informe de viabilidad PUENTE CHARTERSHALL (ESCOCIA)

Transport Scotland

M9 Chartershall Overbridge Feasibility Report

Appendix E

QUADRO Report

BEAR Scotland Limited BEAR house

Inveralmond Road Inveralmond Industrial Estate

October 2008 Perth PH1 3TW

Tel 01738 4486000 Fax 01738 448685

Registered in Scotland No 206139

�

M9 Chartershall Bridge Replacement Assessment of Road User Costs during Construction

This is an unpublished report prepared for Transport Scotland and must not be referred to in any publication without the permission of Transport Scotland. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of Transport Scotland. Prepared for BEAR Scotland by

TERM CONTRACT FOR THE MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF THE SCOTTISH TRUNK ROAD NETWORK (NORTH EAST UNIT)

Ref. No: Issue : 1 Page : 1 of 1

Jacobs QA Document Control Sheet

Name Organisation Signature Date Prepared By Stephen Davies Jacobs Consultancy

15/10/08

Checked By Paul Sykes Jacobs Consultancy

15/10/08

Authorised By

Stuart Turnbull Jacobs Consultancy

15/10/08

Draft Version STATUS

Ver. Date Version Details Checked Authorised

V1.0 13/10/08 Draft Report V1.1 13/10/08 Initial Review V2.0 13/10/08 Revised draft addressing review

comments

V2.1 14/10/08 Senior technical review

V2.2 14/10/08 Revised draft addressing all comments from technical review

V2.3 15/10/08 Final Check and Formatting

Final 15/10/08 Final Draft

CONTROLLED DOCUMENT HOLDERS

Ref. Name of Holder

1 Stephen Davies

2

3

4

5

6

Transport Scotland M9 Chartershall Bridge Replacement Assessment of Road User Costs during Construction [Option Feasibility]

Contents

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Assessment Overview................................................................................................................1

2 Methodology.................................................................................................................................. 2

2.1 Existing Conditions .....................................................................................................................2

2.2 Diversion Route ..........................................................................................................................2

2.3 Assumptions ...............................................................................................................................3

3 Traffic Management...................................................................................................................... 4

4 Results ........................................................................................................................................... 5

5 Summary........................................................................................................................................ 6


1

1 Introduction

1.1 Assessment Overview

1.1.1 Chartershall Bridge is located to the west of Stirling on the M9 between Junction 9 and 10. In May 2006, the bridge was hit by a vehicle for the 17th time in its lifespan, leading to the closure of the structure to vehicular traffic. An investigation into the condition of the existing structure by Atkins indicated that the repair of the existing bridge superstructure was not a viable solution. Subsequently three Bridge Replacement Options have been developed.

1.1.2 The purpose of this report is to outline the methodology used for determining the road user costs (including delay costs, operating costs and accident costs) during the replacement of Chartershall Bridge, and the subsequent results of the assessment. No assessment has been made of the maintenance of the replacement bridge or the impacts on traffic movements once opened.

1.1.3 The report compares the road user costs for the following proposed options:

• Option 1A – 4 Span Road Bridge;

• Option 1B – Single Span Road Bridge; and

• Option 2 – Single Span Footbridge.

1.1.4 QUADRO (QUeues And Delays at ROadworks) is the industry standard computer programme to assess delay costs, vehicle operating costs and accident costs during construction or maintenance. It has been used to assess these costs for the various traffic management arrangements and speed restrictions associated with the three alternative options. QDIV (Quadro DIVersion) has been used to determine the speed/flow relationships for the proposed diversion route, which is shown in Appendix A.

1.1.5 Construction sequence schedules were provided by Jacobs and agreed in principle with BEAR Scotland Ltd. These outline construction, operation, traffic management requirements, speed restrictions and the duration of works, and are enclosed in Appendix B – Online Traffic Management Details.

1.1.6 It should be noted that this assessment is limited to the impact on M9 traffic only. The assessments do not consider additional delays to non M9 traffic caused by the transfer of M9 traffic onto the assumed diversion routes. QUADRO is unable to evaluate these impacts.


2

2 Methodology

2.1 Existing Conditions

2.1.1 The M9 is a 2 lane motorway with Chartershall Bridge positioned between Junction 9 and 10. There is a hard shoulder of 3.1 metres width on both carriageways on the M9 between Junctions 9 and 10.

2.1.2 The 2007 Annual Average Daily Traffic Flow (AADT) for the M9 between Junction 9 and 10 was taken from the Scottish Roads Traffic Database (SRTDb). This indicated a 2 way 2007 AADT of approximately 40,900 vehicles.

2.1.3 Approximate road lengths were determined using the Google map route finder (http://maps.google.co.uk/maps), which was deemed to provide the necessary level of accuracy appropriate for this type of assessment.

