Preliminary Appraisal Summary Table - Introduce Rail Freight Terminals

Preliminary Appraisal Summary

Option Description

Introduction of Rail Freight Terminals

This option seeks to facilitate the introduction, development and operation of rail freight terminals by the private sector along the A96 corridor. Locations are considered at Keith and Elgin, with associated enhancements made to the rail gauge to facilitate increased freight movements to/from these locations by rail. At this stage, it is envisaged that any proposed rail freight terminal development would be relatively modest in scale and would seek to make use of existing brownfield railway land. Road freight transport is a significant contributor of air/noise pollution and carbon emissions, negatively impacting on climate change. Encouraging freight to be transported by more sustainable modes could reduce the overall level of pollution, noise and carbon created by transporting freight exclusively via road. This could also reduce journey times and improve journey time reliability for other road users travelling on the A96 Trunk Road as freight vehicles over 7.5T are restricted to a maximum of 40mph, which can cause platooning on single carriageway sections and hence increase delays to other road users. Estimates of the forecast demand for rail freight on this corridor ranges from one to three trains per week to three trains a day in each direction. Currently there are no regular scheduled freight trains between Aberdeen and Inverness.

Relevance

Relevant to businesses and freight

Although rail freight terminals could be developed at specific locations, this option is likely to be relevant across the whole corridor and beyond due to the nature of supply chains which extend well beyond the boundary of this study area. The implementation of this option could help (subject to a satisfactory business case) facilitate the mode shift of freight from road to rail, particularly for longer distance movements but also for shorter distance movement of materials such as timber and aggregates. This would remove some Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) from the road network that cause delays to other motorists and cause a level of frustration on the A96 Trunk Road due to a lack of safe overtaking opportunities. This option could therefore potentially have safety benefits, as well as improve journey times and reliability for general traffic. There is a significant opportunity to connect the distillery and manufacturing supply chains in this area to the Central Belt and onwards movement to England, Wales and for export as well as other significant demand generators in the food and drink sector.

This option is relevant to the continued development of Scotland’s net zero strategic transport network, and the transition to more sustainable modes particularly for longer distances. Development of rail freight terminals would assist and facilitate in the decarbonisation of the freight industry and aligns with the vision laid out in Scotland’s Rail Freight Strategy ( Delivering the Goods – Scotland’s Rail Freight Strategy ) . This would have particular benefits for:

• businesses and consumers, who will have additional transport choices to make with regards to the movement of freight by rail
• transport operators, who will benefit from the agglomeration of industrial traffic around rail freight terminals, thereby allowing for increased freight loads.

Estimated Cost

£25m - £50m Capital

Determining the estimated cost of this option is dependent on a number of factors including the scale and complexity of providing rail freight terminals at the locations noted. Further analysis and assessment would be required at the stages of design development, a level of detail beyond that which is undertaken as part of a Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance (STAG) appraisal.

Capital costs for the construction of the rail freight terminals could depend on local constraints, the scale of interventions proposed and if the track/hard standing are already present. An indicative cost estimate would typically be in the range of £25m to £50m per terminal.

Dependent on the location and scale of interventions, the responsible authority and asset owner on completion is most likely to be a private sector organisation. It is anticipated that the asset owner would take on the operation and maintenance of facilities, which would be the responsibility of the terminal operator and have ongoing costs. The development cost of the terminal may qualify for the award of Freight Facilities Grant (FFG) from Transport Scotland and other public sector grants which may be available. Freight services which use the terminal may be eligible for revenue support through the Mode Shift Revenue Support (MSRS) scheme.

Position in Sustainable Hierarchies

Sustainable Investment Hierarchy / Sustainable Travel Hierarchy

Within the Sustainable Investment Hierarchy, this option sits within ‘targeted infrastructure improvements’. However, this option does not fit within any tier of the Sustainable Travel Hierarchy as this only carries passenger trips.

