North East Scotland Roads Hierarchy Study · North East Scotland Roads Hierarchy Study Project number: 60583665 Prepared for: Nestrans and Aberdeen City Council AECOM Prepared for:

North East Scotland Roads Hierarchy Study...Making best use of the city's road network

Nestrans and Aberdeen City Council

Project number: 60583665

May 2019

Image © Norman Adams - Aberdeen City Council

North East Scotland Roads Hierarchy Study


Prepared for: Nestrans and Aberdeen City Council AECOM

Quality informationPrepared by Checked by Approved by

Jo DuckConsultant

Andrew RobbSenior Consultant

Emma GilmourRegional Director

Revision HistoryRevision Revision date Details Authorized Name Position

0 11 January 2019 Working Draft EG Emma Gilmour Project Director

1 21 February 2019 Draft EG Emma Gilmour Project Director

2 12 April 2019 Final EG Emma Gilmour Project Director

3 22 May 2019 Final followingfurther clientcomments

EG Emma Gilmour Project Director

Distribution List# Hard Copies PDF Required Association / Company Name

North East Scotland Roads Hierarchy Study Project number: 60583665


Prepared for:NestransArchibald Simpson House27-29 King StreetAberdeenAB24 5AA

Prepared by:Jo DuckConsultantT: 07384 813498E: [email protected]

AECOM1 Marischal SquareAberdeenAB10 1BLUnited Kingdom

T: +44(0)1224 843759aecom.com

© 2019 AECOM Limited. All Rights Reserved.

This document has been prepared by AECOM Limited (“AECOM”) for sole use of our client (the “Client”) inaccordance with generally accepted consultancy principles, the budget for fees and the terms of reference agreedbetween AECOM and the Client. Any information provided by third parties and referred to herein has not beenchecked or verified by AECOM, unless otherwise expressly stated in the document. No third party may rely uponthis document without the prior and express written agreement of AECOM.



Table of Contents

1. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 11.1 Roads Hierarchy Principles .................................................................................................................. 11.2 Study Area .......................................................................................................................................... 31.3 Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route .................................................................................................... 41.4 Structure of Report .............................................................................................................................. 52. Desktop Review of Previous Work ................................................................... 72.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 72.1.1 Aberdeen City Centre Masterplan and Delivery Programme (2015) ..................................................... 102.1.2 Transport Implications – CCMP Projects (ACC former Communities, Housing and Infrastructure

Committee) (2016) ............................................................................................................................ 122.1.3 Roads Hierarchy (ACC former Communities, Housing and Infrastructure Committee) (2016) ............... 122.1.4 Roads Hierarchy (ACC former Communities, Housing and Infrastructure Committee) (2017) ............... 152.2 Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 163. Roads Hierarchy Policy Review ..................................................................... 183.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 183.2 National Roads Development Guide – Section 1 ................................................................................ 183.3 National Roads Development Guide – Section 2 ................................................................................ 223.4 Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 224. Roads Classification Legislation Review ....................................................... 244.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 244.2 Legislation Review ............................................................................................................................ 244.3 Road Classification Background......................................................................................................... 244.4 Road Numbering ............................................................................................................................... 264.5 Road Classification Governance ........................................................................................................ 264.5.1 Detrunking ........................................................................................................................................ 264.5.2 New Classifications/Reclassification ................................................................................................... 274.6 Road Management ............................................................................................................................ 274.6.1 General Legislation, Standards and Guidance .................................................................................... 274.6.2 Traffic Regulation .............................................................................................................................. 284.6.3 Signage ............................................................................................................................................ 284.6.4 Parking ............................................................................................................................................. 284.7 Emerging Legislation: Transport (Scotland) Bill ................................................................................... 284.7.1 Low Emission Zones ......................................................................................................................... 284.7.2 Footway Parking ............................................................................................................................... 284.8 Other Emerging Legislation................................................................................................................ 294.8.1 20mph Speed Limit ........................................................................................................................... 294.9 Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 295. Initial Consultation ......................................................................................... 315.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 315.2 Initial Consultation Approach .............................................................................................................. 315.3 Officer Engagement........................................................................................................................... 325.4 Member Engagement ........................................................................................................................ 325.4.1 Administration Leaders Briefing ......................................................................................................... 325.4.2 ACC Member Briefing ........................................................................................................................ 325.4.3 Aberdeenshire Council Member Briefing and Nestrans Board Member Briefing ................................... 335.4.4 MSPs, MPs and MEPs Briefing .......................................................................................................... 335.5 Stakeholder Engagement .................................................................................................................. 335.5.1 Stakeholder Workshop ...................................................................................................................... 345.5.2 Stakeholder Discussions ................................................................................................................... 35



5.6 RTP Leads Engagement .................................................................................................................... 355.6.1 SEStran ............................................................................................................................................ 355.6.2 SPT .................................................................................................................................................. 365.6.3 Tactran .............................................................................................................................................. 365.6.4 HITRANS/The Highland Council ........................................................................................................ 375.7 Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 376. Development of Objectives ............................................................................ 396.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 396.2 Roads Hierarchy Study Objectives ..................................................................................................... 406.3 Objective Mapping............................................................................................................................. 426.4 Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 427. Principles of Roads Hierarchy System ........................................................... 447.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 447.2 Street Definitions in the Context of Movement .................................................................................... 447.2.1 Priority Routes .................................................................................................................................. 447.2.2 Secondary Routes ............................................................................................................................. 457.2.3 Local Routes ..................................................................................................................................... 467.3 Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 468. Network Assessment ..................................................................................... 498.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 498.2 Transport Related Projects ................................................................................................................ 498.2.1 Committed Transport Projects and Key Transport Projects in Development ......................................... 498.2.2 Transport Projects within the CCMP area ........................................................................................... 518.2.3 Locking-in the Benefits Schemes ....................................................................................................... 528.3 Traffic Flow Information ..................................................................................................................... 538.4 Traffic Flow Diagrams ........................................................................................................................ 548.4.1 All Traffic ........................................................................................................................................... 548.4.2 Heavy Goods Vehicles....................................................................................................................... 548.4.3 Public Service Vehicles...................................................................................................................... 558.4.4 Indicative Two-Way Flows .................................................................................................................. 558.5 Cross-City Centre Movements ........................................................................................................... 568.6 Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 579. Baseline Route Investigation and Constraints Mapping................................. 599.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 599.2 Locking-in the Benefits Corridors ....................................................................................................... 599.3 The Air Quality Management Areas in Aberdeen ................................................................................. 599.4 Bus Lanes ......................................................................................................................................... 599.5 Bus Routes ....................................................................................................................................... 609.6 The City Centre Masterplan Area ....................................................................................................... 609.7 Candidate Noise Management Areas ................................................................................................. 609.8 Committed Projects ........................................................................................................................... 619.9 One-Way Restrictions ........................................................................................................................ 619.10 Freight Restrictions ........................................................................................................................... 619.11 Freight Routes .................................................................................................................................. 619.12 On-Road Cycle Facilities ................................................................................................................... 619.13 Speed Limits ..................................................................................................................................... 619.14 Vehicle Restrictions ........................................................................................................................... 619.15 Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 6210. Assessment of Existing Routes and Route Purpose...................................... 6410.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 6410.2 Narrative of Existing Routes............................................................................................................... 64



10.2.1 A92 ................................................................................................................................................... 6410.2.2 A947 ................................................................................................................................................ 6510.2.3 A96 ................................................................................................................................................... 6610.2.4 A944 ................................................................................................................................................. 6710.2.5 A945 ................................................................................................................................................ 6710.2.6 A93 ................................................................................................................................................... 6810.2.7 A9011 – Ashgrove Road West ........................................................................................................... 6810.2.8 A9012 – Rosehill Drive ...................................................................................................................... 6910.2.9 A9013 ............................................................................................................................................... 6910.2.10 A978 ................................................................................................................................................. 6910.2.11 A956 ................................................................................................................................................. 7010.2.12 B-Roads............................................................................................................................................ 7110.2.13 C-Roads ........................................................................................................................................... 7110.2.14 Anomaly Routes ................................................................................................................................ 7110.3 Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 7211. Assessment of Placemaking .......................................................................... 7411.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 7411.2 Principal Destinations ........................................................................................................................ 7411.3 City Place Assessment ...................................................................................................................... 7711.4 City Centre Place Quality ................................................................................................................... 7911.5 Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 81

12. Community Consultation ................................................................................ 8312.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 8312.2 Community Council Engagement ....................................................................................................... 8312.3 Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 8413. Initial Option Development ............................................................................. 8613.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 8613.2 Long-List of Options Prior to Sifting .................................................................................................... 8813.2.1 Priority Radials .................................................................................................................................. 8813.2.2 Secondary Radials ............................................................................................................................ 9313.2.3 Secondary Orbitals ............................................................................................................................ 9713.2.4 Local Roads ...................................................................................................................................... 9913.2.5 C-Roads Under Consideration ......................................................................................................... 10213.3 Option Sifting .................................................................................................................................. 10513.4 List of Selected Options for Further Review ...................................................................................... 10513.5 Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 110

14. Option Validation – Whole Network ..............................................................11214.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 11214.2 Priority Radials ................................................................................................................................ 11214.2.1 Existing Priority Routes - Unchanged ............................................................................................... 11314.2.1.1 A92 North/A956 (Option PR1) ....................................................................................................... 11314.2.1.2 A947 (Option PR2) ....................................................................................................................... 11314.2.1.3 A96 (Option PR3) ......................................................................................................................... 11414.2.1.4 A944 (Option PR4) ....................................................................................................................... 11414.2.1.5 A93 (Option PR5) ......................................................................................................................... 11514.2.1.6 A92 South (Option PR6) ............................................................................................................... 11514.2.1.7 Wellington Road (Option PR7) ...................................................................................................... 11614.2.2 Existing Priority Routes – Changed .................................................................................................. 11714.2.2.1 A92 – Parkway and Anderson Drive (Option OR1) ......................................................................... 11714.2.2.2 A978 (Option OR2) ....................................................................................................................... 11714.2.2.3 A9011 – Ashgrove Road West (Option SR8) .................................................................................. 118



14.2.2.4 A9012 – Rosehill Drive (Option SR6) ............................................................................................. 11914.2.2.5 A9013 – Holburn Street, Union Street, King Street (Option PR6) .................................................... 11914.2.3 Other Routes with Option for Priority ................................................................................................ 12014.2.3.1 B9119 – Skene Road, Queen’s Road (Option SR9) ....................................................................... 12014.2.3.2 B986 – Berryden Corridor (Option SR19) ....................................................................................... 12114.3 Secondary Routes ........................................................................................................................... 12114.3.1 Secondary Routes – Unchanged...................................................................................................... 12114.3.1.1 B999 (Option SR1) ....................................................................................................................... 12114.3.1.2 B997 (Option SR2) ....................................................................................................................... 12214.3.1.3 B9077 – South Deeside Road, Great Southern Road (Option PR6/SR21) ...................................... 12214.3.1.4 B986 – Denburn Road (Option SR20)............................................................................................ 12314.3.2 Existing Secondary Routes – Proposed Downgrade ......................................................................... 12314.3.2.1 B983 – Midstocket Road, Beechgrove Terrace, South Mount Street, Rosemount Viaduct, Union

Terrace, Bridge Street (Option SR10/SR18/OR4) ........................................................................... 12314.3.2.2 B985 – Watson Street, Esslemont Avenue, Rose Street, Thistle Street, Chapel Street (Option OR5) 12414.3.2.3 B986 – Clifton Road (Option SR4) ................................................................................................. 12414.3.2.4 B990 – Nelson Street (Option OR3)............................................................................................... 12514.3.2.5 B991 – Bedford Road (Option SR5)............................................................................................... 12514.3.3 Proposed New Secondary Routes ................................................................................................... 12614.3.3.1 A945 – Riverside Drive (Option SR16)........................................................................................... 12614.3.3.2 C154C – South College Street (Option SR17) ................................................................................ 12714.3.3.3 C159C – King’s Gate (Option SR11) ............................................................................................. 12714.3.3.4 Cairncry Road, Back Hilton Road (Option SR7) ............................................................................. 12814.3.3.5 Argyll Road (Option LR3) .............................................................................................................. 12814.3.3.6 Mounthooly Way (Option LR9) ...................................................................................................... 12814.3.3.7 West Tullos Road (Option LR10) ................................................................................................... 12914.3.3.8 Hareness Road (Option LR11) ...................................................................................................... 12914.4 Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 13015. Option Packaging and Appraisal .................................................................. 13215.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 13215.2 Option Packaging ............................................................................................................................ 13215.2.1 Do-Minimum Package ..................................................................................................................... 13515.2.2 City Hierarchy Package ................................................................................................................... 13815.2.3 Road Space Reallocation Package .................................................................................................. 14515.2.4 Access Only Package ...................................................................................................................... 14815.3 Package Review ............................................................................................................................. 15115.3.1 City-Wide Impacts ........................................................................................................................... 15115.3.2 City Centre Impacts ......................................................................................................................... 15115.3.2.1 Access to car parks and public transport interchanges ................................................................... 15115.3.2.2 Cross-City Centre Movement Transport Lanes ............................................................................... 15415.3.2.3 Impact on Adjacent Routes ........................................................................................................... 15415.4 Summary of Opportunities and Risks ............................................................................................... 15515.5 Option Appraisal .............................................................................................................................. 15715.5.1 Do-Minimum Package Appraisal ...................................................................................................... 15715.5.2 City Hierarchy Package Appraisal .................................................................................................... 15915.5.3 Road Space Reallocation Package Appraisal ................................................................................... 16115.5.4 Access Only Package Appraisal ....................................................................................................... 16315.5.5 Appraisal Summary ......................................................................................................................... 16515.6 Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 168

16. Summary and Key Outcomes ...................................................................... 17016.1 Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 170



16.2 Key Outcomes ................................................................................................................................ 173

Figures

Figure 1.1: Roads Hierarchy Study Area ............................................................................................................ 3Figure 1.2: AWPR feedback, December 2018 .................................................................................................... 4Figure 2.1: Timeline of policy documents reviewed for the Roads Hierarchy Study .............................................. 8Figure 2.2: Studies and reports reviewed ........................................................................................................... 9Figure 2.3: Key findings of ‘Transport Implications – CCMP Projects’ ACC Committee Report ........................... 12Figure 3.1: Interaction of street types (Source: NRDG) ..................................................................................... 19Figure 3.2: Interaction of movement and place in terms of different street types (Source: NRDG) ...................... 20Figure 3.3: Application of different design standards for Place and Movement categorisations ........................... 21Figure 3.4: Designing Streets - six qualities of successful places ...................................................................... 22Figure 4.1: Primary route destinations in Scotland ............................................................................................ 25Figure 4.2 Road numbering zones in Scotland and the UK ............................................................................... 26Figure 5.1: Stakeholders engaged as part of the Roads Hierarchy Study .......................................................... 34Figure 6.1: Roads Hierarchy Study - 'SMART' Objectives ................................................................................. 41Figure 7.1: Hierarchy status and classification diagram .................................................................................... 44Figure 7.2: Principles of roads hierarchy classification system .......................................................................... 47Figure 10.1: A92 Ellon Rd, Parkway, Anderson Drive, Stonehaven Rd .............................................................. 64Figure 10.2: A947 Oldmeldrum Rd, Victoria St, Stoneywood Rd ....................................................................... 65Figure 10.3: A96 Inverurie Rd, Auchmill Rd, Great Northern Rd, Powis Terrace, Powis Place, West North St ..... 66Figure 10.4: A944 Lang Stracht, Westburn Rd, Hutcheon St ............................................................................. 67Figure 10.5: A945 Riverside Drive ................................................................................................................... 67Figure 10.6: A93 North Deeside Rd, St John’s Terrace, Great Western Rd, Willowbank Rd, Springbank Terrace,

Wellington Place, College St, Wapping St and Guild St ................................................................. 68Figure 10.7: A9011 – Ashgrove Rd West.......................................................................................................... 68Figure 10.8: A9012 – Rosehill Drive ................................................................................................................. 69Figure 10.9: A9013 Holburn St, Union St, King St............................................................................................. 69Figure 10.10: A978 St Machar Drive, Leslie Rd, Hilton St, Westburn Drive, Argyll Place, Craigie Loanings, Albert

St, Waverly Place, Victoria St, Alford Place ................................................................................. 69Figure 10.11: A956 .......................................................................................................................................... 70Figure 11.1 Locations of principal destinations in the study area ....................................................................... 76Figure 11.2: Hierarchy of place types ............................................................................................................... 77Figure 11.3: Place assessment of study area ................................................................................................... 78Figure 11.4: City centre quality assessment ..................................................................................................... 80Figure 12.1: Community council groupings for consultation .............................................................................. 83Figure 12.2: Summary of outcomes from community council engagement sessions .......................................... 84Figure 13.1: Hierarchy status and classification diagram .................................................................................. 86Figure 13.2: Option development process ........................................................................................................ 87Figure 13.3: Initial priority radial options ........................................................................................................... 91Figure 13.4: Initial priority radial options in the city centre ................................................................................. 92Figure 13.5: Initial secondary radial options ..................................................................................................... 96Figure 13.6: Initial secondary orbital options .................................................................................................... 98Figure 13.7: Initial local road options.............................................................................................................. 101Figure 13.8: Initial C-roads under consideration ............................................................................................. 104Figure 15.1: Option packaging process .......................................................................................................... 133Figure 15.2: Do-Minimum Package (Existing priorities) ................................................................................... 136Figure 15.3: Do-Minimum Package - City centre (Existing priorities) ............................................................... 137Figure 15.4: City Hierarchy Package – Priorities changed .............................................................................. 139Figure 15.5: City Hierarchy Package - City centre (Priorities changed) ............................................................ 140Figure 15.6: City Hierarchy Package: Zonal Neighbourhoods ......................................................................... 141Figure 15.7: City Hierarchy Package - Zonal Neighbourhoods (City centre) .................................................... 142Figure 15.8: City Hierarchy Package - Key junctions for review....................................................................... 143Figure 15.9: City Hierarchy Package - Key junctions for review (City centre) ................................................... 144Figure 15.10: Road Space Reallocation Package (indicative locations only).................................................... 146Figure 15.11: Road Space Reallocation – City centre (indicative locations only) .............................................. 147



Figure 15.12: Access Only Package (indicative locations only) ....................................................................... 149Figure 15.13: Access Only Package - City centre (indicative locations only) .................................................... 150Figure 15.14: City centre area ....................................................................................................................... 153Figure 15.15: Summary of option packages and intervention measures .......................................................... 167Figure 16.1: Roads Hierarchy Study Approach ............................................................................................... 171

Tables

Table 2.1: CCMP transport projects (CCMP and Delivery Programme) ............................................................. 10Table 2.2: Roads Hierarchy Options (ACC Committee Report - Appendix 1)...................................................... 13Table 4.1: Key road legislation documents ....................................................................................................... 27Table 5.1: Initial Consultation Approach ........................................................................................................... 31Table 6.1: Roads Hierarchy Study - principal problems/issues and opportunities ............................................... 39Table 6.2: Objective mapping exercise ............................................................................................................. 42Table 8.1: Project definitions ............................................................................................................................ 49Table 8.2: Committed transport projects in the study area ................................................................................. 49Table 8.3: Key transport projects in development in the study area ................................................................... 50Table 8.4: Indicative CCMP schemes as interpreted by officers for the purposes of modelling within ASAM ....... 51Table 8.5: Locking-in the Benefits projects ....................................................................................................... 52Table 8.6: Details of categories used in traffic flow diagrams (shown in Appendix D) ......................................... 54Table 8.7: Indicative all-day two-way flows at selected locations on the network ................................................ 55Table 11.1: List of principal destinations in the study area ................................................................................. 74Table 13.1: Initial priority radial options ............................................................................................................ 89Table 13.2: Initial secondary radial options ....................................................................................................... 93Table 13.3: Initial secondary orbital options ...................................................................................................... 97Table 13.4: Initial local road options ................................................................................................................. 99Table 13.5: Initial C-roads identified for hierarchy appraisal ............................................................................ 102Table 13.6: List of selected priority radial options............................................................................................ 105Table 13.7: List of selected secondary radial options ...................................................................................... 106Table 13.8: List of selected secondary orbital options ..................................................................................... 107Table 13.9: List of selected local road options ................................................................................................ 108Table 13.10: List of selected C-road options ................................................................................................... 108Table 15.1: Description of intervention levels.................................................................................................. 134Table 15.2: Summary of opportunities and risks identified ............................................................................... 155Table 15.3: Other Considerations .................................................................................................................. 156Table 15.4: Do-Minimum Package Appraisal .................................................................................................. 158Table 15.5: City Hierarchy package appraisal ................................................................................................. 159Table 15.6: Road Space Reallocation package appraisal................................................................................ 161Table 15.7: Access Only package appraisal ................................................................................................... 163Table 15.8: Appraisal summary of option packages ........................................................................................ 165



List of Acronyms

AADT – Annual Average Daily TrafficACC – Aberdeen City CouncilAQMA – Air Quality Management AreaARI – Aberdeen Royal InfirmaryASAM – Aberdeen Sub-Area ModelASH – Aberdeen South HarbourAWPR – Aberdeen Western Peripheral RouteA2I – Aberdeen to InvernessB-T – Balmedie to TippertyCC – Community CouncilCCMP – City Centre MasterplanCNMA – Candidate Noise Management AreaCTA – Cumulative Transport AppraisalDMRB – Design Manual for Roads and BridgesDPE – Decriminalised Parking EnforcementHGV – Heavy Goods VehicleHOV – High Occupancy VehicleIRR – Inner Relief RoadLDP – Local Development PlanLEZ – Low Emission ZoneLGV – Light Goods VehicleLIB – Locking-in the BenefitsLTS – Local Transport StrategyMEP – Member of European ParliamentMP – Member of ParliamentMSP – Member of Scottish ParliamentNCR – National Cycle RouteNMU – Non-Motorised UserNRDG – National Roads Development GuideP&R – Park and RidePRN – Primary Route NetworkPSV – Public Service VehicleRES – Regional Economic StrategyRTP – Regional Transport PartnershipRTS – Regional Transport StrategySCDI – Scottish Council for Development and IndustrySCPR – Strategic Car Parking ReviewSDP – Strategic Development PlanSDPA – Strategic Development Planning AuthoritySPT – Strathclyde Passenger TransportSTAG – Scottish Transport Appraisal GuidanceSUMP – Sustainable Urban Mobility PlanT&A – Transport and AccessibilityTECA – The Event Complex AberdeenTERN – Trans-European Road NetworkTPO – Transport Planning ObjectiveTRO – Traffic Regulation OrderTSRGD – Traffic Signs Regulations and General DirectionsUK – United Kingdom


Prepared for: Nestrans and Aberdeen City Council AECOMExecutive Summary



Executive Summary

IntroductionAberdeen City Council (ACC), along with Nestrans, Aberdeenshire Council and the Strategic DevelopmentPlanning Authority (SDPA), as regional partners, wish to take advantage of the current investment in transportinfrastructure (road and rail) in the City Region to facilitate the implementation of the City Centre Masterplan’s(CCMP’s) aim of creating a vibrant city centre with an environment that encourages visits to and lengthens staysin the city centre and to lock-in the benefits of this investment for the whole city.

The partners are seeking to update the city’s roads hierarchy to provide a system that reflects the new role of thecity centre (as a destination) and makes the most effective use of the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route (AWPR)for distributing traffic around the city to the most appropriate radial route to reduce the extent of cross-city trafficmovements.

AECOM was commissioned by Nestrans and ACC in summer 2018 to develop options for this updated roadshierarchy and to identify possible levels of intervention that could be implemented to support the delivery of theupdated hierarchy.

The two key outcomes to be delivered as part of the work were:

· Development of roads hierarchy options to deliver a new roads hierarchy; and

· Identification of intervention levels to support that new roads hierarchy.

The initial focus was to set a newproposed roads hierarchythrough the undertaking of anumber of tasks. These tasksultimately provided anunderstanding of routes in thestudy area and allowed for theidentification of the mostappropriate routes for carryingtraffic across the city. Onceoptions for the updated roadshierarchy had been developed,intervention levels could then beconsidered which were designedto support use of the new roadshierarchy, encouragingappropriate use of roads in thestudy area according to theirproposed new classification i.e.use of priority routes for cross-city traffic movements wherepossible and use of local roadsfor localised trips only.

The study area for the RoadsHierarchy Study is bounded bythe Charleston to Blackdogsection of the AWPR. In the citycentre, the study adopted theCCMP boundary as its focus.

The Roads Hierarchy Study hasbeen undertaken between July2018 and April 2019.

Figure 1: Roads Hierarchy Study Area



Study ApproachA number of tasks contributed towards options for a proposed new roads hierarchy for Aberdeen. These are summarised in the diagram below.

Figure 2: Roads Hierarchy Study Approach



Roads Hierarchy PrinciplesIn 2016, the ‘Roads Hierarchy’ committee report and accompanying appendices were reported to ACC’s formerCommunities, Housing and Infrastructure Committee. It is outlined in this report that the new roads hierarchy willprovide a policy context for future transport planning and will form the basis for identifying future projects followingcompletion of the AWPR. A series of Transport Planning Objectives (TPOs) were developed as part of a ScottishTransport Appraisal Guidance (STAG)-based assessment undertaken to identify how Aberdeen City andAberdeenshire should operate in the post-AWPR scenario:

1 Create a city centre that is conducive to walking and cycling

2 Reduce bus journey times to make them more competitive with car journey times

3 Improve reliability to make public transport more attractive

4 Ensure effective and efficient movement of goods to the city centre and harbour

5 Facilitate removal of air quality management areas (AQMAs)

6 Ensure effective use of the post-AWPR transport network and maximise the benefits by ‘locking-in’ theadditional capacity created by committed road schemes towards sustainable transport modes

7 Support implementation of the CCMP

The assessment resulted in the selection of the following approach to redefining the roads hierarchy:

· Creation of three zones within the city centre with demand restriction for vehicles between them; and

· Public transport and cycling corridors that will penetrate each of the zones while CCMP/Sustainable UrbanMobility Plan (SUMP) proposals for pedestrians, cycling and public transport will remain in the city centre.

The Council resolved to note the proposed principles for the future distribution and management of traffic acrossthe city following the opening of the AWPR, and to instruct officers to engage with stakeholders and the public onthe proposed framework and intended hierarchy including an online consultation.

An update to this report sets out a series of key roads hierarchy principles, which were approved by ACC in 2017.These were taken forward for use in the current study:

a) Through traffic (that without an Aberdeen City destination) is directed (by road signing) to the AWPR;

b) Peripheral traffic (i.e. Bridge of Don to Altens or Cults to Dyce or Bucksburn to Torry say) is directed to theAWPR;

c) Traffic in Aberdeen with a destination away from Aberdeen is directed to the AWPR at the earliest opportunity(i.e. Mastrick to Peterhead is directed along the A96 Inverurie Road to the AWPR rather than through [the thencity roads] Parkway/Ellon Road);

d) The city centre should be considered as a destination rather than a through route for vehicle traffic. Crossingthe city centre by car should be discouraged (whilst giving due consideration for access to the harbour). Accessand exiting the city centre should, as far as possible, be by the same route. In other words, people accessingthe city centre from the north and not using public transport, walking or cycling should access it from the north,park in the north and return northwards. The same would be said for people accessing the city centre from thesouth and west. Crossing the city centre by foot/cycling/bus will be significantly improved by implementing theCCMP proposals. People in the north who particularly wish to access a south or west car park should bedirected firstly round Aberdeen, as per b) above, then to access from the south or west. Similarly for south andwest access.

e) The benefits of the AWPR must be ‘locked-in’ to prioritise the movement of active and sustainable travelthrough the reallocation of carriageway space, junction capacity and other traffic management/prioritisationmeasures, as defined in the Council’s agreed Local Transport Strategy (LTS) 2016 to 2021, which is consistentwith the principles of other local, regional and national transport, land use, community planning and healthstrategies, plans and policies.



Roads Hierarchy Study ObjectivesThe objectives developed previously were reviewed and reassessed in the context of the Roads Hierarchy Studyto provide a targeted approach to assessing the performance of initial options for change and subsequent packagescenarios.

1. Enables delivery of key elements in the City Centre Masterplan, and facilitates promotion of thecity centre as an accessible destinationThe Roads Hierarchy Study supports the implementation of the CCMP and the management of itsimpacts across the city. Previous work has reinforced the importance of delivering a quality city centrewhich is a destination in its own right.

2. Takes advantage of the opportunities afforded by recent and forthcoming road and railimprovements to support a reduction in through traffic which crosses the city centrePresently, cross-city centre vehicular movements can be undertaken on several routes. Forthcominginfrastructure projects and the revolution in rail will provide opportunity to support the objective of reducingcross-city centre through traffic.

3. Facilitates promotion of a high quality, attractive city centre that prioritises the movements ofthose walking, cycling and using public transportPrevious consultation work has underlined public and stakeholder aspirations to improve theactive/sustainable travel environment in the city centre.

4. Prioritises movement on the AWPR and radial routes on the transport network to move people toand from principal destinations and city centre destinationsThe AWPR makes the revision of the roads hierarchy possible by enabling the transfer of through andperipheral traffic from the roads within the study area, providing protection to high-quality places acrossthe city.

5. Promotes and enhances public transport and active travel access across the city, and to the citycentreAs noted in Objective 3, previous consultation work has underlined aspirations to improve theactive/sustainable travel environment in the city centre. The importance of improving the wider active andsustainable travel network across Aberdeen (i.e. the whole study area) is also a key feature in local andregional transport policy and was a strong message during consultation; i.e. the importance of locking-inthe benefits of the AWPR.

6. Supports continued sustainable economic growth in the cityThe revision of the roads hierarchy will require to take cognisance of significant development taking placein the short to medium term. A key challenge will be to future-proof the hierarchy to enable sustainablegrowth in the study area to be achieved, whilst also supporting existing principal destinations and accessto these destinations by appropriate routes.



Street DefinitionsIn the context of movement alone, a hierarchy system was developed that split the road network within the AWPRinto three categories: primary, secondary and tertiary. These categories relate respectively to priority, secondaryand local routes as defined in this study. Figure 3 illustrates the relationship between hierarchy status, definitionsused in the Roads Hierarchy Study and classification.

Figure 3: Street Definitions Diagram

Option Development, Sifting and ValidationA long-list of initial options was developed for the following elements within the roads hierarchy:

· Priority radials;

· Secondary radials;

· Secondary orbitals;

· Local roads; and

· C-roads under consideration.

For the options developed, consideration was given to both routing and to the route’s future roads hierarchy status(priority, secondary, local). Options for change were generated whereby existing priorities were no longerconsidered to be appropriate or where it was felt that changes were required to align with the principles of theRoads Hierarchy Study.

Following the development of the long-list of options, a sifting exercise was undertaken to determine options thatcould be ruled out of further consideration. A red, amber, green process was used to assess the performance ofeach option against the six objectives and against the implementability criteria of technical feasibility and publicacceptability (assumption-based). As a result of this process, 28 options were rejected.

A further validation test was then undertaken on the principles and suitability of place for the initial roads hierarchyoptions that had been developed. This included consideration of the established AWPR signing frameworkdeveloped by ACC with particular focus on key considerations for active travel, public transport, freight, generaltraffic and road classification as a result of the options for change in a potential new roads hierarchy.



Option Packaging and AppraisalFollowing the option sifting and validation test exercise, the remaining options were packaged into the followingcategories:

· Do-Minimum Package;

· City Hierarchy Package;

· Road Space Reallocation Package; and

· Access Only Package.

Figure 4 provides a summary of the option packaging process.

Figure 4: Option Packaging Process

The following table provides further detail on the option packages developed.

Table 1: Option Packages

Package DescriptionDo-MinimumPackage

· Includes indicative CCMP schemes, other committed schemes and City Signing as per thesigning framework developed by ACC (for post-AWPR traffic routing).

· In this package, general traffic could find existing alternative routes around the CCMPschemes. It would still be possible to approach the city centre and travel through by anumber of routes. Public transport and active travel modes would provide additional cross-city centre travel movement options where CCMP schemes prevent private vehicular traffic.

ChangeOption:

CityHierarchyPackage

· The ‘City Hierarchy’ package represents the proposed new roads hierarchy.1

· The ‘City Hierarchy’ package represents a change to the local road network, both in termsof routing and hierarchy status of routes.

· In addition to what is included within the Do-Minimum package, it includes locking-in thebenefits measures along key routes and city junction interventions to support the roadshierarchy.

· The purpose of this City Hierarchy package is to review the impact of retaining throughroutes left by the implementation of CCMP schemes but reducing the attractiveness ofthese through routes via a number of junction interventions that would aim to encouragegeneral traffic to use alternative routes for a ‘to, not through’ approach to the city centre.Active travel and public transport modes would provide additional cross-city centre travelmovement options.

1 Alterations to the hierarchy of some routes in the city centre may be appropriate if elements from the Access Only packageare applied.



Package Description· In this package, measures across the city would support the prioritisation of radial routes

set to encourage use of the AWPR, including implementation of ‘zonal neighbourhoods’.ChangeOption:

Road SpaceReallocationPackage

· The hierarchy of routes across the network in the ‘Road Space Reallocation’ packagereflects that proposed within the City Hierarchy package.

· The Road Space Reallocation package introduces a very high level of intervention,whereby the capacity of routes within the city centre is reduced for general traffic over andabove CCMP proposals. Although the implementation of such measures would still permitmovements by general traffic, the attractiveness of such movements would be reduced forgeneral traffic and increased for public transport and active travel users. It would beanticipated that some traffic would reroute to use more appropriate routes and there is thepotential for some modal shift to occur using new facilities.

· The purpose of the Road Space Reallocation package is to review the impact of reducingthe capacity for general traffic movements between the north, south and west of the citycentre. Full access to all parts of the city centre by general traffic would still be permitted inthis scenario by alternative, more appropriate non-cross-city centre routes to encourage a‘to, not through’ approach to the city centre. Active travel and public transport modes wouldprovide additional cross-city centre travel movement options, and it is considered that theseoptions would be more attractive in this scenario as increased priority would be given toalternative travel modes.

· The Road Space Reallocation package builds on the City Hierarchy package and thereforejunction interventions across the city would support the prioritisation of radial routes set toencourage use of the AWPR.

ChangeOption:

AccessOnlyPackage

· The hierarchy of routes across the network in the ‘Access Only’ package broadly reflectsthat proposed within the City Hierarchy and Road Space Reallocation packages, withfurther consideration required to the priority of a route where access only treatments areapplied.

· The ‘Access Only’ package introduces a very high level of intervention, whereby treatmentsare introduced to restrict through movements by general traffic over and above CCMPproposals. Access only treatments, for example, could relate to the division points betweenthe three zones of the city centre and could involve bus gates to increase the attractivenessof alternative modes of travel and encourage modal shift.

· The purpose of the Access Only package is to review the impact of restricting general trafficmovements in locations within the city centre. Full access to all parts of the city centrewould still be permitted in this scenario by alternative, more appropriate non-cross-citycentre routes to encourage a ‘to, not through’ approach to the city centre. Active travel andpublic transport modes would provide additional cross-city centre travel movement options,and it is considered that these options would be more attractive in this scenario asincreased priority would be given to alternative travel modes.

· The Access Only package builds on the City Hierarchy package and therefore junctioninterventions across the city would support the prioritisation of radial routes set toencourage use of the AWPR.

The appraisal process involved assessing the four option packages against the objectives of the study on aqualitative basis. The following seven-point scale (based on STAG) was used for appraisal:

Major beneficial impact (+3)

Moderate beneficial impact (+2)

Minor beneficial impact (+1)

No benefit or impact (0) (Neutral)

Minor negative impact (-1)

Moderate negative impact (-2)

Major negative impact (-3)

The appraisal of Objective 6 relating to sustainable economic growth was sub-divided into a score for opportunitiesand risks to reflect the complexity of assessing the performance of option packages against this objective by eachmode of travel.



The findings of the appraisal process against objectives are summarised in Table 2.

Table 2: Appraisal Summary of Option Packages

Option Packages AppraisalAppraisal

Do-Minimum City Hierarchy Road Space Reallocation Access Only

Obj

ectiv

es

1. Enables delivery of key elements in the City CentreMasterplan, and facilitates promotion of the city centre as anaccessible destination

+1 +3 +2 +2

2. Takes advantage of the opportunities afforded by recent andforthcoming road and rail improvements to support a reduction inthrough traffic which crosses the city centre

+1 +2 +3 +3

3. Facilitates promotion of a high quality, attractive city centrethat prioritises the movements of those walking, cycling andusing public transport

+1 +2 +3 +3

4. Prioritises movement on the AWPR and radial routes on thetransport network to move people to and from principaldestinations and city centre destinations

0 +2 +2 +2

5. Promotes and enhances public transport and active travelaccess across the city, and to the city centre 0 +1 +2 +3

6. Supports continued sustainable economic growth in the city Opportunities+1

Risks-1

Opportunities+2

Risks-1

Opportunities+3

Risks-2

Opportunities+3

Risks-2

The results of this appraisal indicated that there are benefits with all option packages, however it is considered that the benefits of the Do-Minimum package are more limited compared withthe others. It is considered that the other packages all go a significant way to realising the aims of the Roads Hierarchy Study, however there are opportunities and risks to be considered indetail with all option packages.



Proposed New Roads HierarchyThe proposed new hierarchy is illustrated in the plan below. It should be noted that the priority of any route couldbe reconsidered further where access only measures are implemented (e.g. any routes in the CCMP area couldbe downgraded to tertiary if very high levels of intervention were introduced).

Figure 5: The Proposed New Roads Hierarchy



Summary of Option Packages and Intervention LevelsA summary of the option packages and intervention measures is summarised in the diagram below.

Figure 6: Option Packages and Intervention Measures



Key Outcomes

The Roads Hierarchy Study has:

· Interpreted the ACC principles of a roads hierarchy devised in 2016 and assessed where there is a need fora change of prioritisation of roads inside the AWPR boundary;

· Considered a number of city-wide and additional city centre levels of intervention to promote mode shift andfacilitate use of appropriate routes to support continued sustainable economic growth and delivery of theCCMP.

Detailed and difficult decisions on individual elements within the road network and interventions now need to bemade across the city. It is recognised that this will not be easy, and a balance must be found between supportinga healthy, active and vibrant high-quality place environment and the needs of people and goods to access principaldestinations and other local destinations.

Based on community and stakeholder feedback, the Roads Hierarchy Study has presented a number ofapproaches that could be developed over time, incrementally supporting previous interventions taken forward byACC, Nestrans and partners.