2.1.4 Typical vehicle composition for a road of this type (Inter Urban General) as detailed in the DMRB Volume 15 (Table 5/2/7) was assumed as the traffic data provided by BEAR Scotland Ltd did not provide this level of dissagregation.

Table 1 – Assumed M9 Vehicle Composition

Car LGV OGV1 OGV2 Coach

0.807 0.070 0.050 0.066 0.007

2.2 Diversion Route

2.2.1 During some phases of construction, a diversion route would be in operation. This route would be via the A91/A907/A9 and connects with the M9 at Junction 9 to the south and Junction 11 to the north.

2.2.2 This diversion route is shown in Appendix A and was developed by the previous managing agent of this trunk road network area to detail the emergency service diversion route in the case of an incident on the M9 at Chartershall. Subsequently this route was adopted as the diversion route for vehicles during traffic management phases requiring closure of the M9 within this assessment.

2.2.3 However, this plan incorrectly identifies the M9 closure area as being between Junctions 10 and 11. This should in fact be between Junctions 9 and 10 as applied throughout this assessment. Both Transport Scotland and BEAR Scotland Ltd are aware of this mapping error.

2.2.4 No traffic data was immediately available for this diversion route, therefore indicative AADT values of 15,000 and 10,000 for the A91 and A907/A9 sections respectively were assumed. Both these AADTs fall within the flow range for a typical single 2 lane route as identified from the speed flow curve (Figure 7/9/1) in DMRB Volume 15.


3

2.2.5 Default vehicle compositions for the diversion route were also obtained from DMRB Volume 15 (Table 5/2/7) for a route of this type (rural local).

Table 2 – Assumed Diversion Route Vehicle Composition

Car LGV OGV1 OGV2 Coach

0.858 0.064 0.041 0.029 0.008

2.2.6 A site survey was undertaken to review the route and provide specific road width measurements and positions of speed limit changes.

2.3 Assumptions

2.3.1 The following assumptions were made to assess the road user costs caused by construction using QUADRO

• Opening Year would be 2010;

• Maximum Queuing Delay before vehicles would seek an alternative route is 30mins; and

• All traffic would travel between Junctions 9 and 11 i.e. all through trips.


4

3 Traffic Management

3.1.1 The construction sequence and associated traffic management has been developed by Jacobs and agreed in principle with BEAR Scotland Ltd.

3.1.2 The traffic management requirements during the phases of construction for the various alternative options under consideration are listed below. The durations of each activity and further details of the traffic management requirements are given in Appendix B.

• 50mph Speed Restrictions throughout all phases of online traffic management between Junctions 9 and 10;

• Works length assumed to be 1.1km either side of Chartershall Bridge for both lane closure and contra flow scenarios. Carriageway crossover points identified in Appendix B – Online Traffic Management Details;

• Full closure of the M9 will be required between Junction 9 and 10 during certain stages of the traffic management phasing; and

• Diversion route during full closure of the M9 is via A91/A907/A9.

3.1.3 Each phase of the Traffic Management proposals as detailed in Appendix B were subsequently modelled in QUADRO to determine the overall road user cost of all three options. In this process, cognisance was taken of details such as lane configuration, lane widths, work length and timescales.

3.1.4 Due to limited availability of relevant traffic data, vehicles entering onto the M9 at Junction 10 wishing to travel southbound (and vice versa) were not considered in this assessment. The road user costs of traffic management phases requiring full closure of the M9 may therefore be underestimated.

3.1.5 However, to balance this, the assumption that all vehicles will travel between Junctions 9 and 11 may overestimate the cost impacts of the works, as in reality a proportion of this traffic will not make through trips and exit at Junction 10.


5

4 Results

4.1.1 Table 3 below summarises the road user costs for the three proposed options of the replacement of Chartershall Bridge. These costs consist of non-exchequer impacts such as changing travel time, vehicle operating costs and accident costs and government funding impacts such as indirect tax revenues.

Table 3 - Summary of Road User Costs

Option Total Impact (£)

Option 1A – 4 Span Road Bridge £790,000

Option 1B – Single Span Road Bridge £320,000

Option 2 – Single Span Footbridge £210,000

4.1.2 Table 3 illustrates that Option 2 – Single Span Footbridge is expected to offer the lowest road user cost during construction, with an estimated cost impact of £210,000. This is unsurprising considering the limited timeframe of construction in comparison to the other options.

4.1.3 Option 1A – 4 Span Road Bridge is anticipated to have the greatest cost implication to road users, estimated at approximately £790,000.

