Preliminary Appraisal Summary Table - Improved Public Transport Passenger Interchange Facilities

Preliminary Appraisal Summary

Option Description

Improved Public Transport Passenger Interchange Facilities

The A96 Trunk Road between Inverness and Aberdeen passes through several built-up settlements as well as more rural areas. This option seeks to improve public transport passenger interchange facilities along the A96 corridor and in the adjacent communities, including accessibility and quality enhancements at bus stations and railway stations.

Well designed, high quality passenger facilities and infrastructure can improve wayfinding, provision of information and the quality of the waiting environment, making public transport a more attractive option, thereby encouraging new and unfamiliar users to make their journeys by public transport, as well as increasing the number of journeys made by infrequent users. Enhanced facilities can also improve actual and perceived user safety and security and can promote interchange between and within modes.

Inaccessible infrastructure can exclude people from being able to use public transport. This option seeks to deliver improvements in the accessibility of passenger facilities, reducing barriers to the use of the public transport system, especially for those with reduced mobility.

In response to these issues, improvements could include:

  • bus and railway station regeneration and design, including placemaking enhancements and provision of retail facilities
  • improved wayfinding to and within interchanges
  • enhanced waiting environment, including seating, lighting, climate control, CCTV, information and ticket purchase
  • improved accessibility, including lifts and step-free access.

The option may cover the construction of new interchange facilities where a clear need is demonstrated. However, it is expected that improvements to existing facilities (e.g., current train and bus stations along the A96 corridor and in the adjacent communities) would be prioritised in preference to the provision of new facilities.

Measures to improve the quality and accessibility of passenger facilities, especially when taken in conjunction with complementary actions to improve integration of timetables and ticketing, can extend the perceived reach of the public transport network. This can create more sustainable links with employment, healthcare, education and leisure destinations, supporting inclusive growth. Improved facilities can also help to encourage mode shift to public transport, which would further support Scotland’s net zero ambition.

This option would build on Scotland’s Accessible Travel Framework and Delivery Plan ( Transport Scotland, Scotland’s Accessible Travel Framework - Annual Delivery Plan 2021-22, 2021, ) which sets out the national vision and pathway for accessible travel across Scotland.

Relevance

Relevant to all Public Transport Users in the Corridor

Improved public transport passenger interchange facilities are likely to be relevant across the whole corridor, both in terms of improved quality and in terms of improved accessibility for those with reduced mobility. Around one in 10 disabled people have difficulty getting to a rail, bus or coach station or stop and a similar proportion have difficulty getting on or off these modes ( Transport Scotland, Going Further: Scotland’s Accessible Travel Framework 2016 ) .

However, while relevant across the whole corridor, it is most likely that interchange will take place in the towns and more urbanised areas with denser population, so interventions may be targeted at these locations.

The A96 corridor is rural for large sections and long travel distances are necessary for some people, meaning connections between public transport modes can be crucial in accessing key destinations, such as employment centres and hospitals. Therefore, improvements to public transport interchanges would seek to encourage more people to travel by bus and rail instead of by car. This could complement other areas of Scottish Government investment, such as the Bus Partnership Fund ( Scottish Government, Scotland’s National Strategy for Economic Transformation, 2022 ) , which also seeks to increase bus patronage through bus priority measures. Any mode shift from car to public transport would also support the Scottish Government’s target of reducing the number of kilometres travelled by car by 20% by 2030 ( Transport Scotland, Securing a green recovery on a path to net zero: climate change plan 2018–2032 - update, 2020 ) , contributing on the path towards net zero emissions.

This option also would also support Scotland’s National Strategy for Economic Transformation ( Scottish Government, Scotland’s National Strategy for Economic Transformation, 2022 ) , which sets out the Scottish Government’s vision to creating a more successful country through a wellbeing economy, noting the requirement to thrive across the economic, social and environmental dimensions.

Estimated Cost

<£25m Capital

Determining the estimated cost of this option is dependent on a number of factors including the location, scale, complexity and number of interventions identified. 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.

