Assessment of Impacts

Introduction

This chapter provides a high-level assessment of the potential impacts of Full Dualling and the packages of transport intervention options that are being considered as part of the A96 Corridor Review on protected characteristic groups.

The assessment is based on the rating criteria set out in Section 5.3 and takes into account wider appraisal work and baseline evidence on the protected characteristic groups.

For the purposes of the A96 Corridor Review, the ‘With Policy’ and ‘Without Policy’ scenarios developed as part of the scenario planning undertaken for STPR2, are used in the Detailed Appraisal of Full Dualling and each package. These scenarios were developed to consider the risk associated with future uncertainties. The following two scenarios with their inherent variants of transport behaviour were considered:

• 'With Policy Scenario' - captures policy ambitions including 20% reduction (from 2019 levels) in car kilometres travelled by 2030, and assumptions to significantly reduce levels of commuting/business journeys to reflect post COVID-19 working behaviours, leading to low levels of motorised traffic demand and emissions.
• 'Without Policy Scenario' - no policy ambitions are captured, and less significant reductions to levels of commuting/business journeys, leading to higher levels of motorised traffic demand and emissions.

Transport Intervention Packages

Full package descriptions and detailed appraisal summaries are included within the ‘Strategic Business Case – Transport Appraisal Report’ published alongside this EqIA. However, Table 6-1 provides a summary of the transport interventions included within each package. It should be noted that the A96 Dualling Inverness to Nairn (including Nairn Bypass) scheme does not form part of the A96 Corridor Review as it has successfully progressed through a Public Local Inquiry and has Ministerial consent. Interventions within Nairn itself, similar to those proposed within the other bypassed towns, however, have been included within the packages for appraisal purposes.

Table 6‑1: Interventions Within Each Detailed Appraisal Package

A96 Full Dualling – Potential Impacts

The provision of full dualling between Hardmuir and Craibstone could improve access to employment, educational, health, and open space and leisure facilities for those in protected characteristic groups, particularly in areas where there is a high dependency on private vehicles. There is also likely to be safety benefits for drivers along the route.

The provision of a dual carriageway could potentially result in adverse health outcomes for some protected groups as a result of adverse impacts on air quality and noise levels due to an increase in motorised vehicles along the A96 Trunk Road as well as construction impacts on local communities. Air quality modelling forecasts show that as a result of increased traffic flows and an attraction of traffic to the corridor, nitrogen dioxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) 2.5 emissions are predicted to increase over the 60-year appraisal period for both the ‘With Policy’ and ‘Without Policy’ scenarios.

However, the provision of full dualling within the corridor is likely to require towns to be bypassed. Traffic modelling forecasts predict that traffic would divert away from Elgin, Keith and Inverurie as a result of full dualling in both the ‘With Policy’ and ‘Without Policy’ scenarios. Therefore, bypassed towns could experience air quality improvements as traffic volumes reduce, and resultant benefits in relation to noise and vibration and visual amenity within these settlements. Children, older people, pregnant women, and disabled people are more vulnerable to the adverse health effects of traffic-related emissions and noise and are all therefore likely to benefit from this option. Furthermore, the provision of bypasses as part of this option would reduce severance impacts, providing benefits from reduced social exclusion. There could also be benefits for certain groups who rely on private vehicle use to access key services due to mobility reasons, such as disabled people and older people or those who make complex journeys involving ‘trip chaining’ such as women and carers. For example, these groups could experience an improvement in journey times and more reliable journey times both locally and when travelling to key services such as employment, education, and healthcare.

However, this option could potentially result in negative impacts during both construction and operation stages for children, older people, disabled people, and pregnant women living in local communities along the corridor. This includes noise, vibration and air quality impacts during construction and potential severance, noise, air quality and traffic impacts during operation. However, the level of direct impact will be dependent on the alignment of the route and the types of communities affected. More detailed assessment would be required to understand the extent of these impacts and the appropriate mitigation to reduce any negative effects and enhance benefits for protected characteristic groups.

Overall, this option is expected to have a minor positive impact on this criterion under both the ‘With Policy’ and ‘Without Policy’ scenarios.

Package 1 – Potential Impacts

This package is focused on primarily delivering transport network improvements to key towns along the A96 corridor, namely Nairn, Forres, Elgin, Keith and Inverurie, by providing enhancements which would aim to encourage a shift to sustainable modes, increasing opportunities for residents and businesses and improving road safety.

