Forth Replacement Crossing - Report 1 - Assessment of Transport Network

7 BASE AND FORECAST MODELLED TRANSPORT CONDITIONS

7.1 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this report is to provide a forecast of the future performance of the Forth Bridges and the surrounding road and rail network. This will provide the main basis from which performance can be measured, gaps identified and interventions proposed and assessed.

It must be emphasised that this report does not define aims or objectives, or deal with solutions to perceived problems. These are dealt with in later reports.

Forecasts provided in this report are, unless stated otherwise, taken from the Transport Model for Scotland (TMfS). TMfS is the official model of Transport Scotland, maintained and updated periodically by consultants. It models all responses to possible transport interventions, such as changing mode, destination, time of travel etc, and has recently been updated to a 2005 base, including the latest land use forecasts, as provided by each local authority.

The model includes representations of three time periods: AM Peak (0800-0900), Inter Peak (average hour of 1000-1600) and PM Peak (1700-1800).

Three future year scenarios (2012, 2017 and 2022), along with the 2005 base were analysed. The schemes added to the base 2005 situation for each forecast are listed below:

2012:

• M74 Completion;
• M9 Spur Extension;
• Finnieston Bridge;
• A68 Northern Dalkeith Bypass;
• Ferrytoll Link Road;
• Second Upper Forth Crossing;
• Alloa – Stirling – Glasgow Rail Service;
• M8 Upgrade;
• Airdrie – Bathgate Rail Reopening;
• Edinburgh Airport Rail Link;
• Edinburgh Tram Lines;
• Glasgow Airport Rail Link;
• Glasgow Cross Rail;
• Borders Rail Service;
• M80 Upgrade;
• A801 Upgrade; and
• Aberdeen Western Peripheral Road.

2017:

• Sherriffhall Grade Separation Junction;
• Glasgow East End Regeneration Route; and
• South East Wedge / Shawfair.

2022:

• Rosyth Bypass.

It should be noted that these schemes are those that are expected to be in place by the forecast year. However, some of the schemes are not fully committed, and their inclusion should not be taken as any form of commitment by Transport Scotland or any other national, regional or local government body.

7.2 ROAD NETWORK

7.2.1 Cross Forth Trip Growth

Figure 7.1 shows the locations of the Cross Forth flows taken from TMfS. The locations chosen are the Forth Road Bridge, the Forth Bridge, the Kincardine Bridge, the Second Upper Forth Crossing and the A91 east of Stirling.

Figure 7.1: Cross Forth Screenline Locations

©Crown copyright. All rights reserved. License Number 100019139

Figure 7.2 shows the total Annual Average Daily Traffic for both directions on each Forth crossing. Figures 7.3 and 7.4 show the total vehicular flows on each Forth crossing in the peak directions in the mornings (southbound) and evenings (northbound) for each modelled year.

Figure 7.2: Annual Average Daily Traffic Flows (Combined Direction)

Figure 7.3: Southbound Cross Forth Vehicle Flows – AM Peak

Figure 7.4: Northbound Cross Forth Vehicle Flows – PM Peak

The figures show that there is very little growth on the Forth Road Bridge in the peak directions, indicating that it is already very close to capacity. However, there is growth in the daily total, showing that there is a likelihood of ‘peak spreading’ as people re-time their journeys to avoid the constrained peak periods. The introduction of the second crossing at Kincardine leads to rapid growth in the total flow crossing the Firth at that point, more than doubling in the northbound direction in the evening between 2005 and 2022. This indicates that there is a substantial amount of demand suppressed by the lack of existing capacity. The A91 experiences a drop in flow, as vehicles divert to use the new crossing.

Figures 7.5 and 7.6 show the growth in vehicular traffic on the Forth Road Bridge. Figure 7.5 presents the average per annum growth between each forecast year in each direction in the AM peak, inter peak, and PM peak, and for the Annual Average Daily Traffic. Figure 7.6 shows the same indicators indexed to the 2005 values. A consistent trend is difficult to identify. However, it is noticeable that, as would be expected, the peak directions (southbound in the morning and northbound in the evening) have the lowest growths, and (generally) the unconstrained Inter Peak has the highest.