This option would also contribute to five of the 12 NTS2 outcomes, as follows:

• Help deliver our net zero target
• Promote greener, cleaner choices
• Get people and goods where they need to get to
• Be reliable, efficient and high quality
• Use beneficial innovation.

Summary Rationale

Summary of Appraisal

This option makes a largely positive or neutral contribution to the A96 Corridor Review Transport Planning Objectives (TPOs), STAG criteria, and Statutory Impact Assessment (SIA) criteria, with the exception of the STAG Environment criterion. This assessment conclusion is based on evidence from other locations in the UK and beyond where similar schemes have been implemented successfully.

Rail freight terminals aim to provide more opportunities for goods movement across the A96 corridor, encouraging a shift away from road freight vehicles to move goods more sustainably to reduce harmful air and potentially localised noise pollution. The option would therefore contribute positively to the TPOs for contributing to Scottish Government’s net zero targets (TPO1), enhancing communities as places to support health, wellbeing and the environment (TPO3), contributing to sustainable inclusive growth (TPO4) and providing a transport system that is safe, reliable and resilient (TPO5).

Rail freight terminals are anticipated to have a minor negative impact on the STAG Environment criterion as there are sensitive environmental designations, in places such as Keith and Elgin, that could be affected by the construction footprints of the terminals. This may affect aspects such as biodiversity, agriculture and soils, cultural heritage, landscape and visual amenity.

New facilities are considered to be feasible and deliverable in connection with Scotland’s existing railway network. However, detailed local engagement and design work, including working closely with businesses, could be required to identify the most appropriate locations and types of intervention. Capital costs could vary significantly based upon these assessments. Rail freight terminals are likely to be well received generally due to the potential for carbon dioxide reduction and removal of HGVs from the road network, though some businesses may not favour the option if they are unable to shift modes to move freight by rail.

It is recommended that this option is taken forward to the Detailed Appraisal stage.

Details behind this summary are discussed in Section 3.

Context

Problems and Opportunities

This option could help to address the following problem and opportunity themes. Further detail on the identified problems and opportunities is provided in the published A96 Corridor Review Case for Change ( A96 Corridor Review Case for Change ) .

Relevant Problem and Opportunity Themes Identified in the A96 Corridor Review Case for Change

Safety and Resilience : From the analysis of accident data, the rural sections of the A96 Trunk Road have overall Personal Injury Accidents (PIA) rates lower than or similar to the national average based on all trunk A-roads of the equivalent type. There are, however, selected urban sections of the A96 Trunk Road that show an accident rate higher than the national average, with specific locations in Forres and Keith. The rate of Killed or Seriously Injured (KSI) accidents is also significantly higher in these two towns than the national average, nearly five times the national average in Keith and just above three times the national average in Forres. A number of rural sections of the A96 Trunk Road also have a rate of KSIs higher than the national average these being between Hardmuir and Forres, between Fochabers and Keith, between Keith and East of Huntly and between Kintore and Craibstone.

The A96 Trunk Road is affected by closures and delays due to accidents, maintenance and weather events. Recommended diversion routes can be lengthy throughout the corridor, up to approximately 65km depending on where the closure occurs. The economic impact of closures can be significant for HGVs and the movement of goods.

Health and Environment: Transport is a major contributor to CO ₂ emissions along the A96 corridor, particularly in the Aberdeenshire and Highland Council areas. Transport contributes over 35% of the total emissions in both Aberdeenshire and Highland Council areas and between 25% and 30% in Aberdeen City and Moray. This is potentially an outcome of the high dependence on cars for travel, long travel distances and the levels of road-based freight movements.

The route of the A96 travels through the centre of towns along the corridor such as Elgin and Keith, which puts a relatively large proportion of the population in close proximity to potential noise pollution and pollutants from transport emissions that affect local air quality.