The location of the settlements concerned in relation to the wider A96 Corridor Review transport appraisal study area is illustrated in Figure 6-2. Whilst this package is primarily targeted at the aforementioned settlements, it also includes corridor-wide interventions which are anticipated to result in benefits to other areas within the corridor.

Modelling undertaken using Jacob’s National Public Transport Accessibility Tool (NapTAT) suggests that this package would improve the access to key destinations in the study area such as employment and health and education sites, especially for groups who may otherwise be socially excluded by limited transport options including children, young people, women, disabled people and older people. Public transport interventions such as step-free access at stations would improve transport choices for people who are currently excluded, and improved facilities may also benefit those with impaired vision or hearing and those who are neurodivergent.

While most accessibility benefits are concentrated around settlements with rail stations and access to bus provision, journey time improvements are also anticipated in areas where bus priority measures and public transport interchange improvements can be introduced. These interventions would improve connections between settlements without rail stations and limited bus provision to those that do have a station or greater bus provision, such as areas around Inverurie including Kemnay located approximately six miles to the south-west of the town. Thus, increasing the connectivity and inclusion of public transport and reducing the overall journey time across the corridor.

NaPTAT modelling observed the largest journey time reductions to hospital emergency departments of the destinations considered in the assessment and study area, whereby it is anticipated an additional 14,900 people aged 16 and over would be able to access the nearest site within approximately 30 minutes by public transport. This journey time accessibility improvement would also benefit groups of people who may be more reliant on public transport to access health services, including 4,000 people aged 65 and over as well as 3,400 people across all age groups with a long-term health problem or disability whose day-to-day activities are limited.

Improved journey time accessibility would also be shown in travelling to higher education sites across the study area using public transport and would be anticipated to generate benefits for a wide range of protected characteristic groups. The package would enable an additional 9,700 people aged 16 and over to access the nearest higher education site within approximately 60 minutes by public transport across the study area. This would impact the following groups: 1,100 young people aged 16-24, 4,900 females, 250 from non-white ethnic groups, and 1,300 people across all age groups with a long-term health problem or disability whose day-to-day activities are limited.

Investment in Demand Responsive Transport (DRT) and Mobility as a Service (MaaS) in particular could provide benefits for protected characteristic groups due to more flexible public transport options helping improve connectivity to key services, including children, young people, women, disabled people and older people. There could also be a beneficial impact in terms of reduced barriers to travel for those with reduced mobility if improvements in public transport connectivity reduces walking distance in order to use a service. However, MaaS could exclude certain groups without access to relevant technology, bank accounts or the appropriate level of support to apply for entitlement schemes, and as such, these groups would need to be considered in the design of the schemes to ensure that they benefit from the interventions.

Through the reallocation of road space and improved surfaces and crossing points for active travel, the infrastructure installed could be designed to incorporate adapted cycles and, as such, address mobility issues experienced by commonly disadvantaged groups, such as women, disabled people and older people. Crossing points may also become more accessible for pedestrians through the use of tactile paving. However, the reallocation of road space could also have potential adverse effects on certain groups, such as disabled people who rely on parking spaces close to essential services.

While air quality modelling forecasts that this package would result in adverse air quality emissions over the 60-year appraisal period, there is potential for improvements in air quality in bypassed towns. Traffic modelling forecasts predict that traffic would divert away from Forres, Elgin, Keith and Inverurie as a result of the proposed scheme in both the ‘With Policy’ and ‘Without Policy’ scenarios. Therefore, bypassed towns may potentially experience a range of benefits for groups with protected characteristics. A reduction in traffic could result in improved local air quality within the towns which would be a particular benefit to those groups who are more vulnerable to the adverse health effects of traffic-related emissions such as older people, disabled people, children and pregnant women. Reduced through traffic could also help address local severance issues, reduce road safety concerns and improve the active travel environment.

In particular, a reduction of through traffic and the inclusion of Active Communities could result in an increase in active travel. For example, in Elgin, walking to work levels comprise approximately 18% of all trips ( ONS (2011) Census (Scotland) Location of usual residence and place of work by method of travel to work. ) . This package could provide an opportunity to build on this propensity to walk to work by decreasing traffic through Elgin and reducing road safety concerns for those groups who are less likely to travel by car. This may improve physical and mental health wellbeing outcomes and is also likely to enhance the aforementioned air quality improvements if the increased active travel usage is a result of mode shift from private vehicle use.

An increase in the use of alternative fuels by vehicles along the A96 corridor due to the electric corridor could also improve local air quality. In turn, this could have positive effects on those groups who are more vulnerable to the adverse health effects of traffic-related emissions.

