102 2 Car4W WgAhd 102 3 Car4W WgAhd 125 1 Car4W Stop 125 2 Car4W Stop 184 1 <3.5T TLeft 195 1 Car4W TRght 195 2 PedCy AhOth 196 2 196 1 Car4W Parkd 198 2 Car4W Stop Page 73
Page 74
8Created by Elaine Penny on 20-Nov-2023 198 1 >7.5T AhOth 218 1 Car4W AhOth 247 1 Car4W TRght 248 1 Car4W TRght 248 2 Car4W AhOth 270 1 Agric Parkd 270 2 <3.5T Parkd 281 1 Goods Rever 289 2 Car4W Parkd 289 1 Bus Rever 299 1 Car4W Parkd 299 2 Car4W Rever 350 1 Car4W AhOth 369 1 Agric TRght 373 1 Car4W AhOth 373 2 Car4W AhOth 418 2 Car4W Parkd 418 1 Start 440 1 PedCy AhOth 497 1 MC+ AhOth 576 2 MC500 WgTnL 576 1 Car4W WgTnL Page 74
Page 75
9Created by Elaine Penny on 20-Nov-2023 592 1 Car4W TRght 592 2 PedCy TLeft 622 1 Car4W OvMOs 622 2 Car4W AhOth 622 3 <3.5T AhOth 626 1 Car4W OvMOs 626 2 Car4W OvSOs 660 1 PedCy AhOth 660 2 Car4W TLeft 686 1 Car4W Start 706 1 Car4W AhOth 706 2 Car4W AhOth 706 3 <3.5T Parkd 717 1 Car4W AhOth 717 2 Car4W TRght 731 1 Car4W AhOth 768 1 Car4W WgAhd 768 2 Car4W WgAhd 773 1 Car4W AhOth 773 2 PedCy TRght 820 1 Car4W AhOth 866 1 <3.5T AhOth Page 75
Page 76
10Created by Elaine Penny on 20-Nov-2023 891 1 Car4W AhOth 893 1 Car4W Stop 893 2 Car4W WgTnL 929 1 PedCy Start 929 2 Car4W TRght 965 1 <3.5T Stop 969 1 Taxi AhOth 969 2 Car4W AhOth 989 2 Car4W AhOth 989 1 Car4W AhOth 991 2 Car4W TRght 991 1 Car4W OvNS 1010 1 >7.5T AhOth 1010 2 Car4W WgTnR 1010 3 <3.5T WgAhd 1018 2 Car4W TRght 1018 1 MC+ AhOth 1023 3 Car4W AhOth 1023 2 Car4W AhOth 1023 1 Car4W AhOth 1075 1 MC+ AhLhB 6428 1 Car4W AhRhB Page 76
Page 77
11Created by Elaine Penny on 20-Nov-2023 6650 1 Car4W AhOth 6654 1 Car4W TRght 6654 2 MC+ AhOth 6655 1 Agric WgTnR 6655 2 MC+ OvSOs 6703 1 Car4W WgTnL 6703 2 PedCy AhOth 45495 1 Bus AhOth 45495 2 Car4W WgTnR 45498 1 TRght 45498 2 Car4W AhOth 50370 1 >7.5T AhOth 50395 1 Car4W Start 50395 2 PedCy AhOth 51759 2 Car4W AhOth 51759 1 PedCy AhOth 51838 2 Car4W Start 51838 1 PedCy AhOth CASUALTY DETAILS Crash Id Vehicle Reference Number Casualty Reference Number Casualty Class Sex of Casualty Age of Casualty 73 2 1 Passr F 8 Page 77
Page 78
12Created by Elaine Penny on 20-Nov-2023 195 2 1 Drivr F 40 198 2 1 Drivr M 64 198 2 2 Passr F 64 440 1 1 Drivr F 46 497 1 1 Drivr M 49 576 2 1 Drivr M 19 592 2 1 Drivr M 50 626 1 1 Drivr F 56 626 1 2 Passr F 68 660 1 1 Drivr M 12 686 1 1 Pedsn F 64 706 1 1 Drivr M 80 706 2 2 Drivr M 35 706 2 3 Passr F 35 731 1 1 Pedsn M 38 768 1 1 Passr M 45 773 2 1 Drivr M 63 820 1 1 Drivr F 21 866 1 1 Pedsn F 48 866 1 2 Pedsn M 19 891 1 1 Pedsn M 52 929 1 1 Drivr M 70 Page 78
Page 79
13Created by Elaine Penny on 20-Nov-2023 965 1 1 Pedsn F 16 969 1 1 Passr M 34 969 1 2 Passr F 40 969 1 3 Passr F 29 969 2 4 Passr F 26 989 2 1 Drivr M 20 1010 3 1 Drivr M 33 1010 3 2 Passr M 19 1018 1 1 Drivr M 24 1023 1 1 Drivr M 49 1023 2 2 Drivr M 53 1023 3 3 Drivr F 50 6428 1 1 Passr M 38 6650 1 1 Drivr M 20 6654 2 1 Drivr M 44 6655 2 1 Drivr M 38 6703 2 1 Drivr M 13 6703 2 2 Passr M 13 45495 1 1 Drivr M 65 45495 1 2 Passr M 16 45495 2 1 Drivr M 65 45495 2 2 Passr M 16 Page 79
Page 80
14Created by Elaine Penny on 20-Nov-2023 45498 2 1 Drivr M 52 50370 1 1 Pedsn M 42 50395 1 1 Pedsn M 65 50395 2 1 Drivr M 65 51759 1 1 Drivr M 14 51838 1 1 Drivr M 47 Page 80
Page 81
Appendix H Proposed Layout Page 81
Page 82
BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT EP Stay MP 45.563 SV FH Overhead Telecom N ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ASSUME DEPTH OF MASS CONCRETE 1.3M BELOW FOUNDATION TO ROCK HEAD Page 82
Page 83
Appendix I Local Model Validation Report Page 83
Page 84
158148 TN02.2 Cloddach Bridge Full Business Case – Local Model Validation Report 1 158148 TN02: Cloddach Bridge Full Business Case – Local Model Validation Report - Technical Note 12th February 2024 Introduction Fairhurst was commissioned to undertake a Full Business Case (FBC) assessment for the full replacement of Cloddach Bridge, Elgin. This was pre-dated by a pre-feasibility study undertaken in September 2023, following a petition by local residents to The Moray Council (TMC). A Traffic and Economic Assessment will be prepared, in accordance with the Department for Transport (DfT) Transport Assessment Guidance (TAG), that will feed into the economic case of the FBC. To support this, it has been accepted that a micro-simulation model of the anticipated study area would be used to estimate vehicle journey times for two scenarios, i.e. bridge open (with-scheme) and bridge closed (without scheme). The scenarios would be tested for the anticipated re-opening of the bridge (2025) a future year of 2040 (15 year beyond opening) that would also take into consideration the potential developments listed in TMC’s Local Development Plan (LDP) 2020 and in particular Policy PP2. The purpose of this technical note is to detail the development, calibration and validation of the micro-simulation model. It was decided that S-Paramics would be used in this instance in consideration of the required timescales for presentation of the FBC. It has been prepared using Department for Transport (DfT) guidance and in particular TAG Unit M3.1 – Highway Assignment Modelling. Background Cloddach Bridge is a three-span structure carrying a single carriageway road over the River Lossie. The bridge is located on an unnamed road (C2E) to the west of the B9010, south of Elgin. The bridge location is shown in Figure 1. Figure 1: Location Plan Page 84
Page 85
158148 TN02.2 Cloddach Bridge Full Business Case – Local Model Validation Report 2 The bridge provides access to the B9010 north and southbound for residents in rural communities including Birnie, Thomshill, Glenlatterach and Bardonside. The bridge is currently closed to traffic and the signed alternative route for these residents includes travelling to the A941 to enter Elgin from the south and then taking the A96 west back to the B9010. This diversion has a length of approximately 6 miles and anecdotal evidence suggests journey times are extended by up to 15 minutes during peak times. When the bridge was open, traffic from the B9010 northbound could also use the existing bridge as an alternative access to the South and East of Elgin, avoiding the town centre. The same possibility exists for traffic wishing to travel between South or East Elgin and the B9010 south towards Kellas. Modelled Area The geographic coverage of highway assignment models generally needs to: allow for the strategic re-routeing impacts of interventions; ensure that areas outside the main area of interest, which are potential alternative destinations, are properly represented; and ensure that the full lengths of trips are represented for the purpose of deriving costs. The Fairhurst Paramics Model extends to circa 12 square kilometres and is bound by t generally includes the following roads: B9010 to the south of the C2E, to its connection to the A96 at the West Road junction; The A96 between the B9010 and High Street junctions; The A941 between High Street and Rashcrook Road; C2E / ‘Glenlossie Road’ / Unnamed Road / Rashcrook Road between the B9010 and the A941. Figure 2 shows the outline of the model coverage. Figure 2: Fairhurst Paramics Model Coverage Area Page 85
Page 86
158148 TN02.2 Cloddach Bridge Full Business Case – Local Model Validation Report 3 This geographical coverage is considered sufficient to allow the various alternative routes with and without the scheme to be captured. Zoning System Generally, the zoning system has been designed around the availability of traffic surveys at the perimeter of the model. These are supplemented by a few zones located inside the perimeter but that also have survey data (refer to Surveys section later in this technical note). The remainder of the zones are located within either road, railway or natural boundaries and these are used to assist the matrix estimation process for junctions with survey data within the model perimeter. The list of zones is as follows: 1. A96 (W) at West Road (surveyed); 2. A96 (E) at A941 (surveyed); 3. High Street east of A96/A941 (surveyed); 4. South Street east of Northfield Terrace (surveyed); 5. Moray Street east of Hay Street (surveyed); 6. Moray Street west of Hay Street (surveyed); 7. Moss Street north of Laichmoray Roundabout (surveyed); 8. Maisondieu Road east of Laichmoray Roundabout (surveyed); 9. Thornhill Road east of the A941 (surveyed); 10. Gleneagles Road east of Sandy Road (surveyed); 11. Dornoch Links east of C2E; 12. B9010 south of C2E 13. A941 south of Rashcrook Road; 14. U112E Miltonduff Road / Muir of Miltonduff (surveyed); 15. Unnamed Road to Miltonduff / C4E Cloves - Lochinver Road east of B9010; 16. Wittet Drive north of B9010 (surveyed); 17. Mayne Road east of Wittet Drive (surveyed); 18. Wiseman Road south of B9010; 19. Mayne Road south of Fleurs Road (surveyed); 20. Westpark Road north of South Street; 21. Hill Terrace north of A96; 22. UHI Moray; 23. Reidhaven Street north of A941; 24. Elgin Railway Station / Lidl south of A941; Page 86
Page 87
158148 TN02.2 Cloddach Bridge Full Business Case – Local Model Validation Report 4 25. Linkwood Road east of A941 (surveyed); 26. Asda north of Edgar Road (surveyed); 27. Retail Park (B&Q etc.) south of Edgar Road (surveyed); 28. B&M / Arnold Clark south of Edgar Road; 29. Territorial Army north of Edgar Road; 30. Walkers north of Edgar Road; 31. Walkers east of The Wards; 32. Industrial Estate west of The Wards; 33. Edgar Road west of The Wards and Springfield Road west of Glen Moray Drive (surveyed); 34. Birnie Crescent west of Sandy Road; 35. Land Street east of Sandy Road; 36. Land Street west of A941; 37. Bailies Drive north of Springfield Road; 38. The Mews east of Glen Moray Drive; 39. Mossend Place west of Glen Moray Drive; 40. Elgin Golf Course west of C2E; 41. Culzean Drive west of A941 (surveyed) 42. Birnie Drive south of Birnie Road; 43. Grant Street south of B9010; 44. Young Street north of Wards Road; 45. Elgin Health Centre north of A96. Network Structure The area of detailed modelling includes the following roads: B9010 to the south of the C2E, to its connection to the A96 at the West Road junction; The A96 between the B9010 and High Street junctions; The A941 between High Street and Rashcrook Road; South Street between West Road and Hay Street; Wittet Drive / Wards Road between the B9010 and A941; The Wards / Glen Moray Drive / Sandy Road / C2E between Wards Road and the B9010; Edgar Road between Glen Moray DriveDrive and Linkwood Road; Springfield Road / North Street / between Glen Moray DriveDrive and the A941; Page 87
Page 88
158148 TN02.2 Cloddach Bridge Full Business Case – Local Model Validation Report 5 Birnie Road between Gleneagles Drive and Thornhill Road; C2E ‘Glenlossie Road’ / U119E Birkenbaud Road / C2E Rashcrook Road between Thomshill and the A941. This detailed model area is not anticipated to change in the future, the LDP notes that improvements to vehicular access associated with a number of LDP allocated sites for housing and industrial land uses to the south east of Elgin, namely sites R17 (132 houses) and R20 (195 houses), as well as long term sites I16 (housing) and LONG3 (Industrial) would occur. However, these would contained within the current model structure, ultimately being represented with additional zones and junctions. The approach within this model build has been to be consistent with the available road network at the time of traffic data collection (2018), whilst allowing for junctions for contemporary developments (2023), which reduce the need to add numerous junctions to any future year assessment models. This is considered to be suitable to confirm the baseline model structure for validation. The rest of the model includes numerous side streets e.g. the area bounded by South Street, A941, Wards Road / Wittet Drive and the B9010, also the area bound by A941, Birnie Road, Sandy Road and Springfield Road. Whilst these areas present opportunities for traffic to route between the surrounding roads, there is no survey data to quantify these effects and the proposed traffic zones have been introduced to take some cognisance in lieu of additional traffic movement targets. The A96 West Road (west of the South Road roundabout) is the extent of the model, it is considered that minimal trips from this source will have cause to use the bridge. TMC have advised that common access to the A96 west from the southern side of Elgin occurs via other junctions outside the model, however, those trips are taken into internal to model via three zones (14, 15 and 16). Time Periods Traffic patterns, trip purpose and vehicle type proportions, traffic flows and congestion vary by time of day. Highway assignment models should therefore normally represent the morning and evening peaks and the inter-peak period separately as a minimum. Traffic surveys are detailed later in this technical note, but generally junction turning counts (JTC) contain a 12-hour period between 7am and 7pm. Automatic traffic counter (ATC) sites have at least 24-hour data. For the traffic and economic assessment AM peak hour, PM peak hour and the Inter-peak hour are required. It is common practice to model each peak hour with a one-hour warm-up and cool-down each. In the inter-peak period, it is usually appropriate to model an average hour, although in cognisance of the project timescales the entire inter-peak period has been used. Therefore, the time periods used in the model are as follows: AM – 7am to 10am (3 hours); Inter-peak – 10am to 4pm (6 hours); PM – 4pm to 7pm (3 hours). Other off-peak times (overnight) and weekends have not been modelled, as there is no data. User Classes Page 88