A number of previous risks associated with bringing forward the CCMP have now been mitigated, such as theimplementation of major infrastructure and transport improvements, including the AWPR and rail improvements.Quantification of the impacts of these improvements can now commence and this will help to provide the rationalefor those involved in decision-making.


Prepared for: Nestrans and Aberdeen City Council AECOM01



1. IntroductionAberdeen City Council (ACC), along with Nestrans, Aberdeenshire Council and the Strategic DevelopmentPlanning Authority (SDPA), as regional partners, wish to take advantage of the current investment in transportinfrastructure (road and rail) in the City Region to facilitate the implementation of the City Centre Masterplan’s(CCMP’s) aim of creating a vibrant city centre with an environment that encourages visits to and lengthens staysin the city centre and to lock-in the benefits of this investment for the whole city.

Taking advantage of this new infrastructure and the opportunities it brings for reducing traffic in the city, encouragingmode shift and changing traffic patterns, the partners are seeking to update the city’s roads hierarchy to provide asystem that reflects the new role of the city centre (as a destination) and makes the most effective use of theAberdeen Western Peripheral Route (AWPR) for distributing traffic around the city to the most appropriate radialroute to reduce the extent of cross-city traffic movements.


A key message in the work has been to communicate to people in the North East that Nestrans, ACC and partnerswant to continue the conversation about the kind of transport system that is desired in Aberdeen in order to providean enhanced city centre with less through traffic.

The Roads Hierarchy Study aims to achieve the following two key outcomes:



The initial focus has been to set a new proposed roads hierarchy through the undertaking of a number of tasks asdetailed in Chapters 2-12 of this report. These tasks ultimately have helped to provide an understanding of routesin the study area and have allowed for the identification of the most appropriate routes for carrying traffic acrossthe city. Once options for the updated roads hierarchy had been developed, intervention levels could then beconsidered which have been designed to support use of the new roads hierarchy, encouraging appropriate use ofroads in the study area according to their proposed new classification i.e. use of priority routes for cross-city trafficmovements where possible and use of local roads for localised trips only.

This study has been undertaken between July 2018 and April 2019.

1.1 Roads Hierarchy PrinciplesACC considered committee reports in 2016 and 2017 where approval was granted to develop a new roadshierarchy in Aberdeen to reflect the changes being brought forward in the North East. The following principles wereapproved in August 2017 and have driven the delivery of this study:








An online survey was launched in spring 2017 to ask people for their opinion on moving around the city’s roads,cycle routes and pavement networks before and after the AWPR opens. The survey concluded that, from a widerange of views, there was strong support for an improved environment for pedestrians and cyclists in the city centreand bus improvements through the city centre.

The work undertaken by AECOM to deliver this study builds on the foundations laid by previous consultation workundertaken thus far and supplements this through a detailed programme of engagement undertaken betweenAutumn 2018 and January 2019. It introduces ACC, Nestrans and partners to a series of options for the updatedroads hierarchy of Aberdeen and potential traffic management measures to support the delivery of this updatedhierarchy.



1.2 Study AreaThe area of focus for the Roads Hierarchy Study is bounded by the Charleston to Blackdog section of the AWPR.In the city centre, the study has adopted the CCMP boundary as its focus.

Figure 1.1: Roads Hierarchy Study Area



1.3 Aberdeen Western Peripheral RouteThe opening of the AWPR has been phased, with the Parkhill to Blackdog section opening in June 2018; Stonehaven to Craibstone and Cleanhill to Charleston sections opening in December 2018; and the recent opening of the Craibstone to Parkhill section in February 2019. The benefits of the new route are already being realised, assummarised by the quotes in Figure 1.2 below.

The AWPR and the roads hierarchy are intrinsically linked, with the opening of the AWPR enabling the opportunityfor ACC, Nestrans and partners to review the roads hierarchy in the area bounded by the new route.

Figure 1.2: AWPR feedback, December 20182

2 https://www.transport.gov.scot/news/awpr-benefits-delight-north-east-drivers-and-businesses/



1.4 Structure of ReportThe remainder of the report is structured as follows:

· Chapter 2 – Desktop Review of Previous Work;

· Chapter 3 – Roads Hierarchy Policy Review;

· Chapter 4 – Roads Classification Legislation Review;

· Chapter 5 – Initial Consultation;

· Chapter 6 – Development of Objectives;

· Chapter 7 – Principles of Roads Hierarchy System;

· Chapter 8 – Network Assessment;

· Chapter 9 – Baseline Route Investigation and Constraints Mapping;

· Chapter 10 – Assessment of Existing Routes and Route Purpose;

· Chapter 11 – Assessment of Placemaking;

· Chapter 12 – Community Consultation;

· Chapter 13 – Initial Option Development;

· Chapter 14 – Option Validation – Whole Network;

· Chapter 15 – Option Packaging and Appraisal; and

· Chapter 16 – Summary and Key Outcomes.

The following appendices support the chapters described above:

· Appendix A – Desktop Review;

· Appendix B – ACC Signing Framework Plans;

· Appendix C – Consultation Documents;

· Appendix D – Network Assessment Supporting Information;

· Appendix E – Baseline Route Investigation and Constraints Mapping;

· Appendix F – Assessment of Existing Routes and Route Purpose Supporting Information;

· Appendix G – Assessment of Placemaking;

· Appendix H – Initial Option Development Supporting Information;

· Appendix I – Option Packaging;

· Appendix J – Option Impacts; and

· Appendix K – Supporting Option Interventions.



02



2. Desktop Review of Previous Work2.1 IntroductionA significant amount of previous work has already been undertaken to lead ACC, Nestrans and partners towardsthe development of a new roads hierarchy.

An extensive desktop review has been undertaken to set out the scope of previous and related work, and todetermine the key influences of these documents in the context of the Roads Hierarchy Study. Documents reviewedinclude both policy documents and previous studies and reports. Figure 2.1 and 2.2 illustrate the full list ofdocuments that have been reviewed to provide context for the study.

It is considered that the key reference documents for this study are:

· The CCMP and Delivery Programme;

· Transport Implications – CCMP Projects Committee Report produced and approved by ACC in 2016; and

· The Roads Hierarchy Committee Reports produced and approved by ACC in 2016 and 2017.

As such, this chapter includes a review of these documents, with analysis of the remaining documents includedwithin Appendix A.



Figure 2.1: Timeline of policy documents reviewed for the Roads Hierarchy Study




Figure 2.2: Studies and reports reviewed



2.1.1 Aberdeen City Centre Masterplan and Delivery Programme(2015)

The CCMP was unanimously approved by ACC in June 2015. It outlines a 20-year development strategy for thecity centre, identifying a series of projects designed to support future economic growth. The four main themes withinthe plan include:

· Energy and More: A city centre that is the economic hub of a prosperous city region;

· A City for People: A city centre that is alive with energy, meets everyone’s needs and aspirations, whereverthey come from and however long they stay;

· Light of the North: A city centre environment that makes for a unique and interesting experience; and

· The Connected City: A city centre that is accessible and wired.

Links to the Roads Hierarchy Study

There is an intrinsic link between the CCMP and the Roads Hierarchy Study. The Roads Hierarchy Study aimsto facilitate the delivery of the aims and objectives set out in the CCMP. A key focus of the CCMP is that the citycentre should become a destination, with access to it by active travel and sustainable modes becoming attractiveand the car playing less of a role. In total, 49 projects are set out in the CCMP. A number of these have atransport focus, and thus provide context for the Roads Hierarchy Study.

Table 2.1 below sets out the CCMP projects with a transport focus as is outlined in the CCMP and DeliveryProgramme. The document notes that a change in user hierarchy with regard to the reprioritisation of pedestriansin many of the city centre’s streets and spaces creates the opportunity to design more engagement and comfortablespaces that encourage people to linger and dwell.

Table 2.1: CCMP transport projects (CCMP and Delivery Programme)

CCMPProject Reference Description

CM12 –Union Square

It is recognised that there exists scope to expand the shopping centre on the site ofthe existing surface car park. This development needs to respond to its wider urbancontext so that the permeability of the city centre and scope to grow areas to thesouth is not compromised. This requires establishing a strong north – southpedestrian linkage through the development to link North Dee and Torry Waterfrontwith the rest of the city centre as well as creating a good relationship to Market Streetand the harbourside. A development model based on a grid of open streets,potentially incorporating residential, hotel or offices above would most successfullyaid this aspiration.

EN01 –Broad Street

The space between Marischal College and the Marischal Square development willretain bus movements on a day to day basis but will be designed in a manner so thatit can be transformed into an event ready space on special occasions.

EN02 –Guild Street

The experience of the city when arriving and departing from the train station will bevastly improved with the removal of car traffic and the reduction of bus traffic to oneway only on Guild Street. This allows the existing plaza to the north of Union Squareto be extended to create a more comfortable meeting place and an enhancedpedestrian linkage through the Merchant Quarter.

EN03 – LangstanePlace/Justice Mill Lane/Windmill Brae

This key area for evening economy activities will be enhanced as a pedestrianpriority area with new cycle routes, improved streetscape and lighting.

EN04 – Rose/Thistle/Chapel Street

A high-quality streetscape scheme to enhance customer experience and the vitalityand viability of this independent retail area.

EN05 –Union Street

Removal of private vehicular traffic (bus, taxi and access only) from the section ofUnion Street between Bridge Street and the Castlegate brings the focus back on tothe people of Aberdeen with wider pavements, improved air quality and fewerobstacles to movement.



CCMPProject Reference Description

EN06 – Upperkirkgate/Schoolhill

The removal of all traffic from the central area of Upperkirkgate and a considerablereduction in traffic elsewhere creates the opportunity to enhance north/southconnectivity and the retail environment.

EN09 –Golden Square

Re-engineering of this space from a vehicle dominated car park towards to a publicsquare and events space associated with the Music Hall.

EN10 –Bon Accord Square Removal of some car parking and enhanced greening of this square.

IN01 –Walkable Aberdeen

Creating a safer and more attractive city centre for pedestrians and other sustainablemodes by rerouting non-essential traffic from the city centre core towards a signedUrban Relief Road* around the heart of the city centre.

IN02 –City centre car parking

Proposals for city centre car parking include:· Park and Ride: Maximise the potential offered by existing and proposed park

and ride sites in order to reduce the overall number of vehicles entering the citycentre.

· Off-street parking: Maximise the potential offered by existing car park capacity bypromoting a ring of car parks around the Urban Relief Route*.

· New development parking: Apply stricter parking standards within the city centreboundary to enforce ‘zero parking’ for new development.

· Aberdeen Car Club: The number of conventional as well as electric city centrecar club locations would be increased in order to allow for incidental car use forresidents and businesses without the need for car ownership.

IN03 –Cycle highways

Implementation of traffic free cycle highways within the city centre to connect withNCR 195, NCR 1 and the beach promenade. These would be complemented bycycle priority measures at signalised junctions, and a programme of cycle friendlystreet improvements.

IN04 –Cycle hire scheme

Roll out of a cycle hire scheme similar to that in Glasgow to capture the transientnature of those working and visiting Aberdeen city centre. Bikes would beconstructed to be resilient to vandalism and equipped with GPS tracking.

IN05 –Cycle hubs

Creation of cycle hubs in key areas of the city centre in order to provide high qualitysecure cycle parking. These hubs will be covered and equipped with easilyidentifiable branding in areas of high footfall to ensure a sense of communitysurveillance.

IN06 – Bus PriorityInfrastructure

Implement bus only streets on key city centre corridors and introduce bus gates onthe approach to city centre junctions in order to annul the impact of congestion onjourney times.

IN07 –Bus stop infrastructure

In order to provide a more enjoyable and attractive overall bus travel experience forall, mobility inclusive and significantly improved bus stop infrastructure will beinstalled. There also exists an opportunity to enhance the existing bus station as partof the expansion of Union Square shopping centre.

IN08 –Aberdeen Station

Following the relocation of the existing taxi drop off facility to South College Street,refurbishment and expansion of the station concourse to create enhanced linkagefor pedestrian and cyclists to the city centre.

IN10 – Aberdeensuburban railwaynetwork

As part of the committed Aberdeen to Inverness Rail Improvement Programme,which will dual the track from Aberdeen to Inverurie, there exists an opportunity toinvestigate and promote a local Aberdeen based rail service, as well as potentialnew rail halt locations.

*See Section 2.1.3 – Urban Relief Road not taken forward as part of selected option for roads hierarchy



2.1.2 Transport Implications – CCMP Projects (ACC formerCommunities, Housing and Infrastructure Committee) (2016)

The ACC committee report ‘Transport Implications – CCMP Projects’ outlines the results of a transportationassessment and traffic modelling that was undertaken to review the CCMP transport interventions in order toidentify any other infrastructure that would be required to support the interventions and to develop an optimumprogramme of delivery. The findings suggest that a reduction in general peak traffic levels of 20% is required toenable the transportation and public realm objectives relating to pedestrian, cycle and bus movement in the citycentre, as illustrated in the diagram below. The report notes that modal shift will be required in order to allow thenetwork to operate satisfactorily. The recommendations of the report were approved at the meeting on 11 May2016.

Figure 2.3: Key findings of ‘Transport Implications – CCMP Projects’ ACC Committee Report

2.1.3 Roads Hierarchy (ACC former Communities, Housing andInfrastructure Committee) (2016)

The ‘Roads Hierarchy’ committee report (2016) and accompanying appendices were reported to ACC’s formerCommunities, Housing and Infrastructure Committee in May 2016, where the Council resolved to note the proposedprinciples for the future distribution and management of traffic across the city following the opening of the AWPR,and to instruct officers to engage with stakeholders and the public on the proposed framework and intendedhierarchy including an online consultation.

The report notes that the new roads hierarchy will provide a policy context for future transport planning and willform the basis for identifying future projects following completion of the AWPR.

The principles noted in the report include:

· Strategic radial routes from the AWPR junctions will focus trips into and out of the city centre and to keylocations;

· Former ‘through city traffic’ will be directed to AWPR and round the city;

· Routing from the city centre will direct ‘all traffic’ to the nearest available key corridor to access the new A90(AWPR); and

· HGV traffic will be routed around AWPR as much as possible rather than through the city centre.



Appendix 1 to the report provides a summary of a Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance (STAG)-basedassessment that was undertaken to identify how Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire should operate in the post-AWPR scenario. It quotes the following predicted reductions in daily traffic post-AWPR:

· A90 north of Murcar roundabout – 18%;

· A90 midway along Parkway – 25%;

· A956 at Bridge of Don – 16%;

· A947 at north end of Dyce – 12%;

· A96 at Tyrebagger (west of AWPR) – 9%;

· A90 North Anderson Drive – 17%;

· A944 Kingswells (east of AWPR) – 1%;

· A90 Anderson Drive – 20%;

· A956 Market Street – 10%;

· A93 Milltimber (east of AWPR) – 25%; and

· A90 at Bridge of Dee – 15%.

The following Transport Planning Objectives (TPOs) were developed to form the criteria for the assessment ofoptions:

1. Create a city centre that is conducive to walking and cycling;

2. Reduce bus journey times to make them more competitive with car journey times;

3. Improve reliability to make public transport more attractive;

4. Ensure effective and efficient movement of goods to the city centre and harbour;

5. Facilitate removal of air quality management areas (AQMAs);

6. Ensure effective use of the post-AWPR transport network and maximise the benefits by ‘locking-in’ theadditional capacity created by committed road schemes towards sustainable transport modes; and

7. Support implementation of the CCMP.

Table 2.2 summarises the refined list of options that were developed as part of the assessment.

Table 2.2: Roads Hierarchy Options (ACC Committee Report - Appendix 1)

Option Description

1. Baseline - DoMinimum

Committed Schemes including AWPR, Third Don Crossing, Berryden CorridorImprovement, Airport Link Road / Park and Choose site at Dyce, HaudagainImprovement (Transport Scotland), South College Street Improvement.

2. CCMP/SUMP + InnerRelief Road (IRR)

Improvements for the benefit of pedestrians, cyclists and buses, including restrictionof car movements + signing and traffic management measures to direct drivers roundIRR to nearest junction to city centre destination / car park.

3. Sustainable TransportMax + City CentreDemand Management

Priorities altered on radial routes crossing the de-trunked A90, to support buses andcyclists… supported by signing strategy, to reduce cross-city centre trips, especiallyby HGVs.

4. Vehicle MaxOuter Relief Road + Radial Routes widened to increase capacity for general traffic+, optimising flows by linking traffic lights, removing on-street car parking, andreinstating prohibited turning movements.

5. Two-Zone System

Segregation of city centre into north and south zones, by banning specified turns forgeneral traffic + improvements for the benefit of pedestrians, cyclists and buses,including restriction of car movements… All vehicles from north must park in northcar parks, all vehicles from south must park in south car parks. To park in differentcar park, must use Anderson Drive or AWPR.

6. Three-Zone SystemSegregation of city centre into north, west and south zones, by banning specifiedturns for general traffic. Improvements for the benefit of pedestrians, cyclists andbuses, including restriction of car movements.



Option Description

Assorted hybrids ofabove options

Hybrids of Options 2 & 3 (Option 7), 2 & 6 (Option 8), 3 & 6 (Option 9) and 2, 3 & 6(Option 10)

10. Hybrid of Options2, 3 and 6

Creation of three zones with demand management restriction for vehiclesbetween them. Public transport and cycling corridors will penetrate each ofthe zones while CCMP/SUMP proposals for ped/cycling and public transportwill remain in the city centre.Excludes IRR from Option 2.

The preferred option (Option 10) was suggested as a hybrid of Options 2, 3 and 6 (shown in bold above). It shouldbe noted that the preferred option excludes the IRR aspect of Option 2 as was originally described in the CCMPand Delivery Programme (noted in Table 2.1 earlier in this Chapter). The overall conclusion from the high-levelassessment was that Option 10 best met the TPOs. The report notes that Option 10 would therefore be the mostlikely approach to redefining the current roads hierarchy post-AWPR which would successfully support the deliveryof the CCMP, LTS, Local Development Plan (LDP) and would also complement the AWPR signing framework.

It is noted in the report that Option 10 would require a range of traffic management changes to facilitate itsimplementation, including but not restricted to:

· Pedestrian improvements – footways, paths, crossings, wayfinding;

· Cycle ways, advanced stop lines at junctions and parking measures;

· Bus priority, real time information, kerbside shelters;

· Lower speed limits and traffic calming in residential areas;

· Local roads signing aligned to AWPR signing and 3-zone system;

· Car park access strategy for the city centre;

· Roundabouts changed to signalised junctions;

· Junction improvements including reprioritisation along radial routes;

· Prohibition of traffic movements at key junctions; and

· Re-classification of some roads.

Appendix 2 to the report is concerned with the implementation of strategic destinations signage onto and from theAWPR route. To ensure vehicles use the AWPR to access the city network at the most appropriate points, adviceis provided to travellers via signage to access Aberdeen North, West and South. Key regional destinations aresigned from the strategic road network, including Aberdeen International Airport, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary (ARI),Aberdeen Harbour, The Event Complex Aberdeen (TECA), both universities and the city centre.

Links to the current Roads Hierarchy Study

The scope of Option 10 noted above provides focus for the current Roads Hierarchy Study going forward.

In relation to the signage aspect, it is noted that the established signing framework is already in place on theAWPR trunk road. Signs on the local road network have been designed but are not yet implemented and mayrequire review following the outcomes of the Roads Hierarchy Study. In addition to the rerouting of general traffic,the detrunking of Anderson Drive and The Parkway means that signs require to be changed from trunk roadsigns to local signs, road numbering is affected, directions to key destinations change, and links toAberdeenshire and beyond will be directed, at the earliest appropriate points, to the new A90 route (AWPR).

Within the framework, radial routes from the AWPR focus trips into and out of the city centre and to key locations.General traffic trips will be directed within areas:

· North – key corridors are A90(N) at Blackdog junction, A947 at Parkhill junction, A96 at Craibstone junction;· West – key corridor is A944 at Kingswells South junction; and· South – key corridors are A92(S) and A956 at Charleston junction.

Plans illustrating the established signing framework discussed above are included within Appendix B.



2.1.4 Roads Hierarchy (ACC former Communities, Housing andInfrastructure Committee) (2017)

The ‘Roads Hierarchy’ committee report (2017) was reported to ACC’s former Communities, Housing andInfrastructure Committee in August 2017, providing a progress update on the development of a new roadshierarchy. The committee resolved to note the outcomes of the stakeholder and public consultation, agreed theroads hierarchy principles set out below and instructed officers to develop the detailed roads hierarchy.

The report outlines the findings of the public consultation that was undertaken via online questionnaire throughFebruary and March 2017. The headline findings from the consultation can be summarised as follows:

· Most respondents use the car to travel to, from and around Aberdeen;

· Walking is a mode of travel for main journeys for 42% of respondents. Bus and bicycle each account for 25%and 17% of trips respectively;

· The most common purpose for main journeys is work (34% respondents), followed by Leisure (18%),Shopping (16%) and Home (13%);

· The majority of main journeys (90%) take less than one hour, with 47% taking less than half an hour;

· The most important factors affecting choice of mode for each type of travel differ although safety is the mostpopular choice for walking/on foot, cycling and motorcycle. Journey time is the most popular choice for Bus(alongside reliability), Train (closely followed by reliability and cost), Driving a Car, Driving a Car (Passenger)and HGV / Van. Cost was the most common factor for Taxi;

· The health benefits of active travel was identified as an advantage by a sizeable number of respondents;

· Congestion was the issue most commonly raised by the consultation. This was in both the possibility of theproposals reducing or increasing congestion; and

· The overall conclusion from a wide range of views identified strong support for an improved environment forpedestrians and cyclists particularly in the city centre. There was also strong support for improvements topublic transport facilities that would lead to an increase in reliability and make public transport more attractive.

The agreed roads hierarchy principles (also outlined in Chapter 1) emerging from the committee report are asfollows:








The report goes on to identify the need for a replacement of the current ‘grid’ hierarchy with one more suitable forthe delivery of the CCMP and other Council commitments. The following high-level hierarchy of routes is outlined,which it is noted will be developed in accordance with the principles detailed above:

1. Highest priority route – the AWPR;2. Secondary priority routes – major connectors between the city centre and the AWPR;3. Identify a destination core for the city centre where through and cross-traffic is discouraged;4. Identify bus priority measures to improve public transport;5. Optimise access to bus P&R and train access to the city centre;6. Establish tertiary orbital routes to permit connection between the secondary radial routes;7. Ensure that larger employment areas have suitable access;8. Identify areas bounded by radial and orbital routes; and9. Identify proposals to reduce junction movements into/out of/through the areas bounded by main routes while

improving safe cycling, walking and routes to public transport.

2.2 SummaryThe purpose of this chapter has been to outline the extensive background review that has been undertaken to setthe policy context for this work and to ensure full understanding of previous and ongoing work in the study area. Itis considered that the key documents providing context for the Roads Hierarchy Study are the CCMP and DeliveryProgramme, and the previous committee reports produced and approved by ACC in 2016 and 2017 on initial roadshierarchy work, a review of which has formed the focus of this chapter.

The key outcome from the ACC 2016 report relates to the selection of Option 10 as a likely approach to redefiningthe roads hierarchy in the post-AWPR scenario. Option 10 involves:

· Creation of three zones within the city centre with demand restriction for vehicles between them; and

· Public transport and cycling corridors that will penetrate each of the zones while CCMP/SUMP proposals forpedestrians, cycling and public transport will remain in the city centre.

Another key outcome of the 2016 report is the outlining of principles established in relation to implementation ofupdated directional road signage in the city as a result of the AWPR. Signage, which is now in place on the AWPR(and which is being taken forward for implementation on the local road network) is designed to ensure vehicles usethe AWPR to access and egress the city network at the most appropriate points. Advice is provided to travellers toaccess Aberdeen North, West and South and the key regional destinations of Aberdeen International Airport, ARI,Aberdeen Harbour, TECA, both universities and the city centre.

The ACC 2017 report sets out the findings from the public and stakeholder consultation in 2017 and outlines thekey roads hierarchy principles approved by the Council. These have been taken forward for use in the currentRoads Hierarchy Study. The principles generally relate to making best use of the AWPR, prioritising radial routingand promoting the city centre as a destination rather than a through route for traffic.

Chapter 2 – Key Outcome

This chapter has provided a review of the key documents providing context for the current Roads Hierarchy Study.A significant amount of previous work has already been undertaken to set the foundation for the development of anew roads hierarchy. Going forward, it must be ensured that proposed hierarchy options and intervention measuresencapsulate all the work that has been undertaken prior to the commencement of the current study.



03



3. Roads Hierarchy Policy Review3.1 IntroductionThis chapter provides a review of the National Roads Development Guide (NRDG), produced by the Society ofChief Officers of Transport in 2015, in the context of the Roads Hierarchy Study. The NRDG is the leading designguidance for streets in Scotland at the present time and has been adopted by the majority of local authorities, withlocal amendments applied.

3.2 National Roads Development Guide – Section 1One of the purposes of the NRDG is to advocate a redesignation of road hierarchy to user hierarchy. In urbanareas, it is important to recognise the importance of the community function of streets as spaces for socialinteraction, and they should aim to integrate communities rather than segregate them. Consequently, the userhierarchy should be followed and users at the top of the hierarchy should be supported in detailed designs. It isintended to move away from hierarchies of road types based on traffic flows and/or the number of buildings served,and instead design roads which fit the context of the location.

The NRDG supports Designing Streets, which is a document published by the Scottish Government in 2010. It isthe first policy statement in Scotland for street design and marks a change in emphasis of guidance on street designtowards placemaking and away from a system focussed upon the dominance of motor vehicles. As DesigningStreets is a policy statement, local authorities must adhere to its requirements. It encourages high-quality streetdesign, enhancing place and contains a series of best practice examples from across Scotland. It sets out sixqualities for successful places: distinctiveness; safe and pleasant; ease of movement; welcoming; adaptability; and resource efficiency.

The NRDG makes use of the Designing Streets document to identify different types of street, generally under thefollowing headings:

· Primary

─ Strategic Roads: provide for major traffic movement between centres of population and economic activityon a national and regional level.

─ Main Roads or Primary Streets: within urban boundaries these link traffic from strategic roads toresidential streets or industrial roads. They include ‘arterial’ through routes and mixed-use, multi-functional ‘high streets’ (at least in part along their length), providing access to properties as well asother amenities. Likely to be public transport routes they require a careful balance of place andmovement when improving or connecting in with new development.

· Secondary

─ Residential Streets: provide access to properties and through routes within a residential area. Assecondary connectors they are much less likely to be public transport routes.

· Tertiary

─ Residential and service lanes: solely access to properties within a residential area. These tertiary streetscould be mews, vennels or courtyards.

─ Industrial roads: link multi-functional industrial/commercial premises and associated parking and serviceareas to main or strategic roads. When within urban boundaries some elements of Designing Streetsmay be applied, dependent on context and an assessment of future adaptability, but the balance istowards vehicle movement.

It goes on to identify other routes, not for motor vehicles:

· Footways: a pedestrian route that adjoins a carriageway;

· Footpaths: a pedestrian route not adjoining a carriageway;

· Cycleways: a cyclist route that adjoins a carriageway;

· Cycle track: a cyclist route not adjoining a carriageway; and



· Shared surfaces: low-trafficked single level street that serves a range of user types, normally limited toresidential streets where traffic speeds do not exceed 10mph.

Figure 3.1 illustrates how different street types interact.

Figure 3.1: Interaction of street types (Source: NRDG3)

3 http://www.scotsnet.org.uk/documents/national-roads-development-guide.pdf



The document also illustrates how speed can be adopted to identify where Designing Streets can be utilised, asshown in Figure 3.2.

It is important to consider the changing context along a route, which may mean that a route changes classificationand/or its position on the place and movement matrix at different locations along the route. For example, themovement function (at least for vehicles) can remain largely the same along a route, but the place function maychange as a route moves through residential areas, shopping areas, and functions separately as a strategic orurban road.

Figure 3.2: Interaction of movement and place in terms of different street types (Source: NRDG)



Figure 3.3 outlines the different design standards, and different design approaches that should be taken fordifferent classifications of movement and place.

DS = The principles of Designing Streets should apply.DS BM = This location is predominantly place dominated and the general principles of Designing Streets shouldbe applied. However, there is also a higher level of traffic on these roads and this should be reflected in the design.The design should therefore be pedestrian dominated but the design elements such as road width, visibility,alignment should be less stringent such that vehicles can travel more freely at a slightly higher speed.DMRB BP = This location is predominantly movement dominated and the general principles of the Design Manualfor Roads and Bridges (DMRB) should be reflected in the design. The design should therefore allow the free flowof traffic such that drivers realise the change in nature of the road and drive in a more considerate manner.DMRB = The principles of DMRB should be applied. Strict adherence to DMRB is required on trunk roads, butdepartures can be granted on application to Transport Scotland. Local authority roads may not require such strictadherence to the design parameters.

The NRDG notes that it would be appropriate to consider a higher level of place in areas where there are highlevels of kerbside activity for example, generated by parking, loading, and public transport. The movement functionis defined by a combination of the level of traffic flow and the number of accesses on a particular section of road.It is not intended to define levels of traffic flows, and the interpretation will vary depending on the location withinScotland where the road serves. An indication of movement status can also be given by the actual speed of trafficon existing roads and the proposed traffic speeds for new developments. Where speeds are lower (below ~40mph),Designing Streets parameters are suggested.

Figure 3.3: Application of different design standards for Place and Movement categorisations(Source: NRDG)




3.3 National Roads Development Guide – Section 2The six qualities of successful places are demonstrated in Figure 3.4 below.

Designing Streets identifies a change to mode hierarchy for residential and low-use streets with pedestrians having greatest consideration. NRDG endorses this hierarchy for strategic and main roads as well. The removal of the requirement for a traditional roads hierarchy and the introduction of this NRDG provides designers with the freedom and flexibility to produce layouts that take full cognisance of the mode hierarchy.

Figure 3.4: Designing Streets - six qualities of successful places

3.4 SummaryThis chapter has provided a review of the NRDG and explanation of how this document relates to the Designing Streets policy guidance. It has been highlighted that the Designing Streets document marks a change in emphasis of guidance on street design towards placemaking and away from a system focussed solely upon the dominance of motor vehicles. It has additionally been demonstrated that different design standards should be used to assess different types of streets based on the street’s level of movement and place function. The NRDG reiterates the requirements for a successful place set out in Designing Streets and endorses the concept that a traditional roads hierarchy should no longer apply, in favour of one that considers both place and movement.


The NRDG and Designing Streets guidance provides a policy framework in which the roads hierarchy can be reviewed in North East Scotland. It will be important to ensure the revised hierarchy has synergy with the general principles of these national guidance documents.



04



4. Roads Classification LegislationReview

4.1 IntroductionThis chapter sets out the legislation associated with road classification. It includes the outcomes of discussionswith Transport Scotland relating to any issues or risks associated with the reclassification of roads.

4.2 Legislation ReviewPrimary and secondary legislation and a wide array of standards, policies and guidance documents govern andinfluence how urban roads are governed, managed and promoted. Road classification is a function of roadsauthorities but is governed by government and their transport agencies.

The following section details some background behind road classification, how this impacts on design and relatesto governance. The main controlling and emerging legislation is also considered to provide the basis for a reviewof the roads hierarchy in Aberdeen and the proposed options.

4.3 Road Classification BackgroundExcluding motorways, historically public roads in the United Kingdom (UK) generally fell within four categories:

· A-roads: Major roads intended to provide large-scale transport links within or between areas. These roadsare generally the highest-grade roads in terms of design and serve ‘through traffic’ between primarydestinations.

· B-roads: Roads intended to connect different areas, and to feed between A-roads and smaller roads on thenetwork.

· Classified unnumbered/C-roads: Smaller roads intended to connect unclassified roads and A and B-roads,and often linking a housing estate or village to the rest of the network. Many of these roads may be classifiedas C-roads, which are common throughout Scotland. C-class naming conventions are generally foradministrative purposes and are unlikely to appear on maps and signage for navigational purposes.

· Unclassified: Local roads intended for local traffic. The vast majority of roads in the UK fall into this category.Some unclassified roads may be listed as Uxxx.4

A ‘trunk road’5 is a road which is part of a national system of routes for through traffic controlled by the Secretaryof State through the government agency, Transport Scotland. All motorways and many long-distance A-roads fallinto this category. All roads that fall into the four categories listed above, that are not trunk roads, are governed bylocal road authorities. Local road authorities are typically local authorities, although other agencies such as airportsand the Ministry of Defence also serve as roads authorities.

Throughout the UK, A-roads along with motorways and designated trunk roads are regarded as the Primary RouteNetwork (PRN). The PRN generally provides:

· Road links between main centres of population and economic activity;

· Access to major ports, airports and rail intermodal terminals;

· Links from peripheral regions to the central economic areas;

· Key cross-border links to England; and

· Classification as part of the UK Trans-European Road Network (TERN).

The PRN links primary destinations throughout the UK. The primary destinations in Scotland are shown in Figure4.1 over page.

4 Guidance on Road Classification and the Primary Route Network, Department for Transport, 20125 Roads (Scotland) Act 1984



Figure 4.1: Primary route destinations in Scotland6

It should be noted that from a regulatory point of view, other classifications exist:

· Restricted Road: Under Section 82 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, in Scotland, a restricted road isa road which is furnished by a system of carriageway lighting with lamps not more than 185 metres apart.Section 81 makes it unlawful for a vehicle to be driven in excess of 30mph on a restricted road. A roadsauthority may, by order, vary the speed limit on a restricted road. Most roads in urban areas are restrictedroads and the effect of the regulation is that local authorities do not require to make a Traffic Regulation Order(TRO) to place a 30mph on the vast majority of their urban road network.

· Special Road: As provided for by Section 7 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, a special road is a road onwhich certain traffic, such as pedestrians, bicycles and horse-drawn vehicles are prohibited. All motorwaysand some A-roads are classified as special roads. Generally, these special roads are not located within urbanareas. The AWPR has this designation, as highlighted by erected signage at its access points. It is understoodthat in addition to pedestrians, bicycles and horse-drawn vehicles, tractors are also effectively prohibited fromusing this road.

· Private Road: Most roads are subject to the jurisdiction of a public authority, typically the national and localroads authorities. Private roads are owned, operated and maintained by individuals or organisations. TheRoads (Scotland) Act 1984 enables local authorities to place a duty on private road ‘frontagers’ to make andmaintain the road to a ‘reasonable standard’. Local authorities also have the power to undertake appropriatemaintenance works on a private road and recharge the frontagers.

6 LTN 1/94




4.4 Road NumberingRoads throughout the country are assigned numbers to aid navigation. A route number should apply to a single route. It can be composed of several different roads and can change direction at junctions. Where two roads temporarily merge together (for example the A8 and the M8 in the Glasgow area), a number can re-emerge at a later point. In Scotland and the rest of the UK, road numbering remains a function of the devolved governments to ensure duplications are avoided. However, roads authorities can seek new numbers or alterations to numbers on their network by applying to Transport Scotland. The process for this is discussed in Section 4.5.2 below.

Each classified road is assigned a letter which represents its classification, which is followed by a 1 to 4-digit number. Road numbering uses the following common system of zones which are:

· 1 – East and north of A1 = A1xxx;

· 6 – East of A6 and west/south of A1 = A6xxx;

· 7 – West of A7 and south of A8 = A7xxx;

· 8 – West of A9 and north of A8 = A8xxx; and

· 9 – East of A9 and north of A1 = A9xxx.

Figure 4.2 Road numbering zones in Scotland and the UK7

4.5 Road Classification GovernanceThe classification of roads is a matter devolved to Scotland through the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, and a responsibility of the Secretary of State through Transport Scotland. Transport Scotland is responsible for the management of the trunk road network, authorising the detrunking of roads, classifying/reclassifying roads, and generally maintaining a record of road numbers throughout the country.

4.5.1 DetrunkingDetrunking is a statutory process, conferred on the Secretary of State by Section 5(2) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, which permits a road to cease being a trunk road. In these situations, the jurisdiction of the road transfers to the relevant roads authority. This process has recently been undertaken in Aberdeen. With the AWPR now fully

7 Provided by Transport Scotland



open to traffic, parts of the old A90 (i.e. Anderson Drive and The Parkway) and A96 (east of the Craibstone junction)have been detrunked.

The detrunking of a road requires the making of an Order under the power of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. Thisincludes a requirement to consult with both statutory mandated bodies and the general public. The Order may beobjected to by all consultees.

4.5.2 New Classifications/ReclassificationLocal authorities may apply to Transport Scotland to have existing roads reclassified or new roads classified witha number. Transport Scotland requires authorities to provide a schedule, plans and a supporting statement to applyfor a classification or reclassification. The supporting statement should include a brief statement of reasons forproposing the changes, any information that Transport Scotland requires to understand the reasons for the changesand the effect that the authority expects the changes to have. Except for certain situations, reclassification of aroad does not require a legislative instrument. However, consideration must be given to signage alterationrequirements.

4.6 Road Management4.6.1 General Legislation, Standards and GuidancePrimary and secondary legislation and a wide array of standards, policies and guidance documents govern andinfluence how urban roads are governed, managed and promoted. Below is a summary of the key documents.

Table 4.1: Key road legislation documents

Document Purpose

Road Traffic Regulation Act1984

Provides powers to national and local authorities to regulate or restrict trafficon roads in the United Kingdom. The Act enables authorities to regulateparking, use of roads by different classes of vehicles, access, and speedlimits.

Roads (Scotland) Act 1984The Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 is an enactment that governs themanagement and operation of roads in Scotland. It serves a similar functionas the Highways Act 1980.

Road Traffic Act 1991

Enables local authorities to implement Decriminalised Parking Enforcement(DPE), whereby enforcement of Stationary Orders is undertaken by the localauthorities. Revenues from this enforcement are retained by the localauthority and ring-fenced for traffic and transportation activities. The Actenables Councils to govern their streets and traffic management as they seefit. DPE was introduced to Aberdeen by ‘The Road Traffic (Permitted ParkingArea and Special Parking Area) (City of Glasgow, Perth and Kinross Council,Aberdeen City Council, Dundee City Council and South LanarkshireCouncil) Designation Amendment Order 2006’.

Transport (Scotland) Act 2001The Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 empowers local authorities, inpartnerships with public transport operators, to establish Quality BusPartnerships and road user charging schemes (congestion zones).

Disabled Persons ParkingPlaces (Scotland) Act 2009

The aim of the Disabled Persons Parking Places (Scotland) Act 2009 is thatall disabled street parking places become enforceable. A duty has beenimposed on local authorities, including ACC, to identify all existing advisorydisabled street parking places and, for those still needed, to promote ordersto make it an offence to park without a valid Blue Badge.

