Preliminary Appraisal Summary Table - Improved Parking Provision at Railway Stations

Preliminary Appraisal Summary

Option Description

Improved Parking Provision at Railway Stations

This option would provide additional car parking facilities at railway stations within the A96 corridor between Aberdeen and Inverness with the aim of encouraging the use of existing low carbon infrastructure for medium and long distance travel along the corridor. Based on analysis, station parking at Inverurie, Huntly, Elgin, Forres and Nairn would be considered as part of this option.

Where possible, areas of land suggested to accommodate additional parking and access should fall within existing Network Rail ownership to reduce costs. Areas identified for parking should also be situated physically close to the relevant railway station for the public ease of use.

At Inverurie station, land immediately west of the existing station car park could be utilised for additional parking and is ideally located to integrate with existing facilities. The proposed area is in a former railway siding, noting that it would need to be determined if this lies within Network Rail ownership.

At Huntly station, there is the potential to use an area of land immediately adjacent to, and south of, the smaller of the two existing station car parks. This is ideally located to integrate with existing facilities, noting that it would need to be determined if this lies within Network Rail ownership.

Elgin station is constrained by private commercial and residential properties located on all sides of the station. Any additional car parking spaces would likely need to be accommodated within the existing footprint of the station car park, via the provision of a multi-storey car park. Consideration would be given to above and below ground storeys to limit visual impact as required.

At Forres station, the existing parking bays located on the north side of the station car park could be extended by approximately 25 metres to the east, which would accommodate approximately 10 additional spaces. A large additional parking area could also be provided south-east of the station car park (east of the Network Rail compound at this location). The areas suggested appear to be, at least partially, within Network Rail ownership.

At Nairn station, additional car parking could be provided by utilising land south-west of the existing station overflow car park. The area also falls within the railway corridor, noting that it would need to be determined if this lies within Network Rail ownership.

Relevance

Relevant to all road and public transport users in the corridor

Transport Scotland’s programme of incremental improvements of the Aberdeen to Inverness railway line focuses on passenger service improvements and increased opportunities for freight. Improving parking facilities at stations may remove a potential barrier to the use of these enhanced service improvements for passengers. Any mode shift achieved to reduce car use for longer distance trips would contribute to the Scottish Government’s target of reducing the number of kilometres travelled by car by 20% by 2030 ( Securing a green recovery on a path to net zero: climate change plan 2018–2032 - update, ) , although the option is considered unlikely to have a significant impact.

Estimated Cost

<£25m Capital

An effort has been made to identify areas of land which may currently be within the ownership of Network Rail. As such, no land purchase is included in the estimated range given.

A significant portion of the estimated cost is assigned to the construction of a multi-storey car park at Elgin railway station, with smaller scale construction at Inverurie, Huntly, Forres, and Nairn at relatively lower costs.

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.

Network Rail or ScotRail would likely become the asset owner on completion of any improved parking provision at railway stations and would therefore be liable for the ongoing operational and maintenance costs.

Position in Sustainable Hierarchies

Sustainable Investment Hierarchy / Sustainable Travel Hierarchy

Within the Sustainable Investment Hierarchy, this option sits within ‘targeted infrastructure improvements’. However, with the potential to increase the use of the existing railway infrastructure for medium to long distance corridor travel, this option also contributes towards ‘reducing the need to travel unsustainably’ and ‘making better use of existing capacity’. This option would also sit within the ‘public transport’ tier of the Sustainable Travel Hierarchy.

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

• Get people and goods where they need to get to
• Be reliable, efficient and high quality
• Be safe and secure for all.

Summary Rationale

Summary of Appraisal

This option is expected to have a neutral or minor negative impact against most of the A96 Corridor Review Transport Planning Objectives (TPOs), STAG criteria and Statutory Impact Assessment (SIA) criteria.

This option is focused on providing enhanced parking facilities at particular stations along the A96 corridor between Aberdeen and Inverness. The rationale for this is to provide sufficient car parking to make it easier to park at train stations thereby reducing barriers for modal shift from road to rail for medium and longer distance journeys. In doing so, a modal shift would support the Scottish Government’s target of achieving a 20% reduction in car kilometres by 2030.