Page 89
158148 TN02.2 Cloddach Bridge Full Business Case – Local Model Validation Report 6 Operating costs vary by vehicle type and values of time vary by the purpose of the trip being made. Values of time may also vary by income group. This means that different combinations of vehicle and user may have different distance coefficients (defined as the vehicle operating cost / value of time) and therefore be modelled as choosing different routes through the network. A simple approach has been taken using the standard S-Paramics user classes, nineteen user classes are specified in the model. Each user class uses different routing assumptions based on travel distance and sensitivity to time, with further road restrictions also taken into accounts, including speed limits. To recognise certain road restrictions (height / weight) in place during 2018, and bus laybys the users have been grouped into two matrices in addition to scheduling of bus services. The fourteen user classes appearing in the model are shown in Table 1, which also highlights the proportions within each matrix. Table 1: User Classes, Matrices and Vehicle Proportions Matrix User Class Proportion One UC1: Car (Commuting) 63.0 UC2: Car (Work to home) 2.4 UC3: Car (Home to employers’ business) 9.7 UC4: Car (Employer’s business to home) 0.2 UC5: Car (Home to leisure short) 5.9 UC6: Car (Leisure to home long) 1.8 UC7: Car (Home to leisure long) 0.6 UC8: Car (Leisure to home long) 0.2 UC9: Car (Non-home-based employers’ business) 5.1 UC10: Car (Non-home-based leisure short) 2.7 UC14: LGV 8.4 Two UC15: OGV 1 44.4 UC16: OGV 2 38.9 UC17: Coach 16.7 Network Calibration This section of the technical note considers the basic build of the network. Nodes were placed at junctions, flaring sections, right turn facilities and each end of curves based on the ordnance survey (OS) drawing provided by TMC. At Cloddach Bridge to Page 89
Page 90
158148 TN02.2 Cloddach Bridge Full Business Case – Local Model Validation Report 7 simulate the narrow road width and shuttle working arrangement, nodes were placed at either end of the width restriction. At junctions, kerbs were placed for aesthetic purposes but stoplines were placed to match lanes and control points and to avoid unusual vehicle behaviour. Automatic hazard distances have not been adjusted. Link categories used in the model are coded as single carriageway roads generally 3.7m width for the key roads (listed in Network Structure), with additional categorisation relating to the speed limit at each location, either 60mph or 30mph. Links to zones within housing areas have been coded as 20mph, with some width narrowed to 3m to suit the OS mapping. Junctions with widened approaches take cognisance of additional lanes. Priorities at three arm priority-controlled junctions are generally medium for opposed left turns and minor for opposed right turns. The South Street/ Hay Street / Northfield Terrace (A941) priorities have been adjusted on the eastern approach for right turning traffic to medium, in cognisance of the operation of the junction. The traffic signal timings were taken from information supplied by TMC. Vehicle release profiles have been derived using the supplied traffic survey data. There are 44 separate profiles included one each for the two matrices at the twenty-two external entry points to the model. Vehicle dynamics have not been adjusted. Matrix Development Traffic surveys undertaken at 32No. junctions (Wednesday 30th May 2018) to support the updating of the Elgin Town Model (ETM) using VISUM by Jacobs have been supplied by TMC. Where the ETM and this study’s model overlap those traffic counts (16No.) have been used in the calibration of the network. Fairhurst drawing SK1100 indicates the location of these junctions. The traffic information has been supplemented by ATCs at C2E to the west of Cloddach Bridge and the south of the Elgin Golf Club’s driving range, Muir of Miltonduff, and B9010 at Pittendriech Cottages to provide coverage outside the conurbation area (where the ETM were not required). A further JTC has been included that was undertaken by Fairhurst, Tuesday 28th November 2023, to ensure that the trips toward Fogwatt were accurately represented. The location of these surveys is shown on Fairhurst drawing SK1101. These counts were used to define a survey file, which was used with a Pija file (obtained with perturbation switched off), the convergence criteria was set at 100. Initially, an entropised matrix was used to generate a matrix through the matrix estimation (ME) part of the S-Paramics suite of programmes. An inspection of this matrix was undertaken to identify unrepresentative traffic movements between the non-surveyed zones. The ETM matrix was also inspected and used to create further constraints resulting in the developed matrices. To consider the success of the ME process one of the following can be used: A GEH comparison of the modelled to observed flow; Page 90
Page 91
158148 TN02.2 Cloddach Bridge Full Business Case – Local Model Validation Report 8 A percentage variance from the observed low; A value that constitutes the acceptable range in the number of vehicles that the modelled flow can vary from the observed. For this project, the GEH indicator has been used, Table 2 details the results of the ME process. Table 2: GEH Criterion Check Time Period / Matrix GEH Turns GEH Links Check AM Matrix 1 95.3% 98.1% PASS AM Matrix 2 98.6% 100.0% PASS Inter Matrix 1 80.9% 80.8% Acceptable Inter Matrix 2 98.1% 97.1% PASS PM Matrix 1 83.3% 100.0% PASS PM Matrix 2 100.0% 100.0% PASS Following acceptance of the ME process the demands were passed through the main S- Paramics programme and further observations of operation were made. It was decided that general cost factors would have to be increased for time (from 1.0 to 5.0) and for distance (from 0.0 to 5.0) to allow further calibration of the network and encourage use of the main road network. Cost factor values have been increased for specific links in this effort (refer to Figure 3), as follows: 40 to 170 – AM 2.8 and PM 5.7 170 to 40 – AM 1.8 and PM 2.9 170 to 171 – AM 2.8 and PM 5.7 171 to 170 – AM 1.8 and PM 2.9 201 to 183 – AM 1.8 and PM 2.9 Page 91
Page 92
158148 TN02.2 Cloddach Bridge Full Business Case – Local Model Validation Report 9 Figure 3: Fairhurst Paramics Model Link Cost Change Locations The model was then batch run to produce ten separate outputs using random seeds and feedback of 3 minutes. Validation Validation involves comparing modelled and independent observed data from that used in calibration. For trip matrix validation, the measure which should be used is the percentage differences between modelled flows and counts. Comparisons at screenline level provide information on the quality of the trip matrices. Differences between modelled flows and counts should be less than 5% of the counts for all or nearly all screenlines. There are no roadside interviews. It is normal practice to use screenlines of five links or more, however, as some of the ATCs were used for calibration the sites remaining from the information supplied by TMC within the model boundary there are 17No. sites remaining for validation checks. Fairhurst have grouped these into geographical areas representing sectors within the model. These are described as follows: A - Thornhill Road / A941 / C2E / Sandy Road / Birnie Road B – Glen Moray Drive / Edgar Road / The Wards C – Linkwood Road / A941 (N) / A941 (S) D – Wards Road / A941 Hay Street / B9010 Pluscarden Road The GEH statistic, which is a form of the Chi-squared statistic that incorporates both relative and absolute errors is used in conjunction with the absolute and percentage differences between modelled flows and counts. The results of the checks are shown in Table 3. B9010 Pluscarden Road 40 South Road 183 281 170 171 Page 92
Page 93
158148 TN02.2 Cloddach Bridge Full Business Case – Local Model Validation Report 10 Table 3: Screenline Validation Checks Screenline Obs Veh AM Obs Veh Inter Obs Veh PM Mod Veh AM Mod Veh Inter Mod Veh PM GEH AM GEH Inter GEH PM %Diff AM %Diff Inter %Diff PM A - inbound 2785 5860 3109 3109 4590 4009 5.97 17.57 15.09 10.4% - 27.7% 22.4% A - outbound 2589 5722 2857 2766 5166 3951 3.42 7.54 18.75 6.4% - 10.8% 27.7% B - inbound 2525 6016 2260 1708 3558 2051 17.76 35.53 4.50 - 47.8% - 69.1% - 10.2% B - outbound 2469 6224 2351 1440 2991 2256 23.28 47.63 1.98 - 71.5% - 108.1 % -4.2% C - inbound 6252 13000 5527 3465 9683 4689 39.98 31.15 11.73 - 80.4% - 34.3% - 17.9% C - outbound 2839 8150 3945 3271 10302 4865 7.82 22.40 13.86 13.2% 20.9% 18.9% D - inbound 1544 3449 1532 1845 5173 2282 7.31 26.25 17.18 16.3% 33.3% 32.9% D - outbound 1114 3075 1410 1369 4640 2381 7.24 25.20 22.30 18.6% 33.7% 40.8% The conclusion is that for the check against independent survey data, the model does not perform well against the independent ATC survey data. This could be partly due to the use of monthly average, although it is noted that there are still significant differences between the ATC and JTC survey data, e.g. A941 / Linkwood Road roundabout and Sandy Road. For link flow and turning movement validation, there are two criteria, the first is volume differences between observed and modelled link flows. With the exception of the A941 between the Linkwood Road roundabout and the Laichmoray Roundabout, all roads within the model have less than 700 vehicles per hour and therefore, individual flows are suggested to be within 100 vehicles per hour for >85% of cases. For the A941 over the railway the first criteria is that modelled flows should be within 15% of the observed. The second criteria uses the GEH statistic and the acceptability guideline is >85% of cases. The results are shown in Table 4. Page 93
Page 94
158148 TN02.2 Cloddach Bridge Full Business Case – Local Model Validation Report 11 Table 4: Link and Turning Count Validation Checks (Total Vehicles) Link Counts Total GEH < 5% Difference less than 100 veh/hr Criteria 1 Criteria 2 AM Period 8 6 0 100% 75.00% Inter-peak Period 8 5 8 100% 62.50% PM Peak 8 3 8 100% 62.50% Turns Total GEH < 5% Difference less than 100 veh/hr Criteria 1 Criteria 2 AM Period 192 165 190 98.96% 85.94% Inter-peak Period 199 129 190 95.48% 64.82% PM Peak 189 143 185 96.32% 73.68% For journey time validation, the measure which should be used is: the percentage difference between modelled and observed journey times, subject to an absolute maximum difference where modelled times along routes should be within 15% of surveyed times (or 1 minute, if higher than 15%) with an acceptability guideline of >85%. Journey time information was supplied by TMC and takes the form of Tom Tom GPS data collected for the updating of the ETM, which details average and median travel time in distinct sections of the road network. This information was collated during the period that the bridge was open, but restricted to vehicles of less than 7.5T in weight. Figure 4 highlights the geographical area coverage. Page 94
Page 95