4.1.4 A further breakdown of the traffic management cost impacts by phase is included in Appendix C.

4.1.5 These results should be considered as indicative only, due to the lack of traffic data and resultant assumptions made throughout this assessment. However, given that the assumptions are the same for each option, the results do offer a relative base for comparison.


5 Summary

5.1.1 A QUADRO assessment has been undertaken to assess the road user costs during the construction of three bridge replacement options at Chartershall on the M9.

5.1.2 Option 2, which would involve the construction of a single span footbridge, is estimated to have the lowest road user cost, with a cost of around £210,000.

5.1.3 Option 1A is estimated to have the greatest road user cost, with a cost of around £790,000 whilst Option 1B has an estimated road user cost of around £320,000

5.1.4 Limited traffic data was available, which resulted in the application of various assumptions throughout this assessment. Therefore the results of this assessment can be considered as indicative only. However given that the assumptions are the same for each option, the results do offer a relative base for comparison and are considered suitable for this stage of assessment.


Appendix A – Mainline and Diversion Route Overview


Tran

spor

t Sco

tland

M

9 C

hart

ersh

all B

ridg

e R

epla

cem

ent

Ass

essm

ent o

f Roa

d U

ser

Cos

ts d

urin

g C

onst

ruct

ion

[Opt

ion

Feas

ibili

ty]


Appendix B – Online Traffic Management Details


Option 1A (4 Span Road Bridge) Traffic Management Phasing

Phase Element1 Demolition of existing bridge

Lane width2 West Abutment

Lane width3 East Abutment

Lane width4 West pier

Lane width5 East pier

Lane width6 Central pier

Lane width7 Temp Support, Beams and Deck Span 1

Lane width8 Temp Support, Beams and Deck Span 4

Lane width9 Temporary Support 1 Span 2

Lane width10 Temporary Support 2 Span 2 (Day)

Lane width11 Temporary Support 2 Span 2 (Night)

Lane width12 Beams Span 2

Lane width13 Deck Span 2 and Diaphragm 1-2 (Day)

Lane width14 Deck Span 2 and Diaphragm 1-2 (Night)





Lane width19 Beams Span 3

Lane width20 Deck Span 3 and Diaphragms 2-3 and 3-4 (Day)

Lane width21 Deck Span 3 and Diaphragms 2-3 and 3-4 (Night)

Lane width22 Install Parapet Temp works






Lane width28 Parapet installed

Lane width29 Edge Beam poured

Lane width30 Remove Parapet Temp works - Span 1




Lane width34 Bridge Complete

Lane width

Trafficked

Friday pm to Monday am

Closed Closed Closed Closed

DurationH/shoulder Lane 1 Lane 2

Northbound

Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed

SouthboundLane 2 Lane 1 H/shoulder

Trafficked

Closed Trafficked Trafficked Trafficked

Open Trafficked Trafficked Trafficked0m

TraffickedTrafficked Trafficked TraffickedClosed Closed

Closed

Closed Closed

Trafficked


Trafficked

Trafficked

TraffickedClosed

Closed

Trafficked

Trafficked Trafficked

Trafficked

Trafficked

Trafficked Open

Trafficked Closed3.6m

Open 0m

0m

Closed Closed

Trafficked

Trafficked

Trafficked Trafficked Closed

3.0m 3.0mTrafficked Trafficked


Closed Trafficked Trafficked

Trafficked Trafficked Trafficked0m 0m

Closed

3.1m 0m 0m

0m

Trafficked Closed

0m

Trafficked

Closed

Closed

Trafficked ClosedClosed Closed

Closed Closed

Closed

Open 2 weeksOpen Trafficked Trafficked Trafficked

Trafficked


Trafficked

TraffickedClosed Closed


Trafficked Closed

Nightshift Mon0m 0m

Closed Trafficked

Trafficked Closed

Trafficked0m 0m

Closed

Closed

Trafficked

Open Trafficked Trafficked Trafficked Trafficked Open

Closed

Trafficked

0m 0m

3.0m 3.1m

3.0m 3.0mDay Thurs

1 week

2 weeks

4 weeks

3 weeks

4 weeks

4 weeks

1 week

1 week (2 Lanes S/B am peak, 2 Lanes N/B pm peak)

Trafficked Saturday am

Closed Closed Sunday am

3.0m 3.0mClosed Closed Closed Closed

Trafficked Trafficked Closed Closed

Trafficked Trafficked Closed Closed Closed Closed Sunday pm

Saturday Nightshift

Trafficked Trafficked Saturday pm

Closed

Nightshift Wed

Trafficked

Open Trafficked Trafficked

Trafficked

Closed Closed Trafficked Trafficked

Trafficked

Closed

Trafficked

Trafficked

Trafficked Closed Trafficked Trafficked0m

1 week

Trafficked Trafficked Closed Closed Closed

3 weeks (2 Lanes S/B am peak, 2 Lanes N/B pm peak)