Traffic Signs Regulations andGeneral Directions 2016

The TSRGD prescribes the designs and conditions of use for traffic signs,including road markings, traffic signals and pedestrian, cycle and equestriancrossings used on or near roads.



4.6.2 Traffic RegulationIn general, roads authorities are empowered by the documents listed above to operate and manage their roadsinfrastructure. However, perhaps the most prominent is the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, which enablesCouncils, by way of TROs, to restrict the use of the road network for a variety of purposes including road safety,traffic operations, prioritising certain classes of vehicles and environmental considerations. TROs permit theCouncil to:

· Prohibit waiting and loading;

· Regulate parking;

· Restrict/prohibit access by all or certain classes of vehicles; and

· Restrict vehicular speeds.

TROs can be permanent, temporary or experimental. Whilst most road restrictions require a TRO, some restrictionssuch as bus stop clearways and mandatory on-carriageway cycle lanes are governed by overarching regulationsprovided in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016.

4.6.3 SignageRoads authorities are permitted to erect signage to govern the use of roads and aid route navigation. Most signagetypes will be underpinned by regulation (either using TROs or primary/secondary legislation) which will enableappropriate enforcement. Route signage can be utilised to guide traffic on preferred routes, i.e. avoiding knowncongestion points, retail thoroughfares and residential zones.

4.6.4 ParkingAnother mechanism for managing road usage is through parking management. Every journey requires a vehicle tobe parked at the terminal points; therefore, it is a critical function of traffic management, particularly in city zones.ACC adopted DPE in 2003, and is responsible for not only the regulation, but enforcement of parking in the city.Parking, along with other traffic management mechanisms, will form part of any roads hierarchy strategy.

4.7 Emerging Legislation: Transport (Scotland) BillThe Transport (Scotland) Bill, as introduced in the Scottish Parliament on 8 June 2018, proposes to confer a rangeof transport-related powers, including the provision for low emission zones (LEZs) and the prohibition of footwayparking, onto Scottish roads authorities. The LEZs and prohibition of footway parking, if enacted, are likely toinfluence roads governance in Aberdeen.

4.7.1 Low Emission ZonesThe LEZ element of the Transport (Scotland) Bill, if enacted, provides local authorities with powers to create zonesin which vehicles that do not meet emission standards cannot enter or are charged for doing so. LEZs can bepromoted by local authorities however, ministerial approval will be required. Enforcement of LEZs will beundertaken by local authorities and they may be permitted to utilise approved technology i.e. Automatic NumberPlace Recognition CCTV. Charges levied by local authorities will require to be used either “to further theachievement of the LEZ scheme’s aims…or to repay grants made by Scottish Ministers to support the developmentof the scheme”.

4.7.2 Footway ParkingA Bill to the Scottish Parliament was introduced in 2015, which proposed to prohibit parking on footways and doubleparking throughout Scotland. However, following parliamentary consideration, whilst the general principles of theBill were agreed, there was concern as to whether the Parliament had legislative competence on the matter. Toovercome this, and through the Scotland Act 2016, legal competence was devolved to the Parliament and hencethis has been included in the Transport (Scotland) Bill.

As the Bill has not been enacted, its contents cannot be known for certain. However, in its current state, the Billmakes provision for prohibiting parking on footways and footpaths (pavement parking) and double parking. The Billproposes to apply a complete ban on pavement and double parking, removing the requirement for roads authorities



to implement TROs. Roads authorities will be required to identify which roads should be exempt from theprohibitions.

ACC, as a DPE authority, will be permitted to issue Penalty Charge Notices to motorists in breach of theprohibitions. It is the intention that charges levied under the provisions of the Bill (if enacted) would be ring-fenced,as currently required under DPE requirements, and may only be used for ‘certain transport-related purposes’.

4.8 Other Emerging Legislation4.8.1 20mph Speed LimitA Bill was introduced to the Scottish Parliament on 21 September 2018, which proposes to reduce the nationalspeed limit on a ‘restricted road’ from 30mph to 20mph. In recent years, many local authorities have promoted20mph restrictions in their areas and a select number have promoted area-wide or strategically focussedapproaches by making most residential roads 20mph. Most notably, the City of Edinburgh Council reduced thespeed limit from 30mph to 20mph on approximately 2,500 streets across the city. However, the national approachhas been ad-hoc and often local authority-promoted schemes fail due to local opposition, such as in Bishopbriggs,East Dunbartonshire.

Since 2006, the Scottish Executive and subsequent administrations encouraged and supported 20mph zoneswhere there was a risk to vulnerable road users8. At local and national level, and set against numerousenvironmental, active travel and road safety targets, there has been an increasing focus on 20mph restrictions.The Bill seeks to reduce the speed limit on all restricted roads from 30mph to 20mph, taking the responsibility awayfrom local authorities.

It should be noted that as the Bill has not been enacted, its contents cannot be known for certain, nor can it beguaranteed that it will be enacted.

4.9 SummaryThis chapter has set out the legislation associated with road classification and has included consideration of therisks associated with the reclassification of roads.

It has been noted that ACC has a wide variety of mechanisms to manage its road network, including:

· Reclassifying existing high-class roads, from A and B-class roads to more local non-strategic classifications;

· Implementing TROs to regulate traffic movement and operations;

· Through regulation, restricting access or through movements; and

· Regulating parking – ACC can utilise its powers over parking in several ways to regulate the use of its roads.

Mechanisms for traffic management will be subject to statutory and non-statutory consultation requirements, theoutcomes of which can often delay, dilute or prohibit the implementation of schemes. Generally, public andstakeholder acceptance is one of the most significant non-financial risks for any public sector transport project.

A number of emerging legislative instruments are currently being evaluated in the statutory process and may beenacted in future. These include:

· Introduction of a national 20mph speed limit on all restricted roads; and

· Enabling local authorities to implement LEZs.


It is possible to reclassify roads on the local network provided permission is granted by Transport Scotland. Trafficmanagement measures require additional statutory and non-statutory consultation, and this can have an impacton the implementation of schemes. ACC will require to assess the impact of national initiatives including national20mph speed limits on all restricted roads and LEZs, in its future roads hierarchy.

8 Setting Local Speed Limits: Guidance for Local Authorities, Scottish Executive, 2006



05



5. Initial Consultation5.1 IntroductionThe development of the roads hierarchy marks a step-change in how the transport network will be used in andaround Aberdeen. Recognising this, initial consultation work in the study was focussed on delivering targeted,inclusive and meaningful engagement to outline why the study is being undertaken, the key objectives of the workand laying the foundations for subsequent engagement at a later stage.

The reordering of the road network in Aberdeen will be as fundamental (in transport terms) as the AWPR. It isexpected that this will create debate, concern, and at times, emotion from certain groups. The following consultationapproach reflects the delivery of a bottom-up approach to engagement that was promoted to ensure buy-in to therationale for the study at the outset.

5.2 Initial Consultation ApproachThe approach to the initial consultation work in the Roads Hierarchy Study is set out in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1: Initial Consultation Approach

Consultation Task Comment

Consultation DatabaseAn initial task in the study was the preparation of a consultation databasefor the study. This has provided the framework for the engagementactivities undertaken as part of this work. A copy of the database ispresented in Appendix C.

Study Briefing NoteA study briefing note (Consultation Paper) was developed at the outset ofthe study to introduce the study to all stakeholders. A copy of the note ispresented in Appendix C.

Officer EngagementA session was held with officers from across ACC, Aberdeenshire Counciland Nestrans in August 2018 to allow initial dissemination of the studyremit to officers.

Member Engagement

A study briefing to the administration leads of ACC was held in September2018. This was supported by dissemination of study briefing informationto all ACC members, members of Aberdeenshire Council, and non-Councillor board members of Nestrans. The study was also introduced,via written correspondence, to MPs, MSPs and MEPs.

Stakeholder EngagementDetailed discussions were held with several stakeholders in the initialconsultation phase of the study. This included a stakeholder workshopheld in Aberdeen on 25 October 2018. The list of stakeholders consultedis noted in the consultation database in Appendix C and listed below.

Regional Transport Partnership(RTP) Leads Engagement

Discussions were held with the leads of Scotland’s Regional TransportPartnerships to ascertain the experiences of Scotland’s other cities withrespect to their roads hierarchies.

Public EngagementThe public consultation elements of the engagement programme tookplace in January in 2019 in the form of dedicated community councilbriefing sessions. The outcomes of these sessions are discussed inChapter 12.

The following sections set out the key outcomes of the initial consultation programme for the study.



5.3 Officer EngagementA session was held with officers from across ACC, Aberdeenshire Council and Nestrans in August 2018 to allowinitial dissemination of the study remit to the group and to receive feedback from officers relating to ongoingprojects, and key areas for consideration in the study. Subsequent engagement took place with officers individuallyas deemed appropriate. The principal outcomes of the officer engagement are summarised below.

· It was stressed that the whole purpose of the Roads Hierarchy Study is to make the CCMP achievable througha city-wide review of the road network.

· A key principle is that the study is not about changing the transport system per se, it is about creating the citycentre and wider city that the people of Aberdeen have said they want.

· Compatibility between the study and other ongoing pieces of work (including ACC’s work to understand therequirement for, and thereafter progress the implementation of, a LEZ is vital).

· Public and stakeholder support for the principles of the Roads Hierarchy Study is essential to its success.

· The initial consultation exercise was regarded as critical in advance of initial option development to allow thepublic and stakeholders to input to and be an integral part of the decision-making process.

· There is a balancing act between the national street user hierarchy and the roads hierarchy structure.

· Movement is driven by destination – a principle that has been applied to the identification of principaldestinations (discussed in Chapter 11).

· It must be ensured that communities are protected through consideration of ‘zonal neighbourhoods’.

5.4 Member Engagement5.4.1 Administration Leaders BriefingAn initial briefing on the Roads Hierarchy Study was provided to senior elected members of ACC on 26 September2018. This provided opportunity for members to ask questions in advance of engagement with other members andwider stakeholders. The key points raised during the briefing are summarised below.

· There is a need to consider the implications of future schemes on the whole network. Specifically discussedwas the implication for the police office and other organisations on Queen Street in relation to proposalscontained within the CCMP for this area.

· There is a need to clearly articulate that the aim of the project is not to prevent people from coming into thecity centre by car, but rather to change the way in which people move around within the city centre.

· It is important to consider alternative forms of public transport in addition to buses.

· Mobility was highlighted as a key consideration to take account of in the study, especially those with limitedmobility who are not able to cross the city centre on foot or by bicycle. The provision of Blue Badge parkingspaces is vital to ensure the inclusion of those with limited mobility in the city centre and wider society.

· If the options presented as a result of the study include recommendations for restricting traffic movements insome locations, it is important to consider the implications for other streets, such that residential areas do notbecome rat-runs for motorists. There is a need to look at the whole network and assess how we need trafficto move to allow space to be used differently.

· The importance of emphasising the journey and work that is required to achieve a better city centre duringthe consultation process was highlighted.

5.4.2 ACC Member BriefingFollowing the briefing with administration leaders, written communications were sent to all ACC Councillors on 10October 2018 to introduce the study and provide the opportunity for comment.



5.4.3 Aberdeenshire Council Member Briefing and Nestrans BoardMember Briefing

Following the dissemination of study information to elected members in Aberdeen City, written communicationswere also distributed to members of Aberdeenshire Council, and non-Councillor board members of Nestrans.

5.4.4 MSPs, MPs and MEPs BriefingFollowing local and regional communications, the study was introduced thereafter to Members of the ScottishParliament (MSPs), Members of Parliament (MPs), and Members of the European Parliament (MEPs).

Face-to-face meetings were held between the AECOM project team and MSPs for the following constituencies, inNovember 2018:

· Aberdeen South and North Kincardine; and

· Aberdeen Donside.

The key points raised during the MSP consultations are summarised below.

· Concerns were raised about public transport, including lack of orbital bus services and insufficient use of Parkand Ride (P&R) across the city.

· The overall aim should be a city centre with no car traffic, with people using P&R services as an alternativeto access the city centre. It was noted that encouragement to use public transport would be facilitated byadequate provision of bus lanes, which can improve the journey times of public transport services.

· Access to the bus station, harbour and Union Square will remain important, and therefore it is a recognisedchallenge to improve the traffic issues without negatively impacting on businesses.

· Concerns were noted about future traffic movements at the Craibstone junction given that this will be thejunction used to access the airport, TECA and industrial estates in Dyce from the AWPR.

· Issues with congestion in locations in the Dyce area were noted, including the Dyce Drive junction with theA947, where traffic can often back up on Pitmedden Road, and along Stoneywood Road where the trafficsignals can cause problems. It was noted that monitoring of traffic patterns may be beneficial in theselocations, although it was recognised that movements may change following full opening of the AWPR.

· The layout of the B977 junction with the A947 north of the River Don has been greatly improved.

· The need to fully consider developments within Aberdeenshire was emphasised, as this will impact on thevolume of traffic coming into the city.

· Improvements at Haudagain roundabout are expected to provide journey time savings of six minutes togeneral traffic, but only one minute for public transport vehicles. As such, it is a challenge to enhance theattractiveness of public transport on this corridor.

· Issues with congestion on Wellington Road may worsen following the opening of the AWPR, and thereforetraffic should be redirected from this route as far south as possible.

· The importance of routing Aberdeen South Harbour (ASH) traffic through Altens via Hareness Road toWellington Road was emphasised.

5.5 Stakeholder EngagementRecognising the critical role of consultation and engagement in the Roads Hierarchy Study, an extensiveprogramme of consultation and engagement has been carried out between October 2018 and January 2019.

Figure 5.1 shows the range of organisations engaged as part of the consultation exercise to date.



Figure 5.1: Stakeholders engaged as part of the Roads Hierarchy Study

5.5.1 Stakeholder WorkshopA stakeholder workshop was held at the AECOM offices on Berry Street on 25 October 2018. It was attended bythe following organisations:

· Abellio ScotRail;

· Aberdeen Inspired;

· Aberdeen Performing Arts;

· NHS Grampian;

· Robert Gordon University;

· Scottish Council for Development and Industry (SCDI); and

· Visit Scotland.

Feedback from attendees was sought on the following areas:

· Appropriateness of A and B-class roads in the current roads hierarchy;

· ‘Anomaly’ routes – those that may function at a different level to their current classification;

· Principal destinations in the study area; and

· Initial thoughts on potential hierarchy options.

The notes of the workshop are presented in Appendix C.



5.5.2 Stakeholder DiscussionsIn addition to the stakeholder workshop, there has been written correspondence and a number of face-to-facemeetings and telephone conversations held with the other stakeholders identified in Figure 5.1.

The key outcomes from this extensive engagement exercise are set out below. While views were forwarded by across-section of stakeholders, a number of common themes emerged from the initial consultation:

· There is widespread support for the revision of the roads hierarchy from stakeholders in Aberdeen/theAberdeen City Region.

· The concept of future-proofing the transport network through this study, to enable delivery of elements of theCCMP was widely accepted.

· The interrelationship between the Roads Hierarchy Study and other ongoing projects is a key factor forconsideration in the work. This includes transport schemes, development plans and other initiatives includingestablishment of health centre hubs across the city.

· There is a feeling of shared ownership with regards the city centre and it is important to ensure that it is giventhe opportunity to grow in a sustainable way.

· The city centre is a key resource for the City Region as a whole, and it will be important to ensure that theaspirations for the CCMP (and the Roads Hierarchy Study) support this, with cognisance taken of theimportance of movements to and from Aberdeenshire into the study area.

· Public transport (including P&R) is a key consideration in the study and must form a conscious part of thinkingin the development of options.

· Access for all users of the transport network, including those with mobility impairments, should be anunderlying principle applied throughout the work.

· Appropriate designation and promotion of car parking in the city centre was frequently identified duringconsultation.

· There is general stakeholder acceptance that there is rationale to consider the appropriateness of existingroad classifications in the roads hierarchy study area, including the role of anomaly routes.

· The concepts of place and movement, and their role in revising the roads hierarchy, were widely supported.

5.6 RTP Leads EngagementThe consultation exercise additionally involved consultation with the following RTPs across Scotland:

· SEStran;

· Tactran;

· Strathclyde Passenger Transport (SPT); and

· HITRANS.

It should be noted that the HITRANS discussion was passed to the Highland Council, as it was considered that theHighland Council was in a better position to advise on the project. Dundee City Council also participated in themeeting with Tactran.

This section provides a summary of the discussions held with each of the RTPs, with the minutes of each discussionincluded in Appendix C.

5.6.1 SEStranA telephone discussion was held with SEStran on 13 November 2018 and the key points discussed are as follows:

· Edinburgh is seeking to reduce the total volume of traffic in the city centre, considering the requirements todeliver air quality improvements. In addition to this, Edinburgh is undertaking a process of transforming thecity centre, seeking to increase the quality of place in the area. Some concern has been expressed about thisin terms of pushing traffic further out of the city centre, and its effect on congestion and air quality in otherlocations.



· The roads hierarchy in Edinburgh is reviewed infrequently. There will have been minor alterations to thehierarchy as a result of new infrastructure, for example following the construction of the bypass, however it isunclear when the last wholescale review was undertaken.

· Taking movement and place into account when developing a new hierarchy can be used to promote publictransport and active travel, and it was emphasised that new definitions of streets should include publictransport and cycling.

5.6.2 SPTA telephone discussion was held with SPT on 19 November 2018 and the key points discussed are as follows:

· It was noted that the motorway network in Glasgow is excellent, but the city centre can experience congestion.

· The grid and one-way system in Glasgow are beneficial, however it can lead to lengthy bus routes in somelocations. Many bus routes cross the city centre and lose time as they do so. Generally, passengers aredropped off at the edge of the city centre and the buses cross the city centre largely empty before newpassengers are picked up as the bus exits the city centre area. It was noted that consideration is being givento means by which these issues could be alleviated.

· Parking within the city centre needs to be considered to influence access by car.

· The Glasgow City Deal is seeking to create avenues on key streets to improve the place setting and impactson public transport need to be addressed as part of this.

· The competing demands on road space need to be balanced and care needs to be taken that cycle facilitiesare implemented at all costs. It is accepted that the car is not the overarching solution to access issues.

· Some consideration is being given to the hierarchy of roads, and it is thought that some roads currently underthe responsibility of Glasgow City Council would be better as part of the trunk road network. There is alsodebate on the hierarchy of routes within the city centre.

· It is unclear if changes introduced have brought about a modal shift, or if vehicles are being routed onto otherstreets. It is thought that the impact of the bus gate on Nelson Mandela Place has had an effect of pushingtraffic onto other streets in the area.

5.6.3 TactranA face-to-face meeting was undertaken with Tactran on 19 November 2018 and the key points discussed are asfollows:

· Consideration is being given to 20mph zones across large parts of Dundee, however it is likely that if this wasimplemented, some streets would remain with a 30mph limit to help with the flow of traffic.

· Two ring roads have been created in Dundee, the first encompassing the whole city and the secondencompassing the city centre, with the two meeting at the north side of the Tay Road Bridge. The inner ringroad was designed to prevent vehicles moving across the city centre, and bus gates have been installed toallow public transport access. Redevelopment of the waterfront area has brought about a number of changes,including some streets which are effectively pedestrianised. Within the inner ring road, there are no A-classified roads.

· Consideration is being given to the main arterial routes into the city centre, and the possible introduction ofcycle routes. Four P&R sites are also being considered around Dundee and the revolution in rail will bringimproved service frequency from the surrounding towns.

· The LEZ work is being considered and it is thought that buses are creating air quality problems, particularlyat the bus gates due to the concentration of movements. It is recommended not to route buses throughresidential areas. Problems were also noted with cycling in pedestrianised areas.

· Dundee is considering a sustainable travel hub which would encourage electric vehicles.



5.6.4 HITRANS/The Highland CouncilA telephone discussion was held with The Highland Council on 4 February 2019 and the key points discussed areas follows:

· The Highland Council made a start at a priority-based system for road improvements, which involved factorsincluding road safety and vehicle flow to identify priorities for improving the road network. With budget cutshowever, this was effectively made redundant and only City Deal projects were taken forward.

· Within the LTS, the roads team in the Council wanted a stronger emphasis on the hierarchy of measures,however the planners required that measures were centred around supporting development.

· The west link has performed a similar, if smaller, role in Inverness as the AWPR is expected to for Aberdeen.There have been reductions in traffic flow of approximately 26% in the city centre following the opening of thislink. This has allowed The Highland Council to start thinking about other measures that could be introducedin the city centre using the available capacity, including pedestrianisation. Pedestrian and cycle counts havealso been undertaken on the west link, which show a high demand for these modes.

· No other changes, including to the hierarchy, have been introduced following the opening of the west link.

5.7 SummaryThis chapter has summarised the initial consultation work that has been undertaken as part of the Roads HierarchyStudy. The initial consultation work has focussed on setting out the reasons for the review of the roads hierarchy,the key objectives of the work and laying the foundations for subsequent engagement at a later stage.

Initial consultation has included officer engagement, member engagement, stakeholder engagement, andengagement with the leads of Scotland’s Regional Transport Partnerships.

The initial consultation has highlighted that there is clear stakeholder appetite to deliver the CCMP. Aligned to this,early engagement on the study has identified buy-in with the principles of the roads hierarchy, particularly in termsof how the AWPR can (and now is) enabling consideration of how to make best use of the city’s road network withthis infrastructure now in place. There is acceptance that this will be a challenging exercise, however it was clearfrom the stakeholder workshop in October 2018 that there is an opportunity for Aberdeen to deliver a city centre ofthe highest quality, and the Roads Hierarchy Study is an integral component of delivering the city centre thatstakeholders have previously aspired to. The initial consultation has also demonstrated that similar issues are beingexperienced by the other RTPs in relation to aims to reduce traffic and improve the quality of city centres.


There is a clear message from the initial consultation work that there is stakeholder support for the current reviewof the roads hierarchy. The view was shared that key places across the city are being eroded by the amount oftraffic, the lessening of which is supported. In addition, stakeholders considered many of Aberdeen’s roads to beinappropriately classified and conducting a review of this had stakeholder support.

Cognisance will require to be taken of competing demands for access to and use of the network in Aberdeen,consideration of which will be given later in this report during the appraisal of option packages.



06



6. Development of Objectives6.1 IntroductionThis chapter presents the objectives for the Roads Hierarchy Study. As discussed in Chapter 2, a set of objectiveswere developed for the roads hierarchy in 2016. In taking forward this study, these objectives were reviewed andreassessed in the context of the study and ‘SMART’ened to provide a targeted approach to assessing performanceof initial options for change and subsequent package scenarios.

The revised objectives were subsequently agreed in liaison with the client group. This was facilitated by assessingthe principal problems/issues and opportunities as outlined in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1: Roads Hierarchy Study - principal problems/issues and opportunities

Problems and Issues

The CCMP requires an enabling city-wide framework to facilitate the delivery of its transport elements

The present hierarchy is outdated, and has not been subject to detailed review since the 1990s

There are several routes in the current hierarchy which may be carrying a classification inappropriate to itscurrent function, either in terms of being ‘over’ classified or performing at a higher function than is presentlyrecognised within the hierarchy – ‘anomaly routes’

In the current hierarchy, cross-city centre vehicular movements can be undertaken on several routes

Significant development is expected in the short to medium term in the study area, including at Countesswells,Grandhome and Craibstone South – the future roads hierarchy will require to take cognisance of thesedevelopments

Opportunities

The CCMP creates the opportunity to make the city centre a destination in its own right

There is strong public and stakeholder support for an improved environment for pedestrians and cyclists in thecity centre

The AWPR can accommodate the movement of through and peripheral traffic, which provides the opportunityto revise the current roads hierarchy

Locking-in of AWPR benefits to prioritise the movement of active and sustainable travel

Local road infrastructure projects being progressed (including the Berryden Corridor Improvement andHaudagain Roundabout Improvement)

Revolution in rail will provide benefits for regional rail travel and encourage uptake of rail travel



6.2 Roads Hierarchy Study ObjectivesThe agreed objectives for the Roads Hierarchy Study are set out below. Under each, a commentary is provided tohighlight how they link back to the confirmed problems/issues and opportunities set out in Table 6.1.

1. Enables delivery of key elements in the City Centre Masterplan, and facilitates promotion of the citycentre as an accessible destination

The Roads Hierarchy Study supports the implementation of the CCMP and the management of its impactsacross the city. Previous work has reinforced the importance of delivering a quality city centre which is adestination in its own right.

2. Takes advantage of the opportunities afforded by recent and forthcoming road and rail improvementsto support a reduction in through traffic which crosses the city centre

Presently, cross-city centre vehicular movements can be undertaken on several routes. Forthcominginfrastructure projects and the revolution in rail will provide opportunity to support the objective of reducingcross-city centre through traffic.

3. Facilitates promotion of a high quality, attractive city centre that prioritises the movements of thosewalking, cycling and using public transport

Previous consultation work has underlined public and stakeholder aspirations to improve the active/sustainabletravel environment in the city centre.

4. Prioritises movement on the AWPR and radial routes on the transport network to move people to andfrom principal destinations and city centre destinations

The AWPR makes the revision of the roads hierarchy possible by enabling the transfer of through and peripheraltraffic from the roads within the study area, providing protection to high-quality places across the city.

5. Promotes and enhances public transport and active travel access across the city, and to the city centre

As noted in Objective 3, previous consultation work has underlined aspirations to improve the active/sustainabletravel environment in the city centre. The importance of improving the wider active and sustainable travelnetwork across Aberdeen (i.e. the whole study area) is also a key feature in local and regional transport policyand was a strong message during consultation; i.e. the importance of locking-in the benefits of the AWPR.

6. Supports continued sustainable economic growth in the city

The revision of the roads hierarchy will require to take cognisance of significant development taking place inthe short to medium term. A key challenge will be to future-proof the hierarchy to enable sustainable growth inthe study area to be achieved, whilst also supporting existing principal destinations and access to thesedestinations by appropriate routes.

The objectives were developed to ensure they are:

· Specific;

· Measurable;

· Attainable;

· Realistic; and

· Time-bound.

Figure 6.1 illustrates the adherence of the objectives to these elements.



Figure 6.1: Roads Hierarchy Study - 'SMART' Objectives



6.3 Objective MappingThe table below illustrates the objective mapping exercise undertaken to demonstrate the process of reviewing theinitial 2016 roads hierarchy objectives to aid preparation of the finalised objectives for the current Roads HierarchyStudy. Full details of the objectives presented in the table below can be found in Section 2.1.3 and Section 6.2.

Table 6.2: Objective mapping exercise

Roads Hierarchy Study Objectives

1 2 3 4 5 6

Key ThemesCCMP

Delivery

CC throughtraffic

reduction

CC priorityfor PT/AT

LIBCity-widepriority for

PT/AT

City-wideeconomic

growth

Roa

ds H

iera

rchy

TPO

s (2

016)

TPO1 CC active travel P

TPO2 PT journey times P P

TPO3 PT reliability P P

TPO4 CC economic growth P

TPO5 Removal of AQMAs P P P

TPO6 LIB P P

TPO7 CCMP P P P P P

It is highlighted in the table that the Roads Hierarchy Study objectives reflect the original roads hierarchy TPOsfrom 2016, with the revised objectives ‘SMART’ened to provide a targeted approach to appraisal.

6.4 SummaryThrough a review of the previous roads hierarchy objectives developed in 2016, a revised series of objectives weredeveloped and agreed with the client group. The objectives focus on the key themes of promoting the city centreas an accessible destination, taking advantage of road and rail improvements in the region, reducing cross-citycentre movements by general traffic, making best use of the AWPR, prioritising movements by radial routes,promoting public transport and active travel across the city, and supporting continued sustainable economic growthin the city.

By adopting a ‘SMART’ approach, there is a framework in place for Nestrans, ACC and partners to take forwardmeaningful options that complement the key drivers of this study.


The setting of objectives for the Roads Hierarchy Study provides an objective base from which to assess thesuitability of roads in terms of their place in the roads hierarchy, their suitability for movement and their adherenceto the key principles of the project.



07



7. Principles of Roads HierarchySystem

7.1 IntroductionThis chapter sets out the principles of the roads hierarchy system based on movement only.

7.2 Street Definitions in the Context of MovementIn the context of movement alone, a hierarchy system has been developed that splits the road network within theAWPR into three categories: primary, secondary and tertiary. These categories relate respectively to priority,secondary and local routes as defined in this study. The following sections are intended to set out how the roadnetwork within the AWPR will be categorised into priority, secondary and local routes, and the broad characteristicsof each type of street. Reference should be made to the NRDG discussed in Chapter 3 for the design detail of eachtype of street, including local authority principles and amendments for all types of infrastructure.

Figure 7.1 illustrates the relationship between hierarchy status, definitions used in the Roads Hierarchy Study andclassification.

Figure 7.1: Hierarchy status and classification diagram

7.2.1 Priority RoutesPriority routes are primary movement corridors, linking the strategic road network to principal destinations andsecondary routes. It is considered that street users should be aware they are on a priority route by the environmentand infrastructure.

Priority routes will generally be radial routes that connect with the AWPR to facilitate movement around Aberdeenby this primary orbital route, without using the city centre as a through route. In addition, priority routes must connectwith at least one secondary route, and should terminate at a secondary route or principal destination in the interestsof vehicle flow. Where they terminate, there should be a logical transition for vehicles to their destination (e.g. a citycentre car park, onwards to a secondary route, or to the car park of a principal destination etc.), and it should beclear that the priority route is terminating.

Principal destinations (discussed in Chapter 11) should be connected to a priority route, though do not have to beaccessed directly from the priority route. Direct access with a priority route should, where possible, be avoided inthe interests of vehicle flow.



Priority routes should serve as significant carriers of at least two key modes of cars, freight, buses, or cycles. Thereis no fixed number of vehicles that set the criteria for a priority route, however the thresholds outlined below indicatea high level of movement is to be accommodated and the route could be considered for priority status.

· Cars – more than 10,000 number of general vehicle movements per day;

· Freight – recognised freight route or carrying 1,500 number of light goods vehicle (LGV)/heavy goods vehicle(HGV) movements per day;

· Buses – regular public transport corridor carrying 100 number of buses per day, or serves a P&R facility; and

· Cycles – carrying 100 number of cyclists per day.

Priority routes should be considered for the provision of segregated bus lanes (where they serve as a bus route)and separately segregated cycle lanes, for travel in both directions. Measures to give public transport and cyclistspriority through junctions should also be employed.

To facilitate movement on these corridors, junction treatments should be carefully considered. All-ways junctionswith secondary routes are appropriate, with priority being given to the priority route. For general traffic, junctionswith local routes should be avoided where possible, but may be permitted as left in/left out only. Bus routes maybe permitted to move directly between priority and local routes by means of bus gates. Cyclists should be permittedto move between priority and local routes by means of segregated cycle routes bypassing junctions, routing throughjunctions closed to general vehicles, or by toucan crossings.

Junctions should generally take the form of signal or roundabout-controlled junctions.

Speed limits should reflect the environment but would generally be expected to be 30-40mph.

7.2.2 Secondary RoutesSecondary routes are secondary movement corridors facilitating access from secondary destinations to principaldestinations, and from priority routes to local routes. It is considered that street users should be aware they are ona secondary route by the environment and infrastructure.

Secondary routes must connect with at least one priority route and may connect with more than one. Secondaryroutes may also connect with other secondary routes.

Secondary destinations (discussed in Chapter 11) must be connected to a secondary route, though do not have tobe accessed directly from the secondary route.

Where secondary routes terminate, they must do so logically at secondary destinations, or with logical transitionsto priority or local routes. It should be clear that the secondary route has come to an end by the nature of theinfrastructure.

There is no fixed number of vehicles that set the criteria for a secondary route, however the thresholds outlinedbelow indicate a medium to high level of movement is to be accommodated and the route could be considered forsecondary status.

· Cars – more than 3,000 number of general vehicle movements per day;

· Freight – more than 450 number of LGV/HGV movements per day;

· Buses – public service routes carrying less than 100 number buses per day; and

· Cycles – carrying less than 100 number of cyclists per day.

Secondary routes should be considered for the provision of segregated bus lanes where they are a bus route withgreater than 100 number of buses per day and separately segregated cycle lanes where there are high levels ofgeneral traffic movement.

Frontage access should be permitted on secondary routes.

Junctions between secondary routes and between priority routes and secondary routes should be signalised orroundabout-controlled.

Speed limits should reflect the environment but would generally be expected to be 30-40mph.



7.2.3 Local RoutesLocal routes are part of the tertiary movement network serving local destinations and facilitating access fromsecondary destinations to principal destinations.

Local routes connect the secondary route network with individual destinations that are neither secondary norprincipal destinations. Frontage access should be permitted on local routes and connections with priority routesshould be kept to a minimum.

Junctions should generally be priority in nature, and only if local circumstances permit, should have other forms ofcontrol.

It should not be necessary to provide bus lanes on local routes. Although cycle facilities are not generally required,this would depend on the volume and composition of traffic.

Traffic speeds should generally be 20mph.

7.3 SummaryThis chapter has set out the principles of the roads hierarchy system based on movement only.

In the context of movement alone, a hierarchy system has been developed that splits the road network within theAWPR into three categories: primary, secondary and tertiary. These categories relate respectively to priority,secondary and local routes as defined in this study. The following road classifications are applicable to thesecategories:

· Priority – A-roads (including trunk roads);

· Secondary – A or B-roads; and

· Local – C-roads or Unclassified roads.

The characteristics of each category have been outlined, including an indication of thresholds for different modesand a description has been provided of the relationship and appropriate linkages between the different routecategories.

Figure 7.2 over page provides an overview of the principles of the roads hierarchy system, summarising thedefinitions that have been discussed throughout this chapter.




Figure 7.2: Principles of roads hierarchy classification system


Confirmation of the categories of the roads hierarchy system has enabled establishment of the ‘building blocks’ for the review of the roads hierarchy and has assisted with the development and validation of options for the updated hierarchy.



08



8. Network Assessment8.1 IntroductionThis chapter provides an overview of the network subject to review in the Roads Hierarchy Study. It considers:

· The range of transport-related projects identified as providing context for optioneering in the study;

· Forecasted traffic flow information using data generated by the Aberdeen Sub-Area Model (ASAM14); and

· Volumes of cross-city centre traffic movements.

8.2 Transport Related ProjectsThis section sets out a range of transport-related projects which have been identified as providing context foroptioneering in the Roads Hierarchy Study. It considers:

· Committed transport projects and key transport projects in development at the local (Aberdeen City) andregional (Nestrans) level;

· Transport projects within the CCMP area (proposed schemes within the CCMP); and

· ‘Locking-in the Benefits’ projects under consideration.

A key task is to ensure compliance of these transport projects with the agreed principles of the Roads HierarchyStudy.

8.2.1 Committed Transport Projects and Key Transport Projects inDevelopment

The following lists of committed transport projects and key transport projects in development have been developedin consultation with officers.

For the purposes of the study, the definitions that have been taken are summarised in Table 8.1.

Table 8.1: Project definitions

Category Description

CommittedTransport Projects

Comprises transport projects and schemes either under construction, or withcommitment (e.g. in ACC Capital Plan).

Transport Projectsin Development

Includes transport improvements subject to further development as part of appraisal andfeasibility studies (e.g. STAG assessments).

The list of committed transport projects is summarised in Table 8.2.

Table 8.2: Committed transport projects in the study area

Scheme Description Reference

AWPR/B-TNow fully open to traffic. Study area iseast of the route between Blackdog andCharleston.

https://www.transport.gov.scot/projects/aberdeen-western-peripheral-route-balmedie-to-tipperty/

HaudagainRoundaboutImprovement

Haudagain Roundabout Improvement –to be implemented post-AWPR withdemolition currently underway.

https://www.transport.gov.scot/projects/a90a96-haudagain-improvement/a90a96-haudagain-improvement/

BerrydenCorridorImprovement

Road improvement scheme to improvethe traffic flow between Skene Squareand St Machar Drive.

https://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2017-12/Berryden%20Preliminary%20Layout.pdf




South CollegeStreet

Reordered road layout and junctionarrangement (Option 1 – currentlyapproved scheme).

https://committees.aberdeencity.gov.uk/documents/s75668/CHI.17.020%20South%20College%20Street%20-%20Corridor%20Improvement.pdf

A2IImprovements

Aberdeen-Central BeltImprovements

Rail RevolutionProposals

Various rail proposals, including thereopening of Kintore Rail Station in 2019and redoubling of the track betweenAberdeen and Inverurie in order tocontribute towards the improvement ofjourney times between Aberdeen andInverness, and Aberdeen and theCentral Belt. Influence will be included infuture versions of ASAM. No physicalroad network scheme inclusion required.

https://www.transport.gov.scot/projects/aberdeen-to-inverness-rail-improvements/aberdeen-to-inverness-rail-improvements/

https://news.gov.scot/news/rail-revolution-announced

The AWPR provides the new primary orbital route around Aberdeen linking to priority radials. It provides traffic reliefin the city centre by providing an alternative to a through route. It also provides a mechanism to reduce traffic onthe former strategic orbital route of Anderson Drive and The Parkway by replacing this with a new strategic trunkroad route for long distance traffic. ACC policy is to use the AWPR not only for previous strategic through trips, butalso for movement from one area of Aberdeen to another via radial priority routes.

The Haudagain Improvement will provide a connection from the A96 priority radial route to the A92 Anderson Driveorbital route. It will aim to provide traffic relief at the A96 priority route junction for onward movement to the northand west of the city centre.

The Berryden Corridor Improvement will provide a potential alternative or additional priority route or secondaryradial route connecting the A96, A944 and potential B9119 priority radial routes to the north and west of the citycentre. The improvement has the potential to provide additional traffic relief on existing sections on the A978 suchas Hilton Street and Leslie Road.

The South College Street Improvement will provide a traffic (cars/vans only) connection to and from the south ofthe city centre from the Aberdeen West area. There remains a height restriction on Palmerston Place. The currentpreferred option, Option 1, provides another traffic route on the southern edge of the city centre taking some trafficaffected by vehicular restrictions proposed for Guild Street by CCMP schemes. Roundabout works are being heldin abeyance pending the outcomes of this report.

Rail improvements may provide city centre traffic reduction from the northwest and south.

The list of key transport projects in development is summarised in Table 8.3. It should be noted that there are alarge number of other projects in development by ACC, Nestrans and partners, many of which are active travel innature, within the timescales of this study.

Table 8.3: Key transport projects in development in the study area


AberdeenSouth Harbourtransport links

New harbour at Bay of Nigg – identified in National PlanningFramework 3. Construction underway with STAG Part 2Study to assess external transport links ongoing.