This package could also result in benefits for certain groups who rely on private vehicle use to access key services due to mobility reasons such as disabled people and older people, or those who make complex journeys involving ‘trip chaining’ such as women and carers. For example, these groups could experience an improvement in journey times and more reliable journey times, both locally and when travelling to key services such as employment, education, healthcare and shopping in the bypassed towns and the surrounding area.

Construction activities associated with the bypass elements of this package may result in negative impacts for local communities during both construction and operational stages. The construction of bypasses may adversely impact on groups who are more vulnerable to noise, vibration, and air quality such as children, older people, disabled people, and pregnant women. Furthermore, during operation, the new bypasses could create potential new severance, noise, air quality and traffic impacts for dwellings along the new alignment . However, the level of direct impact would be dependent on the route alignment selected for the bypass and the types of communities affected. More detailed assessment would be required to understand the extent of these impacts and the appropriate mitigation to reduce any negative effects and enhance benefits for protected characteristic groups.

In addition, the extent of benefit arising from the active and sustainable travel aspects of this package would depend on the location and routeing of travel networks and facilities, their proximity to local services and the ability for people to access the network.

Overall, this package is expected to have a moderate positive impact under both the ‘With Policy’ and ‘Without Policy’ scenarios on addressing this criterion for protected characteristic groups living along the A96 through the bypassed towns, especially for those who are dependent on private vehicle use.

Package 2 – Potential Impacts

This package of interventions is targeted at providing network improvements to some of the less populated settlements along the A96 corridor, that are not suggested to be bypassed within Package 1. The package would provide enhancements which would aim to encourage a shift to sustainable modes, increase opportunities for residents and businesses and improve road safety.

The specific settlements considered in this package are Lhanbryde, Mosstodloch, Fochabers, Huntly, Kintore and Blackburn and are shown within the context of the wider A96 Corridor Review transport appraisal study area in Figure 6-3. This package focuses on delivering transport network improvements within the vicinity of these towns, aiming to encourage a transfer to sustainable modes and improve road safety. Whilst this package is primarily targeted at the aforementioned settlements, the package also includes corridor-wide interventions which are anticipated to result in benefits to other areas within the corridor.

Modelling undertaken using NaPTAT suggests that this package would improve the access to key destinations in the study area such as employment, health and education sites, especially for groups who may otherwise be socially excluded by limited transport options including children, young people, women, disabled people and older people. Public transport interventions such as step-free access at stations would improve transport choices for people who are currently excluded, and improved facilities may also benefit those with impaired vision or hearing and those who are neurodivergent.

While most accessibility benefits would be concentrated around settlements with rail stations and access to bus provision, journey time improvements would also be anticipated in areas where bus priority measures and public transport interchange improvements could be introduced. These interventions would improve connections between settlements without rail stations and limited bus provision to those that do have a station or greater bus provision, such as areas around Inverurie including Kemnay, thus increasing the connectivity and inclusion of public transport and reducing the overall journey time across the corridor.

NaPTAT modelling observed the largest journey time reductions to hospital emergency departments of the destinations considered in the assessment and study area, whereby it is anticipated an additional 12,200 people aged 16 and over would be able to access the nearest site within approximately 30 minutes or less by public transport. This accessibility benefit is observed for groups who may be more reliant on public transport to access health services, including over 3,100 people aged 65 and over, and over 2,500 people across all age groups with a long-term health problem or disability whose day-to-day activities are limited.

The observed journey time benefits in rural settlements such as Inverurie and Kemnay would likely be linked to bus network improvements. As a result of more public transport provision being available in the towns and services directly serving essential destinations such as emergency department hospitals, socially excluded groups within the settlements are expected to benefit from reduced journey times.

Improved journey time accessibility in travelling to higher education sites using public transport would also be observed across the study area and would be anticipated to generate benefits for a wide range of protected characteristic groups. The package would enable an additional 8,200 people aged 16 and over to access the nearest higher education site within approximately 60 minutes by public transport across the study area. This would impact the following groups: 900 young people aged 16-24, 4,200 females, 200 from non-white ethnic groups, and 1,200 people across all age groups with a long-term health problem or disability whose day-to-day activities are limited.

Investment in DRT and MaaS in particular could provide benefits for these groups due to more flexible public transport options helping improve connectivity to key services. There could also be a beneficial impact in terms of reduced barriers to travel for those with reduced mobility if improvements in public transport connectivity reduces walking distance in order to use a service. However, MaaS could exclude certain groups without access to relevant technology, bank accounts or the appropriate level of support to apply for entitlement schemes, and as such, these groups would need to be considered in the design of the schemes to ensure that they benefit.