Trafficked


Open Trafficked Trafficked Trafficked Trafficked Open

Closed Closed Closed Closed Trafficked Trafficked

Closed Closed

0m

Trafficked Trafficked Trafficked

Closed

Trafficked

Closed Closed

Closed Closed

0m 0m 0mClosed Trafficked Trafficked

0m

0m 0m

3.0m 3.0m 0m 0m 0m 0m

3.0m 0m

0m 0m 0m 0m 3.0m 3.0m

3.0m 0m 0m

3.6m 3.6m

0m 0m 0m 0mClosed Closed Closed Closed

3.6m 3.1m

3.1m 3.6m 3.6m 3.6m 3.6m 3.1m

3.1m 3.6m

0m 0m 3.6m 3.0m

0m 0m 0m 0mTrafficked

3.6m 3.1m

3.1m 3.0m 3.0m 0m 0m 3.1m

3.1m 3.6m

3.0m 3.6m

3.0m 3.0m 0m 0mTrafficked Closed Closed

0m 0m

3.1m 3.0m

3.0m 3.0m 0m 0m

3.0m 3.0m 0m 0m

0m 0m

0m 0m

3.6m 0m

0m 0mClosed Closed

0m 0m

3.6m

3.0m 3.0m

3.0m 3.0m 0m 0mClosed Closed

3.1m

3.6m 3.6m 0m 0m 3.6m 3.6mTrafficked

3.0m

0m 3.0m

0m 0m

TraffickedClosed

Trafficked3.0m

0m 3.6m 3.0m 3.0m 3.1m

0m0mTrafficked

3.0m

0m 0m 0m 0m 3.0m 3.0m

0m 0m 0m

3.6m 0m 0m

0m 0m 3.6m 3.0m 3.0m 3.1mTrafficked

0m

3.1m 3.6m

3.1m 3.0m 3.0m

3.6mClosed Trafficked Closed

3.6m

3.1m

3.1m 3.6m 3.6m 3.6m 3.6m

3.6m 3.6m 3.6m

3.6m 3.1m

3.1m 3.6m 3.6m 3.6m 3.6m

0m 3.6m 3.6m

3.1m3.6m

3.6m 3.0m 3.0m 3.1m

0m 0mTrafficked

3.0m 3.0m 3.1m

3.1m 3.6m 3.6m 3.6m 3.6m 3.1m

0m

2 weeks

3 weeks

2 weeks

Saturday Nightshift

1 week

Day Mon

Day Tues

Day Wed


Option 1B (Single Span Road Bridge) Traffic Management Phasing

Phase Element1 Demolition of existing bridge

Lane Width2 West Abutment

Lane Width3 East Abutment

Lane Width4 Beams

Lane Width5 Permanent Formwork






Lane Width11 Deck Northbound

Lane Width12 Deck Southbound

Lane Width13 Install Parapet Temp works






Lane Width19 Parapet Cope North

Lane Width20 Parapet Cope South

Lane Width21 Parapet installed

Lane Width22 Remove Parapet Temp works - N/B

Lane Width23 Remove Parapet Temp works - S/B

Lane Width24 Bridge Complete

Lane Width


3.6m 3.1m3.1m 3.6m 3.6m 3.6m

0m 0m

0m 0m

3.0m 3.0m 0m 0m

0m 0m

3.6m 3.1m

3.6m 3.1mTrafficked Open

3.0m 3.0m

3.1m 3.6m 3.6m 3.6mClosed Closed TraffickedClosed

3.1m 3.6m 3.6m 3.6m

3.6m 3.1m

0m 0m

3.1m 3.6m 3.6m 3.6mTrafficked Open

3.1m

3.6m 3.1m

3.6m 3.0mTrafficked Trafficked

3.0m 3.1m

0m

3.1m 3.6m 0m 0m

Trafficked


Closed

0m 0m

3.0m 3.0m 0m 0m 0m 0m

3.1m

3.0m 3.0m

0m 0m3.0m 3.0m 0m 0m

0m 0m 0m 0m

3.0m 3.0m

0m 0m 3.6m 3.0m 3.0m 3.1m

0m 0m 0m 0m

0m 3.1m

3.6m 3.1mTrafficked TraffickedClosed Closed

3.1m 3.6m 0m 0m

3.1m 3.0m 3.0m 0m

0m 0m

3.1m 3.0m

3.0m 3.0m 0m 0m

0m 0m 0m 0m

3.1m 3.6m 3.6m 3.6m

0m 0m

0m 3.6m 3.6m 3.6m 3.6m 3.1m

0m 0m 0m 0m

Trafficked Open

Closed Closed

Closed Closed

Closed

Trafficked

Open Trafficked Trafficked Trafficked

H/shoulder Lane 1 Lane 2Northbound





Duration

Closed Closed

Trafficked Open

Trafficked Closed

2 weeks

Closed Closed

Closed ClosedTrafficked Trafficked Closed Closed

Open Trafficked

Open

Trafficked3.0m3.0m

3.1m 3.0m 3.0m

Trafficked

Open Trafficked Trafficked Trafficked