STAG Report provided by ACC tofacilitate Desktop Review.

WellingtonRoadImprovements

To be determined following STAG Part 2 Study. STAG Report provided by ACC tofacilitate Desktop Review.

Bridgeof Dee

Proposed new crossing of the River Dee to relieve existingconstraint on A92. STAG Part 2 has been completed, withthe outcomes to be reviewed following the establishment oftravel patterns post-AWPR.

https://committees.aberdeencity.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=5045




AberdeenCross CityConnections

STAG Part 2 Study underway to identify transportconnections between new areas of development (bothhousing and employment) on the periphery of Aberdeen,and in areas of Aberdeenshire close to the Aberdeen Cityboundary with the aim of providing viable, attractive anddirect linkages as an alternative to the private car.

STAG Report provided by ACC tofacilitate Desktop Review.

It should be noted that the initial linkage from Wellington Road identified for access to ASH will be reviewed in thehierarchy as a secondary route, but physical change to the network may not be required.

Wellington Road Improvements may provide traffic relief to this priority radial route to the south of the city centrethrough junction improvements and potential additional capacity. Consideration is to be given to further publicservice vehicle (PSV) and active travel priority along the route.

A new crossing of the River Dee, if brought forward, would provide the opportunity for improved walking and cyclingfacilities to cross the Dee at this location and would provide a new route for HGVs and PSVs, enabling a potentialreduction of traffic on B9077 Great Southern Road. Conversely, it may increase traffic attraction to A9013 HolburnStreet.

8.2.2 Transport Projects within the CCMP areaThe CCMP identifies possibilities for several transport schemes in the city centre area. It should be noted that notraffic modelling was undertaken to support the transport elements of the CCMP at the time the document wasproduced. ACC has undertaken some work in the interim on the key transportation possibilities, verified these andoptimised the programme of delivery. The options presented in the table below are intended to be indicative of theimplementation of the CCMP at a high-level, as interpreted by ACC officers for the purposes of modelling withinASAM.

Table 8.4: Indicative CCMP schemes as interpreted by officers for the purposes of modelling within ASAM

Road Description

GallowgateA clockwise gyratory system introduced around North East Scotland College. The routebecomes a bus only link northbound with general traffic required to route via Berry Street,Loch Street and Spring Garden before rejoining Gallowgate. A bus only right-turn is alsointroduced from Gallowgate onto Littlejohn Street.

Guild Street Westbound movements for buses and local access only.

Bridge Street/Wapping Street

Sections of Wapping Street and Bridge Street allow two-way traffic movements, andCarmelite Street is closed which results in junction layout changes.

Bridge Street Northbound route for buses only from the junction with Wapping Street.

Union Street Two-way bus only route between Bridge Street and Broad Street.

Carmelite Street Closed to vehicles between Wapping Street and Guild Street, resulting in southboundtraffic routing via Wapping Street and Bridge Street.

Denburn RoadJunction with Wapping Street is remodelled to allow southbound traffic to turn right ontoWapping Street. Access to Carmelite Street and the Trinity Centre car park is restrictedfrom the west, with access from Denburn Road only.

Union Terrace Bus, taxi and local access movements only permitted in both directions.

Market Street The northern section of Market Street becomes a southbound bus only link, with localaccess maintained.

Upperkirkgate Closed to vehicles between the junctions of Back Wynd and Flourmill Lane.



Road Description

Spring Garden Westbound only between Loch Street and George Street; eastbound only from Loch Street to Gallowgate.

George Street/John Street area

Restriction on motorists being able to travel ‘through’ the George Street area, with thefollowing streets allowing buses and local access only in both directions:

· Charlotte Street between John Street and Craigie Street;· John Street between Charlotte Street and George Street;· George Street between John Street and Craigie Street;· John Street between George Street and Jopp’s Lane;· George Street between St Andrew Street and John Street;· St Andrew Street between Loch Street and George Street;· St Andrew Street between Charlotte Street and George Street.

BlackfriarsStreet

Between Schoolhill and St Andrew Street, this becomes a bus only link northbound, with allvehicles permitted to travel in the opposite direction.

Langstane Place Closed to vehicles between Bon Accord Terrace and Bon Accord Street.

Windmill Brae Closed to vehicles between Crown Street and Bridge Street.

Marischal Street Local access only.

PalmerstonPlace

Two-way traffic movements to link between North Esplanade West and South CollegeStreet using the new junction.

8.2.3 Locking-in the Benefits SchemesFurthermore, the current Aberdeen LTS references the 2009 Locking in the Benefits Study which identified anumber of transport projects. Those relevant to the Roads Hierarchy Study are outlined in Table 8.5.

Table 8.5: Locking-in the Benefits projects

Corridor/Project Description

Stonehaven Road – Bridgeof Dee (A92)

Bus or bus/ high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane extending from the CharlestonInterchange to the Bridge of Dee, including priority at junctions

Anderson Drive,Bridge of Dee – Haudagain(A92)

Circumferential bus route travelling the length of Anderson Drive, with priorityat junctions and stops/ interchange facilities along the routeImprove and increase the number of pedestrian crossings. Introducepedestrian phases on existing signalised junctions where they do not exist

All roundabouts converted to signals or signalised roundabouts

Change signal timings to give greater east-west priority

Upgrade junctions to accommodate large vehicles and to improve theirmanoeuvrability

Wellington Road,Queen Elizabeth Bridge –Charleston (A956)

Improve key junctions along the corridor to allow easier manoeuvring ofHGVs*

Peterculter –Holburn Junction (A93)

Bus or bus/ HOV lane with junction priority, operational for eastbound vehiclesonly

Mason Lodge –Hutcheon Street (A944)

Alter signalised roundabout timings

Extension of bus lane or conversion of existing bus lane to bus/ HOV lanefrom bus gate on Lang Stracht to Berryden Road, with junction priority for busand HOV

Signalise roundabouts to give greater east-west priority



Corridor/Project Description

Switchback – Holburn Street(B9119)

Extension of existing bus lane or conversion of existing eastbound bus laneto bus/ HOV lane to be continuous from A944/ B9119 switchback junction toAnderson Drive junction, with priority for bus and HOV

Junction/ signal changes to allow greater east-west priority

Kinellar Roundabout –St Machar Drive (A96)**

Extension of existing bus lane or conversion of existing bus lane into bus/HOV lane from the Park and Choose to Haudagain junction with junctionpriority for bus and HOV

New bus/ HOV lane from the airport to the A96

Improvement of A96/B979 junction at Tyrebagger

Victoria Street/StoneywoodRoad, AWPR – Bucksburn(A947)

Advisory cycleway on Riverview Drive upgraded to mandatory

Bus or bus/ HOV lane on approach to A947/A96 junction. Investigateextending this along entire A947 and, if not possible, localised and junctionimprovements to give priority to bus and HOV

The Parkway (A90)

Toucan crossings at Woodside Road and between Scotstown Road and EllonRoadImprove Parkway/Woodside Road junctions to facilitate large vehiclemanoeuvres and right turning vehicles in a safer manner

Ellon Road, Balmedie to StMachar Drive

Pedestrian crossings at Ellon Road/Parkway roundabout

Convert and extend intermittent bus lane to continuous bus/ HOV lanebetween St Machar roundabout and as yet undetermined point north ofBalmedie

*ACC has since implemented green signal time optimisation on the Wellington Road Corridor to aid movementof HGVs.**Subject to A96 dualling scheme west of AWPR.

8.3 Traffic Flow InformationThis section presents forecasted traffic flow information using data generated by ASAM14 and considers volumesof cross-city centre traffic movements in the two scenarios used. It should be noted that ASAM14 reflects anindicative 2017 demand matrix. The model will be updated when there has been sufficient time for new travelpatterns to become established as a result of the opening of the AWPR.

The network assessment has included consideration of two scenarios:

· Do-Minimum – the transport network represented is the 2022 Do-Minimum scenario (with a forecast modelrun in the year of 2017), which includes the following schemes:

─ AWPR/B-T;

─ Haudagain Link Road;

─ Berryden Corridor Improvement; and

─ Kintore Rail Station and Rail Revolution Services.

· City Centre Masterplan Transport Schemes – in addition to the schemes outlined under the Do-Minimumscenario, this data includes application of the indicative CCMP schemes listed in Table 8.4 above. It shouldbe noted that there is a 20-year timeframe for the delivery of CCMP projects, however they have been includedwithin the modelling to see the effect on the network with the schemes in place.

It should be noted that no measures to support the proposed new roads hierarchy have been included within themodelling assumptions.



8.4 Traffic Flow DiagramsA series of plans are presented in Appendix D to provide an indication of traffic flows under both scenarios for alltraffic and for HGVs, and to outline PSV coverage across the study area. The table below summarises thecategories used for the traffic flow diagrams, with the numbers representing indicative two-way counts per day.

Table 8.6: Details of categories used in traffic flow diagrams (shown in Appendix D)

CategoryIndicative Two-Way Flows

All Traffic HGVs

Low 1 – 3,000 1 – 450

Medium 3,001 – 10,000 451 – 1,500

High 10,001 – 20,000 1,501 – 3,000

Very High 20,001 – 68,000 3,001 – 4,000

The thresholds developed relate to and have been derived from Cycling by Design – Figure 2.2: Link specificationguide criteria9. In low flow/low speed environments, cycling can be part of a shared carriageway. In high flow/highspeed environments, conditions are unsuitable for cycling on the carriageway. In medium, the speed of vehicleswill determine the appropriate facilities. The thresholds have been used as a high-level indicator to assist theidentification and development of options.

8.4.1 All TrafficIn both scenarios, traffic is forecast to be very high on the following routes:

· A92 North and A956 Ellon Road/King Street to the junction with Orchard Street;

· A96;

· A944 between the AWPR and the B9119 Skene Road switchback junction;

· A92 South and A92 Anderson Drive;

· B9077 Great Southern Road;

· Sections of A956 Wellington Road, North Esplanade West, Market Street, Virginia Street, and CommerceStreet;

· B986 Belmont Road, Berryden Road, Caroline Place, Skene Square, Woolmanhill and Denburn Road; and

· The AWPR between Craibstone and Cleanhill.

Application of indicative CCMP schemes results in forecast increases in traffic on routes including the BerrydenCorridor; A956 corridor from Commerce Street to Queen Elizabeth Bridge; Hutcheon Street; Springbank Terrace and Bon Accord Street; Victoria Bridge; Victoria Road and South Esplanade West; Palmerston Road; Grampian Road and Grampian Place in Torry; Castle Terrace; Maberly Street; South Mount Street; Esslemont Avenue and Rosemount Viaduct. It results in expected decreases in traffic on routes mainly within the city centre includingUnion Street and its connecting routes; the other restricted areas of Schoolhill, George Street area, Bridge Street, Guild Street, Market Street between Union Street and Guild Street, and Marischal Street; Holburn Street and the south of King Street.

8.4.2 Heavy Goods VehiclesIn both scenarios, there is evidence of high flows of HGVs on the following routes:

· A92 North from Murcar roundabout to The Parkway;

· A956 from The Parkway to Hareness roundabout on Wellington Road;

· Park Street at the Beach Boulevard roundabout;

9 https://www.transport.gov.scot/media/14173/cycling_by_design_2010__rev_1__june_2011_.pdf



· Craibstone roundabout;

· A944 between the AWPR and the B9119 Skene Road switchback junction; and

· B9077 Great Southern Road between A92 South and Riverside Drive.

Approaching the city centre area from the north, there is evidence of HGV displacement from the School Road,Golf Road, Park Road, Park Street route to King Street in the CCMP scenario. There is also evidence of increasedheavy goods traffic under this scenario to the south of the city centre area, particularly at the junctions on eitherside of Queen Elizabeth Bridge, on Victoria Bridge and along South Esplanade West.

Within the city centre, changes reflect the restrictions imposed by the CCMP schemes including removal of HGVs(except for access) from Union Terrace, Guild Street, Langstane Place, Schoolhill between Back Wynd andFlourmill Lane, Union Street between Crown Street and King Street, and the George Street area.

8.4.3 Public Service VehiclesIn both scenarios, the ASAM data reflects coverage of PSVs along the key radial routes across the city – A92 North,A947, A96, A944, B9119, A93, A92 South and A956. Coverage on the main secondary orbital is limited, with manysections of The Parkway and Anderson Drive not utilised for bus operations. It is noted that the A92 South routeconnects with the B9077 Great Southern Road before joining Holburn Street due to the width restriction on theBridge of Dee. Routes for PSVs converge in the city centre with the majority utilising Union Street either as part ofan onward connection or in accessing the bus station at Union Square. It should be noted that PSVs cannot reroutein the model like other traffic as the routes and frequencies of buses are dictated by what is currently registered onthe network.

8.4.4 Indicative Two-Way FlowsThe table below highlights indicative two-way flows at selected points on the network for both scenarios. A planshowing the specific locations used can be viewed as part of Appendix D.

Table 8.7: Indicative all-day two-way flows at selected locations on the network

Indicative Two-Way Flows

LocationAll Traffic Heavy Goods Vehicles Public Service Vehicles

Do-Min CCMP Do-Min CCMP Do-Min CCMP

A92 (North) 25,700 25,400 1,400 1,400 90 90

A947Oldmeldrum Road 17,100 17,300 1,100 1,100 40 40

A96 24,800 24,900 900 900 150 150

A944 27,000 26,700 1,500 1,500 140 140

A93 North DeesideRoad 7,600 7,600 120 120 130 130

A92 (South) 35,300 35,200 1,100 1,100 80 80

A956Wellington Road 20,000 20,300 1,400 1,400 30 30

A92 Anderson Drive(at A944) 30,000 31,600 500 500 10 10

A978Argyll Place 13,100 13,700 500 600 80 80

A9013Union Street 10,000 1,800 25 0 1,500 1,800

As shown, the numbers of HGVs and PSVs remain relatively consistent between the two scenarios, except forUnion Street where the indicative CCMP scenario suggests removal of HGVs east of Bridge Street and an increaseof around 300 PSVs per day. It should be noted that the modelling output is high-level and therefore deliveries onUnion Street are unlikely to be accounted for in the flow information, despite access to businesses requiring to bemaintained. Within the modelling, the increase in PSVs on Union Street to the east of Bridge Street appears to bea function of rerouting due to the closure of Schoolhill and the one-way operation of Bridge Street.



In terms of all traffic, implementation of CCMP schemes results in minor increases in the indicative two-way flowat points inside the AWPR boundary on the A947, A96, Wellington Road, and on the A978 at Argyll Place. A slightlymore notable increase is evident on Anderson Drive to the north of its junction with the A944, with around 1,600additional vehicles anticipated at this point compared with the do-minimum scenario. This may reflect increasedtraffic using the Anderson Drive orbital to connect with a more appropriate radial for accessing the city centre orthe AWPR.

Modest decreases in the indicative two-way flow are anticipated at points inside the AWPR boundary on the A92North, A944 and the A92 South with implementation of CCMP schemes. Flows on the A93 North Deeside Roadwould be expected to remain fairly consistent. There is a significant reduction of all traffic at the count location onUnion Street due to the bus only restriction that is introduced as part of CCMP schemes between Bridge Streetand Broad Street.

8.5 Cross-City Centre MovementsVolumes of cross-city centre traffic flows have been compared in the two ASAM scenarios by reading specific ‘link-points’ between the different areas of the city centre. Flows are presented for all traffic, light vehicles, HGVs andPSVs. Plans showing the links selected for each scenario are shown in Appendix D. The overall findings of theassessment of cross-city centre movements is summarised in Appendix D.

The findings illustrate a significant reduction in the volume of trips made between the three different sector areasof the city centre between the do-minimum scenario and the scenario where the CCMP transport schemes areimplemented. An overall reduction of around 28,000 vehicles is presented, representing a 32% reduction of trafficmoving between the sectors within the boundary of the city centre.

Subsequent to this evaluation exercise, a checking exercise was undertaken whereby ‘screen lines’ were used onthe north-south and east-west axis of the city centre within sectors to estimate the number of vehicles still movingwithin and across the city centre in both ASAM scenarios. This found an overall reduction of around 20,500 vehicles; representing a 15% reduction of traffic moving across screen lines within the boundary of the city centre and thusthrough city centre zones.

Considering the two methods outlined above, it is considered that an overall general traffic reduction between 15%and 32% can be anticipated in the city centre with the application of the transport schemes within the CCMP.

Modelling reporting indicates that whilst a slight mode shift is evident, the majority of traffic reduction within the citycentre area would be derived from rerouting outwith the city centre. The reduction in traffic at any point will dependon which part of the city centre is being considered. Model findings show that the CCMP schemes on their own goa considerable way and may exceed the target of reducing traffic in the city centre area by 20% overall, howeverthere is evidence of impacts immediately outside the city centre area (e.g. on Hutcheon Street). With this in mind,any new roads hierarchy must aim to support rerouting by appropriate routes in order to protect places andcommunities where possible from excess or rerouted traffic and promoting a mode shift to public transport andactive travel alternatives in order to alleviate the impact on surrounding areas.

It is noted that the CCMP scenario does still have some through routes available that have the ability to carry ahigh or very high level of traffic that could still be used by some through traffic in addition to providing access to thecity centre. Removal or reduction of remaining through routes may not only improve the environment of the citycentre further but may encourage wider use of the AWPR thus reducing local impacts, however that is yet to beproven. The further reduction of through routing is reviewed as part of package scenarios later in this study.



8.6 SummaryThis chapter has provided an overview of the network subject to review in the Roads Hierarchy Study. It hasconsidered:

· The range of transport-related projects identified as providing context for optioneering in the study (committedand non-committed);

· Forecasted traffic flow information with committed schemes using present-day traffic analogies; and

· Volumes of cross-city centre traffic movements based on indicative forecasts.

On present day forecasts without supporting measures, there is evidence of a traffic reduction in the CCMP areaof between 15% (through zones) and 32% (between zones). This forecast is without the application of roadshierarchy measures in the city, thus any new roads hierarchy must aim to support rerouting by appropriate routesin order to protect places and communities where possible from excess or rerouted traffic and promoting a modeshift to public transport and active travel alternatives in order to alleviate the impact on surrounding areas.


The analysis undertaken in this chapter has indicated that the application of CCMP schemes results primarily inrerouting close to the city centre. Whilst this is preferred to routing through the city centre, it highlights the need forthe implementation of measures on the radial routes across the city in order to encourage greater use of the AWPR.It is recognised that more localised, intra-city trips are not long enough to warrant using the AWPR and thus,Anderson Drive will remain an important route for distributing traffic between radial routes.

The network assessment has provided focus for the option generation process, specifically relating to theidentification of appropriate routes for general traffic, HGVs and public transport.



09



9. Baseline Route Investigation andConstraints Mapping

9.1 IntroductionA series of plans have been produced to outline the baseline conditions on the road network within the study area.These plans are shown in Appendix E and include the following:

· Locking-in the Benefits Corridors;

· Air Quality Management Areas;

· Bus Lanes;

· Bus Routes;

· City Centre Masterplan Area;

· Candidate Noise Management Areas;

· Committed Projects;

· One-Way Restrictions;

· Freight Restrictions;

· Freight Routes;

· On-Road Cycle Facilities; and

· Vehicle Restrictions.

This chapter outlines how information was collated for each element and provides a summary of what is includedwithin the plans.

9.2 Locking-in the Benefits CorridorsThe locking-in the benefits plan illustrates the corridors for which schemes are noted within the Aberdeen City2016-2021 LTS10. These schemes are aimed at locking-in the benefits generated by the AWPR and commonlyinvolve the provision of HOV lanes along the key radial routes in the study area. The full list of schemes is shownin Table 8.5 in the previous chapter.

9.3 The Air Quality Management Areas in AberdeenThere are three AQMAs designated within the study area, as detailed on the Air Quality in Scotland website11.AQMAs are designated where the local authority considers that national air quality objectives are not likely to beachieved and a subsequent plan is developed to improve the air quality in the specified areas. The locations ofAQMAs within the study area are:

· City centre: including Union Street, Market Street, Virginia Street, Commerce Street, and parts of HolburnStreet, Guild Street and King Street;

· Anderson Drive: including the whole of Anderson Drive and the area around the Haudagain roundabout andAuchmill Road; and

· Wellington Road between Queen Elizabeth Bridge and Balnagask Road.

9.4 Bus LanesDetails of bus lanes were provided in a GIS shapefile supplied by ACC, and this information was verified usingGoogle Maps and local knowledge of the network.

10 https://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Local%20Transport%20Strategy%20%282016-2021%29.pdf11 http://www.scottishairquality.scot/laqm/aqma?id=359



Coverage of continuous bus lanes is relatively limited across the city, with short sections of bus lane more commonon approach to key junctions. Routes with the longest bus lanes include the A956 along King Street, the A96 alongAuchmill Road and Great Northern Road, and the A944 along the Lang Stracht.

9.5 Bus RoutesInformation on bus routes was collated in September 2018 using the network maps provided by each bus operator– First Aberdeen12 and Stagecoach North Scotland13.

Bus routes are shown to be concentrated along the key radial routes across the study area – A92 North, A947,A96, A944, B9119, A93, B9077, A92 South and A956 Wellington Road. There are limited services that operatealong The Parkway and Anderson Drive. Small sections of The Parkway are used between Ellon Road andWoodside Road, and between Balgownie Road and Whitestripes Avenue. Anderson Drive is utilised for busoperations between the Haudagain and its junction with the A944 Lang Stracht/Westburn Road. It should be notedthat the A92 South route connects with the B9077 Great Southern Road before joining Holburn Street due to thewidth restriction on the Bridge of Dee. There is a convergence of bus routes in the city centre where routing tendsto include parts of Union Street and/or access to the bus station at Union Square.

It should be noted that additional services have been added throughout the course of this study that are not includedon the plan. From late January 2019, two new bus services began operation using the AWPR – service 747 andservice 757. The 747 operates between Montrose and Ellon using the AWPR via Stonehaven, Kingswells P&R,and Aberdeen International Airport. The 757 operates from Aberdeen International Airport to Portlethen andNewtonhill, also via the P&R site at Kingswells.

Bain’s Coaches, a smaller bus operator, also operate a small number of services into Aberdeen fromAberdeenshire. These services are not included on the plan as the exact routing is not known. The 305 runs fromOldmeldrum to the city centre via Dyce and Woodside; the 777 runs from Oldmeldrum to Kirkhill Industrial Estate via Kingswells P&R and Aberdeen Airport; and the 52 runs between Hazlehead Academy and Mannofield Church within Aberdeen. It should also be noted that NHS Grampian operates a shuttle bus service between ARI, Cornhilland the Health Village, and between ARI and Summerfield House via Woodend.

9.6 The City Centre Masterplan AreaThe CCMP area was used to define the city centre for the study and is reflective of that detailed within the AberdeenCity Centre Masterplan and Delivery Programme14.

As will be discussed in Chapter 15, options for interventions such as road space reallocation and access onlytreatments have been focussed on the CCMP area. Outwith this area, interventions proposed focus on specificjunctions where there are opportunities to lock-in the benefits of the AWPR and on changes to road signing toencourage traffic to make best use of the AWPR and radial routes. It is considered that locking-in the benefitsmeasures on these routes may contribute towards encouraging active travel and public transport.

9.7 Candidate Noise Management AreasThere are twenty Candidate Noise Management Areas (CNMAs) designated within the study area, as detailed inthe Aberdeen Agglomeration Noise Action Plan15. The designation of CNMAs provides a focus for deriving actionsto reduce noise, as they will be principal considerations when formulating environmental noise management actionsand policy.

A number of the designated CNMAs are within the city centre of Aberdeen and others are located along AndersonDrive, Holburn Street, Inverurie Road, Great Northern Road, King Street, and Victoria Road in Torry.

There are additionally Candidate Quiet Areas within the study area at the following locations: playing field at LaurelDrive; West Field Park; Seaton Park; Seaton Playing Field; and Hazlehead Park. These areas have beendesignated as ‘Parks and Green Spaces’ in the place assessment discussed in Chapter 11.

12 https://www.firstgroup.com/aberdeen/routes-and-maps/network-maps13 https://www.stagecoachbus.com/maps#tab214 https://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2018-06/Aberdeen%20City%20Centre%20Masterplan%20and%20Delivery%20Programme.pdf15 https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/report/2014/07/aberdeen-agglomeration-noise-action-plan/documents/00456810-pdf/00456810-pdf/govscot%3Adocument



9.8 Committed ProjectsIn addition to the CCMP transport schemes, it was agreed in consultation with the client group that three other roadprojects in the study area should be regarded as committed: Berryden Corridor Improvement, HaudagainRoundabout Improvement, and South College Street Improvement.

9.9 One-Way RestrictionsDetails of one-way streets were provided in a GIS shapefile supplied by ACC, and this information was verifiedusing Google Maps and local knowledge of the network.

There are several one-way restrictions in the city centre including Rose Street, Chapel Street, Wapping Street,Guild Street, Regent Quay, St Andrew Street and John Street. Outwith the city centre area, restrictions includeChristie Grange, Manor and Logie Terrace, High Street, Nelson Street, Mount Street, South Esplanade West,Sinclair Road, Menzies Road, and Morven Place. There are also one-way restrictions in place within the groundsof Aberdeen International Airport.

9.10 Freight RestrictionsFreight restrictions across the study area are detailed within the Aberdeen City Freight Map16.

This highlights height, weight and width restrictions across the road network. There are width restrictions on theBridge of Dee and the Beach Esplanade; weight restrictions on Victoria Street in Dyce, Fairley Road in Kingswells,Inchgarth Road and its connecting routes to the North Deeside Road, Abbotswell Crescent, Bon Accord Street,Market Street, and King Street; and height restrictions on Farburn Terrace, Riverside Drive and South College Street.

9.11 Freight RoutesExisting freight routes across the study area are detailed within the Aberdeen City Freight Map.

This highlights the existing principal freight routes, industrial estate roads, other roads, and roads where there arerestrictions on freight movement. The existing principal freight corridors include the A92 North; A956 between The Parkway and Charleston junction via King Street, East North Street, Commerce Street, Virginia Street, Trinity Quay,Market Street, North Esplanade West and Wellington Road; A96 between Craibstone roundabout and King Streetvia Inverurie Road, Auchmill Road, Great Northern Road, Powis Terrace, Powis Place, and West North Street; A92 South; Anderson Drive and The Parkway; and parts of Great Southern Road and Riverside Drive.

9.12 On-Road Cycle FacilitiesOn-road cycle facilities were identified using the cycling maps produced by ACC and Aberdeen Cycle Forum17.

On-road cycle facilities can be split into advisory facilities, mandatory facilities and shared bus, taxi and cycle lanefacilities. The only mandatory on-road cycle facility that has been identified is located along Market Street betweenNorth Esplanade West and Palmerston Road. It should be noted that it is outwith the scope of this study to considerany off-road active travel provision.

9.13 Speed LimitsDetails of speed limits were developed using Google Maps and local knowledge of the network, and this informationwas verified as necessary in consultation with ACC officers.

9.14 Vehicle RestrictionsDetails of vehicle restrictions were provided in a GIS shapefile supplied by ACC, and this information was verifiedusing Google Maps and local knowledge of the network. The four types of vehicle restrictions noted include busgates, pedestrian zones, prohibition of driving zones and bus contraflow lanes.

16 http://www.nestrans.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Aberdeen_Freight_map_A4_sizes_v1.pdf17 https://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/services/roads-transport-and-parking/cycling-aberdeen/cycling-maps



There are currently five bus gates located within the study area including at the Old Lang Stracht; Bedford Road; High Street at College Bounds in Old Aberdeen; Broad Street; and on Foresterhill Road within the grounds of ARI.In addition to the aforementioned bus gates, there is a section of bus lane on Ellon Road to the south of the Bridgeof Don with traffic signals to allow for bus priority.

The pedestrian zones and prohibition of driving zones are all located within the city centre area, including the southsection of George Street; sections of Shiprow; St Nicholas Street and Correction Wynd; and sections of The Green.There are also access restrictions in the city centre, including on Back Wynd, Little Belmont Street and BelmontStreet.

There are two bus contraflow lanes, located on Menzies Road in Torry and St Andrew Street in the city centre.

9.15 SummaryThis chapter has provided a summary of the baseline route investigation undertaken and supports a series of plansthat have been produced to illustrate the baseline conditions on the road network within the study area. It hasdiscussed a number of elements including AQMAs; bus lanes and bus routes; CNMAs; one-way restrictions; freight restrictions and freight routes; on-road cycle facilities; and vehicle restrictions. It has also outlined the locking-inthe benefits corridors, the committed projects discussed in Section 8.2.1 and the CCMP area. For each element, ithas been noted how information was collated and a summary of the findings of each has been provided.


This chapter is a vital component of the Roads Hierarchy Study as it illustrates the baseline physical attributes ofthe routes under consideration and feeds into the next chapter on route purpose.



10




10. Assessment of Existing Routes and Route Purpose

10.1 IntroductionThis chapter sets out an overview of existing A, B, C, and anomaly routes (those that may function at a different level to their current classification) within the present roads hierarchy and their function. It includes consideration of the following:

· Physical characteristics;

· Public transport provision;

· On-road cycle facilities;

· Suitability for freight;

· Communities served (based on community council areas);

· Principal destinations (expanded in Chapter 11) and key destinations for the communities discussed; and

· Connections with other routes.

The scope of this study does not include consideration of off-road active travel routes.

The full assessment of A, B, C-roads and anomaly routes throughout the city is shown in Appendix F.

10.2 Narrative of Existing Routes10.2.1 A92The A92 route was renamed (from the A90(T)) in 2018 in advance of the opening of the AWPR. The route has been detrunked as of April 2019, with ACC formally assuming responsibility of the route between the Blackdog junction and the Charleston junction via Ellon Road, The Parkway, Anderson Drive, and Stonehaven Road.

The A92 typically traverses Aberdeen north to south via:

· Ellon Road (providing a strategic connection to the AWPR at the Blackdog junction and north to Ellon, Peterhead and Fraserburgh);

· The Parkway (which is typically a single carriageway route between the Parkway roundabout and the Haudagain roundabout);

· North/South Anderson Drive; and

· Stonehaven Road (providing a strategic connection to the AWPR at the Charleston junction, west to Cleanhill and south to Dundee and Perth) via the single carriageway across the Bridge of Dee.

The A92 connects to radial routes at the A93 Great Western Road, A96 Haudagain roundabout and A944 Lang Stracht and provides connections to the AWPR along these corridors. It also provides a connection to a new route over the River Don via the Diamond Bridge, which can be accessed via The Parkway.

Bus operations are typically limited on this corridor, with inter-urban services between Aberdeenshire and Aberdeen City using the route between Blackdog and Ellon Road, and between Charleston and Bridge of Dee. Presently, bus operations on The Parkway and Anderson Drive are limited, with only small sections being used. There is a P&R site at Bridge of Don, which is a 532-space facility located off the Parkway

Figure 10.1: A92 Ellon Rd, Parkway, Anderson Drive, Stonehaven Rd




roundabout. There is also a 300-space P&R facility to the north of the study area at Ellon, providing an alternative choice of travel mode on this corridor.

There are no on-road cycling facilities on this route and crossing opportunities are limited at some junctions. For example, at the A944 where there is no pedestrian phasing at the traffic signals, although it is understood that ACC is currently designing a pedestrian facility at this location.

The A92 is a recognised freight route in the North East Freight Action Plan, and on directional road signage. South of the AWPR Blackdog junction, freight traffic is directed to Aberdeen Harbour along the A92 Ellon Road and A956 King Street, East North Street, Commerce Street, Virginia Street, Trinity Quay and Market Street. Any freight traffic requiring to use Anderson Drive must divert via the B9077 Great Southern Road and Riverside Drive to avoid the width restriction on the Bridge of Dee.

As the former strategic orbital trunk road in the region, the A92 serves several of the principal destinations identified in the study area, including:

· In the north: Bridge of Don P&R, Bridge of Don Industrial Estate, Aberdeen Energy Park, Denmore/Murcar Industrial Estate, Berryhill Industrial Estate and Denmore Retail Park;

· Along Anderson Drive: ARI, Hill of Rubislaw Business Park; and

· In the south: Garthdee Retail Park and Robert Gordon University.

The route affects the following communities:

· In the north: Bridge of Don and Danestone;

· Along Anderson Drive: Northfield, Midstocket, Sheddocksley, Stockethill, Mastrick, Woodside, Hilton, Ashley, Broomhill, Seafield, Mannofield, Summerhill, Queen’s Cross, Rosehill, and Garthdee; and

· In the south: Kincorth and Leggart.

10.2.2 A947The A947 is the primary route connecting Aberdeen City with communities in the Formartine and Banff and Buchan areas of Aberdeenshire. It is the primary road link to Newmachar, Oldmeldrum, Fyvie, Turriff, Banff and Macduff. A strategic connection to the AWPR is provided from the A947 at the Parkhill junction. The connection between this junction and Craibstone via the AWPR opened to traffic in February 2019. Within Aberdeenshire, the route has been the subject of a Route Improvement Strategy which was developed throughout 2015 to provide a long-term plan for improving the route between Aberdeen and Banff over the next 20 years.

Within the study area, the A947 typically routes north to south between the Parkhill junction and the A947/A96 roundabout at Bucksburn.

Bus services operate along the A947 providing services both within Aberdeen City (serving Dyce) and inter-urban routes serving Aberdeenshire. Dyce rail station is accessed from Victoria Street.

Along the route, HGVs are diverted via Riverview Drive to avoid a 7.5 tonne weight restriction on Victoria Street. There are advisory on-road cycle lanes on both sides of the carriageway for notable sections of Riverview Drive, but no on-road cycle infrastructure on the existing A947 route itself.

The A947 serves the communities of Bucksburn, Newhills, Stoneywood and Dyce, and the following identified destinations in the study area:

· Farburn Industrial Estate;

· Stoneywood Industrial Estate;

· Dyce Shopping Centre;

· Dyce rail station; and

· Wellheads Industrial Estate.

Figure 10.2: A947 Oldmeldrum Rd, Victoria St, Stoneywood Rd




10.2.3 A96The A96 is a strategic route in Scotland’s trunk road network. It provides the principal road link between Aberdeen and Inverness. The Scottish Government has committed to the dualling of this route between Aberdeen and Inverness by 2030.

Within the study area, the A96 typically routes west to east from the Craibstone roundabout to West North Street in the city centre via Mounthooly roundabout. ACC now formally assumes responsibility of the route east of Craibstone roundabout following its detrunking in April 2019. The Haudagain roundabout, which will become part of ACC’s road network, is subject to a road scheme improvement scheduled for completion in March 2021.

The A96 is a key public transport corridor, routing not only local services within Aberdeen City, but also inter-urban services to towns within Aberdeenshire, including Blackburn, Kintore and Inverurie. Craibstone P&R is a 996-space facility located parallel to the route, with access provided from both the A96 itself (eastbound) and via the AWPR Craibstone roundabout. Bus lanes are in place on sections of the route, including the link between Bucksburn and the Haudagain roundabout, however the provision of bus priority is not continuous.

The A96 is also identified as a principal freight route, in particular for longer-distance HGV movements between Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire, Moray and the Highlands.

The corridor has been subject of recent sustainable travel improvement studies, and this has included consideration of active travel improvements on the corridor. There is some on-road cycling provision on the route in the form of shared bus, cycle and taxi lanes on its approaches to Haudagain roundabout.

The A96 serves the communities of George Street, Powis, Froghall, Sunnybank, Hilton, Woodside, Bucksburn, Newhills and Blackburn, and the following identified principal destinations in the study area:

· Craibstone P&R;

· D2 Business Park;

· Kirkhill Industrial Estate;

· Aberdeen International Airport;

· TECA;

· Berryden Retail Park;

· Kittybrewster Retail Park; and

· The city centre.

Figure 10.3: A96 Inverurie Rd, Auchmill Rd, Great Northern Rd, Powis Terrace, Powis Place, West North St




10.2.4 A944The A944 is the primary route connecting Aberdeen City with communities in the Garioch and Marr areas of Aberdeenshire. It is the primary road link to Westhill and Alford. A strategic connection to the AWPR is provided from this route at the Kingswells South junction. This provides connections south to Stonehaven, Perth and Dundee and a direct connection to the A90(T) north of Aberdeen. Within the study area, the route typically routes west to east between the Kingswells South junction and Mounthooly roundabout via the Lang Stracht, Westburn Road and Hutcheon Street.

The A944 is a public transport corridor, routing not only local services within Aberdeen City, but also inter-urban services to towns within Aberdeenshire, including Westhill and Alford. There is a 900-space P&R facility located parallel to the route in Kingswells.

The A944 is not identified as a principal freight corridor on local freight maps.

The A944 is currently the subject of studies to improve cycle connectivity between Westhill and Aberdeen. There are currently advisory on-road cycle lanes on sections of the route between Mounthooly roundabout and Anderson Drive, and mandatory cycle lanes on sections of the route between Anderson Drive and the B9119 switchback junction.

The A944 serves the communities of George Street, Rosemount, Mile End, Summerhill, Mastrick, Sheddocksley, Westhill and Kingswells, and the following principal destinations identified within the study area:

· Kingswells P&R;

· Prime Four Business Park;

· Lang Stracht Retail;

· Mastrick Industrial areas;

· ARI;

· Berryden Retail Park; and

· The city centre.

10.2.5 A945The A945 (Riverside Drive) is an east-west route to the south of the city centre. The route is single carriageway and is not utilised for public transport services. There are no on-road cycle facilities in place along this route.

There is a height restriction (13’-3”) at the Wellington Suspension Bridge, which restricts movements of larger HGVs and other high-sided vehicles including double-deck buses along this route. As noted previously, the western section of Riverside Drive functions as the diversion route for HGVs as a result of the width-restricted Bridge of Dee.

The A945 is used to access Duthie Park.

Figure 10.4: A944 Lang Stracht, Westburn Rd, Hutcheon St

Figure 10.5: A945 Riverside Drive




10.2.6 A93The A93 is the primary route connecting Aberdeen City with communities in the Marr area of Aberdeenshire. It is the primary road link to Banchory, Aboyne, Ballater, and Braemar. A strategic connection to the AWPR is provided from the A93 at the Deeside junction. This provides connections south to Stonehaven, Perth and Dundee and a direct connection to the A90(T) north of Aberdeen.

Within the study area, the route typically routes west to east between the Deeside junction and the Guild Street/Market Street junction via North Deeside Road, St John’s Terrace, Great Western Road, Willowbank Road, Springbank Terrace, Wellington Place, College Street, Wapping Street, and Guild Street.