158148 TN02.2 Cloddach Bridge Full Business Case – Local Model Validation Report 12 Figure 4: Tom Tom Journey Time Coverage for Elgin (2018) The results are shown in Tables 5, 6 and 7 for the AM, Inter and PM periods, respectively. Table 5: AM Period Journey Time Validation Checks (Total Vehicles) Path Route Observed Travel Time (s) Modelled Travel Time (s) Percentage Difference Absolute Difference Acceptability A96 W to A96 E 94.27 114.74 17.8% 20.47 fail A96 E to A96 W 82.22 91.16 9.8% 8.94 PASS B9010 South (Birchpark) to A96 W 309.88 200.63 54.5% -109.25 fail A96 W to B9010 South (Birchpark) 306.91 172.88 77.5% -134.03 fail A96 W to Birkenhill via The Wards 460.77 1065.50 56.8% 604.73 fail Birkenhill to A96 W via The Wards 460.5 505.25 8.9% 44.75 PASS Birkenhill to A96 E via A941 363.27 514.47 29.4% 151.20 fail A96 E to Birkenhill via A941 353.15 346.04 2.1% -7.11 PASS Masondieu to Wittet 185.74 155.26 19.6% -30.48 fail Wittet to Masondieu 216.1 162.87 32.7% -53.23 fail Thornhill to Golf Range 123.65 271.78 54.5% 148.13 fail Golf Range to Thornhill 130.9 290.05 54.9% 159.15 fail Linkwood to Cedar Wood 163.62 107.35 52.4% -56.27 fail Cedar Wood to Linkwood 143.73 101.27 41.9% -42.46 fail Page 95
Page 96
158148 TN02.2 Cloddach Bridge Full Business Case – Local Model Validation Report 13 Table 6: Inter-peak Period Journey Time Validation Checks (Total Vehicles) Path Route Observed Travel Time (s) Modelled Travel Time (s) Percentage Difference Absolute Difference Acceptability A96 W to A96 E 104.53 127.08 17.7% 22.55 fail A96 E to A96 W 87.32 84.95 2.8% -2.37 PASS B9010 South (Birchpark) to A96 W 307.07 184.99 66.0% -122.08 fail A96 W to B9010 South (Birchpark) 303.82 173.70 74.9% -130.12 fail A96 W to Birkenhill via The Wards 521.88 444.50 17.4% -77.38 fail Birkenhill to A96 W via The Wards 490.43 505.25 2.9% 14.82 PASS Birkenhill to A96 E via A941 394.2 688.06 42.7% 293.86 fail A96 E to Birkenhill via A941 381.96 380.90 0.3% -1.06 PASS Masondieu to Wittet 194.73 165.34 17.8% -29.39 fail Wittet to Masondieu 232.21 169.00 37.4% -63.21 fail Thornhill to Golf Range 124.89 269.73 53.7% 144.84 fail Golf Range to Thornhill 125.99 278.87 54.8% 152.88 fail Linkwood to Cedar Wood 177.11 173.00 2.4% -4.11 PASS Cedar Wood to Linkwood 160.85 144.22 11.5% -16.63 PASS Table 7: PM Period Journey Time Validation Checks (Total Vehicles) Path Route Observed Travel Time (s) Modelled Travel Time (s) Percentage Difference Absolute Difference Acceptability A96 W to A96 E 94.03 125.70 25.2% 31.67 fail A96 E to A96 W 84.66 99.61 15.0% 14.95 fail B9010 South (Birchpark) to A96 W 300.02 209.78 43.0% -90.24 fail A96 W to B9010 South (Birchpark) 290.64 171.29 69.7% -119.35 fail A96 W to Birkenhill via The Wards 477.86 457.67 4.4% -20.19 PASS Page 96
Page 97
158148 TN02.2 Cloddach Bridge Full Business Case – Local Model Validation Report 14 Path Route Observed Travel Time (s) Modelled Travel Time (s) Percentage Difference Absolute Difference Acceptability Birkenhill to A96 W via The Wards 471.81 683.50 31.0% 211.69 fail Birkenhill to A96 E via A941 372.47 655.79 43.2% 283.32 fail A96 E to Birkenhill via A941 379.77 376.40 0.9% -3.37 PASS Masondieu to Wittet 185.51 161.93 14.6% -23.58 PASS Wittet to Masondieu 216.39 Not estimated Thornhill to Golf Range 118.3 291.68 59.4% 173.38 fail Golf Range to Thornhill 122.47 287.54 57.4% 165.07 fail Linkwood to Cedar Wood 153.71 122.06 25.9% -31.65 fail Cedar Wood to Linkwood 142.18 107.15 32.7% -35.03 fail Conclusions Screenline check is based on limited data and average of one calendar months. It is noted that there are several locations where JTC and ATC information are not complimentary e.g. A941 / Linkwood Road roundabout and Sandy Road. Link and turning count validation checks show reasonable correlation to the hourly flows, however, the acceptability for turning flows is only reached for the AM period. This is a more robust check, but it is considered that the link-based check would not lead to a different conclusion. With regard to journey times, the acceptability criteria is not reached with many journeys in the model having more than a minute difference to complete, compared to the observed. This could be due to trips routing contrary to the observed. Overall, the model provides a mixed performance in terms of validation and further discussion is required with the approving authorities to determine whether it is still ‘fit for purpose’. John Craft MCIHT Principal Traffic and Transportation Engineer – Traffic & Transportation (North) Page 97
Page 98
158148 TN02.2 Cloddach Bridge Full Business Case – Local Model Validation Report Enclosures Junction Turning Count Location Drawing Automatic Traffic Count Location Drawing Page 98
Page 99
Appendix J Alternative Route Inspection Outputs Page 99
Page 100
Cloddach Bridge to Wards Drive / The Wards Wards Drive / The Wards to Cloddach Bridge Via B9010 Via C2E Via B9010 Via C2E 8.30am, 7 mins 12.30pm, 7 mins 8.30am, 6-8 mins 12.30pm, 7 mins 8.30am, 6 mins 12.30pm, 7 mins 8.30am, 6-7 mins 12.30pm, 7 mins Page 100
Page 101
5pm, 7 mins 5pm, 6-8 mins 5pm, 6 mins 5pm, 7 mins Cloddach Bridge to A941 / Maisondieu Road A941 / Maisondieu Road to Cloddach Bridge 8.30am, 7-9 mins 8.30am, 7-10 mins 8.30am, 8 mins 8.30am, 6-8 mins Page 101
Page 102
12.30pm, 8 mins 5pm, 7-9 mins 12.30pm, 7-9 mins 5pm, 7-10 mins 12.30pm, 8 mins 5pm, 8 mins 12.30pm, 6-8 mins 5pm, 6-9 mins Page 102
Page 103
Cloddach Bridge to Linkwood Road Linkwood Road to Cloddach Bridge 8.30am, 8-10 mins 12.30pm, 9 mins 8.30am, 7-9 mins 12.30pm, 7 mins 8.30am, 7-9 mins 12.30pm, 9 mins 8.30am, 6-8 mins 12.30pm, 7 mins Page 103
Page 104
5pm, 8-12 mins 5pm, 7-9 mins 5pm, 7-9 mins 5pm, 7 mins Cloddach Bridge to Glen Moray Drive Glen Moray Drive to Cloddach Bridge 8.30am, 7-9 mins 8.30am, 6 mins 8.30am, 7-9 mins 8.30am, 6 mins Page 104
Page 105
12.30pm, 8 mins 5pm, 7-9 mins 12.30pm, 5 mins 5pm, 5 mins 12.30pm, 9 mins 5pm, 7-9 mins 12.30pm, 5 mins 5pm, 5 mins Page 105
Page 106
Cloddach Bridge to Thornhill Road Thornhill Road to Cloddach Bridge 8.30am, 9-12 mins 12.30pm, 10 mins 8.30am, 6 mins 12.30pm, 5 mins 8.30am, 12 mins 12.30pm, 12 mins 8.30am, 5 mins 12.30pm, 5 mins Page 106
Page 107
5pm, 10-14 mins 5pm, 6 mins 5pm, 9-14 mins 5pm, 5 mins Cloddach Bridge to A941/ Rashcrook Road A941 / Rashcrook Road to Cloddach Bridge 8.30am, 12-16 mins 8.30am, 8 mins 8.30am, 12-16 mins 8.30am, 8 mins Page 107
Page 108
12.30pm, 14 mins 5pm, 12-18 mins 12.30pm, 8 mins 5pm, 8 mins 12.30pm, 12-16 mins 5pm, 12-16 mins 12.30pm, 7 mins 5pm, 7 mins Page 108
Page 109
Appendix K ATC Data Page 109
Page 110
Site Number 00000007 Site ReferenA941Elg-Fog Lat/Lng. 57.62623,-3.30038 A941 - Elgin - Fogwatt Summary Info Report Base Year 2014 Channel: Total Flow Month Statistics 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 January AADT 5676 5787 6082 6173 6143 6191 6341 4498 5893 5835 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.020 1.072 1.088 1.082 1.091 1.117 0.792 1.038 1.028 Percentage HGV -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.82 100.00 99.82 99.80 100.00 100.00 February AADT 6138 6362 6667 6800 6711 6937 6811 3627 6355 6556 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.036 1.086 1.108 1.093 1.130 1.110 0.591 1.035 1.068 Percentage HGV -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.79 100.00 99.79 99.79 99.58 99.79 March AADT 6391 6639 6821 7031 6788 6450 5825 5483 4315 6476 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.039 1.067 1.100 1.062 1.009 0.911 0.858 0.675 1.013 Percentage HGV -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.80 99.81 99.46 100.00 100.00 April AADT 6501 6848 6888 7110 7303 6900 2923 6322 4890 6604 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.053 1.060 1.094 1.123 1.061 0.450 0.972 0.752 1.016 Percentage HGV -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity Data Complete % 99.81 99.81 99.80 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.80 16.88 May AADT 6691 6919 7173 7441 7602 7246 3803 6718 6182 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.034 1.072 1.112 1.136 1.083 0.568 1.004 0.924 Percentage HGV -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.82 100.00 99.80 100.00 100.00 June AADT 6765 6956 7094 7444 7608 7311 5114 6904 6998 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.028 1.049 1.100 1.125 1.081 0.756 1.021 1.034 Percentage HGV -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.58 100.00 100.00 100.00 July AADT 6754 6938 7168 7416 7382 7115 6383 7045 6731 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.027 1.061 1.098 1.093 1.053 0.945 1.043 0.997 Percentage HGV -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 99.60 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.81 100.00 August AADT 6780 7101 7400 7612 7616 7274 6825 7176 7107 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.047 1.091 1.123 1.123 1.073 1.007 1.058 1.048 Percentage HGV -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 31.15 100.00 100.00 September AADT 5231 7135 7271 7376 7401 7198 7050 6755 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.364 1.390 1.410 1.415 1.376 1.348 1.291 Percentage HGV -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 October AADT 6352 6762 6898 7062 7118 4375 6756 6593 6674 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.065 1.086 1.112 1.121 0.689 1.064 1.038 1.051 Percentage HGV -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 97.54 100.00 100.00 November AADT 6573 6643 6847 7118 7399 6085 6641 6705 6604 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.011 1.042 1.083 1.126 0.926 1.010 1.020 1.005 Percentage HGV -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity Data Complete % 99.79 99.80 99.81 99.62 99.62 99.60 99.60 99.81 100.00 December AADT 5849 6053 6459 6204 6444 6264 5742 6106 5782 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.035 1.104 1.061 1.102 1.071 0.982 1.044 0.989 Percentage HGV -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.80 99.81 100.00 100.00 100.00 Year Value AADT 6302 6677 6902 7071 7127 6599 6205 6188 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.060 1.095 1.122 1.131 1.047 0.985 0.982 Percentage HGV -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity -Infinity Data Complete % 99.97 99.97 99.94 99.97 99.90 99.90 99.89 99.95 Moray Council VDA-net R2 20/11/2023 Page 110
Page 111
Site Number 00000010 Site ReferenceA941 Hay St Lat/Lng. 57.64437,-3.31683 A941 - Hay St, Elgin Summary Info Report Base Year 2014 Channel: Total Flow Month Statistics 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 January AADT 12433 12672 12956 12983 8251 11395 11557 7428 11447 11067 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.019 1.042 1.044 0.664 0.917 0.930 0.597 0.921 0.890 Percentage HGV 1.94 2.37 2.09 1.84 1.17 2.04 1.89 3.55 -Infinity -Infinity Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 14.95 99.95 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 February AADT 13478 13935 14106 14099 12845 13024 12723 8342 12973 12242 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.034 1.047 1.046 0.953 0.966 0.944 0.619 0.963 0.908 Percentage HGV 2.22 2.57 2.21 2.08 2.01 2.17 2.11 3.34 -Infinity -Infinity Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 21.72 100.00 99.95 99.95 100.00 99.79 March AADT 13968 13794 14133 14384 12961 13648 10589 10283 14540 12520 Growth factor from base 1.000 0.988 1.012 1.030 0.928 0.977 0.758 0.736 1.041 0.896 Percentage HGV 2.42 2.63 2.12 2.04 2.19 2.19 2.43 3.21 -Infinity -Infinity Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.95 99.91 100.00 100.00 100.00 April AADT 13904 13852 14483 14393 11497 13514 5436 10821 14648 11853 Growth factor from base 1.000 0.996 1.042 1.035 0.827 0.972 0.391 0.778 1.054 0.852 Percentage HGV 2.19 2.36 2.34 1.91 2.70 1.99 3.35 2.91 -Infinity -Infinity Data Complete % 99.95 99.95 99.95 100.00 99.95 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.90 8.44 May AADT 14372 14247 12110 15093 7619 13967 6592 11695 14817 Growth factor from base 1.000 0.991 0.843 1.050 0.530 0.972 0.459 0.814 1.031 Percentage HGV 2.08 2.21 1.95 1.98 2.58 1.92 3.14 2.80 -Infinity Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 25.43 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 June AADT 14449 14456 14622 14765 10472 13912 7923 13704 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.000 1.012 1.022 0.725 0.963 0.548 0.948 Percentage HGV 2.03 2.06 2.03 2.13 2.96 1.96 2.80 -Infinity Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 70.88 100.00 100.00 99.95 100.00 100.00 July AADT 13672 13692 16017 13702 9965 12704 9833 12051 11172 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.001 1.172 1.002 0.729 0.929 0.719 0.881 0.817 Percentage HGV 2.15 2.13 2.94 2.15 2.97 2.04 2.85 -Infinity -Infinity Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.91 30.16 100.00 August AADT 13946 14650 14788 15244 9999 13178 11113 12089 12304 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.050 1.060 1.093 0.717 0.945 0.797 0.867 0.882 Percentage HGV 2.14 2.11 2.26 2.01 2.82 1.93 2.65 -Infinity -Infinity Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 September AADT 14490 15187 14832 15543 10961 13110 11663 12313 12137 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.048 1.024 1.073 0.756 0.905 0.805 0.850 0.838 Percentage HGV 2.46 2.27 2.09 2.22 2.79 2.13 2.95 -Infinity -Infinity Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 October AADT 13659 13431 15000 15358 12323 12973 11196 12991 11867 Growth factor from base 1.000 0.983 1.098 1.124 0.902 0.950 0.820 0.951 0.869 Percentage HGV 2.28 2.40 2.64 2.24 2.42 2.28 2.85 -Infinity -Infinity Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 November AADT 14963 14631 14429 15137 12960 13129 11506 12864 12424 Growth factor from base 1.000 0.978 0.964 1.012 0.866 0.877 0.769 0.860 0.830 Percentage HGV 2.35 2.18 2.08 2.10 2.23 2.14 2.53 -Infinity -Infinity Data Complete % 99.95 99.95 99.95 99.76 11.65 99.75 99.75 99.81 100.00 December AADT 13586 14559 14339 14308 11333 12509 11235 12410 11911 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.072 1.055 1.053 0.834 0.921 0.827 0.913 0.877 Percentage HGV 2.00 1.72 1.59 1.66 1.59 1.95 1.99 -Infinity -Infinity Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 63.64 100.00 99.95 100.00 100.00 Year Value AADT 13894 14089 14315 14594 10894 13075 10107 12841 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.014 1.030 1.050 0.784 0.941 0.727 0.924 Percentage HGV 2.19 2.25 2.19 2.03 2.37 2.06 2.63 -Infinity Data Complete % 99.99 99.99 91.25 99.98 76.13 99.97 99.96 99.99 Moray Council VDA-net R2 20/11/2023 Page 111