Figure 7.5: Growth in Vehicle Flow on Forth Road Bridge

Figure 7.6: Indexed Growth in Vehicle Flow on Forth Road Bridge (2005=100)

7.2.2 Congestion Indicators

Figure 7.7 presents the change in two of the Local Congestion Indicators, as discussed in chapter six. The figures are for the route from the M90 Junction 4 to the Forth Road Bridge, and are two way.

Figure 7.7: Indexed Additional Annual Vehicle Hours (2005=100)

The model predicts that by 2022 the additional travel time on the route per annum will have more than doubled, while the average time lost per kilometre will increase by approximately 75 per cent.

7.2.3 Road Journey Times

Using TMfS, select routes were selected to analyse journey times and average speed during the AM and PM peak periods. The three routes selected for this analysis are Dunfermline to Edinburgh City Centre, Kirkcaldy to Leith and Perth to Livingston. These are outlined below in Figure 7.8.

Figure 7.8: Journey Time Routes

The time taken is measured after each kilometre of the journey. As only the time after each discrete section can be measured, interpolation is used to calculate the times where appropriate. Note that the total distance of a route can change slightly between forecast years as other infrastructure is added.

Figure 7.9 shows the journey time against the journey distance for each forecast year, and Figure 7.10 shows the average speed of the journey up to that point. In the AM peak hour, it can be seen that there is no noticeable increase between forecast years until the Forth Road Bridge is reached when travelling in the southbound direction. There is a small increase between the years until Edinburgh is reached, where larger increases in journey time between forecast years is experienced.

In Figures 7.9 – 7.23 the following abbreviations are used:

km = kilometre/s
km/hr = kilometres per hour

Figure 7.9: Dunfermline - Edinburgh City Centre AM Peak Journey Times

Figure 7.10: Dunfermline – Edinburgh City Centre AM Peak Average Speed of Journey

Figures 7.11 and 7.12 show the same information for the PM peak hour northbound direction. A pattern similar to that of the AM peak hour is exhibited, in that there is no increase between years to the north of the bridge: the majority of the increase in journey time is due to increasing congestion in Edinburgh.

Figure 7.11: Edinburgh City Centre – Dunfermline PM Peak Journey Times

Figure 7.12: Edinburgh City Centre - Dunfermline PM Peak Average Speed of Journey

In order to remove the effects of Edinburgh congestion on the journey time route, a subset of the above route was taken. The route from Dunfermline to Barnton junction was analysed. Figures 7.13 and 7.14 show information for this route southbound in the AM peak and northbound in the PM peak.

Figure 7.13: Dunfermline – Barnton Junction AM Peak Journey Times

Figure 7.14: Barnton Junction – Dunfermline PM Peak Journey Times

There is very little increase in the time taken to complete the southbound journey in the AM peak. This is due to the AM peak hour being very close to capacity, with little scope for further deterioration in the time taken to cross the Forth Road Bridge.

There is an approximately two minute increase in the journey time across the Forth Road Bridge in the PM peak northbound direction between 2005 and 2022. Again, this small increase is a function of how close the existing situation is to capacity in the peak hour. Figures 7.15 and 7.16 present the equivalent information for the AM peak northbound and PM peak southbound directions, respectively.

Figure 7.15: Barnton Junction – Dunfermline AM Peak Journey Times

Figure 7.16: Dunfermline – Barnton Junction PM Peak Journey Times

These figures clearly show that there is a greater increase in journey times in the ‘non peak’ directions in the AM and PM peak hours ie northbound in the morning and southbound in the evening. This supports the view that the peak hour is so close the capacity that there is little scope for further deterioration.