3.0m 3.6m

3.6m 0m

0m 0m

0m 0m

Closed

Trafficked

Trafficked

Day Mon

Nightshift Mon

Closed

Trafficked Open

Day Mon

Closed

Sunday

Saturday

1 week

Nightshift Mon

1 week

Nightshift Wed

Day Thurs

Trafficked

Open Trafficked Trafficked


Trafficked

Trafficked Closed

Trafficked

Saturday Nightshift

Closed Closed Closed Closed Trafficked Trafficked Friday pm to Monday am

Closed

Closed Closed

Closed Closed0m 0m


Closed Closed

Closed

Closed Closed

Trafficked Closed3.6m

Closed Closed



Trafficked3.0m

Trafficked

0m

Trafficked Trafficked TraffickedTrafficked Closed Closed

Trafficked Trafficked Trafficked TraffickedClosed Closed

Closed Closed Nightshift Wed

Trafficked Trafficked Trafficked TraffickedClosed Closed Day Thurs

Trafficked Day Tues

Trafficked Trafficked Closed Closed Trafficked Trafficked Day Wed0m

Trafficked

Closed Closed Trafficked Trafficked3.0m0m

2 weeks

Day Tues

Day Wed


1 week


Option 2 (Single Span Footbridge) Traffic Management Phasing

Phase1 Demolition of existing bridge

Lane width2 West Abutment

Lane width3 East Abutment

Lane width4 Truss

Lane width


0m 0m 0m

Element

0m 0mClosed

0m

3.6m3.6m

3.6m0m

3.1m

0m 0m

3.1m

0m

3.6m

3.6mTrafficked Closed

0m 0m 0m 0m

DurationH/shoulder Lane 1 Lane 2

Northbound



Closed Closed

2 weeksTrafficked Open

3.6m

3.6m3.6m

Closed Closed


Saturday Nightshift

Open Trafficked Trafficked Trafficked 2 weeks

Closed ClosedClosed

Transport Scotland

M9 C

hartershall Bridge R

eplacement

Assessm

ent of Road U

ser Costs during C

onstruction [Option Feasibility]

Crossover and A

pproach Lengths


Appendix C – Option Economic Results


Option 1A (4 Span Road Bridge) Road User Costs Phase Total Cost (£)1 Demolition of existing bridge 133,7792 West Abutment 29,5183 East Abutment 29,5184 West pier 59,0375 East pier 59,0376 Central pier 23,6257 Temp Support, Beams and Deck Span 1 45,4568 Temp Support, Beams and Deck Span 4 45,3089 Temporary Support 1 Span 2 15,15210 Temporary Support 2 Span 2 (Day) 13,23311 Temporary Support 2 Span 2 (Night) 3,68312 Beams Span 2 4013 Deck Span 2 and Diaphragm 1-2 (Day) 27,04814 Deck Span 2 and Diaphragm 1-2 (Night) 7,23215 Temporary Support 1 Span 3 (Day) 12,91916 Temporary Support 1 Span 3 (Night) 3,57517 Temporary Support 2 Span 3 (Day) 50,84218 Temporary Support 2 Span 3 (Night) 3,61619 Beams Span 3 85320 Deck Span 3 and Diaphragms 2-3 and 3-4 (Day) 146,18521 Deck Span 3 and Diaphragms 2-3 and 3-4 (Night) 10,84822 Install Parapet Temp works 2,19923 Install Parapet Temp works 37224 Install Parapet Temp works 2,28025 Install Parapet Temp works 2,10626 Install Parapet Temp works 37227 Install Parapet Temp works 2,21328 Parapet installed 14,75929 Edge Beam poured 29,51830 Remove Parapet Temp works - Span 1 2,89131 Remove Parapet Temp works - Span 2 5,31132 Remove Parapet Temp works - Span 3 1,02333 Remove Parapet Temp works - Span 4 4,928