Page 112
Site Number 00000017 Site ReferenLinkwood Rd Lat/Lng. 57.64174,-3.30497 U171e - Linkwood Rd, Elgin Summary Info Report Base Year 2014 Channel: Other Flows Month Statistics 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 January AADT 4147 8193 9178 8930 9120 9522 9737 4183 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.976 2.213 2.153 2.199 2.296 2.348 1.009 Percentage HGV 1.16 1.24 1.21 1.08 1.06 1.03 1.10 0.78 Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 11.61 February AADT 6075 9502 9988 9833 9799 10141 10620 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.564 1.644 1.619 1.613 1.669 1.748 Percentage HGV 1.45 1.12 1.24 1.08 1.18 1.08 1.30 Data Complete % 19.90 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 March AADT 9659 9732 10152 10180 9664 10461 8278 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.008 1.051 1.054 1.001 1.083 0.857 Percentage HGV 1.33 1.20 1.11 1.08 1.25 1.06 1.29 Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.95 99.95 April AADT 9514 9804 10441 10157 10255 10200 4184 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.030 1.097 1.068 1.078 1.072 0.440 Percentage HGV 1.15 1.14 1.53 1.11 1.21 1.21 1.07 Data Complete % 99.95 99.95 99.95 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 May AADT 9852 9828 10278 10413 10485 10615 5300 Growth factor from base 1.000 0.998 1.043 1.057 1.064 1.077 0.538 Percentage HGV 1.21 1.10 1.73 1.15 1.27 1.29 1.17 Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 June AADT 9967 10049 9466 10403 10300 10556 6482 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.008 0.950 1.044 1.033 1.059 0.650 Percentage HGV 1.24 1.19 1.34 1.15 1.59 1.33 1.23 Data Complete % 51.79 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.95 100.00 July AADT 9415 9621 13344 9715 9347 9890 7532 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.022 1.417 1.032 0.993 1.050 0.800 Percentage HGV 1.23 1.22 2.35 1.28 1.57 1.45 1.50 Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.95 August AADT 8649 9998 10586 10297 10096 10529 3998 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.156 1.224 1.191 1.167 1.217 0.462 Percentage HGV 1.19 1.20 1.64 1.33 1.29 1.46 1.36 Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 September AADT 9736 10202 10186 9688 10325 10148 8835 0 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.048 1.046 0.995 1.060 1.042 0.907 Percentage HGV 1.30 1.38 1.17 1.40 1.20 1.33 1.48 -Infinity Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 54.96 October AADT 9947 9827 10348 9913 9853 9835 8355 0 Growth factor from base 1.000 0.988 1.040 0.997 0.991 0.989 0.840 Percentage HGV 1.15 1.28 1.37 1.20 1.22 1.21 1.34 -Infinity Data Complete % 55.98 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 61.17 November AADT 9409 10345 9991 10755 10424 10668 9161 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.099 1.062 1.143 1.108 1.134 0.974 Percentage HGV 1.29 1.20 1.11 1.33 1.15 1.19 1.33 Data Complete % 100.00 99.95 99.95 99.76 99.76 99.80 99.75 December AADT 7084 9870 9589 9589 9920 9861 8634 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.393 1.354 1.354 1.400 1.392 1.219 Percentage HGV 1.01 1.04 0.86 0.99 0.90 1.01 1.09 Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.95 Year Value AADT 8610 9746 10289 9997 9961 10194 7598 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.132 1.195 1.161 1.157 1.184 0.882 Percentage HGV 1.22 1.19 1.38 1.18 1.24 1.22 1.27 Data Complete % 86.10 99.99 99.99 99.98 99.98 99.98 99.97 Moray Council VDA-net R2 15/12/2023 Page 112
Page 113
Site Number 00000018 Site ReferenceMaisondue Rd Lat/Lng. 57.64439,-3.30455 U171e - Maisondieu Rd, Elgin Summary Info Report Base Year 2014 Channel: Other Flows Month Statistics 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 January AADT 7805 7843 8134 8094 7903 7655 8121 5532 7315 3371 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.005 1.042 1.037 1.013 0.981 1.040 0.709 0.937 0.432 Percentage HGV 1.62 1.58 1.28 1.22 1.29 1.54 1.22 1.68 1.46 1.17 Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 February AADT 8361 8625 8817 8782 8595 8984 8676 6241 7722 6011 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.032 1.055 1.050 1.028 1.075 1.038 0.746 0.924 0.719 Percentage HGV 1.66 1.64 1.33 1.23 1.41 1.57 1.29 1.78 1.52 1.51 Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 March AADT 8658 8902 8495 9059 9404 9387 7229 7516 8152 8185 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.028 0.981 1.046 1.086 1.084 0.835 0.868 0.942 0.945 Percentage HGV 1.61 1.54 1.39 1.40 1.54 1.44 1.39 1.67 1.53 1.62 Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.95 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 April AADT 8619 8905 8799 6965 9385 9361 3688 7842 8065 7382 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.033 1.021 0.808 1.089 1.086 0.428 0.910 0.936 0.856 Percentage HGV 1.56 1.29 1.37 26.72 1.42 1.66 1.47 1.77 1.33 1.36 Data Complete % 99.95 99.95 99.90 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 May AADT 8799 9004 8983 8686 9788 9611 4789 8493 8428 5544 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.023 1.021 0.987 1.112 1.092 0.544 0.965 0.958 0.630 Percentage HGV 1.69 1.34 1.85 8.79 1.71 1.33 1.77 1.49 1.39 1.31 Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 100.00 97.96 100.00 100.00 99.95 100.00 100.00 72.37 June AADT 8720 9081 9377 9440 6010 9238 6062 8742 7932 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.041 1.075 1.083 0.689 1.059 0.695 1.003 0.910 Percentage HGV 1.66 1.35 1.40 1.47 1.60 1.27 2.03 1.43 1.57 Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.95 100.00 100.00 July AADT 8515 8650 8200 8743 7679 8576 7448 8234 7305 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.016 0.963 1.027 0.902 1.007 0.875 0.967 0.858 Percentage HGV 1.62 1.43 1.61 1.39 1.50 1.36 2.36 1.27 1.56 Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 99.95 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.95 100.00 100.00 August AADT 8687 9144 8624 8815 8422 8746 8013 8748 8167 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.053 0.993 1.015 0.969 1.007 0.922 1.007 0.940 Percentage HGV 1.59 1.36 1.47 1.40 1.49 1.35 2.08 1.23 1.38 Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.91 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 September AADT 8906 9630 9034 8939 8487 9361 5487 8540 7957 5414 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.081 1.014 1.004 0.953 1.051 0.616 0.959 0.893 0.608 Percentage HGV 1.60 1.51 1.38 1.39 1.50 1.40 1.99 1.35 1.41 1.36 Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.95 100.00 100.00 100.00 55.11 October AADT 8807 8771 9474 8646 8390 8740 6995 7663 3359 4773 Growth factor from base 1.000 0.996 1.076 0.982 0.953 0.992 0.794 0.870 0.381 0.542 Percentage HGV 1.57 1.45 1.80 1.65 2.14 1.27 1.67 1.25 1.46 1.44 Data Complete % 99.82 99.95 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 60.98 November AADT 7764 9670 8902 8611 8091 8901 8187 8212 3756 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.245 1.147 1.109 1.042 1.146 1.054 1.058 0.484 Percentage HGV 1.62 1.39 1.46 1.53 1.75 1.33 1.49 1.26 1.28 Data Complete % 100.00 99.95 99.95 99.76 99.76 99.80 99.80 99.81 100.00 December AADT 8037 9134 8505 7786 7882 8240 7442 7493 3442 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.136 1.058 0.969 0.981 1.025 0.926 0.932 0.428 Percentage HGV 1.28 1.14 1.14 1.26 1.55 1.06 1.19 1.19 1.08 Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Year Value AADT 8474 8945 8779 8562 8344 8889 6838 7787 6808 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.056 1.036 1.010 0.985 1.049 0.807 0.919 0.803 Percentage HGV 1.59 1.42 1.46 4.00 1.58 1.38 1.66 1.44 1.41 Data Complete % 99.98 99.99 99.98 99.80 99.97 99.98 99.97 99.98 100.00 Moray Council VDA-net R2 15/12/2023 Page 113
Page 114
Site Number 00000027 Site ReferenGlenmoray Dr Lat/Lng. 57.63645,-3.31460 U171e - Glenmoray Drv, Elgin Summary Info Report Base Year 2014 Channel: Other Flows Month Statistics 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 January AADT 4485 4635 4833 5002 3290 4955 5196 3651 4592 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.033 1.078 1.115 0.734 1.105 1.159 0.814 1.024 Percentage HGV 1.08 1.34 1.29 1.04 1.14 1.26 1.36 1.40 1.11 Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.95 100.00 100.00 February AADT 4764 5018 5161 5311 4023 5302 5495 4207 4799 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.053 1.083 1.115 0.844 1.113 1.153 0.883 1.007 Percentage HGV 1.50 1.52 1.54 1.24 1.33 1.42 1.48 1.44 1.07 Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.95 100.00 99.95 100.00 March AADT 4966 5209 5304 5562 5422 5505 4495 4246 4009 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.049 1.068 1.120 1.092 1.109 0.905 0.855 0.807 Percentage HGV 1.53 1.60 1.74 1.32 2.31 1.42 1.53 0.96 0.69 Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.95 100.00 100.00 April AADT 4887 5184 5513 5337 5429 5444 2534 5145 3984 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.061 1.128 1.092 1.111 1.114 0.519 1.053 0.815 Percentage HGV 1.49 1.36 1.72 1.19 1.86 1.48 1.87 0.89 0.70 Data Complete % 99.95 99.95 99.90 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.90 May AADT 5077 5349 5931 5537 5929 5614 3151 5502 3974 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.054 1.168 1.091 1.168 1.106 0.621 1.084 0.783 Percentage HGV 1.34 1.57 1.69 1.22 2.10 1.50 1.44 0.93 0.60 Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 June AADT 5199 5497 5689 5697 6892 5707 4057 5686 5490 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.057 1.094 1.096 1.326 1.098 0.780 1.094 1.056 Percentage HGV 1.46 1.49 1.71 1.30 1.48 1.41 1.30 0.89 1.03 Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 July AADT 4649 4934 6504 5430 6007 5329 4763 5383 7630 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.061 1.399 1.168 1.292 1.146 1.025 1.158 1.641 Percentage HGV 1.39 1.64 1.63 1.09 1.42 1.61 1.31 0.85 1.33 Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.95 99.95 100.00 100.00 August AADT 5343 5258 5862 5460 5999 5606 5143 5517 5527 Growth factor from base 1.000 0.984 1.097 1.022 1.123 1.049 0.963 1.033 1.034 Percentage HGV 1.21 1.03 1.09 0.98 1.25 1.30 1.10 0.86 1.02 Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.91 100.00 99.95 100.00 100.00 September AADT 5003 5364 5576 5247 5767 5620 5330 5687 5395 5979 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.072 1.115 1.049 1.153 1.123 1.065 1.137 1.078 1.195 Percentage HGV 1.30 1.46 1.28 1.21 1.35 1.49 1.33 1.32 1.39 1.07 Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 54.17 October AADT 4902 5005 5225 4633 5151 5257 5063 4859 5502 2389 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.021 1.066 0.945 1.051 1.072 1.033 0.991 1.122 0.487 Percentage HGV 1.48 1.50 1.36 1.09 1.41 1.52 1.38 1.10 1.52 0.91 Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 45.83 61.17 November AADT 4898 5300 5516 5713 5673 5823 5392 5254 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.082 1.126 1.166 1.158 1.189 1.101 1.073 Percentage HGV 1.35 1.46 1.29 1.27 1.36 1.63 1.48 1.13 Data Complete % 99.90 99.95 99.95 99.76 99.76 99.75 99.80 99.81 December AADT 4964 5234 5463 4990 5361 5526 5150 5470 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.054 1.101 1.005 1.080 1.113 1.037 1.102 Percentage HGV 1.10 1.14 0.94 1.08 1.00 1.17 1.03 1.05 Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Year Value AADT 4924 5165 5550 5330 5409 5469 4646 5060 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.049 1.127 1.082 1.098 1.111 0.944 1.028 Percentage HGV 1.35 1.43 1.44 1.17 1.50 1.43 1.38 1.06 Data Complete % 99.99 99.99 99.99 99.98 99.97 99.97 99.97 99.98 Moray Council VDA-net R2 15/12/2023 Page 114