Figures 7.17 to 7.20 show equivalent information for the Kirkcaldy to Leith journey time route. Again, a similar pattern to the previous route is exhibited: increases in journey time duration in future are a function of increases in congestion in Edinburgh. This backs up the conclusion reached earlier that the flows in the peak hours in the peak directions over the Forth are already at, or very near, saturation.

Figure 7.17: Kirkcaldy – Leith AM Peak Journey Times

Figure 7.18: Kirkcaldy – Leith AM Peak Average Speed of Journey

Figure 7.19: Leith - Kirkcaldy PM Peak Journey Time

Figure 7.20: Leith - Kirkcaldy PM Peak Average Speed of Journey

Figures 7.21 to 7.24 show equivalent results for the Perth to Livingston journey time route. There is very little variation between the forecast years.

Figure 7.21: Perth - Livingston AM Peak Journey Times

Figure 7.22: Perth - Livingston AM Peak Average Speed of Journey

Figure 7.23: Livingston – Perth PM Peak Journey Times

Figure 7.24: Livingston – Perth PM Peak Average Speed of Journey

The modelled results for journey times show very little change between years over the Forth Road Bridge. As discussed earlier, this is due to the crossing being at, or near, its capacity in the peak direction in the peak hour. However, the modelling package is not capable of including the effects of queuing on other vehicles, or the ‘dynamic’ nature of those queues. In reality, the peak is likely to increase in duration, and queues increase in length and duration, which will have a negative impact on journey times. This growth and decay of the queues is not represented in the modelling.

An analysis of the increasing duration of the peak, known as ‘peak spreading’, as modelled by TMfS for AM peak car trips between Fife and Edinburgh using the Forth Road Bridge, is shown in Figure 7.25 below.

Figure 7.25: Peak Spreading between Fife and Edinburgh in the Morning Peak

Note that this analysis assumes that the hours before and after the peak hour (8am to 9am) have the same levels of flow. This assumption is broadly supported by the observed data reported upon in Figures 6.17 and 6.18.

The dashed lines show an even distribution, with one third of the total peak period (7am to 10am) in each hour. In this situation, there is no ‘peak’; or, the peak has spread such that it covers the whole of the morning period.

It can be seen from the figure that the peak is forecast to spread, with the peak hour reducing its proportion of the three hour period from 36.6 per cent in 2005 to 35.1 per cent in 2022.

7.2.4 Road Link Speeds

Figures 7.26 and 7.27 show the average speeds on the links in the AM Peak hour for 2005 and 2022.

Figure 7.26: AM Peak 2005 Link Speeds

Figure 7.27: AM Peak 2022 Link Speeds

The figures illustrate the increasing congestion experienced by the urban centres, especially Edinburgh.

Table 7.1 and Figure 7.28 show the percentage change in average speeds on roads modelled in the TMfS between 2005 and the forecast years of 2012, 2017 and 2022 for each Local Authority in the SEStran area.

Table 7.1: Percentage Change in Average Speed by SEStran Local Authority

Local Authority	2012	2017	2022
City of Edinburgh	-8.9	-19.3	-25.6
Clackmannanshire	1.2	0.7	-0.4
East Lothian	-0.3	-7.7	-9.0
Falkirk	-0.5	-1.2	-3.2
Fife	0.5	-1.1	-2.9
Midlothian	-7.1	-9.0	-9.9
Scottish Borders	0.1	0.3	0.0
West Lothian	-0.3	-2.3	-5.4

Figure 7.28: Percentage Change in Average Speed by SEStran Local Authority

©Crown copyright. All rights reserved. License Number 100019139

Average speeds change slightly between 2005 and 2012 for all SEStran Local Authorities except for the City of Edinburgh and Midlothian, which show large decreases. Speeds then reduce in the period to 2017 and to 2022 in all areas with the exception of Clackmannanshire and the Scottish Borders. Edinburgh experiences a 26 per cent decline in average speeds between 2005 and 2022. East Lothian and Midlothian both experience a 9 to 10 per cent decline.