A number of bus services operate along the A93 corridor, providing services both within Aberdeen City (serving Peterculter) and inter-urban routes serving Aberdeenshire.

The A93 is not identified as a principal freight corridor on local freight maps.

There are advisory cycle lanes on significant stretches of the route, providing an on-road active travel option.

The A93 serves the communities of City centre, Ferryhill, Ashley, Broomhill, Braeside, Mannofield, Garthdee, Cults, Bieldside, Milltimber, and Peterculter, and the following identified destinations within the study area:

· The city centre;

· Aberdeen rail station;

· Aberdeen bus station;

· Garthdee Retail Park; and

· Aberdeen Snowsports Centre.

10.2.7 A9011 – Ashgrove Road West Ashgrove Road West links A92 Anderson Drive with A978 Westburn Drive.

It provides an access point to ARI, which is considered to be the most efficient routing for those coming from the north. In addition to providing access to this principal destination, Ashgrove Road West provides access to the University of Aberdeen Medical Campus, Woodhill House, and the regional headquarters of SGN, SSE Enterprise and the Scottish Ambulance Service.

The route is wide and there are designated areas of parking in sections along its length, primarily on the south side of the road. There are on-road advisory cycle facilities on notable sections of the route, although facilities tend to be broken up by areas of parking or where space is required for additional traffic lanes.

Ashgrove Road West serves the community of Rosehill and Stockethill.

Figure 10.6: A93 North Deeside Rd, St John’s Terrace, Great Western Rd, Willowbank Rd, Springbank Terrace, Wellington Place, College St,

Wapping St and Guild St

Figure 10.7: A9011 – Ashgrove Rd West




10.2.8 A9012 – Rosehill DriveRosehill Drive connects Hilton Drive with Anderson Drive (the A92). It serves the communities of Hilton and Stockethill. The route has short sections of advisory on-road cycle lanes between Hilton Avenue and Rosehill Avenue, and around Hayfield Crescent. It is a public transport route between Hilton Avenue and the roundabout at Anderson Drive.

Rosehill Drive may be considered an anomaly in terms of its A-classification, particularly as it does not provide access to any principal destinations. The route functions more as a secondary movement corridor, providing a connection between two primary routes (A92 and A978).

10.2.9 A9013The A9013 serves the core of the city centre. It routes between Holburn Street’s junction with Anderson Drive and King Street’s junction with East North Street and West North Street via Holburn Street, Union Street, and King Street.

The route is a key public transport corridor, with Union Street carrying over 1,000 buses per day and acting as a key focal point for services throughout the city. Holburn Street is also an important bus route, providing connections between Garthdee/Broomhill and the city centre.

There are high levels of pedestrian movement along this route, particularly on Union Street and the north end of Holburn Street due to the high concentrations of urban retail space in these areas. There are shared bus, taxi and cycle lanes along sections of Holburn Street and along much of Union Street.

The A9013 serves the communities of City centre, Castlehill, Ferryhill and Ruthrieston, and is an access route to the west area of the city centre. It also provides a connection to the principal destinations of Garthdee Retail

Park, Robert Gordon University and those within the city centre (e.g. the bus and rail stations).

10.2.10 A978The A978 provides an inner orbital route to the west of the city centre and east of Anderson Drive. It connects St Machar Drive, Leslie Road, Hilton Street, Westburn Drive, Argyll Place, Craigie Loanings, Albert Street, Waverley Place, Victoria Street, and Alford Place. The route is occasionally narrow and there are parked cars on both sides of the street along some sections, for example along Leslie Road and Hilton Street.

It is used by public transport services on St Machar Drive, Westburn Drive, Craigie Loanings, Albert Street, Waverley Place, and Alford Place.

There are advisory on-road cycle lanes along St Machar Drive between King Street and the A96 Great Northern Road.

Figure 10.8: A9012 – Rosehill Drive

Figure 10.9: A9013 Holburn St, Union St, King St

Figure 10.10: A978 St Machar Drive, Leslie Rd, Hilton St, Westburn Drive, Argyll Place, Craigie Loanings, Albert St,

Waverly Place, Victoria St, Alford Place




The A978 serves the communities of City centre, Rosemount, Stockethill, Hilton, Seaton and Old Aberdeen, and the following principal destinations identified within the study area:

· University of Aberdeen; and

· The city centre.

10.2.11 A956The A956 typically traverses Aberdeen north to south via Ellon Road, King Street, Commerce Street, Virginia Street, Trinity Quay, Market Street, North Esplanade West and Wellington Road. The southern extents of Wellington Road provide a strategic connection to the AWPR at the Charleston junction, west to Cleanhill on the A956(T) and south to Dundee and Perth via the A92(T).

There are public transport operations along the route on Ellon Road and King Street, including local and inter-urban services serving locations in Aberdeenshire. There are also bus services on Wellington Road, which typically serve the communities of Cove and Torry. There are sections of bus lane provision in place along King Street and Wellington Road.

Sections of the route are the subject of appraisal work to identify active travel improvement opportunities, notably on Wellington Road. Work is also underway to provide cycle connectivity to Marywell to the west of the A956 corridor close to the AWPR Charleston junction. There are shared bus, cycle and taxi lanes between the Parkway junction and the Beach Esplanade junction and advisory cycle lanes along the majority of King Street.

The A956 is identified as a principal freight route in the North East Freight Action Plan, and on directional road signage. Wellington Road forms a key corridor for HGV movements from the south, with freight traffic also routing via Market Street, Trinity Quay, Virginia Street and Commerce Street to serve Aberdeen Harbour.

Further freight movements on this route along Wellington Road will result from the opening of the new ASH, which is currently under construction at the Bay of Nigg.

The A956 serves the communities of Bridge of Don, Seaton, Old Aberdeen, Linksfield, Castlehill, Pittodrie, City centre, Altens, Kincorth, Torry, Cove Bay, Nigg and Altens, and the following principal destinations identified within the study area:

· Bridge of Don P&R;

· Aberdeen Energy Park;

· Bridge of Don Industrial Estate;

· University of Aberdeen;

· Aberdeen bus station;

· Aberdeen rail station;

· The city centre;

· Harbour;

· Ferry terminal;

· East and West Tullos Industrial Estates;

· Altens Industrial Estate; and

· Wellington Industrial Estate.

Figure 10.11: A956



10.2.12 B-RoadsWithin the study area, the majority of B-roads connect to two A-roads, except for the B999 that only connects withthe A92 North. Unlike the A-roads that have already been discussed, few of the B-roads involve a river crossingand none are identified as principal freight routes. The majority of the B-roads are single carriageway routes, withexceptions including the B9077 on Great Southern Road, the B986 on Denburn Road and small sections of theB9119 on Skene Road and Queen’s Road on approach to junctions. The communities affected by these widersecondary routes include Ferryhill, Ruthrieston, Rosemount, Seafield, and Craigiebuckler. Many of the B-routesare key public transport corridors, particularly along the B9119, Berryden Road and Great Southern Road.

10.2.13 C-RoadsA screening process was undertaken on all C-roads in the study area. This considered the maximum annualaverage daily traffic (AADT) on the route from modelling data, the place characteristics of the route, whether theroute is an identified anomaly route, and whether there is new development planned along the route. If the route isan identified anomaly or new development is planned, it was considered that hierarchy appraisal is required. It wasconsidered that hierarchy appraisal is also required if the maximum AADT on the route is greater than 10,000vehicles (two-way flow). Those identified as requiring hierarchy appraisal have been assessed in line with theprocess undertaken on the A and B-roads. The list of routes assessed can be found in Table F3 in Appendix F.

The C-roads assessed in the study area are all single carriageway. The majority of the routes connect with at leastone A-road, with the exception of Shielhill Road which connects the B999 and the B997, and Kepplehills/NewhillsRoad which does not connect to an A or B-road. Several of the roads assessed form part of bus routes, for examplethe north section of Market Street which is used by many buses en route to the bus station at Union Square. Theonly routes with on-road cycling facilities are sections of King’s Gate and a small section of Cromwell Road. Themajority of C-roads assessed do not appear on the existing freight map of Aberdeen, with the exception of SouthCollege Street, Garthdee Road, Market Street (north section), and Victoria Road. Victoria Road is identified as‘Industrial Estate’ to its junction with Crombie Road. South College Street, Garthdee Road and Market Street areall identified as ‘Other Roads’ on the existing freight map though there are restrictions in place on these routes:

· South College Street – height restriction (15’-6”) at its southern end;

· Garthdee Road – weight restriction (7.5T) at the west end of this route meaning the route is only used byfreight in order to access Garthdee Retail Park; and

· Market Street – weight restriction (7.5T) at its junction with the A956.

10.2.14 Anomaly RoutesAs noted in Chapter 6, in establishing the purpose of existing routes in the current roads hierarchy, it became clearthrough the application of local knowledge and consultation feedback that there are a number of routes which maybe carrying a classification inappropriate to their current function. This is either in terms of being ‘over’ classified orperforming at a higher function than is presently recognised within the hierarchy. These routes have been termed‘anomaly’ routes.

This was noted above for Rosehill Drive, which is a typically residential area and does not provide access to anyof the principal destinations.

Routes identified as being potentially over-classified include the following:

· B986 Clifton Road – although it provides a link between the A92 and the A96, the route is almost entirelyresidential and is constrained by parked cars on both sides of the road in some locations;

· B990 Nelson Street – this is a narrow, one-way route which does not provide an effective link between theA96 and the A956;

· B991 Bedford Road – this route no longer provides a through route between the A96 and St Machar Drivedue to the bus gate implemented at the University of Aberdeen.

Routes identified as potentially performing at a higher function than is presently recognised within the hierarchyinclude:

· South College Street – this route is an important access route to the rail station and the west and north of thecity centre;



· King’s Gate – this route, particularly west of Anderson Drive, may be regarded as a secondary radialopportunity between the A944 and B9119 radial routes;

· Cairncry Road – this is the signed route to the University of Aberdeen from the A92 Anderson Drive;

· Argyll Road – this provides an effective link between Craibstone roundabout and Aberdeen InternationalAirport;

· Mounthooly Way – this route provides an effective connection between the A956 and Mounthooly roundabout; and

· West Tullos Road – this is a dual-carriageway route providing an effective link with Wellington Road.

10.3 SummaryThis chapter has provided an overview of existing A, B, C and anomaly routes, building up a narrative of the currentpurpose of routes across the network. The list of anomaly routes was developed as a result of consultation withstakeholders for review.

It has included consideration of the physical characteristics of routes, public transport provision, on-road cyclefacilities, current freight routing, communities and destinations served by routes, and connections with other routesin the study area.


This chapter is an important component of the Roads Hierarchy Study as it provides a narrative of the key routesunder consideration across the network and their current purpose in the roads hierarchy. It has set the scene foroption development due to the relationship between routes and principal destinations identified in the study area.



11



11. Assessment of Placemaking11.1 IntroductionThis chapter of the report considers the analysis of types of place that exist within Aberdeen and focusses on theprocess undertaken to establish a hierarchy of different place types. It also examines the determination of principaldestinations across the study area that drive movement on a daily basis.

11.2 Principal DestinationsMovement is driven by the need to access certain destinations on a regular basis, principally locations ofemployment, education, retail and leisure. These types of destinations form the ‘principal destinations’ in the studyarea, and the focus of the largest volumes of traffic. For the purposes of this study, a principal destination has beendefined as:

· The city centre in its entirety (i.e. encompassing all facilities within the city centre);

· Locations of major employment, for example business parks and industrial parks;

· Centres of tertiary education outwith the city centre, exceeding 5,000 students/staff combined at that campus;

· Major retail destinations outwith the city centre, for example large supermarkets and retail parks;

· Transport hubs and interchanges anywhere within the city (including within the city centre);

· ARI within the Foresterhill Health Campus is a principal destination as a location of health services for thewider North East and is the employer of substantial numbers of people; and

· Other areas individually designated where the facility serves a larger area (at least the whole of Aberdeen ifnot beyond), is not within the city centre and contains multiple elements, at least part of which have asubstantial economic function.

The principal destinations identified within the study area are shown in Table 11.1 below.

Table 11.1: List of principal destinations in the study area

Category Destination

Aberdeen city centre City centre in its entirety

Transport Interchanges

Aberdeen Bus Station

Aberdeen International Airport

Aberdeen Rail Station

Bridge of Don P&R

Craibstone P&R

Dyce Rail Station

Ferry Terminal

Kingswells P&R

Employment

Aberdeen Harbour

Aberdeen International Business Park (Dyce)

Aberdeen Energy Park (Bridge of Don)

Aberdeen South Harbour

ABZ (Dyce)

Altens Industrial Estate/Peterseat

Berryhill (Bridge of Don)



Category Destination

Employment (continued)

Bridge of Don Industrial Estate

Denmore/Murcar (Bridge of Don)

D2 Business Park (Dyce)

Gateway Business Park (Cove/Charleston)

Hill of Rubislaw

Kirkhill Industrial Estate/Dyce Drive (Dyce)

Lochside/Newlands/Wellington Road

Pitmedden Road Industrial Estate/Raiths/North Raiths (Dyce)

Prime Four (Kingswells)

Tullos Industrial Estate

Wellheads Industrial Estate/Farburn Industrial Estate (Dyce)

EducationRobert Gordon University

University of Aberdeen

Retail

Beach Boulevard Retail Park

Berryden Retail Park

Danestone Retail

Denmore Road

Garthdee Retail Park

Kittybrewster Retail Park

Lang Stracht Retail

Middleton Park

Healthcare Aberdeen Royal Infirmary

OtherBeachfront

TECA

Figure 11.1 illustrates the locations of the principal destinations from the table above. A larger scale version ofthis plan is included within Appendix G.



Figure 11.1 Locations of principal destinations in the study area



11.3 City Place AssessmentConsideration was given to the different types of place that exist in Aberdeen and the study area. These wereidentified and placed into a hierarchy with the highest quality place at the top. The city centre was identified as thehighest quality place within the study area. The hierarchy of place, showing all the different place types identifiedis shown below.

Figure 11.2: Hierarchy of place types

Four categories are considered to sit outwith the hierarchy. Historical areas, while being high in amenity, are oftenlow in terms of the number of people that access them. Rural streets do not generally have people walking withinthem to access services and destinations and are thus excluded. The hospital is excluded because, while this isan area that people require to access on a regular basis, it is not considered a location that people choose to spendtime and it is not easily comparable with the other categories in the hierarchy. The ‘Other’ category relates toAberdeen International Airport, TECA, and Garthdee Road at the Robert Gordon University. This category wasformed from land uses that did not fit into any of the other categories and thus, were brought together in an ‘Other’category to avoid a series of land use categories with only one element.

All the A-roads, B-roads and anomaly routes in the study area were examined and categorised in terms of placeby examining land uses that the street passes through. This exercise was then expanded to examine the placetype across all streets in the study area. The overall place assessment is highlighted in Figure 11.3 over page.There is a larger scale version of this plan included within Appendix G.



Figure 11.3: Place assessment of study area



11.4 City Centre Place QualityIt was noted in the previous section that the city centre is the highest quality place in Aberdeen. It is recognisedthat within the city centre, the quality of the place varies. Therefore, a further assessment has been carried out onall the streets within the city centre to identify the level of quality of the place as high, medium or low. Thisassessment is based on a series of questions under the six criteria of a high-quality place as defined in DesigningStreets and outlined in Chapter 3 of this report. It should be noted that the assessment has been undertaken basedon full implementation of proposed CCMP schemes. The full explanation of this process can be found in AppendixG. The results of the assessment are shown in the following plan. There is a larger scale version of this planincluded within Appendix G.



Figure 11.4: City centre quality assessment



11.5 SummaryThis chapter has highlighted the identification of the principal destinations across Aberdeen, which drive themovement of people. It has also discussed the concept of place, provided a hierarchy of place bespoke to Aberdeenand assessed all the streets across the study area. A separate assessment of the quality of place has beenundertaken in the city centre, illustrating the highest quality places within the city centre area. This information willsupport the option development and option validation stages of the project.


This chapter has identified the different place categories of Aberdeen and placed them in a new hierarchy toestablish what and where the most important locations in Aberdeen are. This information will aid in the developmentand validation of options.



12



12. Community Consultation12.1 IntroductionThis chapter builds on the earlier initial consultation, the findings of which were outlined in Chapter 5. It presentsthe findings of community council engagement that took place during January 2019. This engagement wasfacilitated by the community council liaison officer from ACC.

12.2 Community Council EngagementAs part of the community council engagement, all active community councils in the city were invited to participatein consultation sessions, with community councils grouped into geographical areas shown in Figure 12.1.

Figure 12.1: Community council groupings for consultation

The location of the dedicated sessions was most commonly the Town House, with AECOM also attending themonthly meeting of Mastrick, Sheddocksley and Summerhill community council, and a separate session was alsoheld with Cults, Bieldside and Milltimber community council at its request.

The sessions began with an introduction to the study, setting the context, approach and the principles of the study.The relationship between the Roads Hierarchy Study and the CCMP was emphasised. There was emphasis placedon the early opportunity for community council involvement in the study prior to the development of options in orderto gather support for the study approach and principles. It was noted that feedback was sought on specific issuesfor the areas represented in the community council groupings. Feedback on place and movement and the principlesof option development also formed key areas for discussion in the engagement sessions.

Each community council grouping was provided with an overview of the place assessment in their area and viewson current traffic movements were noted.

A summary of the key outcomes of these discussions is set out below.




Figure 12.2: Summary of outcomes from community council engagement sessions

Community council members were informed that the next steps for the study would involve the consolidation of the feedback received at all sessions, followed by final reporting in March 2019. It was added that the outcomes would then be considered by ACC and Nestrans with further communications and opportunities for further feedback as the project progresses.

Details from the community council consultation were fed back into the option validation process and this resulted in the adjustment of the priority level for some options.

12.3 Summary This chapter has built on the findings of the earlier consultation that was undertaken amongst officers, members and stakeholders. It presents the findings of community council engagement that took place in January 2019. Specific feedback was received on movement and place, principles of option development, effects of the AWPR and the challenge of the balancing act between competing routes in the network. Feedback received reflected the competing demands on the road network by community, with conflicting views apparent between different community councils in some instances on where priority routes should be.

The findings of this engagement were fed back into the option validation process and this resulted in the adjustment of the priority level for some options. Further engagement with community councils will be necessary as ACC takes the Roads Hierarchy Study forward.


There is intense interest from the local community and a desire for ongoing community participation with regards to the Roads Hierarchy Study. There is general support for the principles identified in the study, however there is an acknowledgement that difficult decisions may have to be made to achieve the objectives set out in this report when it comes to decisions on interventions.



13



13. Initial Option Development13.1 IntroductionThis chapter outlines initial options emerging as part of the study through the tasks outlined in the previous chaptersof this report, including the outcomes of engagement with stakeholders. It includes the full long-list of initial optionsconsidered prior to sifting, outlines the subsequent option sifting process that was undertaken and presents the listof selected options taken forward for further review.

Options have been developed for the following elements within the roads hierarchy, focussing on:

· Priority radials (PR options);

· Secondary radials (SR options);

· Secondary orbitals (OR options);

· Local roads (LR options); and

· C-roads under consideration (CR options).

Options for change have been generated whereby existing priorities are no longer considered to be appropriate orwhere it is considered that changes may be required to align with the principles of the Roads Hierarchy Study. Thedevelopment of options has included consideration of routing and of a route’s future roads hierarchy status (priority,secondary, local). At this point, it is useful to repeat the diagram included in Chapter 7 to emphasise ahead of thediscussion on options that primary relates to priority, secondary relates to secondary and tertiary relates to local.

Figure 13.1: Hierarchy status and classification diagram

Each option has a unique reference number as denoted above whereby all priority radial options begin with PR, allsecondary radial options begin with SR, and so on. The letters included within the option reference signify whetherthe option represents the historic route (‘A’ options) or a route deviation (‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’ options). Where there is only asingle ‘A’ option for a route, this means that the historic routing is considered appropriate and the option for changewill be focussed on the route’s roads hierarchy status (e.g. a historic B-road that may no longer function as asecondary route, or an existing tertiary route which may meet the criteria to become secondary).

The interpretation of this process is shown over page in Figure 13.2.



Figure 13.2: Option development process



13.2 Long-List of Options Prior to SiftingIn the tables included in each of the following sections, boxes are highlighted in blue where there is an option forchange. As shown, options for change may be in relation to the following:

· The end point of the route;

· Routing;

· The roads hierarchy status of the route (priority, secondary, local).

13.2.1 Priority RadialsThe table over page illustrates the initial emerging options for priority radials. The table is supported by the plansshown in Figures 13.3 and 13.4, which highlight the options for change under consideration for end points androuting.

In line with the principles of the study, the options developed reflect the importance of the key radial corridors intothe city centre from the strategic road network. For priority radials, initial options for change have been developedwhere it is considered that the existing routing may no longer be appropriate, alternative routing may be preferredor a new end point may be required in order to reduce priority for general traffic through the city centre.

With regards to hierarchy status, there are options for change where the existing roads hierarchy status is a mixtureof primary and secondary, or primary and tertiary, and thus the option for change is to assign priority to all parts ofthe route under consideration. Options for changes to hierarchy status are illustrated in plans as part of packagespresented in Chapter 15.



Table 13.1: Initial priority radial options

Priority Secondary Local

PR1AHistoricroute

A92 (North) /A956

A90 BlackdogJunction

A956 BeachBoulevard

RoundaboutA92, Ellon Rd, King St, East North St Primary P Historic route - no change to hierarchy status or routing

PR1BRoute

deviationA92 (North) /

A956A90 Blackdog

JunctionA96 West NorthStreet Junction A92, Ellon Rd, King St Primary P

Change of PRIORITY end point, SECONDARY w ithin CCMParea

PR2AHistoricroute A947

A90 ParkhillJunction

A96 InverurieRoad / AuchmillRoad Junction

A947, Victoria St, Stoneyw ood Rd Primary P Historic route - no change to hierarchy status or routing

PR2BRoute

deviation A947A90 Parkhill

Junction

A96 InverurieRoad / AuchmillRoad Junction

A947, Riverview Dr, Stoneyw ood RdPrimary /Tertiary P

Change of routing to Riverview Drive, Riverview DrivePRIORITY, Victoria Street SECONDARY


A90 CraibstoneJunction

A956 King StreetJunction

A96, Inverurie Rd, Auchmill Rd, Gt Northern Rd, Pow is Tce,Pow is Pl, Causew ayend, W North St Primary P Historic route - no change to hierarchy status or routing

PR3BRoute

deviation A96A90 Craibstone

JunctionB986 Woolmanhill

RoundaboutA96, Inverurie Rd, Auchmill Rd, Gt Northern Rd, Pow is Tce,

Berryden Rd, Skene Sq, Gilcomston StepsPrimary /

Secondary PChange of A96 routing to Berryden Corridor, Berryden

Corridor PRIORITY, remaining A96 SECONDARY


A90 Kingsw ellsSouth Junction

MounthoolyRoundabout A944, Langstracht, Westburn Rd, Hutcheon St Primary P Historic route - no change to hierarchy status or routing

PR4BRoute

deviation A944A90 Kingsw ellsSouth Junction

B986 BerrydenRoad / CarolinePlace Junction

A944, Langstracht, Westburn Rd Primary PChange of PRIORITY end point, remaining A944

SECONDARY

PR4CRoute

deviation A944A90 Kingsw ellsSouth Junction

B986 WoolmanhillRoundabout

A944, Langstracht, Westburn Road, Skene Sq, GilcomstonSteps

Primary /Secondary P

Change of A944 routing to Berryden Corridor, BerrydenCorridor PRIORITY, remaining A944 SECONDARY

PR5A Historicroute

A93 A90 DeesideJunction

A956 MarketStreet Junction

N Deeside Rd, St John's Tce, Gt Western Rd, Willow bank Rd,Springbank Tce, Wellington Pl, College St, Wapping St, Guild St

Primary P Historic route - no change to hierarchy status or routing

PR5BRoute

deviation A93A90 Deeside

JunctionA9013 HolburnStreet Junction North Deeside Road, St John's Terrace, Great Western Road Primary P

Change of PRIORITY end point, remaining A93SECONDARY/TERTIARY

PR6AHistoricroute A92 (South)

A90 CharlestonJunction

A956 King Street /A96 West NorthStreet Junction

Stonehaven Road, Bridge of Dee, Holburn Street, Union Street,King Street Primary P Historic route - no change to hierarchy status or routing

PR6BRoute

deviation A92 (South)A90 Charleston

Junction

A956 King Street /A96 West NorthStreet Junction

Stonehaven Road, Great Southern Road, Holburn Street,Union Street, King Street

Primary /Secondary P

Change of routing to Great Southern Road, GreatSouthern Road PRIORITY, Holburn Street SECONDARY

DetailsStart PointRoad NameOption

Reference

Option for ProposedRoads Hierarchy Status

ExistingRoads

HierarchyStatus

ViaEnd PointOptionType




PR6CRoute


Junction

A93 GreatWestern Road /

Willow bank RoadStonehaven Rd, Bridge of Dee, Holburn St Primary P

Change of PRIORITY end point, remaining A9013SECONDARY/TERTIARY

PR6D Routedeviation

A92 (South) A90 CharlestonJunction

A93 GreatWestern Road /

Willow bank RoadJunction

Stonehaven Rd, Gt Southern Rd, Holburn St Primary /Secondary P

Change of routing to Great Southern Road, GreatSouthern Road PRIORITY, Holburn Street SECONDARY,

change of PRIORITY end point, remaining A9013SECONDARY/TERTIARY

PR7A Historicroute

A956 (South) A90 CharlestonJunction

A956 BeachBoulevard

Roundabout

Wellington Rd, Queen Elizabeth Bridge, N Esplanade West,Market St, Trinity Quay, Virginia St, Commerce St

Primary P Historic route - no change to hierarchy status or routing

PR7BRoute


Junction

A956 QEB / A945Riverside Drive

JunctionWellington Rd, Queen Elizabeth Bridge Primary P

Change of PRIORITY end point, remaining A956SECONDARY

Start PointRoad NameOption

Reference


ExistingRoads

HierarchyStatus

ViaEnd PointOptionType Details



Figure 13.3: Initial priority radial options



Figure 13.4: Initial priority radial options in the city centre



13.2.2 Secondary RadialsThe table below illustrates the initial emerging options for secondary radials. The table is supported by the plan shown in Figure 13.5, which highlights the options for change underconsideration for end points and routing. As shown, there is no option for a routing change in the majority of cases as the historical routing is considered appropriate. In terms of hierarchystatus, options can be summarised as follows:

· No Change: Existing roads hierarchy status is secondary, and it is considered appropriate to remain as secondary;

· Existing roads hierarchy status is secondary with option for upgrade to priority or downgrade to local; or

· Existing roads hierarchy status is primary/tertiary with option for downgrade or upgrade to secondary.

Options for changes to hierarchy status are illustrated in plans as part of packages in Chapter 15.

Table 13.2: Initial secondary radial options


SR1AHistoricroute B999

Bridge over A90AWPR Mainline

A92 MurcarRoundabout B999 Secondary P Historic route - no change to hierarchy status or routing

SR2AHistoricroute B997 B977 Junction

A956 Ellon RoadJunction B997, Scotstow n Rd, Balgow nie Rd Secondary P Historic route - no change to hierarchy status or routing

SR2BRoute

deviation B997 B977 JunctionA956 Ellon Road

Junction B997, Scotstow n Rd, North Donside RdSecondary /

Tertiary PChange of routing to North Donside Road, North Donside

Road PRIORITY, Balgow nie Road TERTIARY

SR3AHistoricroute

C20C / GordonBrae / C157C B997 Junction

A978 St MacharDrive

Whitestripes Rd, Whitestripes Ave, Gordon Br, Gordon's MillsRd, Tillydrone Rd, Tillydrone Ave Tertiary P P

Change of hierarchy status to PRIORITY/SECONDARYconsidered


A92 NorthAnderson Drive

Junction

A96 Pow isTerrace Junction Clifton Rd Secondary P Change of hierarchy status to LOCAL considered


A978 St MacharDrive Junction

A96 Pow isTerrace Junction Bedford Rd Secondary P Change of hierarchy status to LOCAL considered

SR6AHistoricroute A9012


Junction

A978 Junction(Six Roads

Roundabout)Rosehill Dr Primary P Change of hierarchy status to SECONDARY considered


Reference


ExistingRoads

HierarchyStatus





SR7AHistoricroute

Cairncry Road/ C156C


Junction

B986 BelmontRoad Junction Cairncry Rd, Back Hilton Rd Tertiary P Change of hierarchy status to SECONDARY considered



Junction

A978 WestburnDrive Junction Ashgrove Rd West Primary P Change of hierarchy status to SECONDARY considered


A944(Sw itchback

Junction)

B986 WoolmanhillRoundabout Skene Rd, Queen's Rd, Carden Pl, Skene St, Woolmanhill Secondary P Change of hierarchy status to PRIORITY considered



Junction

A978 Argyll PlaceJunction Midstocket Rd, Beechgrove Tce Secondary P Change of hierarchy status to LOCAL considered

SR11AHistoricroute C159C

B9119 Queen'sRoad Junction

B983 BeechgroveTerrace Junction King's Gate, Beechgrove Tce Tertiary P Change of hierarchy status to SECONDARY considered


A978 Argyll PlaceJunction

Gallow gateJunction B983, Rosemount Place, Maberly Street, Spring Garden

Secondary /Tertiary P Change of hierarchy status to SECONDARY considered

SR12BRoute

deviation B983A978 Argyll Place

JunctionB986 Skene

Square B983, Rosemount PlaceSecondary /

Tertiary PChange of hierarchy status to SECONDARY to Skene

Square considered

SR13AHistoricroute Albyn Place

B9119 Queen'sCross Junction A978 Alford Place Albyn Place Tertiary P Change of hierarchy status to SECONDARY considered


A92 AndersonDrive Junction

A9013 HolburnStreet Junction Cromw ell Rd, Union Gr Tertiary P Change of hierarchy status to SECONDARY considered

SR15AHistoricroute Broomhill Road


A9013 HolburnStreet Junction Broomhill Rd Tertiary P Change of hierarchy status to SECONDARY considered


A9013 HolburnStreet Junction

A956 QEB / SouthCollege StreetRoundabout

Riverside Dr Primary P Change of hierarchy status to SECONDARY considered


A956 QEB / A945Riverside Drive

Junction

A93 WellingtonPlace Junction S College St Tertiary P Change of hierarchy status to SECONDARY considered


B983 RosemountViaduct

A93 WappingStreet Junction Union Tce, Bridge St Secondary P Change of hierarchy status to LOCAL considered


A96 Pow isTerrace Junction

B986 WoolmanhillRoundabout

Belmont Rd, Berryden Rd, Caroline Pl, Skene Sq, GilcomstonSteps, Woolmanhill Secondary P Change of hierarchy status to PRIORITY considered


Reference


ExistingRoads

HierarchyStatus






B986 WoolmanhilllRoundabout

A93 WappingStreet Junction Denburn Rd Secondary P P

Change of hierarchy status to PRIORITY/LOCALconsidered

SR21AHistoricroute B9077 Deeside Junction

A92 StonehavenRoad / Bridge of

Dee JunctionSouth Deeside Rd (w ith B979 connection to Deeside) Secondary P Change of hierarchy status to PRIORITY considered


Reference


ExistingRoads

HierarchyStatus




Figure 13.5: Initial secondary radial options



13.2.3 Secondary OrbitalsThe table below illustrates the emerging options for secondary orbitals. This is supported by the map shown in Figure 13.6, which highlights the options for routing under consideration. Asshown, the historical alignment of routes is considered appropriate for the B990 Nelson Street; B983 South Mount Street and Rosemount Viaduct; and B985 Watson Street, EsslemontAvenue, Rose Street, Thistle Street and Chapel Street. In terms of hierarchy, options can be summarised as follows:

· Existing roads hierarchy status is primary with option for downgrade to secondary; and

· Existing roads hierarchy status is secondary with option for downgrade to tertiary.


Table 13.3: Initial secondary orbital options


OR1AHistoricroute A92

A956 Parkw ayJunction

A92 Bridge of Dee(North) Parkw ay, N Anderson Dr, Anderson Dr, S Anderson Dr Primary P Change of hierarchy status to SECONDARY considered

OR1BRoute

deviation A92A956 Parkw ay

JunctionA92 Bridge of Dee

(South)Parkw ay, N Anderson Dr, Anderson Drive, S Anderson Dr,

Bridge of Dee Primary PChange of hierarchy status to SECONDARY considered,

required in relation to Option PR6B/6D

OR2AHistoricroute A978

A956 St MacharJunction

A9013 HolburnJunction

St Machar Dr, Leslie Rd, Hilton St, Westburn Dr, Argyll Pl,Craigie Loanings, Albert St, Waverley Pl, Victoria St, Alford Pl Primary P Change of hierarchy status to SECONDARY considered

OR2B Routedeviation

A978 A956 St MacharJunction

A9013 HolburnJunction

St Machar Drive, Leslie Road, Hilton Street, Westburn Drive,Argyll Place, Craigie Loanings, Albert Street, Waverley Place,

Rubislaw Place, Albyn Place, Alford PlacePrimary P

Change of hierarchy status to SECONDARY considered,change of routing to Rubislaw Place rather than Victoria

Street considered

OR3AHistoricroute B990

A96 West NorthStreet Junction

A956 King StreetJunction Nelson St Secondary P Change of hierarchy status to LOCAL considered


B983 RosemountPlace Junction

B983 RosemountViaduct S Mount St, Rosemount Viaduct Secondary P Change of hierarchy status to LOCAL considered


A944 WestburnRoad Junction

A9013 UnionStreet Junction Watson St, Esslemont Ave, Rose St, Thistle St, Chapel St Secondary P Change of hierarchy status to LOCAL considered


Reference


ExistingRoads

HierarchyStatus




Figure 13.6: Initial secondary orbital options



13.2.4 Local RoadsThe table below illustrates the initial emerging options for local roads. This is supported by the map shown in Figure 13.7, which highlights the options for routing under consideration. In allcases, the historical alignment of routes is considered appropriate. In terms of hierarchy, options can be summarised as follows:

· No Change: Existing roads hierarchy status is tertiary, and it is considered appropriate to remain as local; and

· Existing roads hierarchy status is tertiary with option for upgrade to priority/secondary.


Local road options include routes identified as anomalies and those considered important during consultation with stakeholders that do not operate on a radial basis and therefore have notbeen included within the options for secondary radials.

Table 13.4: Initial local road options


LR1AHistoricroute Dyce Drive A96 Junction

Pitmedden RoadJunction Dyce Drive Tertiary P Change of hierarchy status to SECONDARY considered

LR2AHistoricroute

WellheadsDrive

A947 VictoriaStreet Junction

Dyce DriveJunction Farburn Terrace, Wellheads Drive Tertiary P Change of hierarchy status to SECONDARY considered

LR3AHistoricroute Argyll Road

A90 CraibstoneJunction

Brent RoadJunction Argyll Rd Tertiary P P


LR4AHistoricroute

HopetounGrange

Chapel of FairleyRoad Junction

Sclattie ParkJunction Hopetoun Grange Tertiary P Change of hierarchy status to SECONDARY considered

LR5AHistoricroute Laurel Drive


Gordon BraeJunction Laurel Drive Tertiary P Change of hierarchy status to SECONDARY considered

LR6AHistoricroute

Esplanade /Beach

Boulevard


A956 BeachBoulevard

RoundaboutEsplanade, Beach Boulevard Tertiary P Change of hierarchy status to SECONDARY considered

LR7AHistoricroute

ForesterhillRoad


Junction

A9011 AshgroveRoad West

JunctionForesterhill Road Tertiary P Change of hierarchy status to SECONDARY considered

LR8AHistoricroute

AshgroveRoad

A978 WestburnDrive Junction

A96 Pow isTerrace Junction Ashgrove Road Tertiary P Change of hierarchy status to SECONDARY considered


Reference


ExistingRoads

HierarchyStatus





LR9AHistoricroute

MounthoolyWay

MounthoolyRoundabout A956 King Street Mounthooly Way Tertiary P Change of hierarchy status to SECONDARY considered

LR10AHistoricroute

West TullosRoad

B9077 GreatSouthern Road

Junction

A956 WellingtonRoad Junction W Tullos Rd Tertiary P Change of hierarchy status to SECONDARY considered

LR11AHistoricroute

HarenessRoad

A956 WellingtonRoad Junction

Coast RoadJunction Hareness Rd Tertiary P Change of hierarchy status to SECONDARY considered

LR12AHistoricroute

Greenw ell /Greenbank

Road


A956 WellingtonRoad Junction Greenw ell Road, Greenbank Road Tertiary P No change to LOCAL status considered

LR13AHistoricroute

RedmossRoad


West Tullos RoadJunction Redmoss Rd Tertiary P No change to LOCAL status considered

LR14AHistoricroute

SouterheadRoad


End of SouterheadRoad Souterhead Road Tertiary P Change of hierarchy status to SECONDARY considered


Reference


ExistingRoads

HierarchyStatus




Figure 13.7: Initial local road options



13.2.5 C-Roads Under ConsiderationA screening process was undertaken on all C-roads in the study area. This considered the maximum AADT on the route from modelling data, the place characteristics of the route, whetherthe route is an identified anomaly route, and whether there is new development planned along the route. If the route is an identified anomaly or new development is planned, it was consideredthat hierarchy appraisal is required. It was considered that hierarchy appraisal is also required if the maximum AADT on the route is greater than 10,000 vehicles.

The table and plan below illustrate the C-roads identified for hierarchy appraisal. Routes in the heart of the city centre were not considered for upgrade to secondary status from tertiary, inline with the roads hierarchy principles and study objectives.