Page 115
Site Number 00000028 Site ReferenThornhill Rd Lat/Lng. 57.63496,-3.29982 U171e - Thornhill Rd, Elgin Summary Info Report Base Year 2014 Channel: Other Flows Month Statistics 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 January AADT 6849 7438 7187 7237 7242 7486 7678 5490 7301 7391 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.086 1.049 1.057 1.057 1.093 1.121 0.802 1.066 1.079 Percentage HGV 3.09 3.39 3.28 2.85 3.04 3.36 2.90 3.80 2.67 2.78 Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.91 100.00 100.00 100.00 February AADT 7210 7590 7642 7877 7960 8075 8234 6072 7787 8014 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.053 1.060 1.093 1.104 1.120 1.142 0.842 1.080 1.112 Percentage HGV 3.02 3.42 3.48 3.03 4.13 3.52 3.09 4.46 3.10 2.68 Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.95 100.00 99.79 March AADT 7435 7788 7749 8135 8157 8345 6929 7026 7883 2306 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.047 1.042 1.094 1.097 1.122 0.932 0.945 1.060 0.310 Percentage HGV 3.04 3.45 3.50 3.20 3.18 3.05 3.42 3.50 3.17 2.65 Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.95 99.95 100.00 100.00 100.00 April AADT 7266 7628 7917 7862 8060 8071 3287 7714 7744 0 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.050 1.090 1.082 1.109 1.111 0.452 1.062 1.066 Percentage HGV 2.91 3.43 3.40 3.06 3.78 3.11 4.08 3.28 3.06 -Infinity Data Complete % 99.91 99.95 99.95 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.90 100.00 May AADT 7564 7845 8351 8321 8393 8478 4182 8210 7974 0 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.037 1.104 1.100 1.110 1.121 0.553 1.085 1.054 Percentage HGV 3.04 3.31 3.42 2.97 3.51 3.12 3.42 3.05 2.95 -Infinity Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 67.71 June AADT 7802 7936 8560 8469 9659 8461 5708 8543 8629 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.017 1.097 1.085 1.238 1.084 0.732 1.095 1.106 Percentage HGV 3.31 3.15 3.12 2.94 3.43 3.09 3.28 2.60 2.99 Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.90 100.00 100.00 100.00 July AADT 7008 7148 538 7683 8029 7841 6725 7699 9123 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.020 0.077 1.096 1.146 1.119 0.960 1.099 1.302 Percentage HGV 3.24 3.44 2.62 2.74 3.88 3.16 2.94 2.68 2.71 Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 55.31 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.91 100.00 August AADT 7827 7625 8467 8196 8398 8314 7545 8074 8145 Growth factor from base 1.000 0.974 1.082 1.047 1.073 1.062 0.964 1.032 1.041 Percentage HGV 3.21 3.00 3.07 2.54 3.29 2.56 2.90 2.66 2.84 Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 97.37 100.00 99.91 100.00 99.95 100.00 100.00 September AADT 7697 7887 8125 8740 8395 3875 7819 8382 8172 Growth factor from base 1.000 1.025 1.056 1.136 1.091 0.503 1.016 1.089 1.062 Percentage HGV 3.54 3.33 3.20 2.74 3.22 2.68 3.40 2.77 2.69 Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 October AADT 8213 7390 7746 7741 7889 6149 7561 7733 7933 Growth factor from base 1.000 0.900 0.943 0.943 0.961 0.749 0.921 0.942 0.966 Percentage HGV 2.88 3.41 3.22 3.11 3.49 3.07 3.47 2.87 2.92 Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 November AADT 7897 7660 7953 8385 8494 8273 7931 8134 8077 Growth factor from base 1.000 0.970 1.007 1.062 1.076 1.048 1.004 1.030 1.023 Percentage HGV 3.14 3.22 2.91 3.21 3.91 3.21 3.33 2.90 3.11 Data Complete % 99.95 99.95 99.95 99.76 99.76 99.80 99.80 99.81 100.00 December AADT 8472 7265 7658 7367 7697 7637 7259 7746 7443 Growth factor from base 1.000 0.858 0.904 0.870 0.909 0.901 0.857 0.914 0.879 Percentage HGV 2.58 2.70 2.27 2.55 3.11 2.60 2.77 2.51 2.55 Data Complete % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.91 100.00 100.00 100.00 Year Value AADT 7604 7596 7352 8006 8192 7580 6734 7584 8019 Growth factor from base 1.000 0.999 0.967 1.053 1.077 0.997 0.886 0.997 1.055 Percentage HGV 3.08 3.27 3.12 2.91 3.49 3.04 3.25 3.08 2.90 Data Complete % 99.99 99.99 96.16 99.98 99.97 99.96 99.97 99.97 99.99 Moray Council VDA-net R2 15/12/2023 Page 115
Page 116
C2E Cloddach Bridge to B9010 Speed Total 85th Mean Std. Bin 1 Bin 2 Bin 3 Bin 4 Bin 5 Bin 6 Bin 7 Bin 8 Bin 9 Bin 10 Bin 11 Bin 12 Bin 13 Vol. %ile Ave. Dev. <31Mph 31-<36 36-<41 41-<46 46-<51 51-<56 56-<61 61-<66 66-<71 71-<76 76-<81 81-<86 =>86 00:00 0 29.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01:00 0 33.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:00 1 34.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05:00 2 32 6.9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06:00 7 35.7 6.1 2 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07:00 18 40.1 35.9 5.7 2 6 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08:00 36 41.5 35.1 6.8 7 14 10 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 09:00 27 40.5 34.1 7.6 7 6 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10:00 25 40.4 34.2 7.4 8 8 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 25 40.8 34.4 7.2 6 9 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 29 41.1 35.9 7.3 5 10 10 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13:00 24 40 34.3 6.4 5 8 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14:00 32 40.6 34.2 7.2 8 10 9 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:00 37 40.5 34.3 7 10 10 11 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16:00 49 40.7 34.9 6.4 9 18 15 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17:00 29 43.2 37 6.5 3 7 11 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18:00 16 44.4 37.4 8.5 2 4 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19:00 10 38.9 34.2 5.8 2 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20:00 6 35.9 5.7 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21:00 7 33 7.7 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22:00 2 34.8 7.6 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23:00 1 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 383 40.7 34.7 6.4 77 121 118 45 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 to bridge Total 85th Mean Std. Bin 1 Bin 2 Bin 3 Bin 4 Bin 5 Bin 6 Bin 7 Bin 8 Bin 9 Bin 10 Bin 11 Bin 12 Bin 13 Vol. %ile Ave. Dev. <31Mph 31-<36 36-<41 41-<46 46-<51 51-<56 56-<61 61-<66 66-<71 71-<76 76-<81 81-<86 =>86 00:00 1 32.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:00 0 32.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05:00 3 31.4 9.7 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06:00 5 32.8 6.1 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07:00 34 38.8 33.2 5.9 9 15 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08:00 40 35.8 31.2 5.8 14 20 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 09:00 30 38.8 32.7 6.5 9 12 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10:00 25 37.5 32.5 5.8 7 13 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 27 37.3 31.6 6.2 10 12 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 27 38.7 33 6 7 11 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13:00 29 37.8 32.3 5.8 9 13 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14:00 27 38 31.5 6.6 10 9 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:00 39 37.7 31.5 6.5 15 15 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16:00 37 39.5 33.6 6.6 8 16 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17:00 21 40.5 35.4 6.2 3 7 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18:00 12 39.4 33.6 7 4 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19:00 7 33.8 6.4 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20:00 4 33.2 7.2 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21:00 6 30.9 7.2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22:00 3 32.4 6.9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23:00 0 33.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 377 38.5 32.3 6.1 116 157 77 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Page 116
Page 117
Classification Total Bin 1 Bin 2 Bin 3 Bin 4 Bin 5 Bin 6 Bin 7 Bin 8 Bin 9 Bin 10 Bin 11 Bin 12 Bin 13 Vol. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Mon 30/11/2020 365 1 269 87 0 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Tue 01/12/2020 385 4 291 86 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wed 02/12/2020 415 4 311 90 0 9 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Thu 03/12/2020 380 2 284 90 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fri 04/12/2020 380 0 261 105 1 11 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sat 05/12/2020 256 3 196 52 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Sun 06/12/2020 224 1 181 38 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Day Ave. 385 2 283 92 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Day Ave. 344 2 256 78 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Bin 1 Bin 2 Bin 3 Bin 4 Bin 5 Bin 6 Bin 7 Bin 8 Bin 9 Bin 10 Bin 11 Bin 12 Bin 13 Vol. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Mon 30/11/2020 381 1 271 98 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tue 01/12/2020 369 5 269 86 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wed 02/12/2020 385 7 282 85 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Thu 03/12/2020 405 4 298 90 1 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fri 04/12/2020 355 0 255 85 0 12 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 Sat 05/12/2020 273 5 198 67 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Sun 06/12/2020 243 1 194 44 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Day Ave. 379 3 275 89 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Day Ave. 344 3 252 79 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Page 117
Page 118
Appendix L Gravity Model Page 118
Page 119
veh proportion 23.2% 9788 veh proportion 24.8% 23.2% 10485 veh proportion 5929 14.1% veh proportion 19.9% 48.0% 8393 14.1% veh proportion 73.9% 7602 18.0% 6.0% 385 88.0% 379 12.0% 18.0% May 2018 AADT Traffic Flows 2020 Cloddach Bridge Traffic Flows May 2018 AADT Vehicle Distribution Cloddach Bridge Trip Assignment
Page 120
Page 121
Page 122
Page 123
Page 124
Page 125
Maisondieu Road Moss Street Wards Road The Wards Edgar Road A941 Linkwood Road Glen Moray Drive A941 Gleneagles Drive Thornhill Road Springfield Road Birnie Road C2E A941 A941 A941 ATC 00000018 ATC 00000028 ATC 00000017 ATC 00000027 ATC 00000007 Cloddach Bridge Page 119
Page 126
NRTF Growth Factor 1.032 2020>2025 veh proportion 23.2% 397 341 341 92 9788 391 336 336 91 55 56 249 245 veh proportion 24.8% 99 10485 97 veh proportion 5929 14.1% 148 151 veh proportion 19.9% 55 56 79 8393 78 70 72 397 391 veh proportion 7602 18.0% 70 72
Page 127
Page 128
Page 129
Page 130
Page 131
Page 132
! "
Page 133
# $%& Maisondieu Road Moss Street Wards Road The Wards Edgar Road A941 Linkwood Road Glen Moray Drive Gleneagles Drive Thornhill Road Springfield Road Birnie Road C2E A941 A941 Cloddach Bridge Page 120
Page 134
NRTF Growth Factor 1.032 2020>2025 veh proportion 23.2% 92 9788 91 92 91 veh proportion 24.8% 99 10485 97 veh proportion 5929 14.1% 191 188 veh proportion 19.9% 56 55 294 79 8393 289 78 23 24 350 344 397 veh proportion 391 7602 18.0% 48 47 70 72
Page 135
Page 136
Page 137
Page 138
Page 139
Page 140
!" #
Page 141
$ %&# ' Maisondieu Road Moss Street Wards Road The Wards Edgar Road A941 Linkwood Road Glen Moray Drive Gleneagles Drive Thornhill Road Springfield Road Birnie Road C2E A941 A941 Cloddach Bridge Page 121
Page 142
-397 -341 0 -391 -336 0 -55 -56 -157 -155 0 0 43 37 1 -1 294 0 289 0 -47 -48 350 344 397 391 48 47 0 0
Page 143
Page 144
Page 145
Page 146
Page 147
Page 148
!