7.2.5 Select Link Analysis

A select link analysis provides a look at origin and destination points for traffic using that point in the network. Using TMfS, a select link analysis was undertaken on the Forth Road Bridge in the AM Peak for 2005 and 2022. The model was developed using roadside interview data from this point. A comparison between the roadside interview survey reported upon in Figures 6.6 and 6.7 and the AM Peak southbound select link is presented in Table 7.2. The results of this select link analysis are then shown in Figures 7.29 and 7.30.

Table 7.2: Comparison of Modelled and Observed Origins and Destinations of Traffic Using the Forth Road Bridge, Southbound in the AM Peak

Area	Observed (%)		Modelled (%)
	Origin	Destination	Origin	Destination
Rosyth	5	0	3	0
Dunfermline	29	0	24	0
Perth/Kinross	19	0	21	0
Kirkcaldy/Glenrothes	26	0	26	0
Inverkeithing, Dalgety Bay and Aberdour	20	0	26	0
Edinburgh North	0	12	0	11
Edinburgh Centre	0	15	0	13
Edinburgh West	0	34	0	39
Edinburgh Bypass	0	16	0	16
Livingston/M8	0	19	2	18
Falkirk/M9	1	3	0	3

There is a good level of correspondence between the observed and modelled distribution of origins and destinations.

Figure 7.29: AM Peak 2005 Southbound Select Link on the Forth Road Bridge.

Figure 7.30: AM Peak 2022 Southbound Select Link on the Forth Road Bridge.

The select link analyses illustrate the strategic nature of the Forth Road Bridge, and show that there is likely to be little change in this up until 2022.

7.2.6 Transport Pollutant Emissions

Table 7.3 presents the pollutant emissions from transport in the SEStran Local Authority areas, in 1000s of tonnes.

Table 7.3: Pollutant Emissions from Transport in the SEStran Area (1000s tonnes)

Description	2005	2012	% Change from 2005	2017	% Change from 2005	2022	% Change from 2005
Carbon Monoxide Pollutants [CO]	10.6	8.0	-24	8.6	-19	9.3	-12
Hydrocarbon Pollutants [HC]	1.6	1.2	-26	1.3	-21	1.4	-14
Oxides of Nitrogen Pollutants [NOX]	10.5	6.6	-37	5.7	-46	6.0	-43
Particulate Pollutants [PM10]	0.3	0.2	-46	0.2	-54	0.2	-52
Carbon Dioxide [CO2]	1950	2044	5	2219	14	2451	26

Improvements in engine technology will tend to decrease most emissions over time. However, this is counterbalanced by the increases in road traffic. It can be seen that for CO, HC, NOX and PM10s the level of emissions decreases from the base situation. However, the level of C02 emissions from transport increase.

7.3 PUBLIC TRANSPORT

7.3.1 Introduction

This section presents forecasts derived from TMfS for Public Transport patronage up to 2022.

7.3.2 Patronage

Figure 7.31 shows the increase in the number of trips forecast by TMfS across the Forth Bridge up until 2020. The average annual forecast increase is quite modest, as can be seen in Tables 7.4 and 7.5.

Figure 7.31: Indexed Growth in Person Flow on Forth Bridge (2005=100)

Table 7.4: Growth in Person Flow on Forth Bridge (Northbound)

	2005 to 2012 (%)	2012 to 2017 (%)	2017 to 2022 (%
AM Peak	1.1	0.5	-0.1
Inter Peak	2.7	0.9	0.6
PM Peak	2.1	1.4	0.8

Table 7.5: Growth in Person Flow on Forth Bridge (Southbound)

	2005 to 2012 (%)	2012 to 2017 (%)	2017 to 2022 (%)
AM Peak	0.1	1.6	1.2
Inter Peak	2.0	1.1	1.0
PM Peak	1.9	0.2	0.3

Table 7.6 shows the recent and potential future increases in the capacity provision on trains across the Forth.