Table 13.5: Initial C-roads identified for hierarchy appraisal


CR1AHistoricroute C124C Loirsbank Road

A92 Bridge of Dee(North) Inchgarth Road, Garthdee Road Tertiary P Change of hierarchy status to SECONDARY considered

CR2AHistoricroute C127C

C128C Kirk BraeJunction

A93 GreatWestern Road

JunctionCountessw ells Road Tertiary P Change of hierarchy status to SECONDARY considered

CR2B Routedeviation

C127C C128C Kirk BraeJunction


Countessw ells Rd, Seafield Rd Tertiary P

Change of hierarchy status to SECONDARY considered,change of routing to Seafield Road rather than

Countessw ells Road considered


Kirk Brae AvenueJunction A944 Junction Cults-Kingshill Road Tertiary P Change of hierarchy status to SECONDARY considered


A9013 UnionStreet Junction

A93 Guild Street /A956 Trinity Quay

JunctionMarket St Tertiary P No change to LOCAL status considered

Historicroute C154C

A956 MarketStreet Junction

Aberdeen SouthHarbour Victoria Rd, St Fittick's Rd Tertiary P No change to LOCAL status considered

Historicroute C154C

Aberdeen SouthHarbour

Harness RoadJunction Coast Rd Tertiary P Change of hierarchy status to SECONDARY considered


B9077 GreatSouthern Road

Junction

A9013 UnionStreet Junction Whinhill Rd, Bon-Accord St Tertiary P No change to LOCAL status considered


A96 Pow is PlaceJunction

St Andrew StreetJunction George St Tertiary P No change to LOCAL status considered

Details

CR5A


Reference


ExistingRoads

HierarchyStatus




It should be noted that there may be the potential to extend Option CR3A to connect with the A93 route should options developed as part of the Aberdeen Cross City Connections Studyrequire this.



MounthoolyRoundabout

UpperkirkgateJunction Gallow gate Tertiary P No change to LOCAL status considered


A9013 UnionStreet Junction

Regent QuayJunction Marischal St Tertiary P No change to LOCAL status considered


MounthoolyRoundabout St Machar Drive Mounthooly, King's Cres, Spital, College Bounds, High St Tertiary P No change to LOCAL status considered

CR10BRoute

deviation C157CMounthoolyRoundabout University Road Mounthooly, King's Cres, Spital, College Bounds Tertiary P

No change to LOCAL status considered, change of endpoint to University Road considered



A956 BeachBoulevard

RoundaboutSchool Rd, Golf Rd, Park Rd, Park St Tertiary P No change to LOCAL status considered

CR12AHistoricroute C19C B999 Junction B997 Junction Shielhill Road Tertiary P Change of hierarchy status to SECONDARY considered



Old Meldrum RoadJunction Mugiemoss Road Tertiary P Change of hierarchy status to SECONDARY considered

CR14AHistoricroute C48C A947 Junction

A96 InverurieRoad Junction Oldmeldrum Road Tertiary P Change of hierarchy status to SECONDARY considered


Inverurie RoadJunction

Chapel of FairleyRoad Junction Kepplehills Road, New hills Road Tertiary P Change of hierarchy status to SECONDARY considered

CR16AHistoricroute C89C A944 Junction A96 Junction Chapel of Stoneyw ood - Fairley Rd Tertiary P Change of hierarchy status to SECONDARY considered

CR17AHistoricroute C8K

A956 Souter HeadRoundabout

Coast RoadJunction Langdykes Road Tertiary P Change of hierarchy status to SECONDARY considered


Reference


ExistingRoads

HierarchyStatus




Figure 13.8: Initial C-roads under consideration



13.3 Option SiftingFollowing the development of the long-list of options, including those identified through the engagement process, a sifting exercise was undertaken to determine options that could be ruledout of further consideration such as those with ‘no option for change’ or options which clearly did not meet the objectives or established roads hierarchy principles. A red, amber, greenprocess was used to assess the performance of each option against the six objectives and against the implementability criteria of technical feasibility and public acceptability (assumption-based). Alongside objectives and implementability criteria, the relative importance of place and movement was taken into consideration. As a result of this process, 28 options were rejected.Where options are rejected, the hierarchy of the route will remain as per the existing classification. The tables below summarise the hierarchy options selected for further review. The rejectedoptions can be found in Appendix H, alongside an accompanying rationale.

13.4 List of Selected Options for Further ReviewThe list of priority radial options selected for further review is shown in Table 13.6.

Table 13.6: List of selected priority radial options

1 2 3 4 5 6 Technical Public

PR1AA92 (North) /

A956 A92, Ellon Rd, King St, East North St Primary Historic route - no change to hierarchy status or routingIt is considered that this option meets a couple of the TPOsand is technically feasible

PR1BA92 (North) /

A956 A92, Ellon Rd, King St Primary Change of PRIORITY end point, SECONDARY w ithin CCMP areaIt is considered that this option meets a number of the TPOsand is technically feasible

PR2A A947 A947, Victoria St, Stoneyw ood Rd Primary Historic route - no change to hierarchy status or routingRequired as part of the do-minimum scenario, how everthere is an HGV restriction on the existing A947

PR2B A947 A947, Riverview Dr, Stoneyw ood RdPrimary /Tertiary

Change of routing to Riverview Drive, Riverview DrivePRIORITY, Victoria Street SECONDARY

It is considered that this option meets three TPOs, istechnically feasible and public acceptability is likely to befavourable

PR3A A96A96, Inverurie Rd, Auchmill Rd, Gt NorthernRd, Pow is Tce, Pow is Pl, Causew ayend, W

North StPrimary Historic route - no change to hierarchy status or routing Selected as a do-minimum option

PR3B A96A96, Inverurie Rd, Auchmill Rd, Gt Northern

Rd, Pow is Tce, Berryden Rd, Skene Sq,Gilcomston Steps

Primary /Secondary

Change of A96 routing to Berryden Corridor, Berryden CorridorPRIORITY, remaining A96 SECONDARY Selected for further review

PR4A A944A944, Langstracht, Westburn Rd, Hutcheon

St Primary Historic route - no change to hierarchy status or routing Selected as a do-minimum option

PR5A A93N Deeside Rd, St John's Tce, Gt Western Rd,Willow bank Rd, Springbank Tce, Wellington Pl,

College St, Wapping St, Guild StPrimary Historic route - no change to hierarchy status or routing Selected as a do-minimum option

ImplementabilityRationale for SelectionDetailsOption

ReferenceRoad Name Via Existing

RoadsPerformance vs TPOs



The list of secondary radial options selected for further review is shown in Table 13.7.

Table 13.7: List of selected secondary radial options


PR5B A93North Deeside Road, St John's Terrace, Great

Western Road PrimaryChange of PRIORITY end point, remaining A93SECONDARY/TERTIARY

It is considered that this option meets four TPOs and istechnically feasible

PR6C A92 (South) Stonehaven Rd, Bridge of Dee, Holburn St PrimaryChange of PRIORITY end point, remaining A9013SECONDARY/TERTIARY Selected as a do-minimum option

PR6D A92 (South) Stonehaven Rd, Gt Southern Rd, Holburn StPrimary /

Secondary

Change of routing to Great Southern Road, Great Southern RoadPRIORITY, Holburn Street SECONDARY, change of PRIORITYend point, remaining A9013 SECONDARY/TERTIARY

It is considered that this option meets all TPOs and istechnically feasible

PR7A A956 (South)Wellington Rd, Queen Elizabeth Bridge, NEsplanade West, Market St, Trinity Quay,

Virginia St, Commerce StPrimary Historic route - no change to hierarchy status or routing Selected as a do-minimum option

PR7B A956 (South) Wellington Rd, Queen Elizabeth Bridge Primary Change of PRIORITY end point, remaining A956 SECONDARY Selected for further review





SR1A B999 B999 Secondary Historic route - no change to hierarchy status or routing Selected as a do-minimum option

SR2A B997 B997, Scotstow n Rd, Balgow nie Rd Secondary Historic route - no change to hierarchy status or routing Selected as a do-minimum option

SR2B B997 B997, Scotstow n Rd, North Donside RdSecondary /

TertiaryChange of routing to North Donside Road, North Donside RoadPRIORITY, Balgow nie Road TERTIARY Selected for further review

SR3AC20C / GordonBrae / C157C

Whitestripes Rd, Whitestripes Ave, GordonBr, Gordon's Mills Rd, Tillydrone Rd, Tillydrone

AveTertiary


Reject priority route option, select secondary route optionfor consideration in a change scenario, do-minimum is nochange and the route remains tertiary

SR4A B986 Clifton Rd Secondary Change of hierarchy status to LOCAL consideredDo-minimum is no change and the route remains secondary,change scenario is to reduce classif ication to tertiary

SR5A B991 Bedford Rd Secondary Change of hierarchy status to LOCAL consideredDo-minimum is no change and the route remains secondary,change scenario is to reduce classif ication to tertiary

SR6A A9012 Rosehill Dr Primary Change of hierarchy status to SECONDARY consideredDo-minimum is no change and the route remains priority,change scenario is to reduce classif ication to secondary

SR7ACairncry Road

/ C156C Cairncry Rd, Back Hilton Rd Tertiary Change of hierarchy status to SECONDARY consideredDo-minimum is no change and the route remains tertiary,change scenario is to increase classification to secondary

SR8A A9011 Ashgrove Rd West Primary Change of hierarchy status to SECONDARY consideredDo-minimum is no change and the route remains priority,change scenario is to reduce classif ication to secondary






The list of secondary orbital options selected for further review is shown in Table 13.8.

Table 13.8: List of selected secondary orbital options


SR9A B9119Skene Rd, Queen's Rd, Carden Pl, Skene St,

Woolmanhill Secondary Change of hierarchy status to PRIORITY consideredDo-minimum is no change and the route remains secondary,change scenario is to increase classification to priority

SR10A B983 Midstocket Rd, Beechgrove Tce Secondary Change of hierarchy status to LOCAL consideredDo-minimum is no change and the route remains secondary,change scenario is to reduce classif ication to tertiary

SR11A C159C King's Gate, Beechgrove Tce Tertiary Change of hierarchy status to SECONDARY consideredDo-minimum is no change and the route remains tertiary,change scenario is to increase classification to secondary

SR14A C127C Cromw ell Rd, Union Gr Tertiary Change of hierarchy status to SECONDARY considered Selected for further review

SR15A Broomhill Road Broomhill Rd Tertiary Change of hierarchy status to SECONDARY consideredSelected for further review - consider traffic managementoptions for bus priority at Anderson Drive junction

SR16A A945 Riverside Dr Primary Change of hierarchy status to SECONDARY considered Selected for further review

SR17A C154C S College St Tertiary Change of hierarchy status to SECONDARY considered Selected for further review

SR18A B983 Union Tce, Bridge St Secondary Change of hierarchy status to LOCAL consideredCommitted scheme applies f rom the CCMP/SUMP changingUnion Terrace and Bridge Street to buses, taxis, cycles andlocal access only

SR19A B986Belmont Rd, Berryden Rd, Caroline Pl, Skene

Sq, Gilcomston Steps, Woolmanhill Secondary Change of hierarchy status to PRIORITY considered Selected for further review

SR20A B986 Denburn Rd Secondary Change of hierarchy status to PRIORITY/LOCAL consideredReject priority route option, select local route option forconsideration in a change scenario, do-minimum is nochange and the route remains secondary

SR21A B9077South Deeside Rd (w ith B979 connection to

Deeside) Secondary Change of hierarchy status to PRIORITY considered Selected for further review





OR1A A92Parkw ay, N Anderson Dr, Anderson Dr, S

Anderson Dr Primary Change of hierarchy status to SECONDARY consideredSelected for further review (if PR6C selected) (tied topriority at AD)

OR1B A92Parkw ay, N Anderson Dr, Anderson Drive, S

Anderson Dr, Bridge of Dee PrimaryChange of hierarchy status to SECONDARY considered,required in relation to Option PR6B/6D

Selected for further review (if PR6D selected) (tied topriority at AD)

OR2A A978St Machar Dr, Leslie Rd, Hilton St, Westburn

Dr, Argyll Pl, Craigie Loanings, Albert St,Waverley Pl, Victoria St, Alford Pl

Primary Change of hierarchy status to SECONDARY considered Selected for further review (tied to priority at radials)






The list of local road options selected for further review in shown in Table 13.9.

Table 13.9: List of selected local road options

The list of C-road options selected for further review is shown in Table 13.10.

Table 13.10: List of selected C-road options


OR3A B990 Nelson St Secondary Change of hierarchy status to LOCAL considered Selected for further review

OR4A B983 S Mount St, Rosemount Viaduct Secondary Change of hierarchy status to LOCAL considered Selected for further review

OR5A B985Watson St, Esslemont Ave, Rose St, Thistle

St, Chapel St Secondary Change of hierarchy status to LOCAL considered Selected for further review




NoChange Priority Secondary Local Access TPO1 TPO2 TPO3 TPO4 TPO5 TPO6 Technical Public

LR3A Argyll Road Argyll Rd Tertiary P PPriority route option rejected on the basis that it is not a key radial route to the citycentre; secondary route option selected for further review

LR9AMounthooly

Way Mounthooly Way Tertiary P Selected for further review

LR10AWest Tullos

Road W Tullos Rd Tertiary P Selected for further review

LR11AHareness

Road Hareness Rd Tertiary PSelected for further review . This is the approved current route to Aberdeen SouthHarbour

LR13ARedmoss

Road Redmoss Rd Tertiary P Select as do-minimum. This route is being considered for access only by ACC

OptionReference Rationale for Selection

Option for Change Performance vs TPOs Implementability

Road NameExisting

ClassificationVia


CR2B C127C Countessw ells Rd, Seafield Rd TertiaryChange of hierarchy status to SECONDARY considered, changeof routing to Seafield Road rather than Countessw ells Roadconsidered

Selected for further review

CR4A C154C Market St Tertiary No change to LOCAL status consideredIt is considered appropriate to retain Market Street as atertiary route. It is part of the committed CCMP scheme.







C154C Victoria Rd, St Fittick's Rd Tertiary No change to LOCAL status considered It is considered appropriate to retain as a tertiary route.

C154C Coast Rd Tertiary Change of hierarchy status to SECONDARY consideredSelected for further review - it is the access route to thenew Aberdeen South Harbour

CR6A C155C Whinhill Rd, Bon-Accord St Tertiary No change to LOCAL status consideredIt is considered appropriate to retain as a tertiary route.Committed CCMP schemes to consider.

CR7A C156C George St Tertiary No change to LOCAL status consideredIt is considered appropriate to retain as a tertiary route.Committed CCMP schemes to consider.

CR8A C157C Gallow gate Tertiary No change to LOCAL status consideredIt is considered appropriate to retain as a tertiary route.Committed CCMP schemes to consider.

CR9A C157C Marischal St Tertiary No change to LOCAL status consideredIt is considered appropriate to retain as a tertiary route.Committed CCMP schemes to consider.

CR10A C157CMounthooly, King's Cres, Spital, College

Bounds, High St Tertiary No change to LOCAL status considered It is considered appropriate to retain as a tertiary route.

CR10B C157CMounthooly, King's Cres, Spital, College

Bounds TertiaryNo change to LOCAL status considered, change of end point toUniversity Road considered It is considered appropriate to retain as a tertiary route.

CR11A C158C School Rd, Golf Rd, Park Rd, Park St Tertiary No change to LOCAL status considered It is considered appropriate to retain as a tertiary route.

CR16A C89C Chapel of Stoneyw ood - Fairley Rd Tertiary Change of hierarchy status to SECONDARY considered Select for further review

ImplementabilityRationale for Selection

CR5A

DetailsOptionReference

Road Name Via ExistingRoads

Performance vs TPOs



13.5 SummaryThis chapter has outlined the initial options that have emerged as part of the study, including those which have beendeveloped as a result of engagement with stakeholders. It has included the long-list of initial options that wereconsidered prior to the option sifting process for the following elements within the roads hierarchy:




· Local roads; and


For the options developed, consideration has been given to both the routing and the hierarchy status of routes(priority, secondary, local).


This chapter has brought together the key outcomes of Chapters 2-11 to establish a long-list of potential options forthe revised roads hierarchy.

The sifting process employed has established a refined list for option validation, packaging and appraisal, which isthe focus of Chapters 14 and 15.



14



14. Option Validation – Whole Network14.1 IntroductionFollowing the option sifting, a further validation test was undertaken on the principles and suitability of place for theroads hierarchy options that have been developed. It considers adherence to the definitions set out in Chapter 7and the place hierarchy outlined in Chapter 11. The purpose and physical characteristics of routes are discussedin Chapter 10 and should be referred to. This validation test provides an assessment of the options in relation tothe network as a whole, rather than just the individual elements on their own which were discussed in Chapter 13.

There is also consideration in this section of the established routing framework developed by ACC. The ACC signingframework directs traffic from the AWPR to Aberdeen North, West and South as described in Chapter 2. Within theAWPR, ACC has developed the signing framework to follow the decision on aligning to the creation of a three-zonecity centre system with demand management restriction for vehicles between them (also discussed in Chapter 2),whereby the city centre and its car parks are split into the three areas of city centre north, west, and south.

It should be noted that the effect of the validation test is such that the hierarchy change proposed for some options,as highlighted in the long-list of option tables prior to sifting (Section 13.2), is superseded and in some cases, as isthe description of the start and end points of routes. Where this is the case, it has been mentioned in the individualdiscussions on each route below. It should also be noted that future decisions on levels of intervention to beimplemented in the city centre will influence the hierarchy change proposed on some routes.

Key considerations for active travel, public transport, freight, general traffic and road classification have beendiscussed to highlight effects of the options for change proposed.

14.2 Priority RadialsAcross all options for priority routes, there are a number of commonalities. In general, the place value on a routewill increase as it moves closer to the city centre as the start point tends to be a rural environment at the AWPRand the end point an urban environment in the city. This presents a challenge in terms of maintaining quality ofplace where priority routes traverse through residential areas, and neighbourhood and town centres. Theassessment of place types undertaken has been discussed in Chapter 11.

The desire to discourage cross-city centre movements has been reflected in the proposed downgrading of formerlyprimary routes (A-class roads) in the city centre area. The extent of downgrading proposed is dependent on thecity centre place quality assessment shown in Chapter 11, where the following is proposed:

· Medium/Low quality areas reduced to secondary routes;

· High/Medium quality areas reduced to tertiary routes.

Interventions, particularly at junctions, may be required to support changes in the hierarchy.

Although not part of this study to review in detail, it is likely that priority routes will experience higher traffic volumesthan other routes on the network and thus consideration should be given to the most appropriate facilities for activeand sustainable modes.

The remainder of this section has been split into the following:

· Existing priority routes that are recommended to remain priority routes with, in some cases, a revised endpoint;

· Existing priority routes that are no longer considered appropriate to have priority status; and

· Existing secondary routes that are proposed for upgrade to priority status.



14.2.1 Existing Priority Routes - Unchanged

14.2.1.1 A92 North/A956 (Option PR1)It is proposed that this priority route runs radially between the Blackdog junction at the AWPR and the MounthoolyWay junction via Ellon Road and King Street. From its end point, it is possible to access car parks, the harbour andpublic transport interchanges by proposed secondary and tertiary routes in the city centre. It should be noted thatmoving from the proposed end point of this route to the harbour and public transport interchanges requires amovement from the city centre north to the city centre south.

The place designation of this route is variable, incorporating a number of land uses between its proposed start andend point. The route is rural in the north passing through industrial employment, residential and neighbourhoodcentres. It has been proposed that the end point of the priority route is at the junction with Mounthooly Way toprotect the southern section of the route between Mounthooly Way and the junction with West North Street/EastNorth Street. This proposed end point is a revision on that included within the initial options presented in Chapter13. The southern section of the route is considered the most vulnerable part of the route as it is designated as atown centre in terms of its place function in the study’s place assessment and has been designated as an AQMA.

The signing framework developed by ACC directs traffic via Mounthooly Way for ‘City centre (N)’ as a number ofcar parks can be accessed from or via the Gallowgate. From the strategic road network, traffic from the north isdirected to the harbour/ferry via King Street, East North Street, Commerce Street, Virginia Street, Trinity Quay andMarket Street.

Key Considerations – A92 North/A956

Active Travel The proposed reduction of the route’s priority at the southern end to secondary providesgreater opportunity for enhanced priority for active travel modes

Public Transport Priority for public transport maintained and improved, particularly in the city centre

Freight Freight route maintained but should be viewed as onward access to the harbour only orfor deliveries within the city centre

General Traffic Priority cut back to Mounthooly Way before entering city centre area

Classification A-road classification maintained along length(N.B. It is acceptable to have secondary routes with A-class designation)

14.2.1.2 A947 (Option PR2)It is proposed that this priority route runs radially between the Parkhill junction at the AWPR and the A96 InverurieRoad junction via Oldmeldrum Road, Riverview Drive and Stoneywood Road. The start point is the strategic roadnetwork and the proposed end point is another priority route. It is proposed that this priority route deviates from itshistorical alignment via Victoria Street and routes alternatively via Riverview Drive. This route deviation wasdiscussed several times during the stakeholder engagement process, with many noting that Riverview Drive ismore suited to general traffic movements than the historical route via Victoria Street.

Routing via Riverview Drive is considered appropriate due to the HGV restrictions and the identified placedesignation of Victoria Street. There is an existing weight restriction on Victoria Street, which makes it unsuitableto vehicles over 7.5 tonnes. A neighbourhood centre has been identified on Victoria Street, and therefore a deviationof the priority route to Riverview Drive would help to protect this area.

Routing via Riverview Drive is supported by the signing framework developed by ACC, which directs southboundtraffic via this route for the city centre.

Key Considerations – A947

Active Travel Encouragement of increased traffic via Riverview Drive may deter some cyclists fromusing the on-road advisory cycle lane

Public Transport No improvements for public transport in terms of infrastructure; public transport may benefit from a smaller volume of general traffic using Victoria Street




Freight Freight route via Riverview Drive maintained; Victoria Street remains unsuitable for freight

General Traffic Priority changes at either end of Riverview Drive

Classification Riverview Drive to be reclassified as an A-road; Victoria Street to be reclassified as a B-road, to distinguish it against the more appropriate route

14.2.1.3 A96 (Option PR3)It is proposed that this priority route runs radially between the Craibstone junction at the AWPR and Mounthoolyroundabout via Inverurie Road, Auchmill Road, Great Northern Road, Powis Terrace, and Powis Place. The startpoint is the strategic road network and the end point is the intersection with another priority route. From its endpoint, it is possible to access car parks in the north of the city centre via proposed secondary and tertiary routes inthe city centre.

The place designation of this route is variable, incorporating a number of land uses between its proposed start andend point. The route is rural outwith the AWPR, and passes through residential, retail and neighbourhood centresalong its length. It should be noted that there is a designated AQMA on the A96 between the Haudagain roundaboutand the junction with Howes Road.

Mounthooly roundabout is the proposed end point of the route. This is a revision on that included within the initialoptions presented in Chapter 13. Mounthooly roundabout is the end point for signage to the ‘City centre’ for trafficalong the A96. At this junction, traffic for the city centre is directed via the Gallowgate, and thereafter signage directstraffic to the appropriate car parks. Aberdeen Beach is the only destination to be signed via West North Street fromMounthooly roundabout.


Active Travel The proposed reduction of the route’s priority at the eastern end to secondary providesgreater opportunity for enhanced priority for active travel modes along West North Street

Public Transport Priority for public transport maintained and improved

Freight Freight route to be consulted on – this is not a signed route to the harbour, but it is apreferable route for freight compared with other routes in the city

General Traffic Priority cut back to Mounthooly roundabout, from which car parks in the city centre areacan be accessed

Classification A-road classification maintained along length

14.2.1.4 A944 (Option PR4)It is proposed that this priority route runs radially between the Kingswells South junction at the AWPR andMounthooly roundabout via Lang Stracht, Westburn Road and Hutcheon Street. The start point is the strategic roadnetwork and the end point is the intersection with another priority route. From its end point and connection with theA96 priority route, it is possible to access car parks via proposed secondary and tertiary routes. The A944 routecrosses another potential priority route at the Berryden Corridor. The engagement process highlighted concernsabout the future traffic volumes along Hutcheon Street and thus the initial option development included an optionfor a revised end point at the junction with the Berryden Corridor. The option sifting process however hasemphasised the importance of maintaining the priority route to Mounthooly roundabout for access to car parks.

The place designation of this route is variable, incorporating a number of land uses between its proposed start andend point. The route is rural in the west passing through residential, retail, hospital access routes, and parks andgreen spaces along its way.

The A944 is a key route as part of the signing framework developed by ACC. It is the principal route to ARI fromoutwith the AWPR and is also a key route to the University of Aberdeen. Traffic is directed to Mounthooly and thenvia Gallowgate to access West North Street, Gallowgate, and Loch Street car parks. Traffic is directed from the



A944 priority route onto the Berryden Corridor for Denburn, Harriet Street and Trinity Centre car parks andadditionally for car parks in the south of the city centre.


Active Travel Priority for active travel maintained and improved, particularly across the secondaryorbital routes (Anderson Drive and Westburn Drive)

Public Transport Priority for public transport maintained and improved, particularly across the secondaryorbital routes (Anderson Drive and Westburn Drive)

Freight Continues to be undesirable as a principal freight route

General Traffic Priority maintained and improved along length


14.2.1.5 A93 (Option PR5)It is proposed that this priority route runs radially between the Deeside junction at the AWPR and Holburn Streetvia North Deeside Road, St John’s Terrace, and Great Western Road. The start point is the strategic road networkand the end point is the intersection with a secondary and tertiary route which can be used to access car parks. Itis considered that Holburn Street is an appropriate end point for the route to ensure public transport priority isprovided on this route across Anderson Drive. From the end point, it is possible to access car parks in the west ofthe city centre via proposed secondary and tertiary routes, however it should be noted that a movement across thewest of the city centre is required to access the majority (via Rose Street).

The place designation of this route is variable, incorporating a number of land uses between its proposed start andend point. The route is largely residential but passes through sections of rural, parks and green spaces andneighbourhood centres.

The A93 is not treated as a strategic route in the signing framework developed by ACC as it was considered thatits width is restricted at many points along the corridor, it has multiple driveway access/egress points along itslength and concerns were raised that it could not deal with any increase in the volume of traffic or an increase inHGV traffic. Traffic therefore, is only directed off the AWPR at the Deeside junction for access to local communities.Once on the A93 route, traffic is directed via Great Western Road for access to the south and west areas of thecity centre. At the junction with Holburn Street, traffic destined for car parks in the south is directed to continue onthe existing A93 route via Willowbank Road and Springbank Terrace and those travelling to west car parks aredirected onto Holburn Street.


Active Travel Priority for active travel maintained and improved, particularly across Anderson Drive

Public Transport Priority for public transport maintained and improved, particularly across Anderson Drive


General Traffic Priority cut back to Holburn Street, from which car parks in the west of the city centrearea can be accessed


14.2.1.6 A92 South (Option PR6)It is proposed that this priority route runs radially between the Charleston junction at the AWPR and the B9077junction via Stonehaven Road. The start point is the strategic road network and the end point is the intersectionwith secondary routes which can be used to provide onward access to principal destinations. From its end point, itis possible to access a number of destinations via proposed secondary and tertiary routes, including Robert Gordon



University and the retail areas to the north of the River Dee, or to the west and south of the city centre via GreatSouthern Road.

The place designation of this route is entirely residential between the Charleston junction and the Bridge of Dee.Residences are low density and are set back from the road meaning that people movement on the road itself islow, particularly towards the southern end of the route.

The signing framework developed by ACC only directs traffic via this route for ARI and the universities from thestrategic road network.


Active Travel As per existing priority for active travel modes – Bridge of Dee continues to be unsuitablefor on-road active travel provision due to width constraints

Public Transport Priority for public transport maintained to the south of Bridge of Dee; Bridge of Dee continues to be unsuitable for public transport due to its width restriction

FreightFreight route maintained to the south of Bridge of Dee – existing freight diversion routeavoiding Bridge of Dee; Bridge of Dee continues to be unsuitable for freight due to itswidth restriction

General Traffic Priority maintained to Bridge of Dee

Classification A-road classification maintained to Bridge of Dee

14.2.1.7 Wellington Road (Option PR7)It is proposed that this priority route runs radially between the Charleston junction at the AWPR and the newPalmerston link road (associated with the South College Street Improvement) via Wellington Road and NorthEsplanade West. The start point is the strategic road network and the proposed end point is the principal destinationof the city centre on North Esplanade West at the point where the South College Street Improvement is proposed.From its end point, it is possible to access car parks in the south of the city centre and the harbour and publictransport interchanges by proposed secondary and tertiary routes in the city centre. It should be noted that thisproposed end point is revised from the initial options presented in Chapter 13 in order to prioritise the movementfrom Queen Elizabeth Bridge towards the south of the city centre. The Wellington Road route additionally providesaccess to ASH, initially via Hareness Road with future options for access to be determined.

The place designation of this route is variable, incorporating a number of land uses between its proposed start andend point. Between residential areas, there are sections of office employment, industrial employment and retail.Compared with the other proposed priority routes, there are fewer areas designated as residential along its length.Although a priority route, Wellington Road is transforming, through developments, into a place that includes avariety of uses and this quality requires to be protected. It should be noted that the northern section of this route isdesignated as an AQMA.

The Wellington Road corridor is a key route as part of the signing framework developed by ACC. It is the principalroute to the existing and new harbours from outwith the AWPR and is also the main route to the south of the citycentre. It should be noted that the harbour has a number of access points from Market Street, Regent Quay,Waterloo Quay, York Place, York Street, Pocra Quay, South Esplanade West and Sinclair Road.

Key Considerations – Wellington Road

Active TravelAs per existing priority for active travel modes, the proposed reduction of the route’spriority at the northern end to secondary provides greater opportunity for enhancedpriority for active travel modes along North Esplanade West

Public TransportPriority for public transport maintained, the proposed reduction of the route’s priority atthe northern end to secondary provides greater opportunity for enhanced priority forpublic transport along North Esplanade West

Freight Freight route maintained but should be viewed as onward access to the harbour only orfor deliveries within the city centre

General Traffic Priority cut back to Palmerston Place before entering city centre area



Key Considerations – Wellington Road

Classification A-road classification maintained along length(N.B. It is acceptable for the secondary part of this route to remain as an A-class road)

14.2.2 Existing Priority Routes – Changed

14.2.2.1 A92 – Parkway and Anderson Drive (Option OR1)It is proposed that the existing primary orbital route via The Parkway and Anderson Drive is downgraded tosecondary in the roads hierarchy. The start point of this route is The Parkway junction with Ellon Road and theproposed end point is to the south of the Bridge of Dee where the route connects with the B9077 Leggart Terraceand Great Southern Road. To reflect the objectives and principles of the Roads Hierarchy Study, movement is tobe prioritised along the radial routes crossing Anderson Drive. Although secondary in terms of its relationship withradials, this route will continue to provide an important function as a key connector between priority radial routes,allowing movement between radials without crossing the city centre. Furthermore, the route is important forprotecting proposed tertiary orbital routes to the east of Anderson Drive and it will remain an important movementdistribution route at a secondary level for adjacent communities.

The place designation of this route is variable, incorporating a number of land uses between its proposed start andend point. At its start point from the junction with the A956 Ellon Road, the place designation of the route is industrialemployment. It passes through residential areas, retail and office employment before terminating south of thehistoric bridge over the River Dee.

The signing framework developed by ACC complements the strategic signing from the AWPR, and also presentstraffic with another opportunity to choose the appropriate radial for their destination if they have missed signing atthe strategic road network or their journey has originated east of the AWPR. This reflects the route’s function as akey connector between the priority radial routes.

Key Considerations – A92 Parkway and Anderson Drive (including Bridge of Dee)

Active Travel Limited on-road priority for active travel modes; Bridge of Dee continues to be unsuitablefor on-road active travel provision due to width constraints

Public Transport

There will be reduced north-south priority at junctions, however the potential introductionof bus lanes as discussed in the Cumulative Transport Appraisal (CTA) would enablegreater north-south priority for public transport between junctions; the route will continueto be used in sections as bus routes move to collect/drop off people at key points acrossthe city; Bridge of Dee continues to be unsuitable for public transport due to its widthrestriction

Freight

Freight route to be consulted on as the strategic trunk road function has been replacedby the AWPR; the route is a preferable route for freight compared with other routes in thecity via the connection to the HGV diversion route at Holburn Street (diversion route viaHolburn Street, Riverside Drive and Great Southern Road); Bridge of Dee continues to be unsuitable for freight due to its width restriction

General Traffic Priority changes at the majority of junctions to enable prioritisation of the radial routes

Classification A-road classification maintained along length due to its quality and reflective of itsimportant role as a key connector between radial routes

14.2.2.2 A978 (Option OR2)It is proposed that the existing orbital route via St Machar Drive, Leslie Road, Hilton Street, Westburn Drive, ArgyllPlace, Craigie Loanings, Albert Street, Waverley Place, Victoria Street, and Alford Place is downgraded tosecondary and tertiary in the roads hierarchy. The start point of this route is the St Machar Drive junction with KingStreet, and the end point is the Alford Place junction with Union Street. To reflect the objectives and principles ofthe Roads Hierarchy Study, movement is to be prioritised along the radial routes that traverse this orbital route.Although this route can still be used as a connector between priority radial routes, some sections are inappropriatefor high traffic movements. The section along Leslie Road and Hilton Street was identified in particular duringconsultation as an area that is unsuitable for the proportion of traffic currently using it. It has been proposed that



this section is downgraded to tertiary in the roads hierarchy, with more appropriate use of the new Berryden CorridorImprovement encouraged, which has been identified as a proposed priority route. The proposed downgrading ofthis section to tertiary is a revision from the initial options presented in Chapter 13.

The place designation of this route is variable, incorporating a number of land uses between its proposed start andend point. The place designations along St Machar Drive at the north of the route include residential, historic, parksand green spaces, and industrial employment. Between Leslie Road and Albert Street, the route is residential.From Albert Street to the city centre area, the route is primarily used for office employment.

The signing framework developed by ACC does not place great focus on this route, with no signing on the majorityof routes where they traverse the A978. There is signing on approach to St Machar Drive on King Street, TillydroneAvenue, and Great Northern Road, principally to direct traffic towards the principal destination of the University ofAberdeen. The only other signing on approach to the A978 is on Cairncry Road, which is identified as the signedroute to the university. From Cairncry Road, traffic is directed via Hilton Street and Leslie Road before joining StMachar Drive. If the section including Hilton Street and Leslie Road was downgraded to tertiary in the roadshierarchy, the signed route to the University of Aberdeen would require review.


Active Travel Limited on-road priority for active travel modes

Public Transport Not a major public transport route and is not expected to be; priority will be reduced for any services operating via this route


General Traffic Priority changes at the majority of junctions to enable prioritisation of the radial routes

ClassificationMajority of route to be reclassified as B-road if downgraded to secondary; if Hilton Street and Leslie Road were to become tertiary routes, they would require to be reclassified toC-road

14.2.2.3 A9011 – Ashgrove Road West (Option SR8)It is proposed that the existing primary route along Ashgrove Road West is downgraded to tertiary. The start pointof this route is the junction with A92 North Anderson Drive, and the end point is the junction with A978 WestburnDrive. The route no longer functions as a priority route as it does not provide a connection with the strategic roadnetwork. With the proposed downgrading of the A92 and A978 orbital routes, Ashgrove Road West no longerconnects to a priority route, and therefore does not adhere to the definition of a secondary route.

Although the route no longer meets the requirements for a priority or secondary route, it will remain an importantroute due to the number of destinations that it provides access to: ARI, Woodhill House, University of AberdeenMedical Campus, and the regional headquarters of SGN, SSE Enterprise and the Scottish Ambulance Service.

The place designation of this route is a mixture of office employment, hospital access and residential. It isconsidered that measures to discourage traffic movements on this route may encourage traffic to use the A944priority route that runs parallel to the south.

The signing framework designates the A944 Westburn Road as the principal route to the hospital, which is thedesired routing for all movements from the strategic road network, however it is considered that Ashgrove RoadWest will continue to provide an attractive alternative to traffic due to its less circuitous route to the visitor car parkfrom Foresterhill Road. Ashgrove Road West would be the most efficient access route to the hospital for thosemaking localised movements from the north. The signing framework directs via Ashgrove Road West fromAnderson Drive for access to Roxburghe House and the University Medical Campus.

It should be noted that Table 13.2 presents the option for change as priority to secondary. The validation testconfirmed that this was not feasible due to the lack of adherence to the definition of a secondary route, and thus ithas been proposed to downgrade the route to tertiary.



Key Considerations – Ashgrove Road West

Active Travel It is not anticipated that the changes proposed will affect active travel priority along thisroute

Public Transport It is not anticipated that the changes proposed will affect public transport priority alongthis route


General Traffic The orbital routes of Anderson Drive and Westburn Drive have priority over AshgroveRoad West at its start and end points

Classification Route to be reclassified as C-road if downgraded to tertiary

14.2.2.4 A9012 – Rosehill Drive (Option SR6)It is proposed that the existing primary route along Rosehill Drive is downgraded to tertiary. The start point of thisroute is the junction with A92 North Anderson Drive, and the end point is Hilton Drive. The route no longer functionsas a priority route as it does not provide a connection with the strategic road network. With the proposeddowngrading of the A92 and A978 orbital routes, Rosehill Drive no longer connects to a priority route, and thereforedoes not adhere to the definition of a secondary route.

The place designation of this route is entirely residential and therefore it is considered appropriate that traffic shouldbe discouraged from using this route. It is possible that measures to discourage traffic movements on this routemay encourage traffic to use the A96 priority route running parallel to its north.

The downgrading of this route to tertiary accords with the established ACC signing framework, as there are nodestinations signed via Rosehill Drive.

It should be noted that Table 13.2 presents the option for change as priority to secondary. The validation testconfirmed that this was not feasible due to the lack of adherence to the definition of a secondary route, and thus ithas been proposed to downgrade the route to tertiary.

Key Considerations – Rosehill Drive

Active Travel It is anticipated that the changes proposed could have benefits for active travel due topotentially reduced traffic on both Anderson Drive and Rosehill Drive

Public Transport It is not anticipated that the changes proposed will negatively impact public transportpriority across Anderson Drive from Provost Rust Drive to Rosehill Drive


General Traffic The orbital routes of Anderson Drive and Westburn Drive have priority over Rosehill Driveat its start and end points

Classification Route to be reclassified as C-road if downgraded to tertiary

14.2.2.5 A9013 – Holburn Street, Union Street, King Street (Option PR6)It is proposed that the existing primary route along Holburn Street, Union Street and King Street is downgraded tosecondary and tertiary. The start point of this route is the Holburn Street junction to the north of the Bridge of Dee,and the end point is the King Street/East North Street/West North Street junction. The route no longer functions asa priority route as it does not provide a connection with the strategic road network. It is proposed to downgradeHolburn Street to secondary in the roads hierarchy, as it will remain as an access route to the west of the citycentre. It is proposed to downgrade Union Street and King Street to tertiary in the roads hierarchy as these areasare within the CCMP area and are considered areas of medium-high quality in terms of place.

The place designation of this route is entirely residential between the Bridge of Dee and its junction with the B9077Great Southern Road. North of the B9077 Great Southern Road junction, the route is designated as town centre



until it meets the city centre area. The section designated as town centre has an inherent place value to thecommunity and the wider city population.