The option is intended to increase the potential to achieve modal shift from private car to rail for longer distance trips through enhanced parking facilities at railway stations. However, any mode shift is likely to be outweighed by the potential generation of additional shorter distance car trips associated with travel to rail stations. This could result in the generation of a net increase in car kilometres. Notwithstanding the fact that many of the stations serve a large rural hinterland, the settlements themselves are generally compact in nature, meaning that there should be opportunity to address local station access through active modes, which is achieved by other options considered in the Preliminary Appraisal.

The performance of the option against the objectives and criteria is marginal and it is anticipated to have a minor negative impact in both transport behaviour scenarios on multiple TPOs relating to contributing to Scottish Government’s net zero targets (TPO1), improving accessibility to public transport (TPO2), and enhancing communities as places to support health, wellbeing and the environment (TP03) as it only benefits those with access to a car and encourages its use for at least part of a trip. The option is also anticipated to have a minor negative impact for the Equality and Accessibility STAG criterion in both scenarios, and for the Climate Change criterion in the ‘Without Policy’ Scenario where car trips are anticipated to be more common.

The option is considered to be feasible from a technical delivery perspective, with no significant construction constraints. Improving parking at railway stations is also considered to be affordable, though costs at individual sites would vary depending on locational requirements and constraints that may impact the complexity of construction and therefore a more detailed review at each location would be required.

It is considered that Active Communities could provide more significant benefits, better aligns ‘With Policy’ objectives and does not have as many negative impacts that may result from an increase in car kilometres.

It is recommended that this option is not 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

Socio-Economic and Location of Services: Employment and other key services tend to be found in the three most populous and key economic locations within the study area: Aberdeen, Inverness and Elgin. Considering the travel distances between these three key economic centres and the other settlements in the transport appraisal study area, travelling by sustainable modes is relatively unattractive.

The key economic centres contain essential facilities such as major hospitals as well as a much greater density of education facilities. In addition, almost half of the total jobs in the transport appraisal study area are found within these three locations. Outside of these three areas, people making a trip to a workplace are more likely to travel over 10km, therefore limiting the potential for active travel.

Public Transport Accessibility: Evidence across the transport appraisal study area suggests that outside of Aberdeen, the level of public transport use is low in comparison to the rest of the country. Outside of Aberdeen City, the use of bus for commuting to work is significantly lower than the national average, as it is for rail, with only Insch having a mode share above national average. Rail station accessibility is also an issue, as raised by stakeholders and the public, with Insch, Nairn and Huntly noted for not being step-free stations, potentially limiting patronage.

Large sections of the population in the transport appraisal study area cannot access key services such as hospitals with emergency departments, or higher education within two hours by public transport. Moray and Aberdeenshire both have low accessibility to these services which are often centralised in more urban areas such as Elgin, Inverness or Aberdeen. As such, public transport is not an option for many trip purposes within the transport appraisal study area.

Competitiveness of Public Transport with Other Modes: Bus journey times are not competitive with train or car for longer trips across the transport appraisal study area. The cost of rail and some longer distance bus trips is higher in relation to car fuel costs (as at March 2022). Public consultation has also revealed that the perception of delay and a lack of multimodal integration combined with the perceived high cost of fares, particularly for rail, makes travel by public transport unattractive to users.

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.

Improving Safety: There is the opportunity to reduce the number and severity of accidents on the A96 Trunk Road on those sections where the Personal Injury Accidents and/or Killed or Seriously Injured 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 accident numbers.

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

• Improved Public Transport Passenger Interchange Facilities
• Linespeed, Passenger and Freight Capacity Improvements on the Aberdeen to Inverness Railway Line
• Development of the 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 )
• Infrastructure Investment Plan 2021/22 – 2025/26 (IIP) ( 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 )
• Strategic Transport Projects Review 2 (STPR2) ( Transport Projects Review 2 (STPR2) ) .

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.

The provision of additional car parking spaces at railway stations could support the overall net zero emission targets as it would help encourage modal shift from longer distance car journeys to a combination of shorter car journey and longer distance rail journeys.

Whilst this mode shift could occur, it is important to consider the way in which rail is accessed and what type of trips are most usefully targeted for a mode shift to rail. Notwithstanding that the railway stations along the corridor serve large rural hinterlands, the settlements themselves are relatively compact. Increasing car parking provision could result in a net increase in short distance car trips, and whilst these could be made by electric/ultra low emission vehicles (EV/ULEV) if the charging provision was included at station car parks, this is not in accordance with the target to reduce car vehicles kilometres by 20%, particularly as such trips could be regular (commuting or similar) rather than less frequent longer distance trips.