Morning Peak Train (or equivalent)	Situation in May 2003 Timetable	Situation after Platform and Train Lengthening	Situation after Provision of Additional Trains	Situation Assuming all Trains formed by 6-cars
06:14 Perth – Edinburgh (07:58)	145	212	212	380
06:22 Edinburgh – Edinburgh (08:17)	290	348	348	424
07:05 Perth – Edinburgh (08:24)	190	190	190	380
07:33 Glenrothes – Edinburgh (08:33)	290	424	424	424
07:31 Kirkcaldy – Edinburgh (08:41)	290	348	348	380
07:55 Kirkcaldy – Edinburgh (08:45)	290	348	348	380
06:43 Carnoustie – Edinburgh (08:50)		190	190	380
06:00 Aberdeen – Edinburgh (08:55)	272	190	190	380
New train circa 07:00 Markinch – Dunfermline – Edinburgh (08:12)			136	380
New train circa 07:43 Kirkcaldy – Edinburgh (08:28)			136	380
Total seats	1767	2250	2522	3888

Figure 7.32 show equivalent figures for bus flows on the Forth Road Bridge.

Figure 7.32: Indexed Growth in Bus Passenger Flow on Forth Road Bridge (2005=100)

Table 7.7: Growth in Bus Passenger Flow on Forth Road Bridge (Northbound)

	2005 to 2012 (%)	2012 to 2017 (%)	2017 to 2022 (%)
AM Peak	1.0	-1.4	-1.4
Inter Peak	3.5	-9.1	-8.8
PM Peak	-0.3	-10.6	-12.0

Table 7.8: Growth in Bus Passenger Flow on Forth Road Bridge (Southbound)

	2005 to 2012 (%)	2012 to 2017 (%)	2017 to 2022 (%)
AM Peak	1.0	-6.6	-4.9
Inter Peak	7.7	-2.6	-3.0
PM Peak	-2.9	-4.2	-5.6

Figure 7.30 and Tables 7.7 and 7.8 indicate that TMfS predicts a declining patronage for buses across the Forth Road Bridge. This requires further investigation of the modelling, but could be caused by the increasing congestion in Edinburgh making bus relatively less attractive compared to rail.

7.3.3 Cross Forth Public Transport Mode Share

Figure 7.33 presents an analysis of the total public transport use in the AM Peak travelling across the Forth between SEStran Local Authorities, and the mode share of public transport.

Figure 7.33: Indexed Cross Forth Public Transport Movements (2005=100) and Public Transport Mode Share Southbound in the AM Peak Period (0700-1000)

The diagram shows public transport use declining in both absolute terms and in the proportion of total travel southbound across the Forth in the AM Peak. The decline is slight in absolute terms, being less than 8 per cent between 2005 and 2022. In the same period the proportion of total trip making between the SEStran Local Authorities to the north of the Forth and those to the south declines from 14.6 per cent to 13.8 per cent, though this is a recovery from the mode share of 13.3 per cent in 2012. This initial decline in PT mode share could be due to the introduction of the M9 Spur Extension making car travel more attractive.

Without intervention above that included in the forecast scenarios, the public transport mode share is predicted to decline.

Further work is required to ensure that the timeline of expansion in capacity on the Fife – Edinburgh rail corridor is correctly represented in the modelling.

7.3.4 Bus Journey Times

Single bus services from TMfS were selected from the AM and PM peak periods. The bus services selected for the analysis in the AM Peak are:

• Kirkcaldy to Edinburgh;
• Inverkeithing to Riccarton Campus; and
• Perth to Edinburgh.

In the PM Peak the following were selected:

• Edinburgh to Kirkcaldy;
• Riccarton Campus to Dunfermline; and
• Edinburgh to Perth.

Table 7.9 and Figure 7.34 below summarise the bus journey times, and the percentage change between the 2005 and forecast years.