Sustainable Economic Growth: There is an opportunity to support and enhance sustainable economic growth across the transport appraisal study area. The key industries in the region, including food and drink production and agriculture, forestry and fishing have a high proportion of goods movement, as evidenced through the relatively high proportion of HGVs on the A96. A shift to alternative sustainable transport modes could improve journey time reliability, resulting in economic and environmental benefits, with trials being undertaken elsewhere in Scotland in recent years to increase the proportion of rail freight movements.

Improving Safety: There is the opportunity to reduce the number and severity of accidents on the A96 Trunk Road on those sections where PIA and/or KSI accident rates are high when compared to the national average for equivalent urban or rural trunk A-roads. Improving safety for road users would contribute to meeting the targets set out in Scotland’s Road Safety Framework to 2030 to achieve the 50% reduction in people killed or seriously injured (60% reduction for children). Reducing the level of car-based kilometres travelled would also contribute to a reduction in accidents numbers.

Health and Environmental Impacts of Travel: Reducing the use of HGVs throughout the transport appraisal study area would help reduce the transport contribution to CO ₂ emissions, an important requirement of the Scottish Government’s net zero target. Fewer vehicle kilometres travelled would also improve the local air quality, with associated health benefits in communities along the A96.

Interdependencies

This option has potential overlap with other A96 Corridor Review options and would also complement other areas of Scottish Government activity.

Other A96 Corridor Review Options

• Linespeed, Passenger and Freight Capacity Improvements on the Aberdeen to Inverness Railway Line
• Development of A96 Electric Corridor.

Other areas of Scottish Government activity

• Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019 ( Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019 )
• Climate Change Plan 2018-32 Update ( Securing a green recovery on a path to net zero: climate change plan 2018–2032 – update )
• Decarbonising the Scottish Transport Sector ( Decarbonising the Scottish Transport Sector )
• High Level Output Specification for Control Period 6 ( The Scottish Ministers’ High Level Output Specification for Control Period 6 )
• Infrastructure Investment Plan 2021/22 – 2025/26 (IIP) ( A National Mission with Local Impact: Infrastructure Investment Plan for Scotland 2021-22 to 2025-26 )
• National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) ( National Planning Framework 4 )
• National Transport Strategy 2 (NTS2) ( National Transport Strategy 2 )
• Rail Enhancements and Capital Investment Strategy ( Rail Enhancements and Capital Investment Strategy )
• Scotland’s Rail Freight Strategy ( Delivering the Goods – Scotland’s Rail Freight Strategy )
• Scotland’s Road Safety Framework to 2030 ( Scotland’s Road Safety Framework to 2030 )
• Strategic Road Safety Plan (2016) ( Strategy Road Safety Plan )
• Strategic Transport Projects Review 2 (STPR2) ( Strategic Transport Projects Review 2 ) .

Appraisal

Appraisal Overview

This section provides an assessment of the option against:

• A96 Corridor Review Transport Planning Objectives
• STAG criteria
• Deliverability criteria
• Statutory Impact Assessment criteria.

The seven-point assessment scale has been used to indicate the impact of the option when considered under the ‘With Policy’ and ‘Without Policy’ Travel Behaviour scenarios (which are described in Appendix A of the Transport Appraisal Report).

Transport Planning Objectives

1. A sustainable strategic transport corridor that contributes to the Scottish Government’s net zero emissions target.

Rail freight is the most sustainable option for the long-haul movement of goods, with each freight train estimated to remove a proportion of HGVs off the road ( Sustaining the Benefits of Rail Freight for the UK Economy ) . However, there are also examples where rail freight has been viable for shorter distances, such as the previous route from Elderslie to Grangemouth ( 20 Years in Rail ) which was only 34 miles long.

The provision of rail freight terminals to consolidate and provide a mode shift for strategic freight movements is a key enabler to support the reduction of carbon emissions from the movement of freight to/from, and within, Scotland. This could be further enhanced as the rail network is decarbonised through electrification/battery/hydrogen traction sources.

This option is therefore expected to have a minor positive impact on this objective in both the ‘With Policy’ and ‘Without Policy’ scenarios.