Page 149
"
Page 150
#" $ Maisondieu Road Moss Street Wards Road The Wards Edgar Road A941 Linkwood Road Glen Moray Drive Gleneagles Drive Thornhill Road Springfield Road Birnie Road C2E A941 A941 Cloddach Bridge Page 122
Page 151
NRTF Low Growth Factor 1.048 2018 > 2025 1.011 2023 > 2025 1.032 2020 > 2025 11% 1% 8748 39 34 4962 266 265 123% 512 316 315 359 23% 358 374 43 43 2018 to 2025 Projected JTC Survey Flows 2020 to 2025 Projected Cloddach Bridge Flows 2023 to 2025 Projected JTC Survey Flows 2025 Projected DM to DS Differences Percentage Change
Page 152
Page 153
Page 154
Page 155
Page 156
Page 157
Page 158
!"
Page 159
#
Page 160
$# % Maisondieu Road Moss Street Wards Road The Wards Edgar Road A941 Linkwood Road Glen Moray Drive Gleneagles Drive Thornhill Road Springfield Road Birnie Road C2E A941 A941 Cloddach Bridge Page 123
Page 161
Appendix M Small Scheme Application Toolkit Page 124
Page 162
DfT_Small_Scheme_Appraisal_Toolkit_v4.00_2022 158148 Cloddach FBC 240320.xlsm Inputs The Department for Transport 20/03/2024Page 125
Page 163
DfT_Small_Scheme_Appraisal_Toolkit_v4.00_2022 158148 Cloddach FBC 240320.xlsm File Name DfT_Small_Scheme_Appraisal_Toolkit_v4.00_2022 158148 Cloddach FBC 240320.xlsm Sheet Name I- Impacts Proforma Description and Purpose of Sheet Users should complete all yellow input cells within this sheet, and select from the drop down in green cells. User instructions/notes are shown in green text. Version number 4.00 I- Impacts Proforma Unit Constant Notes Total Project Details Scheme: text Cloddach Bridge, C2E, Elgin Scheme Promoter: text The Moray Council Scheme Type: selection Highway Scheme Opening Year: yyyy 2025 Model Base Year (if applicable): yyyy 2020 Modelled Year Used (if applicable): yyyy Please select Area Type: selection Rural The area type can be found by look Scheme Impacts The Do Minimum (DM) should reflect the without-scheme scenario. The inputs should consider those in the area of influence of the scheme. The Do Something (DS) should reflect the with-scheme scenario. The inputs should consider those in the area of influence of the scheme. Both DM and DS demand are inputs. For the majority of small schemes we would expect these to be the same - but in some cases there may be differences (e.g. where improvements to bus provision may lead to an uplift in patronage). Where the demand isn't the same between the DM and DS scenarios, the difference is The requested information should be provided where possible, noting that for some schemes / modelling platforms it will not be possible to obtain all outputs. Night, Saturday and Sunday inputs can be provided, however these should be left blank where there is not the information available. Unless otherwise stated, inputs should be for the scheme opening year. Where there is not data for the scheme opening year, the closest possible year should be used or an alternative methodology justified. Highway AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Inter-Peak Hour Night Saturday Sunday Time period hhmm - hhmm 07:00-10:00 16:00-19:00 10:00-16:00 19:00-07:00 00:00-23:59 00:00-23:59 Peak period expansion factor factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 This should reflect the factor that th Scenario Mode Input Year Units DM Highway Demand: number of highway trips Opening Year number of trips 192 170 359 67 546 482 This input should reflect the numbe DM Highway Time: select whether you are inputting the total vehicle travel time or delay time selection Total travel time Total travel time Total travel time Total travel time Total travel time Total travel time Please select whether the input is t DM Highway Time: total travel time or delay time Opening Year vehicle hours 30 26 57 9 86 76 This input should reflect the total tra DM Highway Distance: total vehicle travel distance Opening Year vehicle km 1,429 1,273 2,672 499 4,064 3,588 This input should reflect the total hi DS Highway Demand: number of highway trips Opening Year number of trips 192 170 359 67 546 482 This input should reflect the numbe DS Highway Time: select whether you are inputting the total vehicle travel time or delay time selection Total travel time Total travel time Total travel time Total travel time Total travel time Total travel time Please select whether the input is t DS Highway Time: total travel time or delay time Opening Year vehicle hours 18 15 34 6 51 45 This input should reflect the total tra DS Highway Distance: total vehicle travel distance Opening Year vehicle km 997 888 1,864 348 2,834 2,502 This input should reflect the total hi Bus AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Inter-Peak Hour Night Saturday Sunday DM Bus Time Period hhmm - hhmm DM Bus Peak period expansion factor factor This should reflect the factor that th Scenario Mode Input Year Units DM Bus Demand: number of bus trips Opening Year number of trips This input should reflect the numbe DM Bus Time: total current bus travel time Opening Year person hours This input should reflect the total tra DS Bus Demand: number of bus trips Opening Year number of trips This input should reflect the numbe DS Bus Time: total current bus travelled time Opening Year person hours This input should reflect the total tra Bus Quality Factors As a result of your scheme, will any of the following measures be introduced? (see TAG Unit M3-2 Public Transport Assignment for further detail on bus quality factors) DM (daily) DS (daily) Audio announcements number Please select If yes, no. of daily passengers experiencing benefit in opening year This input should be the daily dema CCTV at bus stops number Please select If yes, no. of daily passengers experiencing benefit in opening year CCTV on buses number Please select If yes, no. of daily passengers experiencing benefit in opening year Climate control number Please select If yes, no. of daily passengers experiencing benefit in opening year New bus shelters number Please select If yes, no. of daily passengers experiencing benefit in opening year New bus with low floor number Please select If yes, no. of daily passengers experiencing benefit in opening year New interchange facilities number Please select If yes, no. of daily passengers experiencing benefit in opening year On-screen displays number Please select If yes, no. of daily passengers experiencing benefit in opening year RTPI (at bus stops) number Please select If yes, no. of daily passengers experiencing benefit in opening year Simplified ticketing number Please select If yes, no. of daily passengers experiencing benefit in opening year Trained drivers number Please select If yes, no. of daily passengers experiencing benefit in opening year Appraisal Period (for bus quality appraisal only) years In line with TAG Unit A1-1 Cost Be Lists - do not delete or edit END The Department for Transport 20/03/2024 Page 126
Page 164
DfT_Small_Scheme_Appraisal_Toolkit_v4.00_2022 158148 Cloddach FBC 240320.xlsm File Name DfT_Small_Scheme_Appraisal_Toolkit_v4.00_2022 158148 Cloddach FBC 240320.xlsm Sheet Name I- Cost Proforma Description and Purpose of Sheet Users should complete all yellow input cells within this sheet, and select from the drop down in green cells. User instructions/notes are shown in green text. Version number 4.00 I- Cost Proforma Unit Constant Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Scheme Costs Note - only the costs associated with the transport scheme should be entered into this proforma. The costs should be reflective of the scheme for which the impacts on I- Impacts Proforma capture. All costs entered into the proforma should be inclusive of inflation. Costs should not include risk adjustment or optimism bias. Costs should be entered as positive numbers Funding Sources Funding sought from Levelling Up Fund in each year Funding Source Sector Levelling Up Fund Public £, with inflation 870,000 870,000 Cost to other funding sources in each year Funding Source Sector Public Public £, with inflation 2,144,735 2,144,735 £, with inflation - £, with inflation - £, with inflation - £, with inflation - £, with inflation - £, with inflation - £, with inflation - Total costs incurred in each year £, with inflation 3,014,735 - - - 3,014,735 - - - - - - Optimism Bias Optimism Bias % 42% Please refer to TAG Unit A2-1 Scheme Costs to identify the appropriate optimism bias (or risk adjustment) percentage to be applied to scheme costs END The Department for Transport 20/03/2024Page 127
Page 165
DfT_Small_Scheme_Appraisal_Toolkit_v4.00_2022 158148 Cloddach FBC 240320.xlsm File Name DfT_Small_Scheme_Appraisal_Toolkit_v4.00_2022 158148 Cloddach FBC 240320.xlsm Sheet Name I- Area Lookup Description and Purpose of Sheet This sheet can be used to look-up the area type requested on I- Impacts Proforma Version number 4.00 Area Lookup ## ## ## Area Lookup Table For users to determine what area type their scheme is located, based on Middle Layer Super Output Areas (MSOAs), used for mode-shift calculations. Users may use a different area type if they have evidence that the mapping does not represent the area of the intervention. The area type identified should be entered onto I- Impacts Proforma. Search Bar - Enter MSOA Zone Code or Use Below Table to Filter Zone Code S99900136 Area Type Rural MSOA Zone Code MSOA Zone Name LAD Code Control Area Name MECs Area Type The Department for Transport 20/03/2024Page 128
Page 166
DfT_Small_Scheme_Appraisal_Toolkit_v4.00_2022 158148 Cloddach FBC 240320.xlsm Outputs The Department for Transport 20/03/2024Page 129
Page 167
DfT_Small_Scheme_Appraisal_Toolkit_v4.00_2022 158148 Cloddach FBC 240320.xlsm 0 File Name DfT_Small_Scheme_Appraisal_Toolkit_v4.00_2022 158148 Cloddach FBC 240320.xlsm Sheet Name O- Summary Description and Purpose of Sheet This sheet provides a summary of the benefits and costs of the scheme over the appraisal period Version number 4.00 O- Summary Unit Constant Source Summary Results Highway Journey Time Impacts Car Business £, 2010 PV 975,736 Commuting £, 2010 PV 1,150,419 Other £, 2010 PV 2,136,817 LGV Business £, 2010 PV 1,099,787 Commuting £, 2010 PV 34,558 Other £, 2010 PV 38,648 HGV Business £, 2010 PV 360,256 Commuting £, 2010 PV - Other £, 2010 PV - Total £, 2010 PV 5,796,222 Highway VOCs Impacts Car Business £, 2010 PV 251,254 Commuting £, 2010 PV 531,054 Other £, 2010 PV 1,301,189 LGV Business £, 2010 PV 371,337 Commuting £, 2010 PV 14,677 Other £, 2010 PV 35,960 HGV Business £, 2010 PV 131,867 Commuting £, 2010 PV - Other £, 2010 PV - Total £, 2010 PV 2,637,339 Bus Journey Time Benefits Business £, 2010 PV - Commuting £, 2010 PV - Other £, 2010 PV - Total £, 2010 PV - Bus Quality Impacts Total £, 2010 PV - Marginal External Costs Congestion £, 2010 PV - Note - different formula to cells below Business - Note - different formula to cells below Commuting - Note - different formula to cells below Other - Note - different formula to cells below Infrastructure £, 2010 PV 75,876 Accident £, 2010 PV 144,266 Local Air Quality £, 2010 PV 30,000 Noise £, 2010 PV 11,662 Greenhouse Gases £, 2010 PV 471,417 Indirect tax £, 2010 PV 623,094- Scheme Costs Levelling Up Fund Ask £, 2010 PV 681,135 Other Public Sector Costs £, 2010 PV 1,679,142 Private Sector Costs £, 2010 PV - Total £, 2010 PV 2,360,276 Initial BCR Highway Journey Times £, 2010 PV 5,796,222 Highway VOCs £, 2010 PV 2,637,339 Bus Journey Times £, 2010 PV - Bus Quality Impacts £, 2010 PV - Congestion £, 2010 PV - Infrastructure £, 2010 PV 75,876 Accident £, 2010 PV 144,266 Local Air Quality £, 2010 PV 30,000 Noise £, 2010 PV 11,662 Greenhouse Gases £, 2010 PV 471,417 Indirect tax £, 2010 PV 623,094- Levelling Up Fund Ask £, 2010 PV 681,135 Other Public Sector Costs £, 2010 PV 1,679,142 Private Sector Costs £, 2010 PV - PVB £, 2010 PV 8,467,811 PVC £, 2010 PV 2,284,400 NPV £, 2010 PV 6,183,411 BCR £, 2010 PV 3.7 END The Department for Transport 20/03/2024Page 130
Page 168
DfT_Small_Scheme_Appraisal_Toolkit_v4.00_2022 158148 Cloddach FBC 240320.xlsm 0 File Name DfT_Small_Scheme_Appraisal_Toolkit_v4.00_2022 158148 Cloddach FBC 240320.xlsm Sheet Name O- TEE Description and Purpose of Sheet This sheet populates the DfTs appraisal output table (TEE Table) Version number 4.00 O- TEE ALL MODES BUS and COACH OTHER TOTAL Passengers 1,184,977 - 545,731 - - 1,730,708 (1a) - - ALL MODES BUS and COACH OTHER TOTAL Passengers 2,175,465 - 1,337,150 - - 3,512,615 (1b) - - Goods Vehicles Business Cars & LGVs Passengers Freight Passengers 2,435,780 360,256 2,075,524 - 754,458 131,867 622,591 - - 3,190,238 (2) 492,123 2,698,115 - - - - Freight Passengers - - (3) - (4) 3,190,238 8,433,560 END Economic Efficiency of the Transport System (TEE) Non-business: Commuting ROAD RAIL User benefits Private Cars and LGVs Passengers Travel time 1,184,977 Vehicle operating costs 545,731 User charges During Construction & Maintenance NET NON-BUSINESS BENEFITS: COMMUTING 1,730,708 - Vehicle operating costs 1,337,150 Non-business: Other ROAD RAIL User benefits Private Cars and LGVs Passengers Travel time 2,175,465 User charges During Construction & MaintenanceNET NON-BUSINESS BENEFITS: OTHER 3,512,615 - Vehicle operating costs User charges Business User benefits Travel time During Construction & Maintenance Subtotal Private sector provider impacts Revenue Operating costs TOTAL Subtotal Other business impacts Investment costs Grant/subsidy Developer contributions NET BUSINESS IMPACT (5) = (2) + (3) + (4) Present Value of Transport Economic Efficiency Benefits (TEE) (6) = (1a) + (1b) + (5) Notes: Benefits appear as positive numbers, while costs appear as negative numbers. All entries are discounted present values, in 2010 prices and values The Department for Transport 20/03/2024Page 131