STPR2 recommendation 21 stated that capital costs of between £51m and £100m may be required for improved public transport passenger interchange facilities across the whole of Scotland, with recommendation 19 suggesting a review would be required in order to estimate the likely cost of a fully accessible rail network.

Until this review has been undertaken, it is difficult to fully estimate the potential cost of interventions within the corridor, but based on the national capital cost estimate from STPR2 it has been estimated to have a capital cost estimate for the A96 Corridor Review of less than £25m.

Dependant on the location and nature of the public transport passenger interchange facilities, it is likely that Transport Scotland, appropriate local authorities or private/social enterprises will be the asset owners. It is anticipated that asset owners will take on the operation and maintenance of facilities, which will have ongoing costs associated with it, in addition to any construction costs. It is noted that passenger facilities (dependent on the nature of the interventions) can also generate income streams – for example, through retail facilities.

Position in Sustainable Hierarchies

Sustainable Investment Hierarchy / Sustainable Travel Hierarchy

Within the Sustainable Investment Hierarchy, this option sits within ‘making better use of existing capacity’, although certain schemes may also require ‘targeted infrastructure improvements’. Improvements in quality and accessibility may also deliver mode transfer, therefore additionally fitting with ‘reducing the need to travel unsustainably’. This option would also sit within the ‘public transport’ tier of the Sustainable Travel Hierarchy.

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

  • Provide fair access to services we need
  • Be easy to use for all
  • Help deliver our net zero target
  • Promote greener, cleaner choices
  • Get people and goods to where they need to get to
  • Use beneficial innovation
  • Be safe and secure for all.

Summary Rationale

Summary of Appraisal

For Improved Public Transport Passenger Interchange Facilities, TPO1 scores Neutral in the 'With Policy' Scenario, and Neutral in the 'Without Policy' Scenario. TPO2 scores Minor Positive in the 'With Policy' Scenario, and Minor Positive in the 'Without Policy' Scenario. TPO3 scores Minor Positive in the 'With Policy' Scenario, and Minor Positive in the 'Without Policy' Scenario. TPO4 scores Minor Positive in the 'With Policy' Scenario, and Minor Positive in the 'Without Policy' Scenario. TPO5 scores Minor Positive in the 'With Policy' Scenario, and Minor Positive in the 'Without Policy' Scenario. The STAG Environment Criterion scores Minor Positive in the 'With Policy' Scenario, and Minor Positive in the 'Without Policy' Scenario. The STAG Climate Change Criterion scores Neutral in the 'With Policy' Scenario, and Neutral in the 'Without Policy' Scenario. The STAG Health, Safety & Wellbeing Criterion scores Minor Positive in the 'With Policy' Scenario, and Minor Positive in the 'Without Policy' Scenario. The STAG Economy Criterion scores Minor Positive in the 'With Policy' Scenario, and Minor Positive in the 'Without Policy' Scenario. The STAG Equality & Accessibility Criterion scores Minor Positive in the 'With Policy' Scenario, and Minor Positive in the 'Without Policy' Scenario. The Equalities Impact Assessment scores Major Positive in the 'With Policy' Scenario, and Major Positive in the 'Without Policy' Scenario. The Child Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessment scores Minor Positive in the 'With Policy' Scenario, and Minor Positive in the 'Without Policy' Scenario. The Fairer Scotland Duty Assessment scores Minor Positive in the 'With Policy' Scenario, and Minor Positive in the 'Without Policy' Scenario.

Improved public transport passenger interchange facilities would have a positive contribution to most of the A96 Corridor Review Transport Planning Objectives (TPOs) and STAG criteria, and all of the Statutory Impact Assessment (SIA) criteria in both the ‘With Policy’ and ‘Without Policy’ scenarios. By increasing the quality of passenger facilities to reduce the perceived disconnect between public transport services, this option would improve the travel experience, especially benefiting those who do not have access to a car and from the most deprived households. As such, the option is anticipated to have minor positive impacts for TPOs for improving accessibility to public transport (TPO2), enhancing communities as places to support health, wellbeing and the environment (TP03) and contributing to sustainable inclusive growth (TP04). Improvements to personal security and reliability of services is also anticipated to have minor positive impacts for providing a transport system that is safe, reliable and resilient (TP05). The option is also anticipated to have minor positive impacts for the Environment, Health, Safety and Wellbeing, Economy and Equality and Accessibility STAG criteria.