2. An inclusive strategic transport corridor that improves the accessibility of public transport in rural areas for access to healthcare, employment and education.

The option is not considered to have a material impact on public transport, particularly for those in rural areas due to it being a freight-focused transport intervention in nature.

This option is therefore expected to have a neutral impact on this option in both the ‘With Policy’ and ‘Without Policy’ scenarios.

3. A coherent strategic transport corridor that enhances communities as places, supporting health, wellbeing and the environment.

Rail freight terminals can contribute to a strategic transport system through the consolidation of freight volume to make strategic rail freight movements viable. Modal shift of freight from road to rail can support health, wellbeing and the environment through the reduction of road congestion and associated vehicular emissions. The option offers potential to cater for a wider variety of businesses and enterprises who produce differing volumes of goods and is therefore likely to have a large catchment area of interested parties.

Overall, this option is expected to have a minor positive impact on this objective in both the ‘With Policy’ and ‘Without Policy’ scenarios, given the contribution to enhancing communities as places and contribution to health and wellbeing.

4. An integrated strategic transport system that contributes towards sustainable inclusive growth throughout the corridor and beyond.

The option could provide businesses with an opportunity to diversify the movement of their goods to create a more resilient and reliable transport network, increasing the region’s competitiveness both domestically and internationally. Through the mode shift, there is the potential to reduce congestion. This would facilitate an improvement in journey times and journey time reliability across the region's transport network which would benefit goods and services that are required to be transported via road. Additionally, there are likely improvements in journey times stemming from the use of rail services, due to the segregated and uncongested nature of the rail network, though this is subject to both available capacity and the current standard of gauge of the rail network which would need to be upgraded. As the option is likely to serve dedicated rail freight facilities, it is likely that it could facilitate the integration of transport modes that move goods, particularly those that are moved via road. Through providing an attractive alternative to the movement of goods via conventional means (e.g. road), there is likely to be a mode shift, particularly over longer distances where rail freight is both more competitive and advantageous.

Overall, this option is likely to have a minor positive impact on this objective in both the ‘With Policy’ and ‘Without Policy’ scenarios.

5. A reliable and resilient strategic transport system that is safe for users.

The provision of rail freight terminals enhances safety and security of the strategic transport system through the reduction of long distance road haulage and use of rail instead. The option is expected to encourage a moderate modal shift for the movement of goods via road onto rail. This is expected to reduce the overall number of vehicle kilometres travelled by goods vehicles which, in turn, is likely to improve the overall safety performance of highway networks through a reduction in the frequency of collisions and associated casualties.

The Office of Rail and Road Great Britain Rail Freight Delivery Metric, which measures the proportion of freight trains arriving within 15 minutes of their scheduled arrival time, was 93.0% in 2021-22 Q4 ( Freight rail usage and performance January to March 2022 ) . In general, terminals provide strategic access and appropriate equipment to allow fast transfers from rail to road freight and vice versa, improving the reliability and resilience of supply chain transfers. The modal shift of freight to rail could help the resilience of supply chains by releasing the requirement for drivers from the trunk haul element of goods movement to the last mile/first mile leg instead.

This option is therefore expected to have a minor positive impact on this objective in both the ‘With Policy’ and ‘Without Policy’ scenarios.

STAG Criteria

1. Environment

The eight environment sub-criteria have been considered and those aspects considered relevant to the option at this stage are discussed below.

The creation of rail freight terminals is likely to result in positive impacts on reducing greenhouse gases and air pollution as it could lead to a modal shift towards sustainable modes of transport for freight. The number of HGV movements along the A96 is therefore likely to decrease, leading to a positive impact in terms of noise reduction and a slight improvement in air quality in localised areas, particularly where the A96 passes through settlements. Noise and vibration may increase along the rail line, however, as a consequence of greater freight movements, which might have a minor negative impact.

Construction of the option is likely to have a slight to moderate negative impact on natural resources depending on the materials chosen and its source.