Interventions that improve active travel provision, such as improved surfaces and crossing points would allow for infrastructure to be designed to incorporate adapted cycles and, as such, address mobility issues experienced by commonly disadvantaged groups, such as women, disabled people and older people. Crossing points may also become more accessible for pedestrians through the use of tactile paving. Targeted safety interventions would also reduce road and personal safety concerns for active travel users, including children. However, the reallocation of road space could also have potential adverse effects on certain groups, such as disabled people who rely on parking spaces close to essential services.

An uptake in active travel may additionally improve physical and mental health wellbeing outcomes and is also likely to lead to air quality improvements if the uptake is matched by a reduction in private vehicle use and traffic congestion. Air quality modelling forecasts show that as a result of reduced traffic flows and an attraction of traffic away from key communities, NOx emissions are predicted to decrease in 2030 and 2045 across the ‘With Policy’ and ‘Without Policy’ scenarios. Improved health outcomes as a result of better air quality are of particular benefit to those who are more vulnerable to air pollution, including children, older people, pregnant women and disabled people. An increase in the use of alternative fuels by vehicles along the A96 corridor due to the electric corridor could also contribute to improved local air quality. In turn, this could have positive effects on those groups who are more vulnerable to the adverse health effects of traffic-related emissions.

Construction activities associated with this package may result in negative impacts for local communities during both construction and operational stages. Construction may adversely impact on groups who are more vulnerable to noise, vibration, and air quality such as children, older people, disabled people, and pregnant women. The level of direct impact would be dependent on the types of communities affected. More detailed assessment would be required to understand the extent of these impacts and the appropriate mitigation to reduce any negative effects and enhance benefits for protected characteristic groups.

However, the extent to which groups with protected characteristics would benefit from the interventions would depend on the extent to which all listed interventions can be adopted, as it is noted that this would depend on local circumstances within each key community. In addition, the extent of benefit would depend on the location and routeing of active and sustainable travel networks and facilities, their proximity to local services and the ability for people to access the network.

The package focuses on six key settlements that have a small population in the context of the wider corridor. Though some interventions, such as rail improvements, would be delivered corridor-wide and benefit users on a wider scale, the impacts would predominantly be felt locally. This limits the potential benefits on equality due to the relatively small number of people in relation to the wider A96 corridor it is anticipated to impact directly upon.

Overall, this package is expected to have a minor positive impact on addressing this criterion in both ‘With Policy’ and ‘Without Policy’ scenarios.

Package 3 – Potential Impacts

This package is focused primarily on delivering transport network improvements to rural sections along the A96 corridor by providing enhancements which would aim to encourage a shift to sustainable modes, increase active travel and public transport options and improve road safety.

The location of the settlements concerned in relation to the wider A96 Corridor Review transport appraisal study area is illustrated in Figure 6-4. Whilst this package is primarily targeted at rural sections, it also includes corridor-wide interventions which are anticipated to result in benefits to other areas across the corridor.

Modelling undertaken using NaPTAT suggests that this package would improve the access to key destinations in the study area such as employment and health and education sites, especially for groups who may otherwise be socially excluded by limited transport options including children, young people, women, disabled people and older people.

While most accessibility benefits are concentrated around settlements with rail stations and access to bus provision, journey time improvements are also anticipated in areas where bus priority measures could be introduced. These interventions would improve connections between settlements without rail stations and limited bus provision, such as Huntly, to those that do have a station or greater bus provision, thus increasing the connectivity and inclusion of public transport and reducing the overall journey time across the corridor.

NaPTAT modelling observed the largest journey time reductions to higher education sites of the destinations considered in the assessment and study area, whereby it is anticipated an additional 7,200 people aged 16 and over would be able to access the nearest site within approximately 60 minutes by public transport. This journey time accessibility benefit would impact the following groups of people 750 additional young people aged 16-24, 3,700 females, and 1,000 people across all age groups with a long-term health problem or disability whose day-to-day activities are limited. These journey time accessibility benefits would particularly be predicted in Inverurie and Kemnay. Further journey time reductions to the nearest higher education site would be observed in rural settlements within Aberdeenshire, such as in Insch (located approximately 12 miles to the north-west of Inverurie) and parts of Kintore with travel time being reduced by up to seven minutes.