The option could reduce barriers to public transport use, especially for those without access to a car, the elderly, those with reduced mobility or impaired vision or hearing and for those who are neurodivergent. Therefore, the option would have a major positive impact in relation to the Equalities Impact Assessment, with minor positive impacts for Child Rights and Wellbeing and the Fairer Scotland Duty assessment.

Delivery of the option is generally considered to be feasible, though local characteristics and varying constraints may create some challenges. Delivery is also considered to be affordable at this stage, with it being assumed that the option would be limited to the provision of targeted improvements at public transport interchange facilities. Public consultation indicated a reasonable level of support for options to improve interchange between different modes.

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 ( Jacobs AECOM, A96 Corridor Review Case for Change, 2022 ) .

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 and public travel choices available for travel 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.

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. The Scottish Accessibility to Bus Indicator (SABI) demonstrates that across the transport appraisal study area, the accessibility to bus is low outside of the urban areas of Aberdeen and parts of Inverness. 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.

Travel Choice and Behaviour (Problem): The number of homes without access to a private vehicle in the transport appraisal study area is consistently less than the Scottish average. Aberdeenshire has a high level of access to a private vehicle, with approximately 90% of households in Aberdeenshire within the transport appraisal study area having access to at least one vehicle and over half have access to multiple vehicles. There is a greater availability of car in the rural areas across the transport appraisal study area. This combined with the travel to work mode shares, indicates a reliance on private vehicles for travel. Travel to work data suggests older people are more reliant on cars, so with the aging population in the transport appraisal study area, this is likely to increase the use of cars further.

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% if 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 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 accidents numbers.

Health and Environment Impacts of Travel: Reducing the use of car travel throughout the transport appraisal study area, particularly for short trips that could be made without motorised transport at all, 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.

Travel Choice and Behaviour (Opportunity): Travel choices throughout the transport appraisal study area would be increased through better integration of modes and the provision of more demand-responsive options. Physical accessibility at rail stations could also be improved to reduce the reliance on cars.

Increasing digital connectivity and technology advancements can help to integrate public transport and provide better information systems to improve the quality of journeys and enhance the travel experience.

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

  • Active Communities
  • Bus Priority Measures and Park and Ride
  • Investment in DRT and MaaS
  • Linespeed, Passenger and Freight Capacity Improvements on the Aberdeen to Inverness Railway Line
  • Improved Parking Provision at Railway Stations
  • Development of the A96 Electric Corridor.

Other areas of Scottish Government activity

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.

For Improved Public Transport Passenger Interchange Facilities, the TPO1 scores Neutral in the 'With Policy' Scenario and Neutral in the 'Without Policy' Scenario.

The level of contribution to the net zero target would depend on the nature and the location of the passenger facilities. However, research by Transport Focus ( Transport Focus, Improving stations: improving passenger satisfaction, October 2016 ) indicated that station redevelopment can lead to substantially higher passenger satisfaction, with research also indicating passenger benefits from an enhanced bus waiting environment ( Department for Transport, Transport Analysis Data Book, 2018 (Updated 2023), Table M3.2.1 ) . This in turn could result in some modal transfer from car, although the overall environmental benefits are likely to be small unless this option is combined with other options.

Overall, this option is likely to have a neutral impact against 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.

For Improved Public Transport Passenger Interchange Facilities, the TPO2 scores Minor Positive in the 'With Policy' Scenario and Minor Positive in the 'Without Policy' Scenario.