788,476

Element


Option 1B (Single Span Road Bridge) Road User Costs Phase Element Total Cost (£)1 Demolition of existing bridge 133,7792 West Abutment 29,5183 East Abutment 29,5184 Beams 14,9925 Permanent Formwork 2,1366 Permanent Formwork 3727 Permanent Formwork 2,2138 Permanent Formwork 2,0429 Permanent Formwork 30910 Permanent Formwork 2,14511 Deck Northbound 16,67812 Deck Southbound 16,67813 Install Parapet Temp works 2,13614 Install Parapet Temp works 37215 Install Parapet Temp works 2,21316 Install Parapet Temp works 2,04217 Install Parapet Temp works 30918 Install Parapet Temp works 2,14519 Parapet Cope North 14,75920 Parapet Cope South 14,75921 Parapet installed 14,75922 Remove Parapet Temp works - N/B 9,31923 Remove Parapet Temp works - S/B 6,995

320,188

Option 2 (Single Span Footbridge) Road User Costs Phase Total Cost (£)1 133,7792 29,5183 29,5184 14,992

207,807Truss

ElementDemolition of existing bridgeWest AbutmentEast Abutment

Transport Scotland


Appendix F

Environmental Report

M9 Chartershall – Preliminary Environmental Report

September 2008

BEAR Scotland M9 Chartershall – Preliminary Environmental Report

i

Document control sheet Form IP180/B Client: BEAR Scotland

Project: M9 Chartershall Job No: B0657100/ H0802

Title: Preliminary Environmental Report

NAME NAME NAME

Revision

DATE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the commissioning party and unless otherwise agreed in writing by Jacobs U.K. Limited, no other party may use, make use of or rely on the contents of this report. No liability is accepted by Jacobs U.K. Limited for any use of this report, other than for the purposes for which it was originally prepared and provided.

Opinions and information provided in the report are on the basis of Jacobs U.K. Limited using due skill, care and diligence in the preparation of the same and no warranty is provided as to their accuracy.

It should be noted and it is expressly stated that no independent verification of any of the documents or information supplied to Jacobs U.K. Limited has been made.

Prepared by Reviewed by Approved by

NAME NAME NAME

Fiona Beasley Maryanne Paterson Andrew Walters

DATE 29/08/2008 29/08/2008 1/09/2008


ii

Contents

1 Introduction 1

2 Methodology 1

3 Environmental Designations 1

4 Environmental Parameters 2

4.1 Land Use 2

4.2 Geology & Soils 2

4.3 Water Environment 2

4.4 Ecology and Nature Conservation 2

4.5 Landscape & Visual 3

4.6 Cultural Heritage 3

4.7 Air Quality & Noise 4

4.8 Pedestrians & Others 4

4.9 Plans & Policies 5

5 Summary and Recommendations 6

6 References 6

7 Figure 1 – Environmental Constraints 8


1

1 Introduction

The existing M9 Chartershall overbridge is closed to vehicular traffic due to recurring strikes from high vehicles travelling on the M9 damaging the bridge deck . Two options are currently being considered to contend with the closure:

Replace the damaged bridge deck on the existing footprint.

Close Chartershall bridge to vehicular traffic, maintain passage for pedestrians, cyclists, equestrians with a new foot bridge and upgrade the local road network (Pirnhall Road and junction with Chartershall Road) diverting traffic via the bridge to the south.

The purpose of this report is to provide a preliminary review of the environmental implications of both options and provide comments and recommendations to the Jacobs design team.

In line with the guidance in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB 2008) the following environmental subject areas have been considered:

Land Use;

Geology & Soils;

Water Environment;

Ecology & Nature Conservation;

Landscape & Visual;

Cultural Heritage;

Air Quality and Noise;

Pedestrians and others; and

Plans and Policies.

2 Methodology

To inform this preliminary assessment desk-based review of Ordnance Survey maps and an interrogation of the Jacobs Geographic Information (GIS) database was undertaken at a 1:25,000 scale. The Stirling Council Local Plan was reviewed and a data search undertaken within PASTMAP (a map enabled query system for Scottish National Archaeological and Architectural Datasets). In addition, a site walkover of the area was undertaken by environmental scientists on 28th August 2008.

3 Environmental Designations

Review of the OS maps, Jacobs GIS, PASTMAP, and Local Plan revealed that there are no national or international environmental designations (e.g. SAC, SPA, SSSI, SAM, etc) in the local area of the proposals. However, the area to the west of the M9 is designated as an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) and to the east of the M9 as Greenbelt within the Local Plan (refer to Figure 1). In addition, there are several sites of cultural


2

heritage interest listed on the National Monuments Record of Scotland (NMRS) in the vicinity of the site (refer to Section 4.6).