Overall, this option is likely to have a minor negative impact on this objective under 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 provision of additional car parking at railway stations is likely to increase the overall accessibility of the railway system for those with access to a car by mitigating or removing the risk of not being able to park and ride due to lack of available spaces. This is particularly the case for journeys after the morning peak period, which may have resulted in all available spaces being used. This option would be a particular benefit to those wishing to access the railway network from rural areas as they often cannot access rail stations by other means of transport. However, it would disproportionally benefit those with access to a car (providing no benefit to those without access to a car) and therefore does not support an inclusive strategic transport system.

Overall, this option is likely to have a minor negative impact on this objective under 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.

The provision of additional car parking spaces could encourage a mode shift from road to rail for longer distance trips, which could provide benefits to towns along the corridor which do not have a rail station, as through traffic could reduce. Any reduction in traffic would provide opportunities to enhance the sense of place and encourage active travel within settlements leading to health and wellbeing benefits. However, this option is likely to also encourage short distance car trips to railway stations, potentially increasing the volume of traffic within communities with rail stations, introducing a barrier to active travel. This could potentially negate existing and future initiatives to encourage active travel access to railway stations from the settlements concerned.

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

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

The A96 plays an important strategic role in the regional economy of the north-east of Scotland, connecting people to employment and education opportunities as well as providing businesses with access to the labour market.

By improving parking provision at rail stations, the rail network may become more attractive for longer distance trips, providing a more sustainable means of travel to employment opportunities. This could therefore have a positive impact on sustainable access to key trip attractors in neighbouring towns and larger urban areas, for example Nairn, Forres, Elgin, Keith, Huntly, Inverurie and Kintore, as well as the cities of Inverness and Aberdeen. However, the provision of additional parking spaces would only enhance access to the rail network to those with access to a private car. It would not improve inclusive growth as it would not provide increased opportunities to more disadvantaged groups that do not have access to a car.

Whilst the capacity for integration between modes would be increased by providing additional car parking spaces at the railway station, this could result in an increase in shorter distance car trips, rather than sustainable trips.

This option is therefore expected to have a neutral 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.

If the option is successful in promoting increased rail travel and delivering a corresponding decrease in private car use, there is the potential for this option to bring journey time reliability and safety improvements as a result of removing cars from the strategic transport corridor. However, this is likely to be negated by an increase in the number of local car trips as residents access the railway stations, with potential associated negative impacts on reliability and safety.

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

STAG Criteria

1. Environment

This option could result in positive impacts in terms of air quality as it could lead to a modal shift towards greater use of the railway by those who would currently use private vehicles. In particular, it could increase the opportunity for those in rural areas who have limited access to public transport to access the railway stations. A reduction in vehicles on the A96 would have a positive impact in terms of noise reduction and a slight improvement in air quality in localised areas, particularly where the A96 is located within settlements. This would have some positive impacts on amenity and placemaking by reducing some of the vehicle trips through settlements on the A96.

It is, however, important to consider the way in which rail is accessed and what type of trips are most usefully targeted for modal shift to rail. Notwithstanding that the railway stations along the corridor serve large rural hinterlands, the settlements themselves are relatively compact. This means that the railway stations are well within active travel access distances for the settlement populations. Increasing car parking provision could result in a net increase in short distance car trips, which would have a negative impact on air quality and noise within settlements.

Construction of the option is likely to have a slight negative impact in terms of natural resources depending on the materials chosen and its source. In terms of the locations chosen, it is noted that there are no significant environmental designations which would likely be affected by this option. The sites chosen are largely urban in location and include no specific environmental protection. There are trees in the vicinity of the Inverurie, Elgin and Forres sites and trees within the Huntly site; however, these do not have any environmental designation and are not formally protected. The loss of any trees, particularly those within the Huntly site, is likely to have a minor negative impact in terms of biodiversity and landscape, and ecological assessment would be required as to their habitat value for bats and breeding birds for example.