This option would deliver improved inclusivity by increasing the accessibility of public transport, particularly for those with reduced mobility, but also for those with impaired vision or hearing and for those who are neurodiverse. Increasing the quality of passenger facilities, would improve the travel experience for those who do not have access to a car, particularly those from the most deprived households. This option would also improve the travel experience for rural passengers who are often required to change services within settlements when making longer distance journeys. No direct impact on affordability is expected, except where improved accessibility reduces the need for car ownership.

Overall, this option is therefore likely to have a minor positive impact against this objective 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.

For Improved Public Transport Passenger Interchange Facilities, the TPO3 scores Minor Positive in the 'With Policy' Scenario and Minor Positive in the 'Without Policy' Scenario.

Where facilities are associated with improved placemaking and urban realm, these could enhance communities as places. However, most benefits are likely to result from the greater inclusivity of the transport system, with the increased accessibility of facilities improving the health and wellbeing of those with reduced mobility or with impaired vision or hearing and those who are neurodiverse. Improving public transport interchange facilities should also help to improve the environment as it is anticipated to increase patronage and therefore reduce the reliance on private car.

This option is therefore likely to have a minor positive impact against this objective in 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.

For Improved Public Transport Passenger Interchange Facilities, the TPO4 scores Minor Positive in the 'With Policy' Scenario and Minor Positive in the 'Without Policy' Scenario.

Improved passenger facilities are likely to increase the attractiveness and accessibility of travelling by public transport, which may increase the perceived level of integration. A requirement to interchange often represents a barrier to public transport use, but well-designed, high quality passenger interchange facilities could help to reduce the perceived disconnect between services, especially where the waiting environment is comfortable. In this case, while no changes would have been made to the services themselves, integration may still be perceived to have improved, because the penalty associated with interchange would have reduced. However, the overall benefits are likely to be small unless this option is combined with other options.

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

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

For Improved Public Transport Passenger Interchange Facilities, the TPO5 scores Minor Positive in the 'With Policy' Scenario and Minor Positive in the 'Without Policy' Scenario.

While improved passenger facilities are unlikely to impact directly on reliability and resilience, if Real Time Passenger Information (RTPI) was provided, this could result in benefits from a reduced perception of unreliability, and this option could also enhance perceived and actual safety and security, through improved lighting and CCTV coverage, passenger assistance and better accessibility for those with reduced mobility or with impaired vision or hearing or those who are neurodiverse.

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

STAG Criteria

  1. Environment
For Improved Public Transport Passenger Interchange Facilities, the STAG Environment Criterion scores Minor Positive in the 'With Policy' Scenario and Minor Positive in the 'Without Policy' Scenario.

This option has the potential to have positive impacts in terms of reducing noise, greenhouse gases and air pollutants as it could encourage a modal shift to more sustainable travel means. It would also have a positive impact on natural resources as it seeks to prioritise the improvement of existing public transport interchanges, rather than creating new facilities which would require additional resources to deliver.

New facilities and enhancements have the potential for negative environmental impacts during construction and operation in relation to water, biodiversity, natural resources, agriculture and soils, cultural heritage, and landscape and visual amenity, for example. This would be dependent on the nature and precise location of the proposals 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 bus and rail infrastructure are progressed through the design and development process (once the location and type of new infrastructure and enhancements are identified), in order to identify potentially significant environmental impacts and mitigation where appropriate.

Overall, this option is likely to have a minor positive impact on the Environment criterion under both the ‘With Policy’ and ‘Without Policy’ scenarios, but this would be subject to the degree of potential localised negative environmental impacts caused by the infrastructure enhancements and facilities.

2. Climate Change

For Improved Public Transport Passenger Interchange Facilities, the STAG Climate Change Criterion scores Neutral in the 'With Policy' Scenario and Neutral in the 'Without Policy' Scenario.

In the short term, greenhouse gas emissions would occur due to construction activities undertaken to deliver the improvements to interchange facilities, including indirect emissions from the manufacture and transportation of materials and emissions from the fuel combusted by construction plant and vehicles.