Table 7.9: Total Bus Journey Times in the Peak Periods (minutes)

Description	Time Period	2012	2017	2022
Kirkcaldy – Edinburgh	AM	85.1	87.9	91.2
Edinburgh – Kirkcaldy	PM	100.3	109.8	116.9
Inverkeithing – Riccarton Campus	AM	55.5	60.6	64.4
Riccarton Campus – Dunfermline	PM	104.0	121.3	128.9
Perth – Edinburgh	AM	101.7	104.8	108.0
Edinburgh – Perth	PM	131.4	141.0	148.6

2017 and 2022 both show increases from the 2012 situation.

Figure 7.34: Total Bus Journey Times in the Peak Periods (minutes)

7.4 FORECAST CONCLUSIONS

• there is very little growth in traffic on the Forth Road Bridge in the peak directions, indicating that it is already very close to capacity;
• the inter-peak period experiences the highest rates of growth, as the peaks are already constrained by capacity;
• forecasts of congestion indicators show that congestion is predicted to worsen significantly;
• road journey times in the peak to Edinburgh significantly increase in duration, though this is largely due to congestion in Edinburgh itself;
• road journey times across the Forth Road Bridge to non-Edinburgh locations do not worsen significantly, indicating that it is already operating at or near capacity in the peak hours. However, the modelling does not take the growth and decay of queues into account;
• average road speeds across the SEStran region are forecast to decrease, with Edinburgh experiencing a drop of over 20 per cent by 2022;
• there is forecast to be little change in the pattern of origins and destinations of those using the Forth Road Bridge;
• CO2 emissions from transport in the SEStran region is forecast to increase by 26 per cent by 2022;
• growth in rail patronage is forecast to be modest;
• bus patronage is forecast to decline; and
• bus journey times will lengthen as road congestion worsens.

7.5 MODEL BEHAVIOUR

7.5.1 Introduction

The following provides an outline summary of the results from a serious of scenarios that were prepared to test the behaviour of the Transport Model for Scotland.

These "sensitivity tests" were based on the 2022 scenario reported above (referred to as the "Reference Case") with the following changes:

• Public transport fare sensitivity tests
  • Fare +100% - Public transport fares increased by 100 per cent (doubled).
  • Fare -50% - Public transport fares decreased by 50 per cent (halved).
• Forth Road Bridge toll sensitivity tests
  • Toll +100% – Forth Road Bridge toll increased by 100 per cent (doubled).
  • Toll -50% – Forth Road Bridge toll decreased by 50 per cent (halved).
• Private road vehicle fuel sensitivity tests
  • Fuel +100% – private road vehicle fuel costs increased by 100 per cent (doubled).
  • Fuel -50% – private road vehicle fuel costs decreased by 50 per cent (halved).
• Land use growth sensitivity tests
  • High Growth – High economic growth in the economy as a whole.
  • Low Growth – Low economic growth in the economy as a whole.

It should be stressed that these scenarios are not in any way related to real life intentions of any national, regional or local authorities. Neither are they predictions: they are purely designed to test the responses of the model.

The sensitivity tests are compared against the 2022 reference case using the following data:

• Cross Forth Annual Average Daily Traffic;
• Mode share;
• Trip distribution;
• Vehicle kilometres and hours;
• Journey times; and
• Transport-related emissions.

The expected outcomes of the sensitivity test are fairly straight forward. For instance, when public transport fares are doubled, then it is expected that there would be shift towards private vehicles, and therefore an increase of vehicles on the Forth Road Bridge. With public transport fares halved, there should be an increase on public transport use with a decline in private vehicle use. Similar results are expected from the other scenarios as well. When the Forth Road Bridge tolls and fuel costs are doubled, there should be a decline in private vehicles and increase public transport uses. The opposite is expected when the tolls and fuel costs are halved. Finally, with a high growth scenario, it would be expected to see increase in both private and public transport, while a low growth scenario would expect lower numbers.