There are likely to be minor negative environmental impacts from the construction process in terms of construction noise, dust generation, natural resource requirements and potential tree/habitat loss. During operation, the option will see an increase in traffic to the railway stations, leading to localised noise and air quality impacts. The option, however, may have positive environmental impacts through increasing opportunity for train travel, particularly for those in the rural areas that have little option but to drive to public transport locations. This could have positive impacts by reducing the number of vehicles on the A96 and reducing associated noise and air quality impacts. Taken together, this is likely to offset the negative impacts of the option. The extent of impact would only be known through the detailed design development process, with appropriate environmental mitigation considered, if necessary, at these stages. Such impacts could either be direct (such as demolition/land loss/habitat loss) or indirect (such as impacts on setting or views). If environmental constraints such as designated sites can be avoided, then adverse environmental impacts can be reduced. Similar positive benefits could, however, be achieved through the provision of Active Communities or Active Connections, which would increase the opportunity to access the rail network via sustainable means.

Overall, at this preliminary stage in the appraisal process, the impacts of this option are expected to be neutral for the Environment criterion in both the ‘With Policy’ and ‘Without Policy’ scenarios.

2. Climate Change

In the short term, greenhouse gas emissions would be generated due to construction activities undertaken to deliver the infrastructure, including indirect emissions from the manufacture and transportation of materials and emissions from the fuel combusted by construction plants and vehicles.

In the long term, increasing the parking at the railway stations would increase the attractiveness of public transport and potentially attract new users transferring from private vehicles. This would lead to a modal shift towards sustainable modes of transportation for some passengers and a reduction in vehicles using the A96, resulting in a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

It is, however, important to consider the way in which rail is accessed and what type of trips are most usefully targeted for modal shift to rail. Notwithstanding that the railway stations along the corridor serve large rural hinterlands, the settlements themselves are relatively compact. This means that the railway stations are well within active travel access distances for the settlement populations. Increasing car parking provision could result in a net increase in short distance car trips, which would have a negative impact on greenhouse gas emissions and air quality within settlements in the vicinity of the rail stations. The extent of change in greenhouse gas emissions is depends on the migration to zero-emission fuels over time. Negative impacts on greenhouse gas emissions could be reduced by providing sufficient EV/ULEV parking facilities, which could see more electric vehicles being used to travel to the station.

The impact on the vulnerability to the effects of climate change and the potential to adapt to the effects of climate change are expected to be neutral.

Overall, this option is expected to have a neutral impact for this criterion under the ‘With Policy’ Scenario and minor negative under the ‘Without Policy’ Scenario.

3. Health, Safety and Wellbeing

This option may result in modal shift from longer distance road trips to a combination of short distance road trips to the train station and longer distance rail journeys where people choose to park and ride. This would likely have some marginal positive impacts on reducing overall volumes of traffic across the corridor as a whole and hence associated benefits in terms of accident reduction, health outcomes and access to health and wellbeing infrastructure. However, there is the potential that the provision of additional car parking could result in additional short distance road-based trips, including a shift from active modes to private vehicles, which could result in minor negative impacts such as an increase in road accidents within towns. Overall, any impacts are likely to be marginal.

If the option resulted in increased patronage on the rail network, there could be benefits in terms of perceived security concerns, such as for vulnerable people travelling alone.

The impacts on visual amenity would depend on the location and the nature of the parking facilities.

Overall, this option is likely to have a neutral impact on this criterion in 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 the infrastructure is currently unknown. By increasing the physical capacity of the interchange, the scheme provides for growth and new trips. This is likely to be supportive of economic growth in the wider locality.

Encouraging modal shift from car to rail for longer trips could assist economic growth by reducing the number of cars in congested urban environments.

Whilst this option may deliver a degree of wider economic impacts for those with access to a car by enhancing their access to the rail network, these benefits would not be available to those without access to a car. As these individuals could drive to the destinations that they can now access by rail, this option is not anticipated to provide wider economic impacts.

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

5. Equality and Accessibility

Whilst the provision of additional car parking would result in an increase in provision for Blue Badge users, this option disproportionately benefits those with access to a private car. Whilst, more generally, by removing or mitigating the risk of a lack of capacity, there would be an improvement in accessibility of the rail network, this option does not increase accessibility for protected groups who do not have access to a private car and it could widen the equality gap between the more affluent and those who do not have access to a car.