The level of contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the long term, and hence climate change, would depend on the nature and the location of the passenger facilities. While improved passenger facilities could result in some modal transfer from car, the overall environmental benefits are likely to be small unless this option is combined with other options.

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

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

3. Health, Safety and Wellbeing

For Improved Public Transport Passenger Interchange Facilities, the STAG Health, Safety & Wellbeing Criterion scores Minor Positive in the 'With Policy' Scenario and Minor Positive in the 'Without Policy' Scenario.

Where facilities are associated with improved placemaking and urban realm, these could enhance communities as places, improving wellbeing. In addition, the increased accessibility of facilities could improve the wellbeing of those with reduced mobility or with impaired vision or hearing and those who are neurodiverse, also delivering better access to healthcare and wellbeing infrastructure. However, impacts on health are likely to be more limited.

Improved passenger facilities could increase perceived and actual safety and security, through improved lighting and CCTV coverage, passenger assistance and better accessibility for those with reduced mobility or with impaired vision or hearing or those who are neurodiverse. If schemes can reduce car use, there may additionally be a minor positive impact on accidents. The impacts on visual amenity would depend on the location and the nature of the scheme.

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

4. Economy

For Improved Public Transport Passenger Interchange Facilities, the STAG Economy Criterion scores Minor Positive in the 'With Policy' Scenario and Minor Positive in the 'Without Policy' Scenario.

An economic assessment to calculate the Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) of this option has not been undertaken at this stage of appraisal as the locations and standards of the facilities are currently unknown. Congestion is estimated to have cost the UK economy £6.9bn in 2019 ( Inrix, 2019 Global Traffic Scorecard ) , so action taken to increase the attractiveness of public transport and promote any modal shift away from car to reduce the impact of congestion would be beneficial to the economy. Actions taken to improve the waiting environment, including the removal of physical restrictions and provision of service information, such as live departure times, could also improve accessibility to employment, services and education for those without access to a car and for those with reduced mobility or with impaired vision or hearing or those who are neurodiverse, thereby helping to deliver inclusive growth.

Although there is the potential for positive wider economic impacts in terms of increased employment for those from more deprived households (see also Equality and Accessibility), the impact on specific locations is expected to be limited and the impact on specific markets is expected to be neutral.

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

5. Equality and Accessibility

For Improved Public Transport Passenger Interchange Facilities, the STAG Equality & Accessibility Criterion scores Minor Positive in the 'With Policy' Scenario and Minor Positive in the 'Without Policy' Scenario.

This option would lead to improved inclusivity by increasing the accessibility of public transport, particularly for those with reduced mobility, but also for those with impaired vision or hearing and those who are neurodiverse. By increasing the quality of passenger facilities, this would also improve the travel experience for those who do not have access to a car, particularly those from the most deprived households. Therefore, the option would have a positive impact on comparative access for affected groups and affected locations.

While improved passenger facilities would not change actual public transport network coverage, they could potentially increase the perceived level of integration, thereby improving perceptions of the reach of the public transport network, delivering some benefits in respect to perceived public transport network coverage.

However, no direct impact on affordability is expected, except where improved accessibility reduces the need for car ownership, and the option is unlikely to affect active travel network coverage.

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

Overall, this option is expected to have a minor positive impact on this criterion in both the ‘With Policy’ and ‘Without Policy’ scenarios due to the comparative access benefits for people groups including those who are most deprived or suffer from reduced mobility.

Deliverability

1. Feasibility

It is anticipated that the delivery of this option could be led by Transport Scotland, local authorities or private/social enterprises, dependent on the location and nature of the public transport passenger facilities, which will be informed by the outcomes of the review (linked to STPR2 recommendations 19 and 21).

The improved public transport passenger interchange facilities option covers schemes that are proven concepts and are generally readily feasible, subject to local characteristics and the scale of the intervention, although providing full accessibility at certain locations may prove challenging.

The engineering constraints will vary significantly from location to location along the A96 corridor. This will include various existing residential and business properties, roads, rivers and railways that may intersect the locations. Any location will also have to consider geotechnical constraints, potentially poor ground conditions and various other environmental and planning/land use constraints.