New rail freight terminals have the potential for negative environmental impacts during construction, many of which would be short term. These could include, for example, negative effects on biodiversity, agriculture and soils, cultural heritage, landscape and visual amenity. This would be dependent on the nature and precise location of the terminals in relation to the existing railway line (and whether any new sections of track are required) and the sensitivity of the receiving environment. For example, there are designated Sites of Special Scientific Interest and heritage Conservation Areas in the vicinity of Keith and Elgin. Such impacts could either be direct (such as demolition/land loss/habitat loss) or indirect (such as impacts on setting or views).

Further environmental assessment would be undertaken if such improvements to rail infrastructure are progressed through the design and development process (once the location and type of new infrastructure are identified), in order to identify potentially significant environmental impacts and mitigation where appropriate.

Overall, at this preliminary stage in the appraisal process, the potential impacts of constructing rail freight terminals within the corridor are considered minor negative for this criterion under the ‘With Policy’ and ‘Without Policy’ scenarios, although this would be subject to final site selection and associated design. This is on the basis that although there are positive environmental impacts associated with this option, these would potentially be outweighed by large scale impacts from constructing new rail freight terminals. The extent of impact would only be known through the design development process. If environmental constraints can be avoided, then adverse environmental impacts can be reduced.

2. Climate Change

The creation of rail freight terminals could lead to a modal shift towards sustainable modes of freight transport, reducing the number of HGV movements along the A96 corridor and therefore the resultant greenhouse gas emissions. However, in the short term greenhouse gas emissions would arise from construction activities undertaken to deliver the terminals, including indirect emissions from the manufacture and transportation of materials and emissions from the fuel combusted by construction plant and vehicles. The extent of this effect would only be known through the detailed design development process.

This option is unlikely to have any notable impact on the vulnerability to effects of climate change and the potential to adapt to effects of climate change sub-criteria. However, the existing railway may be vulnerable to the effects of climate change. The increased frequency and severity of extreme weather events can cause damage to equipment due to storm events, extreme heat, or intense rainfall. This may have a detrimental impact to the transportation of freight as it may result in reduced reliability as a result of the network closures. Whilst there is also the potential for increased climatic events to impact the reliability of the road network, there are diversionary routes in place that would allow freight to be moved along the corridor in the event of a closure of the A96; however, it should be noted that not all diversionary routes are suitable for HGVs.

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

3. Health, Safety and Wellbeing

The option is expected to encourage a moderate mode shift for the movement of goods via road onto rail. This is expected to reduce the overall number of vehicle kilometres travelled by goods vehicles which, in turn, is likely to improve the overall safety performance of highway networks through a reduction in the frequency of collisions and associated casualties. Should the rail terminals encourage utilisation of the rail network for long distance haulage, such as between the Central Belt and the north of Scotland and between England and Scotland, the expected benefits would be anticipated to be more substantial.

The option may result in some adverse impacts on visual amenity within the vicinity of the rail freight terminals.

Due to the nature of the option, there are not expected to be any impact on the overall security of travellers, health outcomes or access to health and wellbeing infrastructure.

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

4. Economy

An economic assessment to calculate the Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) of this option has not been undertaken at this stage of appraisal as the location and standard of infrastructure are currently unknown. Rail freight is a key component in the rail sector’s contribution to the Scotland’s economy with £670m in Gross Value Added annually, supporting up to 13,000 jobs and facilitating up to a further £650m in wider economic benefits ( Contribution of Rail to Scottish Economy ) . The provision of terminals is expected to enhance economic growth and trade through improved connectivity and facilities for freight. Additionally, rail terminals can act as a catalyst for additional private sector investment in warehousing and other related industries, leading to industrial agglomerations. Recent examples include investments at Mossend International Railfreight Park ( Mossend International Railfreight Park ) , Port of Grangemouth ( Grangemouth is Scotland’s Newest Rail Hub ) (operated by Forth Ports) and Highland Spring at Blackford ( Freight flows for Highland Spring water ) . While it applies to most sectors of the economy, consumer goods, food and drink manufacturing, building and construction and forestry are expected to be particularly strong. A previous trial in 2013 as part of the HITRANS Lifting the Spirit project provided a proof of concept of the movement of Scotch Whisky from Elgin to Grangemouth ( Lifting the Spirit – Report on 2013 Rail Trial ) .