The modelling also showed an improvement in access to hospital emergency departments across the study area, with it anticipated an additional 5,900 people aged 16 and over would be able to access the nearest site within approximately 45 minutes by public transport. Of these estimated journey time accessibility benefits, 1,300 people identified as aged 65 and over and 850 people across all age groups with a long-term health problem or disability whose day-to-day activities are limited.

Investment in DRT and MaaS in particular could provide benefits for the aforementioned groups due to more flexible public transport options, helping improve connectivity to key services in rural areas. There could also be a beneficial impact in terms of reduced barriers to travel for those with reduced mobility if improvements in public transport connectivity reduces the required walking distance to access services. However, MaaS could exclude certain groups without access to relevant technology, bank accounts or the appropriate level of support to apply for entitlement schemes, and as such, these groups would need to be considered in the design of the schemes to ensure that they benefit.

Interventions that improve active travel provision, such as improved surfaces and crossing points would allow for infrastructure to be designed to incorporate adapted cycles and, as such, address mobility issues experienced by commonly disadvantaged groups, such as women, disabled people and older people. Improved safety measures would also reduce road and personal safety concerns for active travel users, including children.

An uptake in active travel may additionally improve physical health and mental wellbeing outcomes and is also likely to lead to air quality improvements if the uptake is matched by a reduction in private vehicle use and traffic congestion. Air quality modelling forecasts show that as a result of reduced traffic flows due to modal shift, NOx emissions are predicted to decrease in 2030 and 2045 across the ‘With Policy’ and ‘Without Policy’ scenarios. Improved health outcomes as a result of better air quality are of particular benefit to those who are more vulnerable to air pollution, including children, older people, pregnant women and disabled people. An increase in the use of alternative fuels by vehicles along the A96 corridor due to the electric corridor could also improve local air quality. In turn, this could have positive effects on those groups who are more vulnerable to the adverse health effects of traffic-related emissions.

Construction activities associated with this package may result in negative impacts for local communities during both construction and operational stages. Construction may adversely impact on groups who are more vulnerable to noise, vibration, and air quality such as children, older people, disabled people, and pregnant women. The level of direct impact would be dependent on the types of communities affected. More detailed assessment would be required to understand the extent of these impacts and the appropriate mitigation to reduce any negative effects and enhance benefits for protected characteristic groups.

However, the extent to which groups with protected characteristics would benefit from the measures would depend on the extent to which all listed interventions can be adopted, as it is noted that this would depend on local circumstances and the uptake in rural areas. In addition, the extent of benefit would depend on the location and routeing of active travel networks and facilities, their proximity to local services and the ability for people in rural areas to access the network.

Overall, this package is expected to have a minor positive impact on addressing this criterion in both ‘With Policy; and ‘Without Policy’ scenarios.

Package 4 – Potential Impacts

This package of interventions is targeted at longer distance journeys along the A96 corridor, with a focus on delivering transport network improvements aiming to encourage a shift to sustainable modes and improve road safety. The options considered under Package 4 are shown in Figure 6-5.

Modelling undertaken using NaPTAT suggests that this package would improve the access to key destinations in the study area such as employment and health and education sites, especially for groups who may otherwise be socially excluded by limited transport options including children, young people, women, disabled people and older people. Public transport interventions such as step-free access at stations would improve transport choices for people who are currently excluded, and improved facilities may also benefit those with impaired vision or hearing and those who are neurodivergent.

While most accessibility benefits would be concentrated around settlements with rail stations, further benefits are provided by the improvements to public transport interchange resulting in better connecting public transport services.

NaPTAT modelling observed the largest journey time reductions to higher education sites of the destinations considered in the assessment and study area, whereby it is anticipated an additional 6,500 people aged 16 and over would be able to access the nearest site within approximately 60 minutes by public transport. This journey time accessibility benefit would impact the following groups of people: 700 young people aged 16-24, 3,300 females, 200 people from non-white ethnic groups and 850 people across all age groups with a long-term health problem or disability whose day-to-day activities are limited. These journey time accessibility benefits would be particularly observed in Inverurie and Kemnay. Further journey time reductions to the nearest higher education site would be observed in rural settlements within Aberdeenshire, including Insch and Huntly with a journey time reduction of eight and two minutes, respectively.

Improved journey time accessibility in travelling to major shopping centres using public transport would also be observed across the study area, which would benefit protected characteristic groups. The package would enable an additional 500 young people (aged 16 to 24), 2,600 females, 150 people from non-white ethnic groups, and 1,100 people across all age groups with a long-term health problem or disability (whose day-to-day activities are limited), in being able to access the nearest major shopping centres within approximately 60 minutes by public transport.