The signing framework developed by ACC directs traffic via Holburn Street for access to the west of the city centre.It should be noted that access to the majority of car parks in the west of the city centre requires a movement acrossthe west of the city centre area (via Rose Street).

Key Considerations – Holburn Street, Union Street, King Street

Active Travel The removal of general traffic on Union Street between Bridge Street and Broad Streetprovides an opportunity to enhance priority for active travel along this section

Public Transport The removal of general traffic on Union Street between Bridge Street and Broad Streetcould be of significant benefit to public transport services along this route

FreightThe southern section from Bridge of Dee to Riverside Drive is the existing freightdiversion route and provision for this requires to be maintained whilst there is no suitableroute over the Bridge of Dee

General Traffic Priority for general traffic will be reduced along its length, and especially within the citycentre area

ClassificationHolburn Street to be reclassified as B-road if hierarchy is to be downgraded to secondary; Union Street and King Street to have classification removed to become unclassified ifroutes are to be downgraded to tertiary and full CCMP interventions are realised

14.2.3 Other Routes with Option for Priority

14.2.3.1 B9119 – Skene Road, Queen’s Road (Option SR9)Although it does not directly connect to the strategic road network, it is proposed that the B9119 functions as ananomaly priority route with its start point at the A944 priority route, which connects to the Kingswells South junctionat the AWPR. It runs via Skene Road, Queen’s Road, Carden Place, Skene Street and Woolmanhill with its endpoint at the Berryden Corridor, which facilitates movement to the Trinity Centre and College Street car parks. It isconsidered that Woolmanhill roundabout is an appropriate end point for the route to ensure public transport priorityis provided on this route across Anderson Drive.

The place designation of this route is variable, incorporating a number of land uses between its proposed start andend point. Between its start point and Anderson Drive, the place designation is a mixture of parks and green spaceand residential. To the east of Anderson Drive, the place designation is residential and office employment. Wherethe route runs through office employment, there is a challenge in terms of maintaining a high-quality environmentfor people movement whilst providing priority for vehicular movement.

The signing framework developed by ACC only directs traffic via the B9119 for the west of the city centre from theAnderson Drive junction. From the start point of the B9119, traffic destined for city centre west is directed via theA944 route, with the B9119 signed for movements to city centre south. Therefore, there are challenges to beovercome in terms of providing a coherent strategy from the strategic road network to principal destinations. Thesigned route to the west of the city centre would require review if this route was to be upgraded to priority in theroads hierarchy.

The engagement process highlighted conflicting views on what should be the future priority status of this route,with some stakeholders and community representatives keen to see an upgrade to the priority of this route to betterreflect its existing function, and some hoping for reduced priority of the route to encourage use of it as a publictransport and active travel corridor.

Key Considerations – Skene Road, Queen’s Road

Active Travel Potentially less attractive to on-road active travel users if upgraded to a priority route andthere is an increase in general traffic

Public Transport Priority for public transport maintained and improved, particularly across the secondaryorbital routes (Anderson Drive and Westburn Drive)



Key Considerations – Skene Road, Queen’s Road



Classification Route to be reclassified as A-road if it is to become a priority route

14.2.3.2 B986 – Berryden Corridor (Option SR19)Although it does not directly connect to the strategic road network, it is proposed that the Berryden Corridor willfunction as an anomaly priority route with its start point at the A96 priority route, which connects to the Craibstonejunction at the AWPR. The end point of the route is Woolmanhill roundabout, from which car parks can be accessedvia proposed secondary routes.

The place designation of this route is a mixture of retail, residential and industrial employment. Retail and industrialemployment are ranked as the lowest categories on the place hierarchy and it can therefore be assumed thatpeople movement along this corridor is relatively low.

The signing framework developed by ACC primarily regards the Berryden Corridor as an access route to thedifferent areas of the city centre, with city centre north directed via John Street; city centre south directed via Denburn Road; and city centre west directed via the B9119.

There was general consensus during the engagement process that the Berryden Corridor would form an importantcomponent of the revised roads hierarchy, with some noting that it may be a more appropriate priority route thanthe existing A978.

Key Considerations – Berryden Corridor

Active Travel As per existing priority for active travel modes and to benefit from Berryden CorridorImprovement




Classification Route to be reclassified as A-road if it is to become a priority route

14.3 Secondary RoutesThe validation process for secondary routes has been split into the following:

· Existing secondary routes that are recommended to remain secondary routes with, in some cases, a revisedalignment;

· Existing secondary routes that are no longer considered appropriate to have secondary status; and

· Proposed new secondary routes as a result of proposed downgrade of an existing priority route or proposedupgrade of an existing tertiary route.

14.3.1 Secondary Routes – Unchanged

14.3.1.1 B999 (Option SR1)It is considered that the B999 route should continue to function as a secondary movement corridor. It connectsbetween the A92 North/A956 priority route and communities in Aberdeenshire.



The route is primarily rural, with sections of residential and industrial employment as it approaches the connectionwith the A92 North.

Key Considerations – B999

Active Travel As per existing priority for active travel modes

Public Transport As per existing priority for public transport


General Traffic As per existing priority along length

Classification B-road classification maintained along length

14.3.1.2 B997 (Option SR2)It is considered that the B997 route should continue to function as a secondary movement corridor. The B997connects between the A956 priority route and communities in Aberdeenshire via Balgownie Road, Scotstown Roadand the B997. It is proposed that the route deviates from its historical alignment on approach to the A956 fromBalgownie Road to North Donside Road. Although both routes are designated as residential, it is considered thatthere is greater capacity on the North Donside Road route and residences tend to be set back from the road. Thiswas identified during stakeholder consultation.

The route is rural in the north and passes through areas of parks and green spaces, residential and industrialemployment.

Key Considerations – B997


Public Transport Public transport route is via North Donside Road and thus increased priority given to thisroute would be beneficial


General Traffic As per existing priority with increased priority for North Donside Road at its end point

ClassificationNorth Donside Road to be reclassified as B-road if it is to be upgraded to secondary inthe roads hierarchy; Scotstown/Balgownie Road to be reclassified as C-road if it is to bemade tertiary

14.3.1.3 B9077 – South Deeside Road, Great Southern Road (Option PR6/SR21)It is considered that the B9077 South Deeside Road, Leggart Terrace, and Great Southern Road should continueto function as a secondary movement corridor. It connects between Holburn Street and communities inAberdeenshire and meets the A92 Stonehaven Road priority route to the south of the Bridge of Dee. It is consideredthat Holburn Street is an appropriate end point for the route to protect the town centre designation on HolburnStreet north of this point. The route facilitates movement to the south and west of the city centre, as well as localmovements to industrial estates in Tullos and Altens.

The route is primarily rural west of the Bridge of Dee, with a section designated as residential along Leggart Terrace.To the east of the Bridge of Dee, the place designation of the route is primarily parks and green space, withresidential areas introduced as it approaches Holburn Street. The place designation and characteristics of the routemean that it is preferred for vehicular movement compared with the parallel Holburn Street route.

It should be noted that Table 13.2 presents the option for change for these routes as secondary to priority. Thisoption was disregarded at the time of validation testing due to consultation comments from within the client group.



Key Considerations – South Deeside Road, Great Southern Road


Public Transport Priority for public transport maintained and improved at key junctions

FreightThe southern section from Bridge of Dee to Riverside Drive is the existing freightdiversion route and provision for this requires to be maintained whilst there is no suitableroute over the Bridge of Dee

General Traffic Possible increased priority at its junctions with A92 South, Riverside Drive and HolburnStreet


14.3.1.4 B986 – Denburn Road (Option SR20)It is considered that the B986 Denburn Road route should continue to function as a secondary movement corridor.It connects between Woolmanhill roundabout and the Wapping Street junction. This route facilitates movementfrom the proposed Berryden Corridor and B9119 priority routes to the Trinity Centre car park and onward movementto College Street car park and the south area of the city centre. It should be noted that these onward movementsrequire a move from the north of the city centre to the west and south of the city centre.

This route is in the city centre area and has been rated as low in terms of its quality of place. It is thereforeconsidered appropriate to remain as a secondary movement corridor.

Key Considerations – Denburn Road

Active TravelAs per existing priority for active travel modes; proposed CCMP schemes include the closure of Wapping Street and Carmelite Street (except for access to the Trinity Centrecar park) east of the junction with Denburn Road which provides an opportunity toenhance priority for active travel within the city centre area

Public Transport Not a major public transport route currently


General Traffic

Changes for general traffic at the end point of the route at the Denburn Road/A93Wapping Street junction. The proposed new end point of the A93 priority route is HolburnStreet, with the route proposed to be downgraded to secondary and tertiary east of thispoint. This means that at the Denburn Road/Wapping Street junction, there is a changeof priority with both routes now proposed to be secondary. Additionally, proposed CCMPschemes include the closure of Wapping Street and Carmelite Street (except for accessto the Trinity Centre car park) east of the junction with Denburn Road.


14.3.2 Existing Secondary Routes – Proposed Downgrade

14.3.2.1 B983 – Midstocket Road, Beechgrove Terrace, South Mount Street,Rosemount Viaduct, Union Terrace, Bridge Street (Option SR10/SR18/OR4)

It is proposed that the existing B983 secondary route is downgraded to tertiary in the roads hierarchy. The routeconnects between Anderson Drive and the Wapping Street junction with Bridge Street via Midstocket Road,Beechgrove Terrace, South Mount Street, Rosemount Viaduct, Union Terrace, and Bridge Street. With theproposed downgrading of the A92 Anderson Drive and A978 Argyll Place in the roads hierarchy, this route no longerconnects to a priority route, and therefore does not adhere to the definition of a secondary route. At the south ofthis route, proposed CCMP schemes restrict general traffic movement along Union Terrace and Bridge Street.

The B983 orbital route runs through communities, and through the town centre of Rosemount, which has aninherent place value to the community and to the wider city population. Traffic should be encouraged to use the



A92 secondary orbital to move between priority radials in the first instance, with an opportunity to use the A978orbital closer to the city centre.

Key Considerations – Midstocket Road, Beechgrove Terrace, South Mount Street, Rosemount Viaduct,Union Terrace, Bridge Street

Active Travel The CCMP proposals provide an opportunity to enhance priority for active travel withinthe city centre area

Public Transport Major proposed improvements for public transport in CCMP area; little scope for additional improvements outwith CCMP, though through traffic protection is required


General Traffic These routes are not designated for through traffic, and are routes within a proposedzonal neighbourhood

Classification Route to be reclassified as C-road if it is to become a tertiary route

14.3.2.2 B985 – Watson Street, Esslemont Avenue, Rose Street, Thistle Street,Chapel Street (Option OR5)

It is proposed that the existing B985 secondary route is downgraded to tertiary in the roads hierarchy. The routeconnects between the A944 priority route and the Rose Street/Chapel Street junction with Union Street via WatsonStreet, Esslemont Avenue, Rose Street, Thistle Street, and Chapel Street. Due to its connection with the A944priority route, the B985 could still be classed as a secondary route as it adheres to the definition. The southern partof this route is in the city centre area and Rose Street currently acts as an important access route to car parks inthe west of the city centre.

The B985 orbital route runs through communities, and crosses the town centre of Rosemount, which has aninherent place value to the community and to the wider city population. Traffic should be encouraged to use theA92 secondary orbital to move between priority radials in the first instance, with an opportunity to use the A978orbital closer to the city centre. The section of this route that is in the city centre area has been assessed as havinga medium place quality and this requires protection.

Key Considerations – Watson Street, Esslemont Avenue, Rose Street, Thistle Street, Chapel Street

Active Travel As per existing priority for active travel modes – CCMP proposals provide an opportunityto enhance facilities for active travel within the city centre area

Public Transport Not a public transport route


General Traffic This route forms part of two zonal neighbourhoods that are not designated for throughtraffic


14.3.2.3 B986 – Clifton Road (Option SR4)It is proposed that the existing secondary route along Clifton Road is downgraded to tertiary in the roads hierarchy.The route connects between North Anderson Drive and the A96 priority route, and therefore could still be classedas a secondary route as it adheres to the definition.

The place designation of this route is almost entirely residential, and the majority of residences are high density. Inorder to protect the community, traffic should be encouraged to use the parallel A96 priority route.

Key Considerations – Clifton Road

Active Travel As per existing priority for active travel modes – potential to benefit from zonalneighbourhood interventions



Key Considerations – Clifton Road

Public TransportProposed changes are not expected to negatively impact priority for public transport, asthere is a proposed downgrade of Anderson Drive and Hilton Street in the roads hierarchyalso


General Traffic This route is within a zonal neighbourhood and is not designated for through traffic


14.3.2.4 B990 – Nelson Street (Option OR3)It is proposed that the existing secondary route along Nelson Street is downgraded to tertiary in the roads hierarchy.With the proposed downgrading of the southern section of King Street and of West North Street in the roadshierarchy, this route no longer connects to a priority route, and therefore does not adhere to the definition of asecondary route. Nelson Street is also a one-way street providing only access from West North Street to KingStreet and not vice versa. Mounthooly Way connects the end of the A956 King Street, A96 Powis Place, and A944Hutcheon Street priority routes and is considered to be more suitable as a secondary movement corridor betweenpriority routes.

The place designation of Nelson Street is residential and there is a designated neighbourhood centre where theroute meets King Street. Due to the neighbourhood centre, it is more desirable in terms of place to direct traffic viaMounthooly Way, which is designated as office employment. Additionally, it is considered that the physicalcharacteristics of the two routes suggest that Mounthooly Way becomes the preferred routing for vehicularmovements.

Key Considerations – Nelson Street

Active Travel As per existing priority for active travel modes – potential to benefit from zonalneighbourhood interventions



General Traffic This route is within a zonal neighbourhood and is not designated for through traffic


14.3.2.5 B991 – Bedford Road (Option SR5)It is proposed that the existing secondary route along Bedford Road is downgraded to tertiary in the roads hierarchy.The route connects between St Machar Drive and the A96 Powis Terrace priority route. Although the route stilladheres to the definition of a secondary route due to its connection with the A96 priority route, the route no longerprovides a through connection due to the bus gate at the University of Aberdeen.

The place designation of the route is a mixture of ‘other’ at the University of Aberdeen, residential and retail. Thereare existing issues with congestion at the junction with Powis Place and rat-running through the Sunnysideresidential area was raised as a problem during consultation with the community. As this route provides the onlyaccess into Kittybrewster Retail Park, there is a challenge to alleviate issues with congestion and rat-running whilstmaintaining full access to the retail area and thus enabling economic growth. It is considered that the committedBerryden Corridor Improvement could alleviate the problems in this location with some A96 traffic being displacedonto this new route.

Key Considerations – Bedford Road

Active Travel The removal of through traffic from this route may have increased its attractiveness foractive travel modes



Key Considerations – Bedford Road

Public Transport Priority for public transport maintained – the route will still utilise a bus gate as a meansof bus priority


General Traffic Priorities to be considered at the start and end points of the route to discourage generaltraffic; route is within a zonal neighbourhood


14.3.3 Proposed New Secondary RoutesIt should be noted that, in addition to the routes discussed below, the following options for change to a secondaryroute were rejected at the option validation stage due to a lack of adherence to the criteria:

· Whitestripes Road, Whitestripes Avenue, Gordon Brae, Gordon's Mills Road, Tillydrone Road, TillydroneAvenue (Option SR3);

· Cromwell Road, Union Grove (Option SR14);

· Broomhill Road (Option SR15); and

· Countesswells Road (Option CR2).

Furthermore, Option CR16, which proposed to upgrade Chapel of Stoneywood-Fairley Road from tertiary tosecondary was rejected at this stage because it was considered that the route should be encouraged for localmovements only, with through-trips using the parallel AWPR route between Kingswells South and Craibstone.

14.3.3.1 A945 – Riverside Drive (Option SR16)It is proposed that the existing priority route along Riverside Drive is downgraded to secondary in the roadshierarchy. The route no longer functions as a priority route as it does not provide a connection with the strategicroad network. The route’s connection to the A956 priority route means that it adheres to the definition of a secondaryroute.

The place designation of the route is a mixture of residential, parks and green spaces, and office employment. Theroute is currently the freight diversion route between Holburn Street and Great Southern Road to avoid the widthrestriction at the Bridge of Dee. There is additionally a height restriction at the Wellington Suspension Bridge, whichmakes the eastern section of this route unsuitable for some freight movements by larger vehicles.

The signing framework developed by ACC presents traffic with an opportunity to access the south of the city centrevia Riverside Drive from Holburn Street.

Key Considerations – Riverside Drive



Freight

Continues to be unsuitable as a principal freight route east of Great Southern Road dueto the height restriction at the Wellington Suspension Bridge; freight diversion route west of Great Southern Road and provision for this requires to be maintained whilst there isno suitable route over the Bridge of Dee due to the width restriction in this location

General Traffic Change of priority at key junctions including Holburn Street, Great Southern Road andQueen Elizabeth Bridge

Classification Route to be reclassified as B-road if it is to become a secondary route



14.3.3.2 C154C – South College Street (Option SR17)It is proposed that the existing tertiary route along South College Street is upgraded to secondary in the roadshierarchy. The route connects between Queen Elizabeth Bridge and the existing A93 Wellington Place junction.Due to the proposed downgrade of the A93, the end point of the route can be regarded as the Wapping Streetjunction with Denburn Road. The South College Street Improvement introduces a new road connection betweenSouth College Street, North Esplanade West and the CCMP area via Palmerston Road. There are two heightrestrictions on South College Street and therefore it is not suitable as a freight route. The route provides access tothe entrance of the rail station and is an access route to College Street car park.

Outwith the city centre area, the place designation of this route has been identified as residential. Within the citycentre area, the route has been assessed as a medium-quality place and this requires protection.

Key Considerations – South College Street

Active Travel As per existing priority for active travel modes and to benefit from the South CollegeStreet Improvement


Freight Continues to be unsuitable as a freight route due to the height restrictions at the junctionwith Queen Elizabeth Bridge and at the junction with Palmerston Place

General TrafficChange of priority at junction with A93 Wellington Place and provides a secondary routeunder Union Street and the city centre west area via its connection to the BerrydenCorridor


14.3.3.3 C159C – King’s Gate (Option SR11)It is proposed that the existing tertiary route along King’s Gate is upgraded to secondary in the roads hierarchy.The route connects between the proposed B9119 Queen’s Road and Anderson Drive. This option is reliant on theselection of the proposed B9119 priority route, otherwise King’s Gate would not adhere to the definition of asecondary route and would remain tertiary.

The place designation of King’s Gate is residential east and west of Anderson Drive, however to the west ofAnderson Drive, residences are set back from the road and is more suited to vehicular movement compared withthe eastern section of the route. It is therefore proposed that the route remain tertiary to the east of Anderson Drive.It should be noted that this is a change from the initially selected option outlined in Table 13.2.

The signing framework developed by ACC presents traffic with an opportunity to route via King’s Gate to connectwith the proposed B9119 priority route and onwards to the strategic road network at the Kingswells South junctionof the AWPR. This reflects a secondary opportunity to route away from the secondary orbital route between theA944 and B9119 priority route junctions. If King’s Gate is to remain as a tertiary route between Queen’s Road andAnderson Drive, it would be recommended to revise the signing framework at this location.

Key Considerations – King’s Gate




General TrafficChange of priority at Anderson Drive; general traffic is given a secondary opportunity toaccess the proposed B9119 priority route and onwards towards the strategic roadnetwork between the proposed A944 and B9119 priority radials

Classification Route to be reclassified west of Anderson Drive as B-road if it is to become a secondaryroute



14.3.3.4 Cairncry Road, Back Hilton Road (Option SR7)It is proposed that Cairncry Road and Back Hilton Road are upgraded to secondary in the roads hierarchy. Theroute connects Anderson Drive and the proposed priority route via the Berryden Corridor, and it therefore adheresto the definition of a secondary route.

The upgrade of this route supports the signing framework developed by ACC, which directs traffic via CairncryRoad in order to access the principal destination of the University of Aberdeen. From the ‘six roads roundabout’,traffic for the university is directed via Hilton Street and Leslie Road. The proposed upgrade of Back Hilton Roadwithin the roads hierarchy suggests that this may be a more appropriate route for signage.

Key Considerations – Cairncry Road, Back Hilton Road




General Traffic Change of priority at Anderson Drive and the ‘six roads roundabout’


14.3.3.5 Argyll Road (Option LR3)It is proposed that the existing tertiary route along Argyll Road is upgraded to secondary in the roads hierarchy.The route connects the strategic road network at Craibstone roundabout to the principal destinations of AberdeenInternational Airport and Craibstone P&R.

The route has been identified as office employment in terms of its place function, however it is new infrastructurewith the capacity for vehicular movements to the principal destinations mentioned.

It should be noted that part of Argyll Road is managed by Aberdeen International Airport as roads authority and anychanges to the classification of this route would require discussion with relevant stakeholders.

Key Considerations – Argyll Road



Freight Continues to be undesirable as a principal freight route, but the route is suitable foraccess to the airport and industrial estate roads for freight

General Traffic Change of priority at the Craibstone roundabout and across Dyce Drive

Classification Route to be reclassified as B-road if it is to become a secondary route in partnership withAberdeen International Airport as roads authority for part of the route

14.3.3.6 Mounthooly Way (Option LR9)It is proposed that the existing tertiary route along Mounthooly Way is upgraded to secondary in the roads hierarchy.The route connects between the A956 priority route on King Street and Mounthooly roundabout, which is theproposed end point for the A96 and A944 priority routes.

The place designation of Mounthooly Way has been identified as office employment, however the characteristicsof this route make it more suitable for vehicular movement than the current secondary route via Nelson Street.



The upgrade of Mounthooly Way to a secondary route is supported by the signing framework developed by ACC,which directs traffic from the A956 priority route via this route for access to the car parks in the north of the citycentre.

Key Considerations – Mounthooly Way


Public Transport Not a public transport route – public transport will continue to route via King Street, wherethere is bus priority provision


General Traffic Change of priority at the junction with King Street to encourage the movement viaMounthooly Way to access the car parks in the north of the city centre


14.3.3.7 West Tullos Road (Option LR10)It is proposed that the existing tertiary route along West Tullos Road is upgraded to secondary in the roadshierarchy. The route connects between Great Southern Road and the A956 priority route on Wellington Road. Theroute also connects with Hareness Road, which is the currently preferred access route to the new ASH. Althoughthere is limited access to Tullos Industrial Estate from West Tullos Road, the capacity and low place quality of theroute makes it attractive for the local distribution of traffic; it is not a route that should be used for strategic movements.

The majority of the route is designated as industrial employment, with a section designated as residential towardsthe north of the route.

The signing framework developed by ACC routes traffic from Wellington Road via West Tullos Road for local accessto the north and west areas of the city centre. Strategic movements to these areas should have been routed priorto this point.

Key Considerations – West Tullos Road




General Traffic Change of priority at the start and end points of the route


14.3.3.8 Hareness Road (Option LR11)It is proposed that the existing tertiary route along Hareness Road is upgraded to secondary in the roads hierarchy.The route connects between the A956 priority route on Wellington Road and the location for the new ASH. Thisoption is dependent on the future options for access to this principal destination, which is still to be determined. Ifthis option is to be progressed, it is recommended that Hareness Road is continued along the existing Coast Roadto the junction with St Fitticks Road and Greyhope Road.

The place designation of Hareness Road is entirely industrial employment and is therefore deemed suitable forvehicular movement.



Key Considerations – Hareness Road



Freight Potential to become principal freight route if this is the chosen access route to the newASH, otherwise another road suitable for use by freight

General Traffic Change of priority at the junction with Wellington Road would facilitate movements to thenew ASH


14.4 SummaryThis chapter has summarised the results of a further validation test that was undertaken, after option sifting, on theprinciples and suitability of place for the initial roads hierarchy options that had been developed. The aim of thischapter was to provide an assessment of the options in relation to the network as a whole, rather than just theindividual elements on their own as had been discussed previously.

It has also included consideration of the established AWPR signing framework developed by ACC in order to assessif options align with the framework and identifying those contrary to what has been agreed.

This chapter has placed particular focus on key considerations for active travel, public transport, freight, generaltraffic and road classification as a result of the options for change in a potential new roads hierarchy.


The validation test undertaken enabled the proposed road hierarchy network to be developed. This requiresnumerous individual decisions to be made on the elements contained within the proposed new network such as,for example the proposed start and end points and decisions on which should be the highest priority routes.Changes to individual options for routes can have an impact on other options and therefore the implications ofchange require to be realised across the network to meet with established principles. Ultimately, future decisionson levels of intervention to be implemented in the city centre will influence the hierarchy change proposed on someroutes in the CCMP area.



15



15. Option Packaging and Appraisal15.1 IntroductionThis chapter focusses on option packaging, potential impacts of option packages and option appraisal, outliningthe process undertaken and the findings of the appraisal.

It should be re-emphasised at this point that there are two key outcomes to be achieved:

· A new roads hierarchy, setting the priority of roads in the network – related to the options discussed inChapters 13 and 14; and

· Intervention measures to support that roads hierarchy – introduced in this chapter to reflect the stepchanges that are required.

15.2 Option PackagingFollowing the option sifting and validation test exercise, the remaining options were packaged into the followingcategories:

· Do-Minimum Package;

· City Hierarchy Package;

· Road Space Reallocation Package; and

· Access Only Package.

Further detail on the elements included within each package is shown in Table 15.1.

Each package has a representation of existing or potential priority of transport routes on the city’s road network, allpackages incorporating the new primary orbital route of the AWPR. Each package also describes possibleprinciples of city centre mitigation measures associated with the aim of further reducing cross-city centre throughtraffic to facilitate the implementation of the CCMP, meeting one of the key objectives of the Roads Hierarchy Study.

It is possible that the final roads hierarchy will be made up of a combination of route options from the abovecategories. The above categories do allow a comparison of overall approaches with increasing degrees of changefor review by decision makers, stakeholders and the general public, which could then be refined further for eachroute based on optimum benefit to the city and the region as a whole.

Figure 15.1 provides a summary of the option packaging process.



Figure 15.1: Option packaging process



The intervention levels associated with each package are variable, with increasing levels of intervention required to support the packages as outlined in the table below.

Table 15.1: Description of intervention levels

0 1 2 3 4 5

InterventionLevel Very Low Low Medium High Very High Very High

Name Pre-AWPR Baseline Do-Minimum City Hierarchy Road SpaceReallocation Access Only

Timeframe < 2018 2018 – 2019 Delivery of CCMP (2040) Delivery of CCMP (2040) To be decided To be decided

Interventions Pre-AWPR AWPR open

AWPR + CCMP +City Signing

(Committed Schemes)

AWPR + CCMP +City Signing +City Junction

Interventions to supportroads hierarchy and

locking-in the benefits onpriority routes +NeighbourhoodInterventions


Interventions +Additional city centre

road space reallocation+ potential city

supporting measures


Interventions +Additional city centre

restrictions on throughroutes + potential citysupporting measures

It is considered that the Do-Minimum Package and the City Hierarchy Package, reflecting a medium and high level of intervention, could be progressed to the same timeframe, with junctioninterventions across the city facilitating best use of the AWPR and prioritisation of radial routes. The very high levels of intervention (Road Space Reallocation and Access Only packages)build on the City Hierarchy option. The measures outlined are over and above the CCMP and based on a qualitative assessment, risks and opportunities associated with these interventionsare acknowledged later in this chapter.



15.2.1 Do-Minimum PackageThe ‘Do-Minimum’ package is generally a collation of the existing ‘historic routes’ presented within the Initial OptionDevelopment chapter, whereby routing and the roads hierarchy status of routes remain as they currently are. Inthis scenario, it is assumed that only the interventions from committed schemes are applied:

· Indicative CCMP schemes and other committed schemes (as outlined in Chapter 8); and

· City Signing as per the signing framework developed by ACC.

The purpose of this Do-Minimum package is to review the impact of retaining through routes left by theimplementation of CCMP schemes. The capacity for all general through traffic is half that which exists in 2017, yetcross-city centre movements between the north, west and south of the city centre are still permitted. This packageprovides no change in priority for radial routes to the AWPR.

In this package, general traffic could find existing alternative routes around the CCMP schemes. It would still bepossible to approach the city centre and travel through by a number of routes. Public transport and active travelmodes would provide additional cross-city centre travel movement options where CCMP schemes prevent privatevehicular traffic.

The following diagrams illustrate the road network with the application of the Do-Minimum package. Larger scaleversions of these plans and details of the individual elements contained within are available in Appendix I.



Figure 15.2: Do-Minimum Package (Existing priorities)



Figure 15.3: Do-Minimum Package - City centre (Existing priorities)



15.2.2 City Hierarchy PackageThe ‘City Hierarchy’ package represents the proposed new roads hierarchy, though alterations to the hierarchy ofsome routes in the city centre may be appropriate if elements from the Access Only package are applied. The CityHierarchy package represents a change to the local road network, both in terms of routing and the roads hierarchystatus of routes. For priority radials, this often involves the cutting back of routes to prevent priority routes frompassing through the city centre. Within the city centre area, this involves the downgrading of priority routes, eitherto secondary or tertiary depending on the identified place quality of the street. Outwith the city centre area, thechange scenario is more commonly related to the upgrade or downgrade of entire routes within the roads hierarchy.

In this scenario, it is assumed that the following interventions are applied:

· Indicative CCMP schemes and other committed schemes (as outlined in Chapter 8);

· City Signing as per the signing framework developed by ACC;

· Locking-in the benefits including traffic management measures along key routes; and

· City Junction Interventions to support the roads hierarchy.

The purpose of this City Hierarchy package is to review the impact of retaining through routes left by theimplementation of CCMP schemes but reducing the attractiveness of these through routes via a number of junctioninterventions that would aim to encourage general traffic to use alternative routes for a ‘to, not through’ approachto the city centre. Public transport and active travel modes would provide additional cross-city centre travelmovement options.

In this package, measures across the city would support the prioritisation of radial routes set to encourage use ofthe AWPR, including implementation of ‘zonal neighbourhoods’.

The following diagrams illustrate the road network with the application of the City Hierarchy package. Larger scaleversions of these plans and details of the individual elements contained within are available in Appendix I.



Figure 15.4: City Hierarchy Package – Priorities changed



Figure 15.5: City Hierarchy Package - City centre (Priorities changed)

The setting of priority and secondary routes has enabled the identification of ‘zonal neighbourhoods’ across thecity, whereby it is envisaged that there should be no through movements by general traffic. Zonal neighbourhoodsseek to enforce the idea that traffic is ‘where it should be’ – on the priority and secondary routes across the city.The zonal neighbourhoods identified are illustrated in Figures 15.6 and 15.7 below. It should be noted that zonalneighbourhoods would require local interventions to support them.



Figure 15.6: City Hierarchy Package: Zonal Neighbourhoods

As illustrated above, between Anderson Drive and the AWPR, the zonal neighbourhoods are relatively large. Trafficin these areas should be encouraged, through signing and junction interventions, to route via the appropriate radialroute to its north or south for west-east movements and route via the appropriate orbital route to its west or eastfor north-south movements.

Within the city centre, the setting of secondary routes on lower quality streets has meant that north-southmovements via the A956 and the Berryden Corridor are possible through the city centre area.



Figure 15.7: City Hierarchy Package - Zonal Neighbourhoods (City centre)

To support this proposed hierarchy and zonal neighbourhoods concept, it will be necessary to carry out a review atjunctions where there is a change of priority to introduce interventions that facilitate the identified prioritisedmovement. Key junctions requiring review are illustrated in Figures 15.8 and 15.9. It should be noted that additionalminor junctions may also require review, however the focus in the first instance has been on the key junctionsaffecting routing across the city. Additionally, validation of proposed CCMP schemes and other committed schemesshould be undertaken against the proposed new hierarchy on a scheme by scheme basis as designs are developedand taken forward to ensure that an appropriate level of roads hierarchy priority has been applied at key junctions.



Figure 15.8: City Hierarchy Package - Key junctions for review

The diagram above highlights the extent of review required along the secondary orbitals of The Parkway andAnderson Drive, and the A978 St Machar Drive, Leslie Road, Hilton Street, Westburn Drive, Argyll Place, CraigieLoanings, Albert Street, Waverley Place, Victoria Street, and Alford Place. Where possible, these junctions shouldbe altered to facilitate the radial movement of traffic.



Figure 15.9: City Hierarchy Package - Key junctions for review (City centre)

There are a number of junctions that require review in the city centre area, particularly along Union Street, wherejunction interventions should seek to discourage general traffic movements across the city centre, supported byproposed CCMP traffic management measures.



15.2.3 Road Space Reallocation PackageThe hierarchy of routes across the network in the ‘Road Space Reallocation’ package reflects that proposed withinthe City Hierarchy package. The Road Space Reallocation package introduces a very high level of intervention,whereby the capacity of routes within the city centre is reduced for general traffic over and above CCMP proposals.Although the implementation of such measures would still permit movements by general traffic, the attractivenessof such movements would be reduced for general traffic and increased for public transport and active travel users.It would be anticipated that some traffic would reroute to use more appropriate routes and there is the potential forsome modal shift to occur using new facilities.




· City Junction Interventions to support the roads hierarchy and locking-in the benefits; and

· Additional city centre road space reallocation + potential city supporting measures.

It should be noted that although major road space reallocation measures should be supported by City Hierarchypackage interventions, more minor additional road space reallocation on local routes or in neighbourhood areascould be taken forward as considered appropriate by ACC.

The purpose of the Road Space Reallocation package is to review the impact of reducing the capacity for generaltraffic movements between the north, south and west of the city centre. Full access to all parts of the city centre bygeneral traffic would still be permitted in this scenario by alternative, more appropriate non-cross-city centre routesto encourage a ‘to, not through’ approach to the city centre. Active travel and public transport modes would provideadditional cross-city centre travel movement options, and it is considered that these options would be moreattractive in this scenario as increased priority would be given to alternative travel modes.

The Road Space Reallocation package builds on the City Hierarchy package and therefore junction interventionsacross the city would support the prioritisation of radial routes set to encourage use of the AWPR.

The following diagrams illustrate the road network with the application of the Road Space Reallocation package.Larger scale versions of these plans and details of the individual elements contained within are available inAppendix I. It should be noted that these diagrams reflect examples of indicative locations for road spacereallocation only; these measures could be employed on other routes to protect higher quality place areas around the city.



Figure 15.10: Road Space Reallocation Package (indicative locations only)



Figure 15.11: Road Space Reallocation – City centre (indicative locations only)



15.2.4 Access Only PackageThe hierarchy of routes across the network in the ‘Access Only’ package broadly reflects that proposed within theCity Hierarchy and Road Space Reallocation packages, with further consideration required to the priority of a routewhere access only treatments are applied. The Access Only package introduces a very high level of intervention,whereby treatments are introduced to restrict through movements by general traffic over and above CCMPproposals. Access only treatments, for example, could relate to the division points between the three zones of thecity centre and could involve bus gates to increase the attractiveness of alternative modes of travel and encouragemodal shift.




· City Junction Interventions to support the roads hierarchy and locking-in the benefits; and

· Additional city centre restrictions on through routes + potential city supporting measures

The purpose of the Access Only package is to review the impact of restricting general traffic movements in locationswithin the city centre. Full access to all parts of the city centre would still be permitted in this scenario by alternative,more appropriate non-cross-city centre routes to encourage a ‘to, not through’ approach to the city centre. Activetravel and public transport modes would provide additional cross-city centre travel movement options, and it isconsidered that these options would be more attractive in this scenario as increased priority would be given toalternative travel modes.

The Access Only package builds on the City Hierarchy package and therefore junction interventions across the citywould support the prioritisation of radial routes set to encourage use of the AWPR.

The following diagrams illustrate the road network with the application of the Access Only package. Larger scaleversions of these plans and details of the individual elements contained within are available in Appendix I. It shouldbe noted that these diagrams reflect examples of indicative locations for access only treatments only; these measures could be employed on other routes to protect higher quality place areas around the city.



Figure 15.12: Access Only Package (indicative locations only)



Figure 15.13: Access Only Package - City centre (indicative locations only)



15.3 Package ReviewIn order to contribute towards package appraisal, a series of impacts were reviewed. At a city-wide level, impactswere reviewed in a qualitative assessment with more quantitative elements being reviewed within the city centre.This section summarises the findings of the impact assessments.

15.3.1 City-Wide ImpactsAs has been discussed briefly in Chapter 8, modelling data allows for the indicative analysis of the Do-Minimumpackage as this option package reflects the CCMP transport schemes scenario in ASAM. The modelling indicatesthat the application of the proposed CCMP schemes would increase traffic levels on Hutcheon Street, the Denburnand West North Street. It is considered that this may reflect the reduction in alternative cross-east-west routes,where traffic may divert to Hutcheon Street in order to access, for example, car parks in the north of the city centre.Traffic volumes are also demonstrated to increase along The Parkway and Anderson Drive, potentially reflectingmotorists diverting to another route to avoid the restrictions in the city centre. Conversely, there is evidence of atraffic reduction on some of the key radial corridors including King Street, A92 North, A944, B9119, WellingtonRoad, Holburn Street, and A92 South, potentially reflecting increased use of the AWPR route as a result of citycentre restrictions.

From a qualitative perspective, it is expected that any restrictions placed on routes through the city centre mayincrease traffic on the orbital routes of Anderson Drive and the A978, with the Berryden Corridor ImprovementScheme (outwith the city centre) also able to take more traffic. Depending on any junction interventions that areimplemented along The Parkway and Anderson Drive and the associated impact of this, traffic may divert furtherout of the city and onto the AWPR depending on the origin and destination of trips. A balance will be required toallow Anderson Drive to facilitate localised movements away from the city centre where it may not be appropriateto use the AWPR, supporting the reduction of through traffic in the CCMP area. Wherever road space reallocationor access only treatments are applied, consideration should be given to the application of similar measures oninappropriate adjacent routes to ensure there is not direct displacement of traffic to these routes where it is notdesired.

The reprioritisation of roads across the network with supporting locking-in the benefits measures, enables radialpriority for all traffic. Due to the radial routing of most bus services, there may a minor benefit to public transportaccess. With increasing levels of intervention, mode shift is more strongly encouraged. Radial priority will also beenabled for active travel users outwith the city centre, which may increase the attractiveness of active travel modes.

It should be noted that with all option packages, the detail regarding the impact on communities would beconsidered by ACC as and when the roads hierarchy has been set and work commences to implement thehierarchy package that is adopted.

