Approach to Preliminary Appraisal

Overview of Preliminary Appraisal

The purpose of this chapter is to outline the approach to Preliminary Appraisal for the A96 Corridor Review. As noted previously the Preliminary Appraisal comprised a qualitative appraisal of the options that were retained from the Option Sifting stage against the following criteria:

• A96 Corridor Review TPOs
• STAG criteria
• established policy objectives (Policy Assessment Framework (PAF) Tool)
• deliverability criteria (feasibility, affordability and public acceptability).

In parallel to the transport appraisal, an SEA and the relevant SIAs were being developed (see Section 3.8) and provided input to inform the Preliminary Appraisal.

The Preliminary Appraisal captured on a qualitative basis the likely positive contributions and negative impacts of each option. The Preliminary Appraisal identified those options that were retained to progress to the Detailed Appraisal stage, and rejected any options that overall were considered highly unlikely to meet the TPOs or provide a positive contribution to the STAG appraisal criteria.

The following sections set out the scoring adopted for the appraisal and describe the key assessment criteria that options were appraised against for the Preliminary Appraisal stage.

Preliminary Appraisal Scoring

For the Preliminary Appraisal the assessment scoring and the score descriptions shown in Table 3.1 have been adopted.

Table 3.1: Appraisal Scoring Summary

Impact	Symbol and Shading	Description
Major Benefit	+ + +	The option has a major positive contribution to achievement of the objective or has a major (positive) benefit on the appraisal criterion.
Moderate Benefit	+ +	The option has a moderate positive contribution to achievement of the objective or has a moderate (positive) benefit on the appraisal criterion.
Minor Benefit	+	The option contributes to the achievement of the objective but not significantly or has a minor (positive) benefit on the appraisal criterion.
No Benefit or Impact	0	The option is related to but does not have any direct effect on the achievement of the objective or has no effect (neither positive nor negative) on the appraisal criterion, or the assessment of the category is neither positive nor negative.
Minor Negative Impact	-	The option detracts from the achievement of the objective but not significantly or has a minor (negative) impact on the appraisal criterion.
Moderate Negative Impact	- -	The option has a moderate negative impact on the achievement of the objective or has a moderate (negative) impact on the appraisal criterion.
Major Negative Impact	- - -	The option has a major negative impact on the achievement of the objective or has a major (negative) impact on the appraisal criterion.

For the Preliminary Appraisal this scoring approach has been used to assess the performance of options against the TPOs, the STAG criteria and the relevant SIAs.

The Established Policy Objectives were scored directly within the bespoke PAF tool created for the A96 Corridor Review. Further details on this scoring criteria are provided in Section 3.6.

Future Appraisal Scenarios

It is recognised that external factors that are out of the direct control or influence of Transport Scotland can have a large influence on future demand for travel. Transport Scotland took the decision to adopt a scenarios approach in STPR2, which looks at a range of possible futures, and how the possible interventions behave in them.

The scenarios that were developed for STPR2 have also been applied to the options appraisal for the A96 Corridor Review. For the Preliminary Appraisal, and subsequent Detailed Appraisal, 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.

These scenarios were originally developed using the Transport Model for Scotland (TMfS18) and the Transport and Economic/Land Use Model of Scotland (TELMoS18) for use in the appraisal stages of STPR2. Further detail on the development of the future appraisal scenarios can be found in Appendix A.

At the Preliminary Appraisal stage, each option has been appraised against a qualitative assessment of how the option could be expected to perform under a low and higher motorised travel demand.

Transport Planning Objectives

Each option has been assessed against the TPOs established for the A96 Corridor Review. The TPOs established for this study are:

• TPO1: A sustainable strategic transport corridor that contributes to the Scottish Government’s net zero emissions target.
• TPO2: An inclusive strategic transport corridor that improves the accessibility of public transport in rural areas for access to healthcare, employment and education.
• TPO3: A coherent strategic transport corridor that enhances communities as places, supporting health, wellbeing and the environment.
• TPO4: An integrated strategic transport system that contributes towards sustainable inclusive growth throughout the corridor and beyond.
• TPO5: A reliable and resilient strategic transport system that is safe for users.

Further information on the development of these TPOs and the relevant sub-objectives is provided in Chapter 2 of this report.

At Preliminary Appraisal stage, the options have been appraised qualitatively against each of the TPOs using the scoring scale presented in .

Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance Criteria

Options have been assessed qualitatively against the five STAG criteria aligned to the refreshed STAG Managers Guide ( https://www.transport.gov.scot/publication/scottish-transport-appraisal-guidance-managers-guide/ ). The STAG criteria, along with a brief description of aspects to consider under each criterion are shown in Table 3.2. Further details about the criteria assessed are presented in the sections that follow.

Table 3.2: STAG Criteria at Preliminary Appraisal Stage

STAG Criterion	General Considerations
Environment	Maximising the quality of the built and natural environment for the enjoyment of all.
Climate Change	Supporting net zero emissions targets. Improving resilience of the transport network.
Health, Safety & Wellbeing	Reducing the risk and incidence of accidents and improving the security of the transport network for all users. Improving access to health and wellbeing facilities.
Economy	Improving connectivity, journey times and reliability to facilitate inclusive economic growth.
Equality and Accessibility	Increasing the accessibility of the public transport and active travel networks. Providing opportunities to travel to all users, particularly socially excluded or remotely located groups as well as those affected by transport poverty.

Environment

This assessment has considered the performance and likely impacts of options at a qualitative level against the relevant Environment sub-criteria as presented in STAG:

• Biodiversity and Habitats
• Geology and Soils
• Land Use (including Agriculture and Forestry)
• Water, Drainage and Flooding
• Air Quality
• Historic Environment
• Landscape
• Noise and Vibration.

As part of the proportionate approach and recognising that the Detailed Appraisal stage considers each of the sub-criteria in more detail, the Preliminary Appraisal has focused on those sub-criteria where key impacts are most likely to occur.

It is recognised that there is significant overlap between the environment assessment requirements for the transport appraisal, with what is required for the SEA being undertaken in parallel.

Climate Change

The assessment considers the performance of options against the three Climate Change sub-criteria: GHG Emissions, Vulnerability to the Effects of Climate Change and Potential to Adapt to the Effects of Climate Change. Consideration at the Preliminary Appraisal stage was given to:

• the likely contribution of options to reducing GHG emissions and help meet Scotland’s wider targets to reduce GHG emissions
• how vulnerable options are likely to be to the effects of climate change
• the potential for options to adapt to the anticipated effects of climate change.

Similar to the Environment criterion, there is a degree of overlap with the STAG appraisal and the requirements for the SEA. In the wider context of climate change, as noted in Section 1.1 a separate climate compatibility assessment has been undertaken as part of the A96 Corridor Review.

Health, Safety and Wellbeing

The criterion involves an appraisal impact of the options on five sub-criteria: Accidents, Security, Health Outcomes, Access to Health and Wellbeing Infrastructure, and Visual Amenity. To determine the performance of an option within the Preliminary Appraisal against the health, safety and wellbeing criteria, consideration has been given to the following:

• Accidents:
  • The likely impacts the option would have on the number of people killed or injured in transport accidents.
  • The likely impact the option would have on the risk of travelling by means of accident rates for Killed or Seriously Injured accidents per km.
• Personal Security:
  • The likely impact of the option on crime.
  • The impact the option is likely to have on peoples’ fear of crime.
• Health Outcomes:
  • The impact the option is likely to have on the population’s physical fitness (e.g. obesity).
• Access to Health and Wellbeing Infrastructure:
  • The impact the option is likely to have on access to health centres, places of exercise (gyms, swimming pools, etc.), parks and community centres.
• Visual Amenity:
  • The likely impact of the option on views experienced at and around its location.

Across these health, safety and wellbeing criteria, a qualitative assessment was made of an option’s performance.

Economy

This criterion assesses the impact of an option on the economy with consideration of Transport Economic Efficiency and Wider Economic Impacts:

• Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) covers the benefits ordinarily captured by standard cost-benefit analysis, derived from changes in traffic volumes, journey times, driver frustration and/or travel time reliability.
• Wider Economic Impacts (WEIs) refer to any economic impacts which are additional to those captured by TEE and associated with business and market performance changes brought about by the introduction of the option. Three WEIs are considered: Agglomeration, considering the connectivity between businesses and areas of economic activity; Market Power, considering the changes in competition and cost bases that affects the total prices paid by customers; and Labour Supply, considering the difference in tax revenue created by the changes in commuting costs that could encourage more people to work.