As the option seeks to facilitate the movement of goods via rail freight, the key user groups that could benefit are businesses and enterprises which currently transport goods over medium to long distances via road. Over longer distances, it is expected that the movement of goods via this option could be significantly more economically competitive than road and therefore the increased attractiveness of this option may encourage further usage and overall investment.

Due to the commercial facing nature of the option, there are unlikely to be any other user groups outside of business and enterprise that are likely to benefit through this option. However, if the service further scales whereby sufficient volumes of freight transfer from road to rail there are likely to be benefits for general road users through the reduction of goods vehicles using the highway network, particularly highway links and nodes of a strategic nature.

Given the potential benefits in terms of journey time savings and industrial agglomeration that could be gained, this option is expected to have a minor positive impact on this criterion in both the ‘With Policy’ and ‘Without Policy’ scenarios.

5. Equality and Accessibility

Rail freight terminal development could support improved accessibility through access to goods facilities, particularly in rural areas, potentially reducing costs through establishing new supply chains. New rail freight facilities could provide opportunities for improved transportation of exports, providing a more competitive market for suppliers across the corridor. This applies especially in rural areas for extractive industries such as forestry/fishing and quarrying.

It is not anticipated that this option would have an impact on the accessibility or affordability of the public transport network or active travel network.

Reference should also be made to the SIAs in Section 3.5.

This option is expected to have a minor positive impact on this criterion in both the ‘With Policy’ and ‘Without Policy’ scenarios, due to its improvements in comparative accessibility.

Deliverability

1. Feasibility

Dependent on the location and scale of interventions, the responsible authority and asset owner on completion is most likely to be a private sector organisation.

Rail freight terminals are considered readily feasible and would comprise more extensive roll-out of interventions for which there is already experience of implementation in Scotland and elsewhere.

However, the feasibility at any specific location remains to be tested, and detailed development work and local decision making is required to identify the most appropriate solutions and their preferred fit with the surrounding area.

The engineering constraints could vary significantly between the locations noted for this option. This could include various existing residential and business properties, roads, rivers and railways that may intersect the locations. Any location could also have to consider geotechnical constraints, potentially poor ground conditions and various other environmental and planning/land use constraints.

As with all rail enhancements, a number of risks require consideration. Risks may include strategic (relating to the rail infrastructure, wider transport network and trends with the transport industry for example increased freight traffic), regulatory/legal (alteration of planning legislation) and financial (unforeseen environmental conditions, asset condition, land assembly and acquisition). These would need to be considered alongside any cost, timescale or deliverability risks associated with the construction and operation of the option.

It is anticipated that the asset owner would take on the operation and maintenance of facilities post-construction.

Despite the constraints and challenges outlined above, the work undertaken to date indicates that this option is considered feasible although the overall likely timescales for potential delivery and agreement to be reached between various parties should be considered.

2. Affordability

Delivery is likely to require a sizable amount of funding to facilitate land assembly, technical work required to facilitate delivery in addition to maintaining and operating such a site until it is able to recoup initial costs as well as the potential need to compensate infrastructure providers to access the wider rail network in the first instance. Costs would be also dependent on a number of other factors, such as the complexity of construction, the requirement for earthworks and structures, localised ground conditions, the purchase of land and various other engineering, environmental and planning/land use constraints.

Depending on the overall scale of the site, the potential increase in local highway trips as a result of vehicular movements to/from the site, of which a large proportion could be HGVs, may also require monies to enhance existing transport infrastructure and mitigate impacts.

