Analysis of Responses

This section presents our analysis of the responses to the 4 open questions asked on the feedback form.

1. We would appreciate your feedback on the General Design Development.
2. We would appreciate your feedback on the proposals for walkers, wheelers, cyclists and horse-riders.
3. We would appreciate your feedback on the Dunkeld and Birnam Railway Station car park and access proposals.
4. We would appreciate your feedback and any suggestions on our incorporation of the Community Objectives within our ongoing design and assessment work.

The responses to each of the questions found on the feedback form were individually analysed and the findings of this analysis are detailed in this chapter. Some representative examples are given of the feedback which was received under each of the questions and sub-categories, however full (where necessary, anonymised) detail of every piece of feedback received, and Transport Scotland’s responses to those points raised, can be found in Appendix E. Please note that all feedback within this report is quoted exactly as it was provided.

Question 1 analysis

We would appreciate your feedback on the General Design Development.

In total, 69 of the 72 respondents responded to this question. Our coding resulted in 155 comments being identified, the table below shows the number of comments in each theme.

Table 2: Number of comments made to Q1 by theme

Theme	No. of comments
Against the roundabout	56
Design Elements	24
Concerns regarding environmental impacts	20
General Positives	17
General Negatives	16
Exhibition/engagement activities and materials	9
Dunkeld & Birnam railway Station	3
Other topics	10

The most mentioned themes related to the proposed roundabout (56 comments), design elements (24 comments), environmental concerns (20 comments) and statements of general positivity (20 comments) and general negativity (16 comments). There were also comments about the exhibition and other general comments.

Comments against the roundabout

The table below shows how the comments about the proposed roundabout split across a number of groups or sub-themes.

Table 3: Breakdown of responses under Against the Roundabout theme

Against the roundabout	56
Increased congestion and slow traffic	27
Air pollution and environmental concerns	7
Money is being prioritised over safety	6
Noise pollution	4
No specific reason given	12

Nearly half of the comments against the roundabout relate to concerns that it will slow traffic flow and result in increased congestion. Some examples of the typical comments made are:

The roundabout design is inappropriate in this setting and will create unnecessary congestion for North/South A9 drivers, UID044

I'm concerned introducing a roundabout at Dunkeld will cause delays similar to Perth. UID049

I am a resident of Birnam and do not support these plans. I believe it will cause huge congestion at this junction similar to that which we see at the Inveralmond and Broxden roundabouts. I would like to see a proper flyover and slip road at this junction which would help the traffic flow better both on the A9 and for those joining the road at the junction at Dunkeld UID058

I am a Pitlochry resident who commutes to Dunkeld daily so I use the Dunkeld junction to get on / off the A9 multiple times every day… I believe [the proposed roundabout] will create disastrous issues with queuing traffic travelling north & south who are already on the A9. UID060

Others asked for evidence of the modelling done on traffic flows at the roundabout:

Please email the projections for the times to pass through the roundabout at busy periods (all directions) UID001

There were 7 comments related to concerns about air pollution and environmental concerns as a result of the roundabout proposal, typical comments were:

… environmental impact as vehicles stop and restart. Strongly against this plan. UID048

There is also the environmental cost of all those countless tonnes of traffic all having to bring itself down from 60/70 mph to zero, only to have to regain their road speed after negotiating the roundabout! What is the impact and cost of this? UID051

A further 6 comments stated the respondent’s concern that safety was being seen as secondary to cost savings. A typical comment was:

In my opinion a junction similar to that at Ballinluig would be the best option although clearly not the cheapest it would be at least safe and keep traffic flowing. UID062

Comments about general design elements

The table below shows how the comments about other design elements split across a number of groups or sub-themes.

Table 4: Breakdown of responses under Design Comments theme

Design comments	24
Speed of traffic	7
Noise and visuals	7
Dunkeld and Birnam Station Pedestrian Underpass	5
Walker, Wheeler, Cyclist and Horse-Rider (WCH) Provisions	4
General design comment	1

The majority of comments in this theme related to concerns about the speed of traffic (7 comments), either on the A9 or within the villages themselves, or the noise and visual impact (7 comments) of the proposals. Feedback comments were also received in respect of the Walker, Wheeler, Cyclists and Horse-Rider (WCH) provisions, and the Dunkeld and Birnam Station Pedestrian Underpass, however to avoid repetition within this report they have been collated and summarised in sections 3.2 and 3.3 below respectively. Typical comments were:

I have to cross the A9 at least twice a week as i volunteer in Birnam. It is very dangerous and difficult to judge the speed of oncoming traffic in dark and very wet weather. I would welcome changes here. UID016

Disappointingly, no traffic calming provisions preventing speeding through our villages and up Station Road are included. UID030

I strongly oppose dualling this section of the A9. It’s the only section that is so close to a village and building a larger road beside Dunkeld & Birnam will have permanent negative impacts. The loss of trees and screening between the village and road, the increased noise and pollution… UID026

Comments about the environmental impacts of the proposed scheme

The table below shows how the comments about the environmental impacts of the proposed scheme are split across a number of groups or sub-themes.