At Preliminary Appraisal, a high-level assessment of the likely economic impacts of an option has been undertaken, with consideration given to the following:

• Connectivity:
  • The likely impact of the option on end-to-end journey times.
  • Any likely impact on the cost of travel, including but not limited to vehicle operating costs or public transport fares.
• Reliability:
  • The potential impact of the option on day-to-day variability in journey times or average delay.
  • The likely effect of the option on the number of incidents that impact route reliability.
• Resilience:
  • The likely impact of the option on the resilience of transport infrastructure.
• Wider Economic Impacts:
  • The option’s likelihood to improve accessibility to key locations, such as business districts, or the ability to stimulate development in areas identified for regeneration.
  • An identification of the particular groups of people likely to be affected by the option.

The assessment has been undertaken qualitatively, with an appreciation that at the Detailed Appraisal stage, an adoption of appropriate modelling and analytical tools, where available, would be used to quantify the economic impacts of an option.

Equality and Accessibility

The criterion involves an appraisal of an option’s impact on Equality and Accessibility, with consideration of five sub-criteria:

• Public Transport Network Coverage: Consideration is given to the option’s contribution in improving coverage of the public transport system to access employment, health, education, and local services.
• Active Travel Network Coverage: Consideration is given to the option’s contribution in improving coverage of walking and cycling facilities to access employment, health, education, and local services.
• Comparative Access by People Group: Consideration is given to the distribution of an option’s impacts by people group, particularly vulnerable societal groups such as low income, disabled, children, and the elderly.
• Comparative Access by Geographic Location: Consideration is given to the distribution of an option’s impacts by geographic location, including Community Regeneration Areas and areas of deprivation defined by the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD).
• Affordability: Consideration is given to the option’s contribution in reducing transport poverty by increasing travel choice to disadvantaged and vulnerable users and improving mobility and inclusion.

The Equality and Accessibility appraisal at this stage overlaps with the SIAs being considered, namely the EqIA, CRWIA and FSDA, to understand the impacts of transport changes on particular societal groups. Across these criteria, a qualitative assessment has been made of an option’s performance.

Established Policy Objectives

STAG states that the relevant national policies and objectives identified during Objective Setting in the Case for Change should be considered as part of the transport appraisal. A clear conflict between an option and, for example, established land-use planning policy or a transport strategy in an area is likely to jeopardise its potential for funding, support, approval and/or implementation. Whereas an option would have a positive contribution if it were consistent with established policies and hence the achievement of relevant objectives.

The contribution of options towards meeting established Scottish Government policy objectives are demonstrated using the outputs of the Policy Assessment Framework (PAF) Tool. The PAF Tool is typically used to qualitatively assess how each option performs against current Scottish Government transport policy objectives.

For the purposes of the A96 Corridor Review, a bespoke PAF tool was developed which reflected relevant national, strategic (regional) and local policy objectives. A set of assessment ‘themes’ were derived from a comprehensive policy review and these themes were then aligned to each of the five STAG criteria. The bespoke PAF themes and criteria questions which relate to the policy objectives identified are as follows:

• Environment
  • To what extent does the option or package improve air quality?
  • To what extent does the option or package safeguard and enhance the natural and cultural environment?
  • To what extent does the option or package safeguard and enhance blue networks and waterbodies?
  • To what extent does the option or package support the creation and maintenance of attractive and high-quality places (with reference to the six qualities of successful places in NPF4)?
• Climate Change
  • To what extent does the option or package contribute to the 20% reduction in car km?
  • To what extent does the option or package help meet the net zero by 2045 target?
  • To what extent does the option or package help adapt the transport network to direct and indirect risks associated with climate change projections for Scotland?
  • To what extent does the option or package promote and support the best use of clean fuels/technologies decarbonising travel?
• Health, Safety and Wellbeing
  • To what extent does the option or package promote safe and secure travel for all users?
  • To what extent does the option or package support healthy travel choices as part of a multimodal journey?
  • To what extent does the option or package support the creation of healthy and liveable places?
  • To what extent does the option or package enhance provision of non-motorised transport and promote active travel as part of a 20-minute neighbourhood?
  • To what extent does the option or package support sustainable access to critical services i.e. education, healthcare?
• Economic
  • To what extent does the option or package support the creation of a resilient and reliable transport network?
  • To what extent does the option or package support future growth areas and national developments identified in land use planning?
  • To what extent does the option or package provide a transport system which enables businesses to be competitive locally and within the rest of the UK?
  • To what extent will the option or package support and enhance rural economy?
• Equality
  • To what extent does the option or package provide sustainable transport connections to and from more disadvantaged communities?
  • To what extent does the option or package provide sustainable, affordable transport access to education and employment opportunities?
  • To what extent does the option or package provide fair and equal transport access to healthcare services?
  • To what extent does the option or package support a ‘just’ transition to net zero?