Page 169
DfT_Small_Scheme_Appraisal_Toolkit_v4.00_2022 158148 Cloddach FBC 240320.xlsm 0 File Name DfT_Small_Scheme_Appraisal_Toolkit_v4.00_2022 158148 Cloddach FBC 240320.xlsm Sheet Name O- PA Description and Purpose of Sheet This sheet populates the DfTs appraisal output table (PA Table) Version number 4 O- PA Public Accounts (PA) Table ALL MODES TOTAL - 75,876 1,679,142 1,603,265 (7) 681,135 681,135 (8) 623,094 (9) 2,284,400 623,094 END Notes: Costs appear as positive numbers, while revenues and ‘Developer and Other Contributions' appear as negative numbers. All entries are discounted present values in 2010 prices and values. Wider Public Finances (11) = (9) Broad Transport Budget (10) = (7) + (8) TOTALS Developer and Other Contributions NET IMPACT Grant/Subsidy Payments Central Government Funding: Non-Transport Indirect Tax Revenues Central Government Funding: Transport Investment Costs Operating costs Revenue Revenue Local Government Funding Operating Costs NET IMPACT Investment Costs Developer and Other Contributions Grant/Subsidy Payments The Department for Transport 20/03/2024Page 132
Page 170
DfT_Small_Scheme_Appraisal_Toolkit_v4.00_2022 158148 Cloddach FBC 240320.xlsm 0 File Name DfT_Small_Scheme_Appraisal_Toolkit_v4.00_2022 158148 Cloddach FBC 240320.xlsm Sheet Name O- AMCB Description and Purpose of Sheet This sheet populates the DfTs appraisal output table (AMCB Table) Version number 4 O- AMCB Noise 11,662 (12) Local Air Quality 30,000 (13) Greenhouse Gases 471,417 (14) Journey Quality - (15) Physical Activity - (16) Accidents 144,266 (17) Economic Efficiency: Consumer Users (Commuting) 1,730,708 (1a) Economic Efficiency: Consumer Users (Other) 3,512,615 (1b) Economic Efficiency: Business Users and Providers 3,190,238 (5) Wider Public Finances (Indirect Taxation Revenues) - 623,094 - (11) - sign changed from PA table, as PA table represents costs, not benefits Present Value of Benefits (see notes) (PVB) 8,467,811 (PVB) = (12) + (13) + (14) + (15) + (16) + (17) + (1a) + (1b) + (5) - (11) Broad Transport Budget 2,284,400 (10) Present Value of Costs (see notes) (PVC) 2,284,400 (PVC) = (10) OVERALL IMPACTS Net Present Value (NPV) 6,183,411 NPV=PVB-PVC Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) 3.7 BCR=PVB/PVC END Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits Note : This table includes costs and benefits which are regularly or occasionally presented in monetised form in transport appraisals, together with some where monetisation is in prospect. There may also be other significant costs and benefits, some of which cannot be presented in monetised form. Where this is the case, the analysis presented above does NOT provide a good measure of value for money and should not The Department for Transport 20/03/2024Page 133
Page 171
DfT_Small_Scheme_Appraisal_Toolkit_v4.00_2022 158148 Cloddach FBC 240320.xlsm File Name DfT_Small_Scheme_Appraisal_Toolkit_v4.00_2022 158148 Cloddach FBC 240320.xlsm Sheet Name O- Checks Description and Purpose of Sheet This sheet shows the individual sheet checks within the model Version number 4.00 Summary of Model Checks Unit Constant Source Sheet I- Impacts Proforma 0 I- Cost Proforma 0 I- Area Lookup 0 I- Params 0 I- TAG Values 0 I- TAG Rates 0 I- Capitalisation 0 C- Time & Rates 0 C- Annualisation 0 C- MECs Rates 0 C- Time Benefits (Hwy) 0 C- VOCs 0 C- Time Benefits (Bus) 0 C- Bus Quality 0 C- Hwy MECs 0 C- Bus MECs 0 C- Capex 0 O- Summary 0 O- Appraisal Output Tables 0 END The Department for Transport 20/03/2024Page 134
Page 172
CIVIL ENGINEERING • STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING • TRANSPORTATION • ROADS & BRIDGES PORTS & HARBOURS • GEOTECHNICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING • PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT • WATER SERVICES • CDM COORDINATOR SERVICES www.fairhurst.co.uk Aberdeen Birmingham Bristol Dundee Edinburgh Elgin Glasgow Huddersfield Inverness Leeds London Newcastle Plymouth Sevenoaks Taunton Thurso Watford Westhill Page 135
Page 173
Page 136
Page 174
Funding Analysis On Monday 18 March 2024 Heldon Community Council submitted a document (shared below) setting out a series of potential funding sources they had identified. This table replicates the funding sources identified, Heldon Community Council’s comments and a response detailing the status and relevance of each potential funding source, noting that for inclusion in the full business case the funding needs to be committed by the time of business case submission. Funding Source HCC Comments Response Scottish Government (SG) We have sought open door routes into the SG to ascertain potential funding opportunities, though we still await The Lossiemouth Footbridge the SG provided funding for the design and construct the bridge with a value of £1.8m, which includes £1.375m capital cost; £365,000 risk allowance; and £60,000 site supervision costs. NOTE Moray Council should approached SG to seek direct funding in line with this earlier project. The Leader of Council wrote to Scottish Government and received a response dated 13 October 2023 stating that Scottish Government are unable to provide match funding Sustrans – Places for Everyone The route is also noted upon Moray Council active travel map noted as Waymarked cycle routes : Elgin Experience. C2E, B9010 This has been replaced by Active Travel Infrastructure Fund – the information quoted from the front part of the web page is out of date. ATIF applications closed on 2 February 2024 for local authorities. This scheme would not meet the criteria for the ATIF Item 5a. Page 137
Page 175
funding for the creation of infrastructure that makes it easier for people to walk and cycle for everyday journeys. Local Authority can apply Funding is available for 100% of design costs and 70% of construction costs for existing projects. We will work with you to identify match funding where necessary. Round 2 applications were open 20th March 2024 with deadline of 3rd April. FBC has already been completed therefore hopefully extracts can be utilised for this application. NOTE This route is part of Moray Council active travel route. Moray Council therefore should seek further clarity on funding now that the FBC has been concluded and funding is open. Sustrans – Spaces for People Additional funding a total of £30million of Spaces for People funding available to support local authorities and statutory bodies to provide safe walking and cycling infrastructure as the country transitions out of lockdown. NOTE This route is part of Moray Council active travel route. Moray Council therefore should seek further clarity on funding now that the FBC has been concluded This funding source closed for applications in 2020 Page 138
Page 176
Scottish Government Place based Investment Infrastructure Fund The Programme will link and align all place based funding initiatives to create a coherent approach to building resilient communities, addressing inequalities and supporting an inclusive, well-being economy in local settings. In practice this means that consideration will be given to how place based investments align with other planned investments in the locality in order to streamline delivery and increase impact. The Programme aims to: ensure that investments in a place are relevant to that place and for the benefit of all the people in that place. support the delivery of 20 minute neighbourhoods.- provide a consistent framework for looking at investments in a place, and explore with those communities how greater collaboration can improve the circumstances of peoples’ lives. support the ambitions of existing place based plans and strategies, such as the Infrastructure Investment Plan and the emerging National Planning Framework4, making sure that money spent in places has the greatest collective benefit possible. accelerate ambitions for Community Wealth Building, community-led Regeneration, and the cities and town centres agendas. provide a coherent local framework across urban and rural areas for realising ambitions for inclusion, climate change, and wellbeing. NOTE Moray Council therefore should seek further clarity on funding now that the FBC has been concluded The Investing In Communities Fund closed for applications in 2022 and was for revenue costs associated with PBIP The funding provided to Moray Council under the Place Based Investment Programme for future years has been allocated to the Town Centre Improvement Plans as approved by committee. Page 139
Page 177
Potential future planning application Rothes 3 Wind Farm There is a potential future wind farm application at Glen Latterach, Elgin (24/00136/APP) which is seeking approval for a meteorological mast Kellas Drum Wind farm Birnie Quarry - With any of these potential future planning applications Moray Council could seek monies towards infrastructure projects via Development Obligations to help fund. These are all prospective planning applications which have not been appraised or determined and there is no certainty on delivery, nor the scale / focus of any developer obligation or community fund SSEN Transmission's Community Benefit Fund SEN will further refine Community Benefit Fund plan framework in anticipation of the UK Government’s recommendations and guidance following their recent consultation Community Benefits for Electricity Transmission Network Infrastructure. Subject to the UK Government’s recommendations, intend to formally launch our Community Benefit Fund in 2024 Anticipate that the regional projects will be of higher value and have a greater transformational impact. The local funds will be solely for communities who are situated close to new infrastructure and we will provide more information in due course on how we plan to administer this. These local communities will be able to apply for both elements of the fund. Will publish more details in due course on timescales, eligibility, transparent decision making and the application process. We expect that priority will be given to those projects that deliver on our two identified themes of: This fund is not yet open for applications so is not a current funding source Page 140
Page 178
People, focusing on skills, training and employability; and Place, emphasising the community and culture of the north of Scotland NOTE Funding is an option for this type of project requirements which HCC would be more than willing to apply for funding with information provided via FBC. Birnie Quarry – Aggregate levy. There is currently a PAN notice submitted for sand & gravel extraction at Dykeside Farm, Birnie. The levy seeks £2 for every tonne of material extracted Extraction is 50,000/ton/ year which equates to £100,000 each year. NOTE Moray Council therefore should seek further clarity on the levy. These are all prospective planning applications which have not been appraised or determined and there is no certainty on delivery, nor the scale / focus of any developer obligation or community fund Kellas Drum Within the webpage of Kellas Drum suggests over the 30 year lifespan there could be potential £8.64million in community benefit NOTE Should this application proceed HCC would be more than willing to apply for funding with information provided via FBC. These are all prospective planning applications which have not been appraised or determined and there is no certainty on delivery, nor the scale / focus of any developer obligation or community fund SSE (Scottish and Southern Energy) The Sustainable Development Fund is in addition to our local community funds and supports strategic projects in the regions where SSE is operating. It allows the benefits of our renewable energy This fund is not due to open until Autumn 2025 for the Highlands – and this is also likely to mean Highland Council area so is not an eligible or current funding source Page 141
Page 179
Sustainable development fund (only available in some Local Authority areas) developments to be accessible to a wider area and is directed to projects that can achieve significant impact in local communities. The fund for the Highlands is open Autumn 2025. Following consultation with regional stakeholders in 2015, the following themes have been established and any successful application must fit in to at least one of these areas: Creating opportunities – Create or enhance opportunities for education and employment through activities that develop skills and improve an individual’s chance of entering the workplace. Empowering communities – Empower communities to become more resilient and protect vulnerable residents through measures which demonstrate long- term social, environmental or economic improvements. Sustainable places – Stimulate meaningful regeneration to improve or enhance local infrastructure, landscape, biodiversity or heritage and make a lasting difference to the places we live, work and visit. NOTE HCC would be more than willing to apply for funding with information provided via FBC. National Lottery Community Fund – National Lottery awards for All Scotland Apply if your organisation is a: voluntary or community organisation registered charity constituted group or club The funding scale is small – up to £20,000 and no application has been made by Heldon Community Council Page 142