Table 5: Breakdown of responses under Environment theme

Environment	20
Tree felling	4
Damage to natural heritage	3
General environmental concerns	13

The most frequently mentioned concerns were around the impact of felling trees (4 comments) and damage to natural heritage (3 comments). Some typical comments were:

The roundabout should minimise the impacts on the environment and specifically ancient woodland areas around the existing Birnam Junction, north side as this is a very sensitive habitat for red squirrels, otters and pine martens. UID037

Alongside the Inver Mill Lade are several large lime trees which are very valuable for roosting and nesting birds in spring and throughout the winter. I am concerned that these trees will be felled during the dualling process. They are not in the immediate line of the road and so could easily be avoided but experience from elsewhere shows that many trees are felled indiscriminately. I ask that these trees, and where possible other ancient and valuable trees, are left standing. UID067

Others made more general comments about potential environmental impacts, for example:

Disagree with widening of verges - central reserve - makes the whole road wider causing increased environmental damage. UID002

General positives and negatives

There were 17 general positive statements, where respondents expressed either general approval, that they were happy with the proposal or that the design developments are an improvement on the previous design.

There were 16 general negative statements, where respondents feel the design is short-sighted (9 comments) or that the community’s wishes are not being listened to (5 comments).

Some examples of the general statements received in the feedback responses are:

As part of the dualling programme it is much welcome & a positive step in supporting growing commercial and tourist traffic.

Process of engagement is welcomed and provided valuable information& insight. UID018

The further design developments are an improvement on the previous design. UID041

As a professional driver who uses the full length of A9, from Inverness to Perth, several times a week, I would like to add my objection to this incredibly short-term solution to issues faced with dualling the road at Dunkeld & Birnam and the junctions there-at. UID051

About the exhibition/engagement

There were 9 comments about the exhibition itself and engagement activities. Of these, 5 were positive about the experience, 3 made comments about improving the materials and 1 comment on the need for better advertising to let people know about the engagement events.

Other topics raised

 A number of comments were also received which did not fall naturally into any of the above-discussed sub-categories.

Some examples of these general comments are:

Priority is getting work started. UID025

What is the cost Benefit ratio for these proposals? UID029

Question 2 analysis

We would appreciate your feedback on the proposals for walkers, wheelers, cyclists and horse-riders (WCH)

Out of a total of 72 responses, 30 people answered this question. Our coding resulted in 53 comments being identified, the table below shows the number of comments in each theme.

Table 6: Number of comments made to Q2 by theme

Theme	No. of comments
General Design elements	20
General Positives	12
Safe provision for WCH	9
WCH provision in relation to Dunkeld & Birnam railway Station	8
Materials presented at the engagement event	2
General Negatives	1
Other topics	1

The most mentioned themes related to design elements of the WCH provision (20 comments), safe provision for WCH along the length of the scheme (9 comments), provision for WCH at the station (8 comments), general statements of positivity regarding WCH provision (12 comments) and 1 comment of general negativity regarding WCH provision (1 comment). There were also a few comments about the exhibition itself and other general subjects.

Comments about general design elements

The most mentioned design elements were footpaths/cycleways (6 comments) and the underpass (5 comments). 

Comments about footpaths were mainly about ensure safe provision, for example:

Concerned that only 2.7m between cyclist and road near station. Unsafe for cyclists? UID013

With the other main concern being retaining existing provision, for example:

The current access we have is a very important amenity to residents and visitors and has not been presented in enough detail within the current designs. UID030

Among the general design comments, 3 specifically mention a wish for the bridge across the River Braan to be re-instated as part of the scheme.

It would be good if the footbridge where the Braan joins the Tay was reinstated to improve walking access from dunkeld – hermitage UID014

General positive comments

There were 12 comments expressing approval of the WCH design proposals, some typical comments were:

Looks good a big improvement. A lot of thought has gone into it.UID023

Like:

1 - path link to [Murthly] Castle

2 - Retained modified cycle path north of A9 + links to station

3 - like provision to cross the braan

4 - happy with link to the Heritage

5 - like NMU provision around Dalguise junction UID012

Much better than it currently is so I think they look good.UID071

Although some expressed concern around ability to deliver the proposals:

Excellent. We hope that they do not suffer from Scottish government cut backs.UID010

Comments about safe provision for walkers, wheelers, cyclists and horse-riders (WCH)

Nearly all of the 9 comments about safe provision related to segregating WCH provision from the road. Typical comments were:

I think a physical barrier is needed on footway between Birnam Junction and Station - no way children can encouraged to use it without this provision. UID008

Any path near road, please keep soft shrubs and trees to create barrier UID015

Not looking forward to cycling through Birnam Perth road. Would prefer separate path as now UID024