This option does not impact on the public transport or active travel network coverage, nor affordability.

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

Overall, this option is likely to have a minor negative impact on this criterion in both the ‘With Policy’ and ‘Without Policy’ scenarios due to the disproportionate benefits for those with access to a car.

Deliverability

1. Feasibility

The technical exercise undertaken for the appraisal has identified potential sites for expansion of car parking facilities, but this is at a high level and were this option to be taken forward, more detailed feasibility work would require to be undertaken. Notwithstanding this, four of the five sites have land that is well placed in relation to the railway station entrance, and in a number of cases is likely to be within the existing railway land ownership. Elgin is acknowledged to be a challenge given the constrained nature of the railway station, and the potential for a multi-storey solution would have visual and townscape impacts that would require careful consideration.

The overall concept itself is commonplace across society. With the potential for delivery over a relatively short time period if land currently owned by Network Rail were able to be used, it is likely that the option would be considered technically feasible, with no untried technologies. There may be disruption to traffic during construction of new/extended car parking areas. Network Rail or Scotrail are likely to be responsible for delivery of this option.

2. Affordability

The cost of improving parking provision at railway stations would vary depending on locational requirements and constraints that may impact the complexity of construction and therefore a more detailed review at each location would be required to determine the likely cost impact. Costs would also be dependent on a number of other factors, such as the requirement for earthworks and structures, localised ground conditions, and various other engineering and environmental constraints. Whilst there has been an assumption that the additional car parking could be provided within the boundary of land owned by Network Rail, there may be a need to purchase land following the relevant statutory process.

Delivery of the option in general is expected to have an overall modest cost estimate. However, the public facing nature of the option means that there is likely to be little or no contribution from the private sector, unless there is an expectation for the proposals to be run for profit. Therefore, it is highly likely that Scottish Government funds would be required to deliver the proposal with it also being unlikely that the option will generate revenue.

3. Public Acceptability

At a strategic level, increases in railway station car parking provision generally enjoy high levels of public support through increasing accessibility at railway stations, particularly in the context of the A96 corridor where there are high levels of car ownership and dependency with railway stations having a relatively large catchment area. However, at a localised level, new car parking is likely to increase traffic movements and may be less acceptable to local residents and non-car users. The options may also require land-take; however, it may be possible that existing publicly owned land could be used.

Public consultation undertaken as part of this review indicated general support for improved public transport parking provision. In the consultation, 20% suggested better parking facilities at public transport sites with some respondents indicating that there is a need for improved parking facilities including park and ride. This suggests there is some demand for improved parking provision at railway stations, and improvements would be supported by the public.

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)

This option is likely to have a neutral impact on protected characteristic groups overall. The increased capacity in parking at stations could result in improved access to the rail network for residents. This in turn could result in more journeys being undertaken by rail, improving air quality along the A96 corridor. The benefits of improved air quality could have a greater impact on those who are more vulnerable to the adverse health effects of air pollution including children, older people, disabled people and pregnant women. However, some localised adverse air quality issues may be experienced due to an increase in traffic movements in towns and around stations impacting on a greater number of people.

To further support access to the rail network for protected characteristic groups, parking facilities should include disabled parking and child and parent parking.

Construction impacts associated with increased car parking capacity could have negative impacts on local residents and passengers. Consideration should also be given to personal security where construction activities may result in reduced natural surveillance for passengers accessing the station.

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

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

The increased capacity in parking at stations could result in improved access, with more journeys being undertaken by rail, improving air quality along the A96 corridor. The benefits of improved air quality could have a greater impact on children and young people who are more vulnerable to the adverse health effects of air pollution. However, some localised adverse air quality issues may be experienced due to an increase in traffic movements in towns and around stations impacting on a greater number of people. Construction impacts associated with increased car parking capacity could have negative impacts on children living locally.

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

4. Fairer Scotland Duty Assessment (FSDA)

This option would result in increased capacity in parking at stations, which could result in improved access to the rail network for residents. However, the benefits for those from socio-economically disadvantaged groups would depend on the extent to which they are able to access a car.

Encouraging modal shift from road to rail for longer journeys 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, the option could also encourage more local car journeys in order to access the rail stations, with negative impacts anticipated within settlements, affecting a greater proportion of the population.

The construction activities associated with this option are likely to result in local employment opportunities.

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