Through the reallocation of road space and improved surfaces and crossing points for active travel, the infrastructure installed could be designed to incorporate adapted cycles and, as such, address mobility issues experienced by commonly disadvantaged groups, such as women, disabled people and older people. Improved safety measures would also reduce road and personal safety concerns for active travel users, including children. However, the reallocation of road space could also have potential adverse effects on certain groups, such as disabled people who rely on parking spaces close to essential services.

An uptake in active travel may additionally improve physical health and mental wellbeing outcomes and is also likely to lead to air quality improvements if the uptake is matched by a reduction in private vehicle use and traffic congestion. Air quality modelling forecasts show that as a result of reduced traffic flows as a result of modal shift, NOx and PM2.5 emissions are predicted to decrease over the 60-year appraisal period across the ‘With Policy’ and ‘Without Policy’ scenarios. Improved health outcomes as a result of better air quality are of particular benefit to those who are more vulnerable to air pollution, including children, older people and disabled people.

The provision and improvement of rail freight terminals provides a minor positive impact to individuals in terms of equalities. Encouraging modal shift from road freight to rail may contribute to a reduction in harmful transport emissions and improved local air quality. This would benefit public health, particularly for vulnerable groups such as children, disabled people, older people and pregnant women. However, new rail freight terminals could also lead to increased traffic within their vicinity and the impact on protected characteristic groups should be considered when siting.

Construction activities associated with this package may result in negative impacts for local communities during both construction and operational stages. Construction may adversely impact on groups who are more vulnerable to noise, vibration, and air quality such as children, older people, disabled people, and pregnant women. The level of direct impact would be dependent on the types of communities affected. More detailed assessment would be required to understand the extent of these impacts and the appropriate mitigation to reduce any negative effects and enhance benefits for protected characteristic groups.

The extent to which groups with protected characteristics would benefit from the measures in this package would depend on the extent to which all listed interventions can be adopted, as it is noted that this would depend on local circumstances within each key community. In addition, the extent of benefit would depend on the location and routeing of active travel networks and facilities, their proximity to local services and the ability for people to access the network. As this package does not remove through traffic from communities, the potential benefits resulting from active travel interventions may be more difficult to fully realise.

Overall, this package is expected to have a minor positive impact on this criterion in both ‘With Policy’ and ‘Without Policy’ scenarios.

Package 5 – Potential Impacts

Figure 6‑6 : Package 5 Extents

While most benefits are concentrated around settlements with rail stations and access to bus provision, journey time improvements are also anticipated in areas where bus priority measures and public transport interchange improvements can be introduced. These interventions would improve connections between settlements without rail stations and limited bus provision, such as areas around Insch and Huntly, to those that do have a station or greater bus provision, thereby increasing the connectivity and inclusion of public transport and reducing the overall journey time across the corridor.

NaPTAT modelling observed that the largest journey time reductions to hospital emergency departments of the destinations considered in the assessment and study area, whereby it is anticipated an additional 14,900 people aged 16 and over would be able to access the nearest site within approximately 30 minutes by public transport. This journey time accessibility improvement would also benefit groups of people who may be more reliant on public transport to access health services, including 4,000 people aged 65 and over as well as 3,400 people across all age groups with a long-term health problem or disability whose day-to-day activities are limited.

Improved journey time accessibility in travelling to higher education sites using public transport would also be observed across the study area and would be anticipated to generate benefits for a wide range of protected characteristic groups. The package would enable an additional 9,700 people aged 16 and over to access the nearest higher education site within approximately 60 minutes by public transport across the study area. This would impact the following groups of people: 1,100 young people aged 16-24, 4,900 females, 250 from non-white ethnic groups, and 1,300 people across all age groups with a long-term health problem or disability whose day-to-day activities are limited.

While air quality modelling forecasts that this package would result in adverse air quality emissions over the 60-year appraisal period, there is potential for likely improvements in air quality in bypassed towns through a reduction of through traffic and an uptake of active travel. Traffic modelling forecasts predict that traffic would divert away from the bypassed towns of Forres, Elgin, Keith and Inverurie, potentially creating a range of benefits for groups with protected characteristics. Traffic reduction could result in improved local air quality within the towns which would be of particular benefit to those groups who are more vulnerable to the adverse health effects of traffic-related emissions such as older people, disabled people, children and pregnant women. Reduced through traffic could also help address local severance issues, reduce road safety concerns and improve the active travel environment.