7.5.2 Cross Forth Annual Average Daily Traffic

Figure 7.35 and 7.36 below illustrate the northbound and southbound cross Forth average annual daily traffic. The three crossings which make up the cross Forth screenline are the Forth Road Bridge, Kincardine Bridge and the New Upper Forth Crossing. Note that the A91 was not found to have any significant change from the reference case in any sensitivity scenario: it has therefore not been included in the figures.

Figure 7.35: Northbound Average Annual Daily Traffic Figure 7.36: Southbound Annual Average Daily Traffic

As shown in the above Figures, when costs are doubled, there is an increase in the number of vehicles crossing the Forth. When the costs are halved, the number of vehicles decrease as should be expected. The flows are most sensitive to costs that directly affect the car trip: the toll and the cost of fuel.

7.5.3 Mode Share

Figure 7.37 and Figure 7.38 below, show the cross Forth (Forth Road Bridge, Kincardine Bridge, the New Upper Forth Crossing and the A91) mode share between private transport and public transport during the AM peak hour.

Figure 7.37: Private Transport vs. Public Transport Mode Share – Cross Forth Northbound AM Peak

Figure 7.38: Private Transport vs. Public Transport Mode Share – Cross Forth Southbound AM Peak

As shown in the above figure, the sensitivity tests behave in a logical fashion: increasing/decreasing public transport fares has the most impact on mode share. Increasing the cost of using cars to cross the Forth (either by increasing the toll or the cost of petrol) has a lesser impact, and the high and low economic growth scenarios have a negligible effect on mode share.

7.5.4 Distribution

Table 7.9 and 7.10 below shows the percentage change from the reference case of the road and public transport distribution of trips between Local Authority areas for each sensitivity test scenario.

Table 7.9: Road Distribution – AM Peak

	Fare +100%	Fare -50%	Toll +100%	Toll -50%	Fuel +100%	Fuel -50%	High Growth	Low Growth
Edinburgh to Fife	1.2%	-0.6%	-2.3%	2.1%	-6.5%	3.4%	-0.4%	0.9%
Fife to Edinburgh	5.2%	-3.8%	-7.7%	4.3%	-3.6%	0.8%	-2.5%	1.2%
Falkirk/Stirling to Fife	0.5%	-0.6%	-2.4%	1.3%	-15.8%	7.8%	9.4%	-7.0%
Fife to Falkirk/Stirling	1.2%	-0.5%	-1.1%	0.0%	-17.7%	8.3%	3.9%	-5.8%
Fife to Fife	1.2%	-0.6%	-2.3%	2.1%	-6.5%	3.4%	-0.4%	0.9%

Table 7.10: Public Transport Distribution – AM Peak

	Fare +100%	Fare -50%	Toll +100%	Toll -50%	Fuel +100%	Fuel -50%	High Growth	Low Growth
Edinburgh to Fife	-19.6%	11.5%	-2.3%	-2.1%	4.1%	-5.6%	-1.6%	-1.7%
Fife to Edinburgh	-29.5%	21.8%	0.8%	-2.3%	6.6%	-4.7%	-0.8%	-3.1%
Falkirk/Stirling to Fife	-75.4%	151.3%	4.0%	3.0%	49.4%	-13.1%	10.3%	-4.8%
Fife to Falkirk/Stirling	-36.9%	70.3%	1.7%	1.0%	26.8%	-6.8%	4.5%	0.7%

As shown in the above tables, the distribution is similar to what was expected. With an increase in costs to private road vehicles, there is an increase in road and a decrease in public transport use. A decrease in costs shows a decrease in road and an increase in public transport.

7.5.5 Vehicle Kilometres and Hours

Table 7.11 and Figure 7.39 below show the difference in percentage compared to the reference case in vehicle kilometres, vehicle hours and average speed averaged across the SEStran local authorities.