Development of terminals or facilities would likely be led by the private sector and based on commercial decisions. The Scottish Government could support these developments with grant funding (such as the Freight Facilities Grant) subject to the application satisfying the criteria and budget availability. Both the private sector facing element of the option and recognition of the commercial activities enabled through the option highlight the numerous potential pathways for the option to generate significant revenues over its lifetime which over the long term, are likely to exceed the initial investment required.

3. Public Acceptability

Rail freight terminals are likely to be well received generally ( Opinion poll reveals public support for rail freight over HGVs ) , with benefits associated with the potential for improved air quality through the removal of HGVs from the road network. It is anticipated that the option could benefit a significant proportion of businesses as well as increasing the overall coverage and accessibility of transporting freight via rail. However, the economic viability of rail freight movements is uncertain, particularly for shorter trips. Some businesses may not be in favour the option if they are unable to shift to rail as a method to transport goods.

The responses to the public consultation undertaken as part of this review were limited in terms of this option and therefore did not indicate opposition or support.

Statutory Impact Assessment Criteria

1. Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)

An SEA has been prepared and has helped inform the Environment criterion of the STAG appraisal. There is also considerable overlap between the SEA and the Climate Change criterion. The SEA utilises a set of SEA objectives that covers a wide range of environmental topics including Climatic Factors, Air Quality, Noise, Population and Human Health, Material Assets, Water Environment, Biodiversity, Geology and Soils, Cultural Heritage, Landscape and Visual Amenity. The full SEA, including scoring and narrative for each of the Preliminary Appraisal interventions and Detailed Appraisal packages is presented in the SEA Draft Environmental Report ( Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Draft Environmental Report - A96 Corridor Review ) .

2. Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA)

Encouraging modal shift from road freight to rail may contribute to a reduction in harmful transport emissions and improved local air quality. This would particularly benefit groups who are more vulnerable to the adverse health effects of traffic-related emissions including children, disabled people, older people and pregnant women.

However, this option could result in adverse construction impacts and increased traffic in the vicinity of new rail terminals dependent on the scale of the intervention. Therefore, the impact on protected characteristic groups should be considered when siting terminals.

Overall, this option is expected to have a minor positive impact on this criterion in both the ‘With Policy’ and ‘Without Policy’ scenarios. However, more detailed assessment work would need to be undertaken at an individual site level to understand local equality impacts during construction and operation.

3. Children’s Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessment (CRWIA)

Encouraging modal shift from road freight to rail may contribute to a reduction in harmful transport emissions and improved local air quality. This would particularly benefit children and young people who are more vulnerable to the adverse health effects of traffic-related emissions. By reducing the volume of road traffic, safety could also be improved which would benefit children who are more vulnerable to fear of road danger.

However, this option could result in adverse construction impacts and increased localised traffic in the vicinity of new rail terminals. Therefore, the negative impact on children and young people should be considered when siting terminals.

Overall, this option is expected to have a minor positive impact on this criterion in both the ‘With Policy’ and ‘Without Policy’ scenarios. However, more detailed assessment work would need to be undertaken at an individual site level to understand impacts on children and young people during construction and operation.

4. Fairer Scotland Duty Assessment (FSDA)

Encouraging modal shift from road freight to rail may contribute to a reduction in harmful transport emissions which in turn could result in a reduction in inequalities of health in disadvantaged and deprived communities through improved air quality.

However, this option could result in adverse construction impacts and increased traffic in the vicinity of new rail terminals. Therefore, the negative impact on areas with high deprivation should be considered when siting terminals.

Rail freight is also a key component of the rail sector’s contribution to Scotland’s economy. The provision of rail freight terminals could enhance economic growth and private sector investment, thereby creating local employment opportunities and potentially reducing socio-economic disadvantage.

Overall, this option is expected to have a minor positive impact on this criterion in both the ‘With Policy’ and ‘Without Policy’ scenarios. However, more detailed assessment work would need to be undertaken at an individual site level to understand impacts on deprived communities during construction and operation.