The documents shown in Table 3.3 were used to inform the development of the bespoke PAF assessment.

Table 3.3: Documents Used in the PAF Development

At both preliminary and detailed appraisal stages, options were assessed within the Policy Appraisal with each option given a high-level ‘score’ to determine whether they were consistent with the criteria for each policy objective. For the purposes of the PAF assessment it was considered that both the ‘With Policy’ and ‘Without Policy’ transport behaviour scenarios would have similar outcomes, therefore only one ‘score’ was provided against each objective.

The following assessment approach was adopted:

• Consistent – this ‘score’ was attributed to each of the objectives if it was decided that the option is consistent with the objective or has general compliance with it.
• Inconsistent – this ‘score’ was attributed to each of the objectives if it was decided that the option is inconsistent with the objective.
• Neutral – this ‘score’ was attributed where further detail or research is required to accurately determine the impact of an option or where the option is to have no significant positive or negative impact in relation to the objectives.
• Inconclusive (at this stage) – whilst carrying out the option appraisal it was identified that a ‘score’ which acknowledged that some of the options may cause both positive and negative impacts needed to be reflected.

Professional judgement was used in conjunction with the information provided in the ASTs to determine the scores. It should be noted that at this early stage of development options are defined at a relatively high-level (i.e. with limited detail on location, engineering design or environmental mitigation), the scoring reflects the information that is available. The scoring does not therefore reflect the potential for design development and mitigation to enable policy consistency, as this is as yet unknown.

The findings of the policy assessment are summarised in Chapter 4 for the Preliminary Appraisal, with additional detail presented in 0.

Through this method, options have been assessed in terms of their contribution to the policies which support the Priorities and Outcomes in the NTS2, as well as the STAG criteria and the A96 Corridor Review TPOs.

Deliverability Criteria

Each option has been assessed qualitatively against the Deliverability criteria during the Preliminary Appraisal. The relevant elements that have been considered under Deliverability are Feasibility, Affordability and Public Acceptability. Whilst these elements have not been scored, the key factors and likely outcomes have been identified.

Feasibility

This element involves a preliminary assessment of the feasibility of construction or implementation and operation (if relevant) of an option and the status of its technology (e.g. proven, prototype, in development, etc.). It also considers any cost, timescale or deliverability risks associated with the construction or operation of the option. Whether an option can be progressed within current legislation is also a factor. For the A96 Corridor Review, this element also considers whether Transport Scotland can directly deliver and operate the option, or whether they would need to work collaboratively with partners, such as LAs, RTPs, or transport operators.

Affordability

This element considers the scale of the financing burden on the promoting authority and other possible funding organisations. The risks associated with these are also considered. The level of risk associated with an option’s ongoing operating or maintenance costs is also considered for the likely asset owner. Where applicable, likely operating revenues are also considered for a particular option.

At the Preliminary Appraisal stage, a high-level indicative estimate of the capital cost of each option is provided, based on a series of cost bands developed for the A96 Corridor Review. Note, the same cost bands have been used as part of the Detailed Options Appraisal.

The cost bands are shown in Table 3.4.

Table 3.4: Cost Bands for Options

Cost Band	Value (Millions)
1	<£25
2	£25-£50
3	£51-£100
4	£101-£250
5	£251-£500
6	£501-£1,000
7	£1,001-£2,500
8	>£2,500

Public Acceptability

This element considers whether there are likely to be any issues around public acceptability of each option. To support this, reference is made to supporting information from previous studies and/or schemes for similar options, as well as relevant feedback from the public consultation survey and stakeholder engagement undertaken during the development of the Case for Change ( https://www.transport.gov.scot/publication/initial-appraisal-case-for-change-december-2022-a96-corridor-review/ ) and summarised in the A96 Corridor Review Consultation Report ( https://www.transport.gov.scot/publication/stakeholder-public-engagement-consultation-report-december-2022-a96-corridor-review/ ).