Despite the constraints and challenges outlined above, the work undertaken to date indicates that this option is considered feasible.

2. Affordability

Individual schemes may be relatively affordable. There may also be income generated through rental of commercial space to cafés and retail outlets if these are included in the enhancements. While costs for the implementation of a fully accessible public transport network would be substantial, it has been assumed that this option would be limited to the provision of targeted improvements.

It is likely that Transport Scotland, local authorities or private/social enterprises would be the asset owner on completion, and they are therefore anticipated to take on the operation and maintenance, which will have ongoing costs.

3. Public Acceptability

The public acceptability of new or upgraded facilities may depend on their location and scale, with greater acceptability likely in larger populated areas where public transport options are more readily accessible. However, the option should generally be highly acceptable to the public, especially where there is no land-take, with research by Transport Focus showing that station redevelopment can lead to substantially higher passenger satisfaction.

Public consultation undertaken as part of this review indicated general support for improved public transport passenger interchange facilities. Of all respondents, 29% suggested improved multimodal hubs and facilities for public transport passenger interchanges. Further suggestions expressed the need for the development of an interchange between active travel and public transport and between different public transport modes. Additionally, 24% of respondents considered general public transport improvements (including transport integration) as a priority. These responses suggest that improved public transport passenger interchange facilities 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 ( Jacobs AECOM, Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Draft Environmental Report - A96 Corridor Review, 2024 ) .

2. Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA)

For Improved Public Transport Passenger Interchange Facilities, the Equalities Impact Assessment scores Major Positive in the 'With Policy' Scenario and Major Positive in the 'Without Policy' Scenario.

All travellers with protected characteristics would benefit from improved passenger facilities, especially those who are more likely to depend on bus and rail services to access key services such as employment, education, healthcare and shopping due to lack of car ownership or access, including children, young people, women, disabled people and older people, people from ethnic minority groups and people at risk of deprivation. However, there would be a specific beneficial impact from fewer barriers to travel for those with reduced mobility, such as older people, disabled people and people travelling with pushchairs and small children. In particular, step-free access at stations would improve transport choices for people who are currently excluded, and improved facilities may also benefit those with impaired vision or hearing and those who are neurodiverse.

This option is therefore likely to have a major positive impact against this criterion under both the ‘With Policy’ and ‘Without Policy’ scenarios.

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

For Improved Public Transport Passenger Interchange Facilities, the Child Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessment scores Minor Positive in the 'With Policy' Scenario and Minor Positive in the 'Without Policy' Scenario.

Whilst this option is not targeted directly at children and young people, improved passenger facilities could have a beneficial impact for them, given that those under 17 are not able to drive and improved facilities would increase the attractiveness of public transport. Furthermore,16% of children travel to school by bus ( Sustrans, Travel to School in Scotland, June 2020 ) , and children and young people may be more likely to depend on buses for leisure travel.

In addition, the enhancements would improve actual and perceived personal security for children and young people through the provision of CCTV.

This option is therefore likely to have a minor positive impact against this criterion under both the ‘With Policy’ and ‘Without Policy’ scenarios.

4. Fairer Scotland Duty Assessment (FSDA)

For Improved Public Transport Passenger Interchange Facilities, the Fairer Scotland Duty Assessment scores Minor Positive in the 'With Policy' Scenario and Minor Positive in the 'Without Policy' Scenario.

There could be a beneficial impact in tackling inequality, with improved public transport interchange facilities supporting reduced social isolation and improved health and wellbeing. Given that 48% of the most deprived households (Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation quintile 1) do not have access to a car and are twice as likely to use the bus to travel to work as households in the least deprived three quintiles ( Transport Scotland, Transport and Travel in Scotland 2019: Results from the Scottish Household Survey, September 2020 ) , the beneficial impacts will be highest for those from the most deprived households.

This option is therefore likely to have a minor positive impact against this criterion under both the ‘With Policy’ and ‘Without Policy’ scenarios.