4 Environmental Parameters

4.1 Land Use

The majority of the land within the study area is in agricultural use. The Soil Survey of Scotland Map 1;250,000 (Macaulay,1983) shows the land to be within land capability for agriculture (LCA) class 7 i.e. of limited agricultural value. However, based on site inspection the fields are known to be in agricultural use, and are therefore likely to be of class 3 (suitable for arable cropping). Figure 1 shows the distribution of current agricultural land use within the study area (arable and rough grazing land).

Upgrading the existing bridge at Chartershall would require minimal land-take. Upgrading the local road (Pirnhall Road) to meet design standards is likely to require some offline realignments. As a result, land would have to be permanently acquired which would result in a greater impact on land use. The land which would be affected is in agricultural use. Additional possible effects on agriculture might include disruption or severance of fields, access, management patterns and drainage. Depending on the nature and extent of impacts, particularly land-take and severance, the viability of agricultural units affected may also be threatened.

4.2 Geology & Soils

The geology in this area is comprised of Devonian sandstones with dolerite intrusions, overlain by sands and gravels (BGS 2008). No significant impacts are anticipated on the geology of this area from either of the options.

4.3 Water Environment

No watercourses are crossed by Chartershall Road or Pirnhall Road. Bannock Burn runs to the north of the study area and crosses under the M9 approximately 140m north of Chartershall Bridge. Sauchie Burn flows from Swanswater Fishery approximately 30m to the west of Chartershall Road into Bannock Burn (refer to Figure 1). Drainage ditches are present along both sides of Pirnhall Road, heavily choked by vegetation.

The named burns would not be directly affected by either proposal, although construction operations would have the potential to pollute watercourses without appropriate prevention measures implemented. Any widening and/or offline re-alignment of Pirnhall Road would impact on the existing drainage ditches, which would need to be reinstated along both sides of the new carriageway. Any new drainage system should be designed in compliance with SUDS guidelines (CIRIA 2000).

4.4 Ecology and Nature Conservation

There are no ecologically designated sites identified within the study area. An area of woodland of long-established plantation origin is identified approximately 370m to the south-west of the study area (refer to Figure 1).

During the site walkover in August 2008, the following habitats of potential ecological value were identified:


3

Sauchie Burn and banks – potential presence of otters.

Hegderows and overgrown vegetation along the sides of Pirnhall Road – potential presence of breeding birds.

Deciduous trees – potential presence of roosting bats and breeding birds.

Agricultural fields and surrounding woodland areas – potential presence of badgers commuting and foraging.

If the Chartershall Bridge were to be replaced then it is unlikely that there would be any significant impacts on the ecology of the area. Although, the location of construction compounds and storage areas would need to be sited appropriately. An offline realignment resulting in land-take has the potential to directly impact habitats and protected species, therefore, if this option is taken forward it is recommended that an ecological survey is undertaken to provide baseline information, assess the potential for impacts on ecological habitats and provide specific advice on alignment options and mitigation of any potential impacts.

4.5 Landscape & Visual

An area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) has been identified to the west of the M9 as shown in Figure 1. The site lies within the Central landscape character area and is defined as Lowland Hill Fringes Landscape. Agricultural features within in the vicinity of the site include agricultural field boundaries marked by dry stone dykes.

Any improvement works to the existing road network (i.e. Chartershall Road and Pirnhall Road) would be within the AGLV designated area. The option to upgrade Pirnhall Road would have greater landscape impacts as it is within the AGLV whereas the upgrade of Chartershall Bridge is outwith the AGLV. As noted in the land use section, an offline realignment of Pirnhall Road would affect the field boundary fencing including any dry stone dykes. Reinstatement of field boundaries and appropriate landscape and removal of any redundant sections of road would be require to retain the local character of the area. If this option were to be taken forward it is recommended that a landscape and visual survey is undertaken to assess potential impact and identify appropriate mitigation to reduce impacts on the landscape character of the area and on the AGLV.

4.6 Cultural Heritage

The study of cultural heritage involves consideration of archaeological remains, listed buildings, conservation areas, historic gardens, designed landscapes and other heritage designations. There are no Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAMs), Listed Buildings, gardens or designed landscapes within the vicinity of the proposals. A total of 12 sites listed on the National Monuments Record of Scotland have been identified in the vicinity of the site, refer to Table 1.