Statutory Assessments

Parallel to the STAG assessment, work has been progressed on the development of the:

• SEA Draft Environmental Report ( https://www.transport.gov.scot/publication/strategic-environmental-assessment-sea-draft-environmental-report-non-technical-summary-a96-corridor-review/ )
• EqIA Report (Draft)
  ( https://www.transport.gov.scot/publication/equality-impact-assessment-eqia-report-draft-a96-corridor-review/ )
• CRWIA Report (Draft)
  ( https://www.transport.gov.scot/publication/child-rights-and-wellbeing-impact-assessment-crwia-report-draft-a96-corridor-review/ )
• FSDA Report (Draft)
  ( https://www.transport.gov.scot/publication/fairer-scotland-duty-assessment-fsda-report-draft-a96-corridor-review/ )

An Island Communities Impact Assessment (ICIA) has not been undertaken due to the geographic location of the A96 corridor.

These assessments have informed the transport appraisal process for the A96 Corridor Review, and separately ensure as far as possible that the impact of the transport interventions on the environment is minimised; opportunities for environmental enhancement are identified for implementation; and options have a positive impact on different groups in society, including those with protected characteristics. In summary, the parallel assessments that have been undertaken for the A96 Corridor Review are:

• Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) – required under European Union Directive 2001/42/EC and a key objective of the SEA process is to afford a high-level of protection to the environment and to ensure environmental considerations feature in the decision-making process.
• Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) – identifies and assesses any likely disproportionate or differential effects on people with characteristics protected by the Equality Act 2010. This includes sex, age, disability, race, religion/belief, gender reassignment, sexual orientation, pregnancy and maternity, and marriage and civil partnership.
• Child Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessment (CRWIA) – considers impacts on children and young people. It covers individual children, groups of children, and all children up to the age of 18. It also considers young people up to the age of 24.
• Fairer Scotland Duty Assessment (FSDA) – identifies and assesses how to reduce inequalities of outcome caused by socio-economic disadvantage when making strategic decisions. In broad terms, ‘socio-economic disadvantage’ means living on a low income compared to others in Scotland, with little or no accumulated wealth, leading to greater material deprivation, restricting the ability to access basic goods and services.

The SEA has helped inform the Environment criterion of the STAG appraisal, and there is considerable overlap between the SEA and the Climate Change criterion. The appraisal also includes a high-level assessment of each option from the SIA perspective and with this additional information incorporated into the ASTs where appropriate.

Other Considerations

The Second National Transport Strategy (NTS2)

As noted previously, the A96 Corridor Review TPOs have been developed to align with the four priorities, 12 outcomes and 24 policies contained within the Second National Transport Strategy (NTS2). As part of the Preliminary and Detailed Appraisal, the A96 Corridor Review options have been assessed against the 12 NTS2 outcomes to indicate their consistency, or otherwise, with current national transport strategy.

Sustainable Hierarchies

The position that each option sits within the Sustainable Travel Hierarchy and Sustainable Investment Hierarchy from the NTS2 and shown in Figure 3.1, has been identified. Consideration of the two hierarchies ensures that the study is multimodal, with options sitting across all levels in both hierarchies and priority given, where necessary, to options that sit at the higher end of each hierarchy.

Risk and Uncertainty

Risks and uncertainties associated with each option are identified and accounted for within the information accompanying the appraisal scoring in the ASTs and the discussion of the deliverability criteria. The consideration of the ‘With Policy’ and ‘Without Policy’ transport behaviour scenarios and provision of estimated cost ranges also accounts for risks and uncertainties of each option at this stage.

Progression to Detailed Appraisal

Decisions on whether or not to take options forward from Preliminary to Detailed Appraisal were made based on overall performance against the TPOs, STAG criteria and SIAs, with consideration of deliverability, alignment with established policy objectives and performance in both transport behaviour scenarios.

ASTs have been produced for each option, providing the assessment of performance against each criterion and giving a clear rationale for why an option has been retained or rejected. The Preliminary ASTs are provided in Appendix C. Chapter 4 summarises the outcomes of the Preliminary Appraisal, including whether or not each option has been taken forward to Detailed Appraisal and the rationale behind that decision.