In particular, a reduction of through traffic and the inclusion of active travel infrastructure could result in an increase in active travel. For example, in Elgin, walking to work levels comprise approximately 18% of all trips ( ONS (2011) Census (Scotland) Location of usual residence and place of work by method of travel to work. ) . This package could provide an opportunity to build on this propensity to walk to work by decreasing traffic through Elgin and reducing road safety concerns for those groups who are less likely to travel by car. This may improve physical and mental health wellbeing outcomes and is also likely to enhance the aforementioned air quality improvements if the increased active travel usage is a result of mode shift from private vehicle use.

An increase in the use of alternative fuels by vehicles along the A96 corridor due to the electric corridor could also improve local air quality. In turn, this could have positive effects on those groups who are more vulnerable to the adverse health effects of traffic-related emissions.

Investment in DRT and MaaS in particular, could provide benefits for protected characteristic groups due to more flexible public transport options helping improve connectivity to key services, including children, young people, women, disabled people and older people. There could also be a beneficial impact in terms of reduced barriers to travel for those with reduced mobility if improvements in public transport connectivity reduces walking distance in order to use a service. However, MaaS could exclude certain groups without access to relevant technology, bank accounts or the appropriate level of support to apply for entitlement schemes, and as such, these groups would need to be considered in the design of the schemes to ensure that they benefit.

Through the reallocation of road space and improved surfaces and crossing points for active travel, the infrastructure installed could be designed to incorporate adapted cycles and, as such, address mobility issues experienced by commonly disadvantaged groups, such as women, disabled people and older people. Improved safety measures would also reduce road and personal safety concerns for active travel users, including children. However, the reallocation of road space could also have potential adverse effects on certain groups, such as disabled people who rely on parking spaces close to essential services.

This package could also result in benefits for certain groups who rely on private vehicle use to access key services due to mobility reasons such as disabled people and older people, or those who make complex journeys involving ‘trip chaining’ such as women and carers. For example, these groups could experience an improvement in journey times and more reliable journey times, both locally and when travelling to key services such as employment, education, healthcare and shopping in the bypassed towns and the surrounding area.

The provision and improvement of rail freight terminals provides a minor positive impact to individuals in terms of equalities. Encouraging a modal shift from road freight to rail may contribute to a reduction in harmful transport emissions and improved local air quality. This would benefit public health, particularly for vulnerable groups such as children, disabled people, older people and pregnant women. However, new rail freight terminals could also lead to increased traffic within their vicinity and the impact on protected characteristic groups should be considered when siting.

Construction activities associated with the bypass elements of this package may result in negative impacts for local communities during both construction and operational stages. The construction of bypasses may adversely impact on groups who are more vulnerable to noise, vibration, and air quality such as children, older people, disabled people, and pregnant women. Furthermore, during operation, the new bypasses could create potential new severance, noise, air quality and traffic impacts for dwellings along the new alignment . However, the level of direct impact would be dependent on the route alignment selected for the bypass and the types of communities affected. More detailed assessment would be required to understand the extent of these impacts and the appropriate mitigation to reduce any negative effects and enhance benefits for protected characteristic groups.

In addition, the extent of benefit arising from the active and sustainable travel aspects of this package would depend on the location and routeing of travel networks and facilities, their proximity to local services and the ability for people to access the network.

Overall, this package is expected to have a moderate positive impact under both the ‘With Policy’ and ‘Without Policy’ scenarios on addressing this criterion.

Refined Package–Potential Impacts

The Refined Package is focused on primarily delivering transport network improvements to both settlements and rural sections throughout the A96 corridor, by providing enhancements which would aim to encourage a shift to sustainable modes, increasing opportunities for residents and businesses and improving road safety.

Figure 6‑7: Refined Package Extents

NaPTAT modelling observed that the largest change in population accessibility is travel to hospital emergency departments, whereby an additional 8,100 people aged 16 and over would be able to access the nearest site within approximately 30 minutes by public transport. This accessibility benefit would be observed for groups who may be more reliant on public transport for accessing such health services, including 2,100 people aged 65 and over, and 1,900 people across all age groups with long-term health problems or disability, whose day-to-day activities are limited.

Improved journey time accessibility would also be shown in travelling to higher education sites across the study area using public transport and would be anticipated to generate benefits for a wide range of protected characteristic groups. The package would enable an additional 4,500 people aged 16 and over to access the nearest higher education site within approximately 60 minutes by public transport. This would impact the following groups: 550 young people aged 16-24, 2,300 females, 100 people from non-white ethnic groups, and 800 people across all age groups with long-term health problems or disability whose day-to-day activities are limited.