Page 180
not-for-profit company or Community Interest Company school (as long as your project benefits and involves the communities around the school) statutory body (including town, parish and community council). Can fund projects that’ll do at least one of these things: bring people together to build strong relationships in and across communities improve the places and spaces that matter to communities help more people to reach their potential, by supporting them at the earliest possible stage support people, communities and organisations facing more demands and challenges because of the cost- of- living crisis. Funding size - £300 to £20,000 NOTE Funding is an option though value is low for this type of project requirements National Lottery Community Fund (Scotland) Scottish Land Fund Suitable for:- Voluntary or community organisations, Public sector organisations The Scottish Land Fund is open to organisations in both urban and rural Scotland which are community- led, community- controlled and defined by a geographic area. Successful applicants will clearly demonstrate that their project will help their local community to: The fund relates to purchase of land, land assets and buildings and any land or building acquired must be capable of delivering a level of income which ensures it does not become a liability for the community in the long term, therefore the bridge replacement would not be an eligible proposal, nor has an application been made. Page 143
Page 181
achieve more sustainable economic, environmental and/or social development through ownership of land and buildings have a stronger role in and control over their own development own well managed, financially sustainable land and buildings. Will prioritise applications that can demonstrate significant positive impact for the community as a whole. Applicants will have the opportunity to test out and develop their ideas with support from a Scottish Land Fund Adviser. Funding size - £5,000 - £1,000,000 NOTE Although this is open to Public sector organisations, though further detail will require to be ascertain National Lottery Community Fund (Scotland) Community Led Activity Through our Community Led funding we aim to support communities to improve the places in which they live and the wellbeing of those most in need. We will fund organisations to deliver work that achieves the following outcomes: Everyone in the community has the opportunity to influence and get involved in community-led activity. People in the community are better connected and work together to improve their wellbeing. Funding size - £20,001 - £150,000 NOTE This fund is for community-led organisations, the fund is limited to £150,000 and revenue costs are stated to be the main focus of an application, with up to £50,000 of ‘minor capital costs’ as part of an overall application potentially being eligible, therefore unlikely to be a suitable funding source, and no application has been made by Heldon CC. Page 144
Page 182
Funding is an option for this type of project requirements which HCC would be more than willing to apply for funding with information provided via FBC. Page 145
Page 183
Cloddach Bridge funding options Heldon Community Council (HCC) funding analysis has been undertaken which have a number of different criteria requirements. Moray Council Economic Development should be approached as they can reach into many sectors within both UK and Scottish Government process to ascertain potential funding routes both for Moray Council and or Community led associations. We are not unaware if they have been asked to provide a paper to assist with funding. All various funding will require elements of the Full Business Case being prepared by the Council to enable the various elemental items to be utilised as part of any application. Funding Criteria Scottish Government (SG) We have sought open door routes into the SG to ascertain potential funding opportunities, though we still await The Lossiemouth Footbridge the SG provided funding for the design and construct the bridge with a value of £1.8m, which includes £1.375m capital cost; £365,000 risk allowance; and £60,000 site supervision costs. NOTE Moray Council should approached SG to seek direct funding in line with this earlier project. Sustrans – Places for Everyone The route is also noted upon Moray Council active travel map noted as Waymarked cycle routes : Elgin Experience. C2E, B9010 funding for the creation of infrastructure that makes it easier for people to walk and cycle for everyday journeys. Local Authority can apply Funding is available for 100% of design costs and 70% of construction costs for existing projects. We will work with you to identify match funding where necessary. Round 2 applications were open 20th March 2024 with deadline of 3rd April. FBC has already been completed therefore hopefully extracts can be utilised for this application. NOTE This route is part of Moray Council active travel route. Moray Council therefore should seek further clarity on funding now that the FBC has been concluded and funding is open. Page 146
Page 184
Sustrans – Spaces for People Additional funding a total of £30million of Spaces for People funding available to support local authorities and statutory bodies to provide safe walking and cycling infrastructure as the country transitions out of lockdown. NOTE This route is part of Moray Council active travel route. Moray Council therefore should seek further clarity on funding now that the FBC has been concluded Scottish Government Place based Investment Infrastructure Fund The Programme will link and align all place based funding initiatives to create a coherent approach to building resilient communities, addressing inequalities and supporting an inclusive, well-being economy in local settings. In practice this means that consideration will be given to how place based investments align with other planned investments in the locality in order to streamline delivery and increase impact. The Programme aims to: - ensure that investments in a place are relevant to that place and for the benefit of all the people in that place. - support the delivery of 20 minute neighbourhoods.- - provide a consistent framework for looking at investments in a place, and explore with those communities how greater collaboration can improve the circumstances of peoples’ lives. - support the ambitions of existing place based plans and strategies, such as the Infrastructure Investment Plan and the emerging National Planning Framework4, making sure that money spent in places has the greatest collective benefit possible. - accelerate ambitions for Community Wealth Building, community-led Regeneration, and the cities and town centres agendas. - provide a coherent local framework across urban and rural areas for realising ambitions for inclusion, climate change, and wellbeing. NOTE Moray Council therefore should seek further clarity on funding now that the FBC has been concluded Page 147
Page 185
Potential future planning application - Rothes 3 Wind Farm - There is a potential future wind farm application at Glen Latterach, Elgin (24/00136/APP) which is seeking approval for a meteorological mast - Kellas Drum Wind farm - Birnie Quarry - With any of these potential future planning applications Moray Council could seek monies towards infrastructure projects via Development Obligations to help fund. SSEN Transmission's Community Benefit Fund SEN will further refine Community Benefit Fund plan framework in anticipation of the UK Government’s recommendations and guidance following their recent consultation Community Benefits for Electricity Transmission Network Infrastructure. Subject to the UK Government’s recommendations, intend to formally launch our Community Benefit Fund in 2024 Anticipate that the regional projects will be of higher value and have a greater transformational impact. The local funds will be solely for communities who are situated close to new infrastructure and we will provide more information in due course on how we plan to administer this. These local communities will be able to apply for both elements of the fund. Will publish more details in due course on timescales, eligibility, transparent decision making and the application process. We expect that priority will be given to those projects that deliver on our two identified themes of: - People, focusing on skills, training and employability; and - Place, emphasising the community and culture of the north of Scotland NOTE Funding is an option for this type of project requirements which HCC would be more than willing to apply for funding with information provided via FBC. Page 148
Page 186
Birnie Quarry – Aggregate levy. There is currently a PAN notice submitted for sand & gravel extraction at Dykeside Farm, Birnie. The levy seeks £2 for every tonne of material extracted Extraction is 50,000/ton/ year which equates to £100,000 each year. NOTE Moray Council therefore should seek further clarity on the levy. Kellas Drum Within the webpage of Kellas Drum suggests over the 30 year lifespan there could be potential £8.64million in community benefit NOTE Should this application proceed HCC would be more than willing to apply for funding with information provided via FBC. SSE (Scottish and Southern Energy) Sustainable development fund (only available in some Local Authority areas) The Sustainable Development Fund is in addition to our local community funds and supports strategic projects in the regions where SSE is operating. It allows the benefits of our renewable energy developments to be accessible to a wider area and is directed to projects that can achieve significant impact in local communities. The fund for the Highlands is open Autumn 2025. Following consultation with regional stakeholders in 2015, the following themes have been established and any successful application must fit in to at least one of these areas: - Creating opportunities – Create or enhance opportunities for education and employment through activities that develop skills and improve an individual’s chance of entering the workplace. - Empowering communities – Empower communities to become more resilient and protect vulnerable residents through measures which demonstrate long-term social, environmental or economic improvements. - Sustainable places – Stimulate meaningful regeneration to improve or enhance local infrastructure, landscape, biodiversity or heritage and make a lasting difference to the places we live, work and visit. NOTE HCC would be more than willing to apply for funding with information provided via FBC. Page 149
Page 187
National Lottery Community Fund – National Lottery awards for All Scotland Apply if your organisation is a: - voluntary or community organisation - registered charity - constituted group or club - not-for-profit company or Community Interest Company - school (as long as your project benefits and involves the communities around the school) - statutory body (including town, parish and community council). Can fund projects that’ll do at least one of these things: - bring people together to build strong relationships in and across communities - improve the places and spaces that matter to communities - help more people to reach their potential, by supporting them at the earliest possible stage - support people, communities and organisations facing more demands and challenges because of the cost-of- living crisis. Funding size - £300 to £20,000 NOTE Funding is an option though value is low for this type of project requirements National Lottery Community Fund (Scotland) Scottish Land Fund Suitable for:- Voluntary or community organisations, Public sector organisations The Scottish Land Fund is open to organisations in both urban and rural Scotland which are community-led, community- controlled and defined by a geographic area. Successful applicants will clearly demonstrate that their project will help their local community to: - achieve more sustainable economic, environmental and/or social development through ownership of land and buildings - have a stronger role in and control over their own development - own well managed, financially sustainable land and buildings. Will prioritise applications that can demonstrate significant positive impact for the community as a whole. Applicants will have the opportunity to test out and develop their ideas with support from a Scottish Land Fund Adviser. Funding size - £5,000 - £1,000,000 Page 150
Page 188
NOTE Although this is open to Public sector organisations, though further detail will require to be ascertain if this is purely for community ownerships National Lottery Community Fund (Scotland) Community Led Activity Through our Community Led funding we aim to support communities to improve the places in which they live and the wellbeing of those most in need. We will fund organisations to deliver work that achieves the following outcomes: - Everyone in the community has the opportunity to influence and get involved in community-led activity. - People in the community are better connected and work together to improve their wellbeing. Funding size - £20,001 - £150,000 NOTE Funding is an option for this type of project requirements which HCC would be more than willing to apply for funding with information provided via FBC. Page 151
Page 189
Page 152