15.3.2 City Centre ImpactsWithin the city centre, impacts reviewed include:

· Access to car parks and public transport interchanges by appropriate access routes from the AWPR;

· Cross-city centre movement transport lanes; and

· Impact on adjacent routes.

Full details of the impact assessment undertaken is shown in Appendix J.

15.3.2.1 Access to car parks and public transport interchangesThe creation of the three-zone system within the city centre and subsequent splitting of car parks into the north,west and south of the city centre is illustrated in Figure 15.14. The number of spaces available within each car parkis shown below the car park location. A larger scale version of this map is available to view in Appendix J.

The Do-Minimum package has a relatively minor impact on access to car parks and public transport interchanges.The majority of car parks will continue to be served by a number of direct routes and the Strategic Car ParkingReview (SCPR) undertaken in 2017 confirmed that the multi-storey car parks are in the correct places on theperiphery of the city centre. In the Do-Minimum scenario, there would be no restrictions on movement over andabove that detailed in the proposed CCMP schemes and therefore traffic would be permitted to, for example, useaccess routes from the south to access northern car parks. Access to the public transport interchanges would be



relatively easy in the Do-Minimum scenario, either via orbital routes and appropriate radial routes from the westand south or via a movement between zones of the city centre.

The City Hierarchy package has the potential to have a slightly bigger impact on access to car parks and publictransport interchanges. Although the majority of car parks will continue to be served by a number of direct routes,changes to the hierarchy and accompanying junction interventions may make it more difficult to access car parksand the public transport interchanges via inappropriate routes for private car drivers. For example, the proposeddowngrade of the southern section of King Street and West North Street could be accompanied by junctionalterations at the edge of the CCMP area to discourage the movement of general traffic between King Street andUnion Square. Conversely, movements to Union Square and the public transport interchanges via the appropriateradial routes from the south will be enabled in the City Hierarchy scenario due to the proposed hierarchy changesat the junction to the north of the Queen Elizabeth Bridge, which prioritises movements onto North Esplanade West,the key access route to these destinations.

The Road Space Reallocation package has impacts for vehicular users accessing car parks as capacity could bereduced for general traffic, even on those routes assigned as appropriate (e.g. the main signed routes to car parks).On the other hand, access to public transport interchanges for active travel or public transport users may beenhanced with application of road space reallocation measures. There is a risk that this scenario may result incongestion on approach to and within the city centre area if sufficient mode shift is not achieved.

The Access Only package has impacts for vehicular users accessing car parks as restrictions could be placed onmovements by general traffic through the city centre, meaning that car parks could only be accessed via designatedappropriate routes. On the other hand, access to public transport interchanges for active travel or public transportusers may be enhanced with application of access only measures. There is a risk that this scenario may result incongestion on approach to the city centre area if there is insufficient capacity on the identified appropriate accessroutes to accommodate legitimate traffic accessing the city centre.



Figure 15.14: City centre area



15.3.2.2 Cross-City Centre Movement Transport LanesAs one of the key focusses of this project is on the enabling of movements across the city centre by pedestrians,cyclists, and public transport, an assessment has been undertaken to compare the number of lanes available foruse by general traffic and by alternative modes.

In the Do-Minimum and City Hierarchy scenarios, there is a significant reduction in road space available for use bygeneral traffic when compared against the existing situation and a resultant increase for active travel and publictransport. Proposed CCMP schemes would result in the reduction of road space for general traffic on a number ofstreets that cross between the different zones of the city centre, including Union Street, St Andrew Street, MarischalStreet, Market Street, and Guild Street. The list is more extensive when considering streets within the CCMP areathat are not on the division points between the north, west and south of the city centre.

The Road Space Reallocation scenario reduces the number of cross-city centre movement transport lanes evenfurther for use by general traffic with a resultant increase for public transport and active travel. The implementationof these measures on key routes within the city centre may greatly improve access across the city centre by publictransport and the reduction of traffic on these routes could make active travel modes more attractive. However, itshould be cautioned that although public transport movements within the city centre area may be facilitated, therecould be a detrimental impact to public transport on approach to the city centre if routes become congested bytraffic trying to force its way across the city centre at a reduced capacity. Locking-in the benefits measures outwiththe city centre would help to alleviate this issue for public transport.

The Access Only scenario virtually eliminates all cross-city centre movement transport lanes for use by generaltraffic. The implementation of access only treatments on key routes within the city centre could be of great benefitto public transport users, pedestrians and cyclists. In this scenario, general traffic would be forced to approach thecity centre via the appropriate radial route and therefore it is considered that freed up capacity on approach to andwithin the city centre area, could enable more effective operation of public transport services. There is a possibilitythat this scenario could result in a degree of mode shift if the attractiveness of public transport and active travel isincreased.

15.3.2.3 Impact on Adjacent RoutesA qualitative assessment was undertaken to determine the impact of option packages on adjacent routes withinthe north, west and south of the city centre.

It is considered that the Do-Minimum scenario would have a mixed impact on adjacent routes. The implementationof proposed CCMP schemes would reduce traffic levels on a number of routes within the city centre (e.g. UnionStreet, Upperkirkgate and streets near to the George Street area) and there is evidence within the modelling dataof a reduction on some radial routes, which may reflect the displacement of some through traffic to the AWPR.Within the city centre, it is expected that the application of proposed CCMP schemes would push more traffic ontothe North Esplanade West, Market Street, Trinity Quay, Virginia Street and Commerce Street corridor and it isadditionally expected that the Denburn Road and South College Street corridor will become a more prominentthoroughfare for motorists.

It is expected that any restrictions placed on routes through the city centre may increase traffic on the orbital routesof Anderson Drive and the A978. A balance will be required to allow Anderson Drive to facilitate localisedmovements away from the city centre where it may not be appropriate to use the AWPR, supporting the reductionof through traffic in the CCMP area. Freed-up capacity on Anderson Drive as a result of the AWPR may allow thisredistribution of traffic to take place. Anderson Drive has been set in the hierarchy as a secondary route and withthe highest level of intervention package, the hierarchy of city centre routes reduces to tertiary and so the use ofAnderson Drive for localised journeys is considered appropriate. Wherever road space reallocation or access onlytreatments are applied, consideration should be given to the application of similar measures on inappropriateadjacent routes to ensure there is not direct displacement of traffic to these routes where it is not desired. This canbe achieved through the implementation of measures on local routes to protect zonal neighbourhoods.



15.4 Summary of Opportunities and RisksHigh-level opportunities and risks identified during the option impact review above and additional opportunity andrisk factors have been considered below. Opportunities and risks relating to technical and public acceptability arecovered within the appraisal tables for each package.

Table 15.2: Summary of opportunities and risks identified

Opportunities Risks

Economic Growth

With increasing levels of intervention, therewill be increasing opportunities to improvethe city centre environment, andbusinesses will be able to take advantageof potentially increased footfall (mode shift)due to the improved quality of place that isexpected as a result of the delivery of theCCMP.

With increasing levels of intervention, thereis an increased risk for the movement ofpeople and goods by vehicles to the citycentre and principal destinations within thecity centre. Although in all interventionscenarios vehicular access routes aremaintained to principal destinations, theoptions for routing and the availability ofcapacity to meet those routes may requiremodal shift to ensure effective and efficientmovement.

Environmental

With increasing levels of intervention, therewill be increasing opportunities to improvethe air and noise quality both in the citycentre and within communities, byencouraging mode shift and rerouting ofvehicles from high-quality places.

There could be resultant air and/or noisequality issues where packages areconsidered to potentially contributetowards additional traffic and/or congestionon the network. However, over time it isrecognised that risks may be reduced bythe banning of internal combustionengines.

Safety

With increasing levels of intervention, therewill be increasing opportunities to improvethe safety both in the city centre and withincommunities. Reduced speeds andreduced traffic will provide safety benefitsto active travel users.

Where there is a redistribution of traffic,attention must be paid to road safetyissues.

Accessibility andSocial Inclusion

With increasing levels of intervention, thepromotion of active travel and publictransport that provides for equality intransport would support further socialinclusion and accessibility to jobs andservices for all. With the redesign of the citycentre area to a high-quality, accessibleplace, this will provide further opportunitiesfor access for those with mobilityimpairments.

Where there are changes to any roadnetwork there is a risk that those withmobility impairments may be affected andsupporting interventions will be required toensure accessibility for all.

Integration

Integration risks not considered to be a keyissue in this study as it has been shown thatthe roads hierarchy accords with local,regional and national transport andplanning policies.

With increasing levels of intervention, thereis a possible risk noted related to overduedelay in accessing public transportinterchanges as a result of delay outwiththe CCMP area. Bus priority would berequired to mitigate this risk outwith the citycentre as well as within the city centre.

EmergingGovernmentPolicy

Opportunities to improve safety withincommunities associated with emergingpolicy on 20mph speed limits onC/Unclassified roads. Opportunities toimprove noise and air quality within the citycentre associated with emerging policy onLEZs.

With all levels of intervention, the finalformat of the LEZs will need to be taken intoconsideration within the roads hierarchy.With all levels of intervention, the roadshierarchy requires to be flexible in responseto emerging government policy.



Table 15.3: Other Considerations

Other Considerations

Existing andFutureTechnology

With all levels of intervention, technologies will have an impact on infrastructure decisionsand the public use of infrastructure going forward. Technology has the capacity to assist,provide opportunities but also may pose risks to the roads hierarchy, with a number ofexamples of how technology has and is changing lives in Aberdeen City andAberdeenshire as follows:· Urban Traffic Control Systems – Aberdeen City has a number of traffic signal control

systems and this is being modernised;· Social media – information for the public and gaining public opinion;· Cashless ticketing – making public transport and parking easier to use;· Satellite navigation systems – finding quickest routes using new infrastructure;· Big Data – collation of big data from a number of sources to assist with planning future

infrastructure; · Superfast high-speed fiber-optic broadband – reducing need to travel in Aberdeen;· Providing Council services in a smart way e.g. tele health care, flexible education;· Increases in online shopping – reducing the need to travel in Aberdeen;· Electric bikes – providing a new sustainable mode of travel;· Bike hire – providing a new operating system for travel;· Electric car infrastructure (e.g. battery charging stations) – some available in Aberdeen

and others under consideration;· Hydrogen Vehicle infrastructure – Bus and other vehicles fuelling points;· Mobility as a Service - MaaS, providing development of smart travel service provision;

and· Driverless vehicles – under development by government permission and has the

potential to change use of vehicles and infrastructure needs.



15.5 Option AppraisalThe appraisal process involved assessing the four option packages against the objectives of the study on aqualitative basis. The following seven-point STAG-based scale was used for appraisal:

· Major beneficial impact: +3

· Moderate beneficial impact: +2

· Minor beneficial impact: +1

· No benefit or impact: 0 (Neutral)

· Minor negative impact: -1

· Moderate negative impact: -2

· Major negative impact: -3

A narrative has been provided alongside the appraisal scoring for each objective. The appraisal of Objective 6relating to sustainable economic growth has been sub-divided into a score for opportunities and risks to reflect thecomplexity of assessing the performance of option packages against this objective by each mode of travel. Withinthe packages, there are winners and losers, across the city and within the city centre by each mode of travel, withvarying degrees according to level of intervention.

A commentary has also been provided in terms of the appraisal against implementability criteria of publicacceptability and technical feasibility.

15.5.1 Do-Minimum Package AppraisalThe impacts discussed in Section 15.3 were used to inform the appraisal against the objectives for the Do-Minimumpackage as a whole. The results of this appraisal are presented in Table 15.4 over page.



Table 15.4: Do-Minimum Package Appraisal

Do-Minimum Package Appraisal

Criteria Supporting Information SummaryAssessment

Obj

ectiv

es

1. Enables delivery of keyelements in the City CentreMasterplan, and facilitatespromotion of the city centre as anaccessible destination

It is considered that the Do-Minimum scenario has a minorbeneficial impact on the accessibility of the city centre. In the citycentre, active travel and public transport schemes could beimplemented, however outwith the CCMP area there would be nosupporting measures to facilitate this. The majority of car parks willcontinue to be served by a number of direct routes and there wouldbe no restrictions over and above those detailed in the proposedCCMP schemes.

+1

2. Takes advantage of theopportunities afforded by recentand forthcoming road and railimprovements to support areduction in through traffic whichcrosses the city centre

It is considered that the Do-Minimum scenario takes minorbeneficial advantage of forthcoming road and rail improvements, asthe capacity for all general traffic is significantly reduced byapplication of the proposed CCMP schemes. The potential modeshift afforded by rail improvements may also support a reduction inthrough traffic which crosses the city centre. However, movementsbetween the north, west and south of the city centre are stillpermitted and it is possible that traffic would find existing alternativeroutes around the restrictions.

+1

3. Facilitates promotion of a highquality, attractive city centre thatprioritises the movements ofthose walking, cycling and usingpublic transport

There is evidence that application of proposed CCMP schemesgoes some way to reducing traffic levels within the city centre area,which would enable the space to be reimagined to create anenvironment more pleasant for those walking, cycling and usingpublic transport.

+1

4. Prioritises movement on theAWPR and radial routes on thetransport network to move peopleto and from principal destinationsand city centre destinations

It is considered that this package provides no change in priority forradial routes to the AWPR and therefore has no impact in terms ofprioritising movement on the AWPR and radial routes for access tothe city centre and other principal destinations. There are nolocking-in the benefits public transport improvements on radialroutes in this scenario.

0

5. Promotes and enhances publictransport and active travel accessacross the city, and to the citycentre

It is considered that this package provides no change in priority forradial routes to the AWPR and the majority of public transportservices operate on a radial basis. It is therefore considered thatthis package would have no benefit to public transport in terms ofaccess across the city and getting to the city centre, however withinthe CCMP area there are public transport priority initiativesproposed as part of the CCMP. In turn, there would also be nobenefit to active travel access across the city and to the city centre.

0

6. Supports continued sustainableeconomic growth in the city

There are minor beneficial impact opportunities for active travel andpublic transport within the Do-Minimum scenario with theimplementation of the CCMP, providing high-quality places withinthe city centre to promote economic growth.

Opportunities+1

There are risks that the Do-Minimum package could have a minornegative impact on high-quality places outwith the CCMP area asa result of proposed schemes from redistributed traffic if insufficientmodal shift is achieved. Economic growth could be negativelyaffected as a result if the resultant impacts cause delay to themovement of people and goods to principal destinations from thestrategic road network.

Risks-1

Impl

emen

tabi

lity

TechnicalIt is considered that the Do-Minimum scenario is generally technically feasible, essentiallyreflecting the existing junction arrangements supported with new signage. Proposed CCMPschemes require full approval and committed schemes require implementation.

PublicThe public have previously supported the CCMP and therefore it is considered to be publiclyacceptable.



15.5.2 City Hierarchy Package AppraisalThe impacts discussed in Section 15.3 were used to inform the appraisal against the objectives for the CityHierarchy package as a whole. The results of this appraisal are presented in Table 15.5 below.

Table 15.5: City Hierarchy package appraisal

City Hierarchy Package Appraisal


Obj

ectiv

es


It is considered that the City Hierarchy package has a majorbeneficial impact on the accessibility of the city centre for all modesincluding active travel and public transport as well as car drivers.The active travel and public transport schemes within the CCMParea would be supported in this package through changes to theroads hierarchy, accompanying junction interventions, and locking-in the benefits measures which will be designed to enablemovements to the city centre via appropriate radial routes.

+3


The City Hierarchy package takes moderate beneficial advantageof the opportunities afforded by road and rail improvements byintroducing junction interventions and setting priority andsecondary routes which look to encourage movement on theAWPR and appropriate radial routes. This package should enablelocking-in the benefit schemes to be further developed. Movementsbetween the north, west and south of the city centre are stillpermitted and it is possible that traffic would find existing alternativeroutes around the restrictions, however mode shift would beencouraged through the locking-in the benefits measures and thesetting of appropriate routes for vehicular traffic.

+2


It is considered that the City Hierarchy package moderatelybenefits the promotion of a high-quality city centre that prioritisesthe movements of alternative modes of travel by setting the priorityand secondary routes where traffic should be to free up spacewhere there is potential for a high-quality city centre space to beused for people walking, cycling and using public transport. Thesystem whereby existing priority routes in the centre are proposedto be downgraded to tertiary if the place assessment has identifiedthem as high or medium quality places supports this further.

+2


The proposed roads hierarchy and accompanying interventionsassociated with the City Hierarchy package moderately benefit theprioritisation of movement by the AWPR and radial routes as thepreferable means by which to access the city centre and otherprincipal destinations. Junctions on the orbital routes of AndersonDrive and the A978 should be reprioritised to encourage east-westmovements (providing a benefit to public transport and potentiallyencouraging mode shift) rather than north-south, with the AWPRbeing used for north-south movements where possible. Theintroduction of interventions to encourage zonal neighbourhoodswhereby there are no through movements of traffic on inappropriateroutes would further encourage use of the priority radial routes andwould aim to protect communities.

+2



Obj

ectiv

es


It is considered that the City Hierarchy package would provide aminor benefit in terms of promoting and enhancing public transportand active travel access across the city and to the city centre. TheCity Hierarchy package, involving the reprioritisation of roadsacross the network with supporting locking-in the benefitsmeasures, enables radial priority for all traffic. Due to the radialrouting of most bus services, there may a minor benefit to publictransport access. However, it is not considered that mode shift isas strongly encouraged in this package compared with the veryhigh intervention level packages because the radial routes areimproved for all traffic including car drivers and existing alternativeroutes around the restrictions would be possible in the city centremeaning that many may still be inclined to access the city centre bycar. Radial priority will also be enabled for active travel usersoutwith the city centre, and if the desired traffic reduction isachieved in the city centre, it is likely that the attractiveness ofactive travel will be increased also.

+1


It is considered that the City Hierarchy scenario provides moderatebenefits for continued sustainable economic growth in the city. Bythe reprioritisation of priority and secondary routes across thenetwork and supporting this with junction interventions and theconcept of zonal neighbourhoods, it is considered that traffic will beencouraged to use what is considered to be the appropriate routes,and high-quality places can be provided to promote economicgrowth. It is considered that the measures proposed within thispackage will enhance access to principal destinations by use ofappropriate routes.

Opportunities+2

There are risks that the City Hierarchy package could have nooverall benefit to continued sustainable economic growth for themovement of people and goods in the case where sufficient modalshift is not achieved. There is a minor risk that the redistribution oftraffic from inappropriate routes to the appropriate radial routesmay cause congestion on these radial routes, which could impacton accessing principal destinations.

Risks-1

Impl

emen

tabi

lity

Technical

It is considered that the City Hierarchy scenario is generally technically feasible. In somelocations, junction interventions and locking-in the benefits measures may be relativelysimplistic through control of traffic signals whereas in other locations, interventions couldbe far more significant. The implementation of the zonal neighbourhoods concept couldinclude measures ranging from new 20mph speed limits, entry treatments, to road closuresand other traffic management measures.

Public

The public have previously supported the CCMP and therefore this package would beexpected to be publicly acceptable. The hierarchy and interventions associated with thispackage would aim to make it easier to travel to and exit from the city centre via radialroutes, and this is designed to be beneficial for communities across the city. There is,however the ongoing challenge of competing views between communities and betweenmodes regarding who should have priority on sections of the road network.



15.5.3 Road Space Reallocation Package AppraisalThe impacts discussed in Section 15.3 were used to inform the appraisal against the objectives for the RoadSpace Reallocation package as a whole. The results of this appraisal are presented in Table 15.6 below.

Table 15.6: Road Space Reallocation package appraisal

Road Space Reallocation Package Appraisal


Obj

ectiv

es


It is considered that the Road Space Reallocation package has amoderate beneficial impact on the accessibility of the city centre.There is a major benefit for active travel and public transport in thispackage, but less benefit for other vehicular users. With theinterventions included within the City Hierarchy package, therewould be support for movements to the city centre via appropriateradial routes, especially for active travel and public transport users.

+2


Building on the City Hierarchy package, the Road SpaceReallocation package is designed to take full advantage of roadand rail improvements to support a major beneficial reduction inthrough traffic which crosses the city centre by restricting capacityon key routes within the city centre to deter this through movementof general traffic and encourage traffic to route via more appropriateroutes to reach its destination.

+3


Building on the City Hierarchy package and CCMP proposals, theRoad Space Reallocation package majorly benefits the promotionof a high-quality city centre that prioritises the movement ofalternative modes. By reallocating additional road space (over andabove the CCMP proposals) to pedestrians, cyclists and publictransport users reduces capacity for private cars and othervehicular users, facilitating the potential for further improvement oflower quality areas to higher quality areas in the city centre area.

+3


The proposed roads hierarchy and accompanying interventionsassociated with the Road Space Reallocation package moderatelybenefit the prioritisation of movement by the AWPR and radialroutes as the preferable means by which to access the city centreand other principal destinations. Junctions on the orbital routes ofAnderson Drive and the A978 should be reprioritised to encourageeast-west movements (providing a benefit to public transport andpotentially encouraging mode shift) rather than north-south, withthe AWPR being used for north-south movements where possible.The introduction of interventions to encourage zonalneighbourhoods whereby there are no through movements of trafficon inappropriate routes would further encourage use of the priorityradial routes and would aim to protect communities. Interventionsassociated with the Road Space Reallocation package seek toreinforce these principles.

+2


Building on the City Hierarchy package, the Road SpaceReallocation package, when applied in addition to interventionswithin the Do-Minimum and City Hierarchy scenarios, wouldmoderately enhance public transport and active travel accessacross the city, and to the city centre. The interventions proposedwithin the city centre could incentivise and encourage mode shifttowards active travel and public transport across the city formovements to the city centre. Although the implementation of roadspace reallocation measures could enable public transport to passthrough the city centre area without delay, it is considered that therecould be a risk to this if approach routes to the city centre becomecongested as a result of the interventions.

+2



Obj

ectiv

es


Building on the City Hierarchy package, it is considered that theRoad Space Reallocation package has the potential to providemajor benefits for continued sustainable economic growth in thecity. Over and above what is included within the CCMP measures,there is the potential for further improvement of lower quality areasto higher quality areas in the city centre. If this package was toencourage greater mode shift, there may be the potential toimprove areas outwith the city centre also. The main beneficiariesof this potential may be city centre residents and other users (e.g.employers; employees; businesses; public transport interchangeusers to the ferry, rail station and bus station; tourists; leisure users;school pupils; and college students).

Opportunities+3

It is considered that there are moderate risks to continuedsustainable economic growth in the city with the application of roadspace reallocation interventions. It is possible that theseinterventions could have impacts on vehicular flows on approach toand within the city centre area if sufficient mode shift and reroutingto appropriate routes is not achieved. There are a number ofprincipal destinations within the city centre area that traffic could beaccessing as legitimate users, for example the public transportinterchanges or the harbour. The main risk of this package is to theeffective operation of Aberdeen Harbour. From an operatingperspective, it is essential that goods traffic can access and exitfrom the site as quickly and easily as possible. It is considered thatthere are risks to this operation if restrictions on routes across thenetwork cause delays.

Risks-2

Impl

emen

tabi

lity

Technical

It is considered that the Road Space Reallocation scenario is generally technically feasible.There may be specific locations where there are technical challenges accommodating thedisplacement of traffic onto appropriate routes if sufficient mode shift is not achieved. It isconsidered that the biggest risk to technical feasibility of this option package is in relation toinsufficient capacity on the identified appropriate routes, particularly those from the southas there are a number of major principal destinations identified in the south of the city centre.

Public

The public have previously supported the CCMP and therefore there is support for theprinciples of providing additional facilities for public transport and active travel, and benefitsaccrued from a reduction in traffic in the city centre. However, the Road Space Reallocationpackage includes interventions across key routes over and above the agreed CCMPschemes and therefore it is considered that the public acceptability of this package stillrequires validation. It is likely that the problems that could arise from implementation of suchinterventions (for example, related to congestion on approach to and within the city centre)may generate opposition from some members of the public. On the other hand, it is possiblethat some city centre users including existing pedestrians, cyclists and public transportusers could be in support of the interventions included within this package.



15.5.4 Access Only Package AppraisalThe impacts discussed in Section 15.3 were used to inform the appraisal against the objectives for the AccessOnly package as a whole. The results of this appraisal are presented in Table 15.7 below.

Table 15.7: Access Only package appraisal

Access Only Package Appraisal


Obj

ectiv

es


It is considered that the Access Only package has a moderatebeneficial impact on the accessibility of the city centre. There is amajor benefit for active travel and public transport in this package,but less benefit for other vehicular users. With the interventionsincluded within the City Hierarchy package, there would be supportfor movements to the city centre via appropriate radial routes,especially for active travel and public transport users.

+2


Building on the City Hierarchy package, the Access Only packageis designed to take full advantage of road and rail improvements tosupport a major beneficial reduction in through traffic which crossesthe city centre by implementing vehicular restrictions on key routeswithin the city centre to prevent this through movement of generaltraffic and encourage traffic to route via more appropriate routes toreach its destination.

+3


Building on the City Hierarchy package and CCMP proposals, theAccess Only package majorly benefits the promotion of a high-quality city centre that prioritises the movement of alternativemodes. With the access only interventions, movement through thecity centre area is reserved for pedestrians, cyclists and publictransport users. This facilitates the potential for furtherimprovement of lower quality areas to higher quality areas in thecity centre area.

+3


The proposed roads hierarchy and accompanying interventionsassociated with the Access Only package moderately benefit theprioritisation of movement by the AWPR and radial routes as thepreferable means by which to access the city centre and otherprincipal destinations. Junctions on the orbital routes of AndersonDrive and the A978 should be reprioritised to encourage east-westmovements (providing a benefit to public transport and potentiallyencouraging mode shift) rather than north-south, with the AWPRbeing used for north-south movements where possible. Theintroduction of interventions to encourage zonal neighbourhoodswhereby there are no through movements of traffic on inappropriateroutes would further encourage use of the priority radial routes andwould aim to protect communities. Interventions associated withthe Access Only package seek to reinforce these principles.

+2


Building on the City Hierarchy package, the Access Only package,when applied in addition to interventions within the Do-Minimumand City Hierarchy scenarios, would majorly enhance publictransport and active travel access across the city, and to the citycentre. The interventions proposed within the city centre couldincentivise and encourage mode shift towards active travel andpublic transport across the city for movements to the city centre.The implementation of access only treatments could enable publictransport to pass through the city centre area without delay and itis considered that there is greater potential for mode shift andappropriate routing by other vehicles.

+3



Obj

ectiv

es


Building on the City Hierarchy package, it is considered that theAccess Only package has the potential to provide major benefitsfor continued sustainable economic growth in the city. Over andabove what is included within the CCMP measures, there is thepotential for further improvement of lower quality areas to higherquality areas in the city centre. If this package was to encouragegreater mode shift, there may be the potential to improve areasoutwith the city centre also. The main beneficiaries of this potentialmay be city centre residents and other users (e.g. employers;employees; businesses; public transport interchange users to theferry, rail station and bus station; tourists; leisure users; schoolpupils; and college students). It is also considered that this packagewould be most effective at encouraging use of appropriate routesby vehicular traffic.

Opportunities+3

It is considered that there are moderate risks to continuedsustainable economic growth in the city with the application ofaccess only interventions. It is possible that these interventionscould have impacts on vehicular flows on approach to and withinthe city centre area if sufficient mode shift is not achieved. Thereare a number of principal destinations within the city centre areathat traffic could be accessing as legitimate users, for example thepublic transport interchanges or the harbour. The main risk of thispackage is to the effective operation of Aberdeen Harbour. Froman operating perspective, it may reduce the number of accessroutes available for the harbour for the movement of goods unlessspecial provision can be made for harbour traffic. It is essential thatgoods traffic can access and exit from the site as quickly and easilyas possible. It is considered that there are risks to this operation ifrestrictions on routes across the network cause delays.

Risks-2

Impl

emen

tabi

lity

Technical

It is considered that the Access Only scenario is generally technically feasible. There maybe specific locations where there are technical challenges accommodating thedisplacement of traffic onto appropriate routes if sufficient mode shift is not achieved. It isconsidered that the biggest risk to technical feasibility of this option package is in relation toinsufficient capacity on the identified appropriate routes, particularly those from the southas there are a number of major principal destinations identified in the south of the city centre.

Public

The public have previously supported the CCMP and therefore there is support for theprinciples of providing additional facilities for public transport and active travel, and benefitsaccrued from a reduction in traffic in the city centre. However, the Access Only packageincludes interventions across key routes over and above the agreed CCMP schemes andtherefore it is considered that the public acceptability of this package still requires validation.It is likely that the problems that could arise from implementation of such interventions (forexample, related to congestion on approach to the city centre on the appropriate routes)may generate opposition from some members of the public. On the other hand, it is possiblethat some city centre users including existing pedestrians, cyclists and public transportusers could be in support of the interventions included within this package.



15.5.5 Appraisal SummaryThe findings of the appraisal process against objectives are summarised in the table below, using the following key:

Table 15.8: Appraisal summary of option packages

Option Packages AppraisalAppraisal

Do-Minimum City Hierarchy Road Space Reallocation Access Only

Obj

ectiv

es

1. Enables delivery of key elements in the City CentreMasterplan, and facilitates promotion of the city centre as anaccessible destination

+1 +3 +2 +2

2. Takes advantage of the opportunities afforded by recent andforthcoming road and rail improvements to support a reduction inthrough traffic which crosses the city centre

+1 +2 +3 +3

3. Facilitates promotion of a high quality, attractive city centrethat prioritises the movements of those walking, cycling andusing public transport

+1 +2 +3 +3

4. Prioritises movement on the AWPR and radial routes on thetransport network to move people to and from principaldestinations and city centre destinations

0 +2 +2 +2

5. Promotes and enhances public transport and active travelaccess across the city, and to the city centre 0 +1 +2 +3

6. Supports continued sustainable economic growth in the city Opportunities+1

Risks-1

Opportunities+2

Risks-1

Opportunities+3

Risks-2

Opportunities+3

Risks-2

Major beneficial impact (+3)Moderate benef icial impact (+2)Minor beneficial impact (+1)No benef it or impact (0)Minor negative impact (-1)Moderate negative impact (-2)Major negative impact (-3)



The Do-Minimum package appears to be a relatively neutral option, whereby it would not be expected to pose anymajor risks, but its benefit would be limited without the supporting interventions proposed as part of the other optionpackages. It is considered that the Do-Minimum package is low-risk in terms of technical implementability and thepublic have previously supported the CCMP.

The City Hierarchy package performs well against the objectives. In particular, it is considered that the CityHierarchy package facilitates promotion of the city centre as an accessible destination for all modes of transport.In this package, active travel is promoted within the city centre as envisaged within the CCMP and also outwith thecity centre with support from junction interventions and zonal neighbourhood treatments. It is considered that thereprioritisation of routes across the network would enhance the public transport offering by reducing journey timesthrough the prioritisation of radial routing, by which the majority of bus services in Aberdeen operate. It is alsoconsidered that the setting of revised priority and secondary routes, in combination with accompanying junctioninterventions and support for the concept of zonal neighbourhoods, traffic will be encouraged to use what isconsidered to be the appropriate routes for traffic on the network. The promotion of the CCMP, supported by theCity Hierarchy package interventions should enable high-quality places in the city centre to be enhanced,supporting sustainable economic growth. There is a balance to be had between the opportunities to promote activetravel and public transport and the risks of accessibility to principal destinations for other users. It is consideredthat the City Hierarchy package is generally technically feasible, and the public have previously supported theCCMP. In addition, the online survey conducted in 2017 indicated strong support for an improved environment forpedestrians and cyclists in the city centre and bus improvements across the city.

The very high level of intervention packages (Road Space Reallocation and Access Only) perform very stronglyagainst a number of the objectives and adhere to the roads hierarchy principles, however they also have thepotential to exhibit moderate risks that have been reviewed in a qualitative way as part of this study. Theseintervention packages have the most potential for encouraging mode shift and routing by appropriate routes, thustaking the most advantage of recent road and rail improvements in the region. It is also considered that thesepackages have the greatest opportunity and potential for supporting sustainable economic growth, however thishas to be balanced against the identified risks. The key risks identified relate to congestion on appropriate routesif sufficient mode shift is not achieved, and access to principal destinations, particularly within the city centre area.It is considered that these packages are generally technically feasible, and the public have previously supportedthe CCMP. In addition, the online survey conducted in 2017 indicated strong support for an improved environmentfor pedestrians and cyclists in the city centre and bus improvements across the city. The measures proposed inthese packages could generate opposition from some users of the city centre, however this is an ongoing challengeto balance the competing views of different users of the road network.

The diagram over page illustrates the step-change that would be required for increasing levels of intervention fromcity-wide junction interventions and zonal neighbourhoods to the application of additional traffic managementmeasures in the city centre over and above those proposed to be introduced as part of locking-in the benefitsmeasures and the CCMP. Increasing levels of intervention exhibit increasing opportunities and increasing levels ofrisk. A qualitative assessment has been undertaken on the impacts of such interventions.



Figure 15.15: Summary of option packages and intervention measures



15.6 SummaryThis chapter has focussed on option packaging, potential impacts, opportunities and risks of option packages, andoption appraisal. It has introduced a discussion on proposed level of intervention associated with each optionpackage that would seek to support the proposed hierarchy of routes across the network. The option packagesintroduced include:

· Do-Minimum package;

· City Hierarchy package;

· Road Space Reallocation package; and

· Access Only package.

An appraisal of the option packages was undertaken against the agreed objectives and against the implementabilitycriteria of technical feasibility and public acceptability. The results of this appraisal indicated that there are benefitswith all option packages, however it is considered that the benefits of the Do-Minimum package are more limitedcompared with the others. It is considered that the other packages all go a significant way to realising the aims ofthe Roads Hierarchy Study, however as noted above, there are opportunities and risks to be considered in detailwith all option packages.


Using an evidence-based approach and building on previous ACC work and agreed objectives, the two outcomesof roads hierarchy options and levels of intervention to support those options have been brought together inpackages, appraisal has been undertaken against the objectives of the Roads Hierarchy Study andimplementability issues have been discussed.



16



16. Summary and Key Outcomes16.1 SummaryACC, along with Nestrans, Aberdeenshire Council and the SDPA, as regional partners, wish to take advantage ofthe current investment in transport infrastructure (road and rail) in the City Region to facilitate the implementationof the CCMP’s aim of creating a vibrant city centre with an environment that encourages visits to and lengthensstays in the city centre and to lock-in the benefits of this investment for the whole city.

The partners are seeking to update the city’s roads hierarchy to provide a system that reflects the new role of thecity centre (as a destination) and makes the most effective use of the AWPR for distributing traffic around the cityto the most appropriate radial route to reduce the extent of cross-city traffic movements.


The two key outcomes to be delivered as part of the work were:



The initial focus was to set a new proposed roads hierarchy through the undertaking of a number of tasks. Thesetasks ultimately provided an understanding of routes in the study area and allowed for the identification of the mostappropriate routes for carrying traffic across the city. Once options for the updated roads hierarchy had beendeveloped, intervention levels could then be considered which were designed to support use of the new roadshierarchy, encouraging appropriate use of roads in the study area according to their proposed new classificationi.e. use of priority routes for cross-city traffic movements where possible and use of local roads for localised tripsonly.

The study area for the Roads Hierarchy Study is bounded by the Charleston to Blackdog section of the AWPR. Inthe city centre, the study adopted the CCMP boundary as its focus.

The Roads Hierarchy Study has been undertaken between July 2018 and April 2019.



A number of tasks contributed towards options for a proposed new roads hierarchy for Aberdeen. These are summarised in the diagram below.

Figure 16.1: Roads Hierarchy Study Approach



A long-list of initial options was developed for the following elements within the roads hierarchy:




· Local roads; and


For the options developed, consideration was given to both routing and the hierarchy status of routes (priority,secondary, local).

A further validation test was undertaken, after option sifting, on the principles and suitability of place for the initialroads hierarchy options that had been developed. This test helped to provide an assessment of the options inrelation to the network as a whole, rather than just the individual elements on their own as had been carried outpreviously. It also included consideration of the established AWPR signing framework developed by ACC in orderto assess if options aligned with the framework and identifying those contrary to what had been agreed. There wasparticular focus on key considerations for active travel, public transport, freight, general traffic and roadclassification as a result of the options for change in a potential new roads hierarchy. Future decisions on levels ofintervention to be implemented in the city centre will influence the hierarchy change proposed on some routes inthe CCMP area.

Options were packaged following validation testing as per the following:

· Do-Minimum package;

· City Hierarchy package;

· Road Space Reallocation package; and

· Access Only package.

Proposed levels of intervention associated with each option package were then introduced, that would seek tosupport the proposed hierarchy of routes across the network. There is a step-change that would be required forincreasing levels of intervention, from city-wide junction interventions, locking-in the benefits measures and zonalneighbourhoods to the application of additional traffic management measures in the city centre over and abovethose proposed to be introduced as part of the CCMP. Increasing levels of intervention exhibit increasingopportunities and increasing levels of risk. A qualitative assessment has been undertaken on the impacts of suchinterventions.

An appraisal of the option packages was undertaken against the agreed objectives and against the implementabilitycriteria of technical feasibility and public acceptability. The results of this appraisal indicated that there are benefitswith all option packages, however it is considered that the benefits of the Do-Minimum package are more limitedcompared with the others. It is considered that the other packages all go a significant way to realising the aims ofthe Roads Hierarchy Study, however there are opportunities and risks to be considered in detail with all optionpackages.



16.2 Key OutcomesThe Roads Hierarchy Study has:

· Interpreted the ACC principles of a roads hierarchy devised in 2016 and assessed where there is a need fora change of prioritisation of roads inside the AWPR boundary;

· Considered a number of city-wide and additional city centre levels of intervention to promote mode shift andfacilitate use of appropriate routes to support continued sustainable economic growth and delivery of theCCMP.

Detailed and difficult decisions on individual elements within the road network and interventions now need to bemade across the city. It is recognised that this will not be easy, and a balance must be found between supportinga healthy, active and vibrant high-quality place environment and the needs of people and goods to access principaldestinations and other local destinations, whilst implementing interventions according to the new roads hierarchy.

Based on community and stakeholder feedback, the Roads Hierarchy Study has presented a number ofapproaches that could be developed over time, incrementally supporting previous interventions taken forward byACC, Nestrans and partners. These follow the benefits the community have said they desire for improved cityenvironments and an improved user experience of travel in and around the City Region.

A number of previous issues associated with bringing forward the CCMP have now been addressed, such as theimplementation and opening of major infrastructure and transport improvements, including the AWPR and railimprovements. It is now possible to take advantage of this investment in infrastructure and public transport servicesand further implement the CCMP supported by other roads hierarchy interventions.