In terms of public transport, the majority of benefits are achieved from the inclusion of rail improvements. The package would in particular reduce the journey times to the major cities of Inverness and Aberdeen, as well as Elgin, with benefits experienced in settlements with access to rail stations. For example, over 8,700 additional people would be able to access Aberdeen from Elgin within two hours.

Investment in DRT and MaaS in particular could provide benefits for protected characteristic groups due to more flexible public transport options helping improve connectivity to key services, including children, young people, women, disabled people and older people. There could also be a beneficial impact in terms of reduced barriers to travel for those with reduced mobility if improvements in public transport connectivity reduces walking distance in order to use a service. However, MaaS could exclude certain groups without access to relevant technology, bank accounts or the appropriate level of support to apply for entitlement schemes, and as such, these groups would need to be considered in the design of the schemes to ensure that they benefit.

Through the reallocation of road space and improved surfaces and crossing points for active travel, the infrastructure installed could be designed to incorporate adapted cycles and, as such, address mobility issues experienced by commonly disadvantaged groups, such as women, disabled people and older people. Improved safety measures would also reduce road and personal safety concerns for active travel users, including children. However, the reallocation of road space could also have potential adverse effects on certain groups, such as disabled people who rely on parking spaces close to essential services.

Traffic modelling forecasts predict that traffic would divert away from the bypassed towns of Elgin and Keith as a result of the proposed scheme in both the ‘With Policy’ and ‘Without Policy’ scenarios. Therefore, bypassed towns may potentially create a range of benefits for groups with protected characteristics. A reduction in traffic could result in improved local air quality within these towns which would be a particular benefit to those groups who are more vulnerable to the adverse health effects of traffic-related emissions such as older people, disabled people, children and pregnant women. Reduced through traffic could also help address local severance issues, reduce road safety concerns and improve the active travel environment.

In particular, a reduction of through traffic and the inclusion of Active Communities could result in an increase in active travel. For example, in Elgin, walking to work levels comprise approximately 18% of all trips ( ONS (2011) Census (Scotland) Location of usual residence and place of work by method of travel to work. ) . This package could provide an opportunity to build on this propensity to walk to work by decreasing traffic through Elgin and reducing road safety concerns for those groups who are less likely to travel by car. This may improve physical and mental health wellbeing outcomes and is also likely to enhance the aforementioned air quality improvements if the increased active travel usage is a result of modal shift from private vehicle use.

An increase in the use of alternative fuels by vehicles along the A96 corridor due to the electric corridor could also improve local air quality. Air quality modelling forecasts show that as a result of increasing low emission kilometres travelled along the network, NOx emissions are predicted to decrease between opening year, 2030, and 2045 for the ‘With Policy’ scenario. In turn, this could have positive short-term effects on those groups who are more vulnerable to the adverse health effects of traffic-related emissions. However, the attraction of traffic to the network as a result of the wider interventions is predicted to increase total emissions across the appraisal period and could therefore negate this impact.

There could also be benefits for certain groups who rely on private vehicle use to access key services due to mobility reasons such as disabled people and older people, or those who make complex journeys involving ‘trip chaining’ such as women and carers. For example, these groups could experience an improvement in journey times and more reliable journey times, both locally and when travelling to key services such as employment, education, healthcare and shopping in the bypassed towns and the surrounding area.

The construction activities associated with bypassing Elgin and Keith may result in negative impacts for these communities during both construction and operational stages. The construction of bypasses may adversely impact local groups who are more vulnerable to noise, vibration, and air quality such as children, older people, disabled people, and pregnant women. Furthermore, during operation, the new bypasses could create potential new severance, noise, air quality and traffic impacts for dwellings along the new alignment . However, the level of direct impact would be dependent on the route alignment selected for the bypass and the types of communities affected. More detailed assessment would be required to understand the extent of these impacts and the appropriate mitigation to reduce any negative effects and enhance benefits for protected characteristic groups.

The extent to which groups with protected characteristics would benefit from the measures in this package would depend on the extent to which all listed interventions can be adopted, as it is noted that this would depend on local circumstances within each key community. In addition, the extent of benefit would depend on the location and routeing of active travel networks and facilities, their proximity to local services and the ability for people to access the network.

This package is expected to have a moderate positive impact on this objective under both the ‘With Policy’ and ‘Without Policy’ scenarios.