I was expecting that the plans for the upgrading for this bridge … to include for an improved and segregated cycleway/pedestrian route. This should be a key design principle in such a new crossing. … I urge you to reconsider this and to make provision for fully separated provision, of which there are many good examples elsewhere. Improved safety provision for non-vehicular users should be an essential part of the project. UID068

Comments about WCH provision at the station

There were 8 comments relating to WCH provision at the station, these included:

A ramp to the station is essential for when the lift is under maintenance or broken down. UID002

The distance of the car park to the platform is unacceptable for those with mobility problems. UID033

Will Transport Scotland Cycle by Design standards be applied through out the works? ...Where you say standards will be met "where possible" which locations is this not possible? What are you intentions at those places. UID029

cycle route to tie in with recent Network Rail proposals for ramps and steps with gutter at side of steps for bike wheels. UID039

Changes are good but still difficult of access to the opposite side of the track from the station. Need to address the both sides with good paths, lighting and lifts. UID019

Question 3 analysis

Out of a total of 72 responses, 33 people provided an answer to this question. Our coding resulted in 62 comments being identified, the table below shows the number of comments in each theme.

Table 7: Number of comments made to Q3 by theme

Theme	No. of comments
Station access and car park design	32
General Design elements	16
General Positives	6
General Negatives	2
Environment	1
Other topics	5

The most mentioned themes related to the station access and car park design (32 comments), comments about general design elements (16 comments), safe provision for walkers, wheelers, cyclists and horse riders (2 comments) and statements of general positivity (6 comments) and 2 comments which were generally negativity. There were also 5 comments about other general subjects.

Comments about station access and car park design

The most frequent comments about the station access and car park design were an expression of general support (8 comments), typical comments include:

It appears to be a neat solution and in some ways ties the railway station more into the community rather than the current separation UID020

Looks great. Well thought out design with parking on the other side of the A9. UID049

Plenty of parking facilities is good UID045

Plans suggest an appealing design, if properly realised, and good accessibility. UID048

There were 4 comments about the impacts of increased traffic going to the station, including:

the increased traffic on Station Road due to the station access is concerning particularly due to a lack of traffic calming measures. UID030

[Increased numbers of] vehicles and people coming and going, car doors closing, general noise, [and] lights of the vehicles UID070

There were several comments about disabled accessibility (6 comments). A typical comment was:

The train station is no good for disabled people who will have to walk from the car park to the get to the platform. Disabled people need to be dropped off right at the station building UID032

Comments about general design elements

The design element referred to the most was the underpass connecting the car park to the station (4 comments). The comments were split between those appreciating the station access being moved further from the houses on Station Road and those who feel it would be better positioned so it can be seen from Station Road.

The 3 comments around speed expressed concerns about reducing the speed of traffic, either through traffic calming or speed restrictions, for example:

Speed restrictions put in place sooner than later UID022

Among the 7 general design comments were concerns about the feasibility of buses accessing the station:

I understand the inter-city buses are about to be enlarged and these may not make to turn circle shown unless the turning circle shown is only for smaller local buses UID039

General positives and negatives

The 6 positive comments were respondents stating they liked the proposed design. The 2 negative comments related to the design not listening to the community’s preferred route.

Question 4 analysis

We would appreciate your feedback and any suggestions on our incorporation of the Community Objectives within our ongoing design and assessment work

Of the 72 total respondents, 25 provided a response to this question. Our coding resulted in 44 comments being identified, the table below shows the number of comments in each theme.

Table 8: Number of comments made to Q4 by theme

Theme	No. of comments
General Positives	9
General Negatives	9
Environment	6
General Design elements	5
Against the roundabout	3
Dunkeld & Birnam Railway Station	3
Exhibition/engagement	3
Other topics	6

Some respondents took the opportunity in the response to summarise concerns they had raised in previous comments. The most mentioned themes were general positives and negatives about the incorporation of community objectives and involvement of the community in the design process (9 comments in each theme), the environment (6 comments) and comments about various design elements. 

General positive and negative comments

There were similar numbers of comments from those who stated that the project had met its objectives and those who stated the objectives had not been met, with typical comments being:

Very good to involve the community UID016

Community objectives seemed to be at the forefront of engagement and is welcomed. Continued engagement with community councils needs to be ongoing and constant.UID018

Based on these designs, none of the objectives are really being met at this time. UID030

It feels like you only want community objectives it they agree with you. UID032

The other generally positive comments included:

All elements of the various A9 junctions etc seem to be accepted UID039

And the comments that the community had been ignored included:

You have ignored the community response of 700+ people to drop the A9 and imposed a pedestrian subway without warning. UID033

Comments on the environment

The comments about general environmental concerns included:

Please omit the swale adjacent to the [Niel Gow] statue. this is valuable green space. UID002

I am yet to be convinced that the current designs offer meaningful biodiversity net gain. UID031

The comments about damage to natural heritage included:

Dualling the road completely contradicts the community objective to protect the beauty and natural heritage of the area. UID026