Table 7.11: Vehicle Kilometres, Hours and Average Speed in the SEStran Local Authorities

	Vehicle Kilometres	Vehicle Hours	Average Speed (km/h)
Ref. Case	3,083,518	81,992	37.6
Fare +100%	3,119,034	84,649	36.8
Fare -50%	3,063,421	81,024	37.8
Toll +100%	3,085,409	81,775	37.7
Toll -50%	3,088,466	82,359	37.5
Fuel +100%	2,914,513	77,811	37.5
Fuel -100%	3,178,089	84,582	37.6
High Growth	3,172,397	84,374	37.6
Low Growth	3,005,253	79,488	37.8

Figure 7.39: Difference in Vehicle Kilometres, Hours and Average Speed

As shown in the above figure, the sensitivity tests behave in a logical fashion: increasing/decreasing private road vehicle fuel has the most impact on vehicle kilometres and vehicle hours, as it applies to all car journeys. The economic growth sensitivity tests have a lesser but significant impact: this is in line with historical observations linking economic growth with car use. Varying the costs of public transport fares and the toll for crossing the Forth Road Bridge by increasing the toll have the least impact.

7.5.6 Journey Times

Figures 7.40 and 7.41 below, show the cross Forth road journey times for the AM and PM peak periods.

Figure 7.40: AM Journey Times

As shown in the above figure, the majority of journey times behave in a predictable fashion.

Figure 7.41: PM Journey Times

As shown above, the majority of journey times behave in a predictable fashion. The northbound journey times appear to be particularly sensitive to a doubling of the Forth Road Bridge tolls, with journeys from Edinburgh gaining nearly 10 minutes.

Figures 7.42 and 7.43 below, display the cross Forth public transport (bus) journey times for the AM and PM peak periods.

Figure 7.42: AM Bus Journey Times

Figure 7.43: PM Bus Journey Times

As shown above in Figures 7.42 and 7.43, the bus journey times appear to be sensible in that when costs are doubled, the journey times increase as more private vehicles are added to the roads. As with the private road vehicle journey times, the largest improvement is seen in the Forth Road Bridge toll increase sensitivity test.

7.5.7 Emissions

Table 7.12 and Figure 7.44 below, shows the difference between main vehicle pollutants in the local SEStran area.

Table 7.12: Vehicle Emissions within the SEStran Area (tonnes)

	Carbon Monoxide Pollutants [CO]	Hydrocarb on Pollutants [HC]	Oxides of Nitrogen Pollutants [NOX]	Particulate Pollutants [PM10]	Carbon Dioxide [CO2]
Ref. Case	9,288	1,413	5,995	164	2,450,870
Fare +100%	9,398	1,427	5,954	164	2,467,401
Fare -50%	9,242	1,410	5,922	163	2,448,653
Toll +100%	9,259	1,411	5,927	163	2,451,729
Toll -50%	9,331	1,420	5,940	163	2,458,809
Fuel +100%	8,669	1,355	5,796	161	2,371,342
Fuel -50%	9,665	1,452	6,003	164	2,500,971
High Growth	9,465	1,450	6,110	168	2,523,132
Low Growth	9,127	1,380	5,758	158	2,388,793

Figure 7.44: Difference in Emissions for the SEStran Area

As shown in the above table and figure, vehicle emissions show similar patterns to the other sets of data. When costs to private road vehicles are increased, there is a decrease in pollutants. When the costs are halved, vehicle emissions increase. Emissions are most sensitive to changes in the cost of private vehicle fuel, as these are applied to all journeys within the area.

7.5.8 Summary

The model has been shown to behave in a predictable and logical fashion:

• changing the Forth Road Bridge toll has the greatest impact on the use of the bridge;
• changing the public transport fares has the greatest impact on modal split;
• changing private road vehicle fuel prices has the greatest impact on vehicle kilometres and vehicle hours, and, hence, on transport related pollutant emissions.

The model is therefore a suitable tool for predicting and assessing the results of changing transport costs on the aggregate behaviour of users of the transport system.

Contents   « Previous   Next »