Table 1: Features of archaeological and historic interest in the vicinity of the proposals

No. Name (Site Reference [NMRS Site No,)

Description/Class Proximtity to Chartershall Bridge (m)

Proximity to study area boundary (m)

1 Chartershall Bridge (NS79SE.191)

Old Bridge 210 0

2 Chartershall Farm (NS79SE.192)

Farmhouse, Farmstead, Lade, Mill

90 40

3 Bridge Cottage (NS79SE.193) Cottage 195 0

4 Chartershall Cottage Cottage 260 50


4

No. Name (Site Reference [NMRS Site No,)

Description/Class Proximtity to Chartershall Bridge (m)

Proximity to study area boundary (m)

(NS79SE.167)

5 Cultenhove Mill and The Old Mill (NS78NE.30)

Watermill 530 240

6 Watermill (NS79SE,206) Cornmill 130 0

7 M9 Motorway (NS78NE.42.0) Motorway 680 25

8 M9 Motorway, Junction9 (NS78NE.42.1)

Motorway Interchange 600 35

9 Chartershall Mains (NS78NE.38.)

Farmhouse 260 50

10 Foot O’Green (NS78NE.39.) Farmhouse 790 30

11 Chartershall (NS79SE. 635) Village 260 50

12 Cultenhove (NS78NE.46) Farmhouse 260 465

None of the features identified in Table 1 are located directly adjacent to the study area (refer to Figure 1) and therefore no significant impacts on the sites or their setting are anticipated as a result of either scheme option.

4.7 Air Quality & Noise

The main source of any localised air and noise pollution is likely to be from the traffic travelling along the M9. Current traffic volumes along Chartershall Road and Pirnhall Road are unlikely to contribute substantially to air and noise pollution in the local area.

If the bridge were to be replaced there is unlikely to be an increase in traffic and therefore current air quality and noise levels are unlikely to change.

If the bridge were to be closed with a diversion along Pirnhall Road, then current traffic levels may increase along Pirnhall Road, resulting in a local decrease in air quality and increase in noise levels. This would potentially affect the residents at Gateside and Foot O’Green farms.

4.8 Pedestrians & Others

In a review of the available information, no recognised or designated rights of way, cycle routes or bridleways were identified directly on or adjacent to the bridge or proposed diversion route along Pirnhall Road. During the site visit, pedestrians and cyclists were observed using the local road network for recreation and dog walking.

Stirling Council identifies two core paths in the local vicinity of the scheme in their Final Draft Core Path Plan (2008). These paths join with Chartershall Road and are not anticipated to be affected by either of the proposed options.

Access for pedestrians and others would be maintained across the Chartershall Bridge in both proposed options and therefore no adverse impacts on pedestrians and others are likely. If the Chartershall Bridge were to be closed to local vehicular traffic then the bridge would become a dedicated for pedestrian and other use providing a beneficial impact on these users due to increased safety and amenity value.


5

4.9 Plans & Policies

As noted previously, the M9 Chartershall Bridge and surrounding area is located within an AGLV and Greenbelt. The relevant policies in Stirling Council’s Adopted Local Plan (1999) are noted below:

POL.E15 The Council will operate a presumption against developments within Areas of Great Landscape Value, with the exception of those required in relation to farming, forestry and appropriate tourist and recreation activities. Other developments may be permitted when their particular locational requirements cannot be satisfied elsewhere. All development will be subject to strict control over siting, design and landscape treatment.

POL.E16 In accordance with the Structure Plan, the Council designates areas of Green Belt at Dunblane, Bridge of Allan, Stirling, Bannockburn and Strathblane. In order to prevent the coalescence of those settlements with neighbouring towns and villages and to preserve key aspects of the settings of the towns and their historic features, the Council will:

- Operate a presumption against any development not essential for agriculture or forestry (except appropriate recreation and tourism projects dependent upon a countryside location);

- Prepare a landscape enhancement programme and seek means to ensure its implementation;

- Prepare a recreational access and footpath enhancement programme and seek means to ensure its implementation.

- Only give favourable consideration to proposals for mineral extraction if these are “inconspicuous” (as required by NPPG 4 Land for Mineral Working) and where the proposed after use is acceptable within a Green Belt.

The policies above suggest that the upgrade to the Chartershall Bridge would be more compliant with existing policy, by avoiding direct impacts on the AGLV. The upgrade to the existing road network may impact on the AGLV and may conflict with policy POL.E15, since the scheme is not a development of farming, forestry or tourist and recreational activity. Neither option is likely to impact on the area of Greenbelt and therefore no conflict with policy POL.E16 would result.


6

5 Summary and Recommendations

Table 2 below summarises the potential issues associated with two improvement options:

Table 2: Summary of Potential Environmental Issues

Environmental Parameter Chartershall Bridge Upgrade Close Chartershall Bridge and upgrade local road network

Land Use Limited impacts anticipated. Impacts on agricultural land, including arable and rough grazing.

Geology and Soils No impacts anticipated. No impacts anticipated.

Water Environment No operational impacts anticipated.

Potential for construction impacts on watercourses.

Impacts on drainage ditches.

Potential for construction impacts on watercourses.

Ecology and Nature Conservation

Limited impacts anticipated Loss of ecological habitats.

Ecological survey and assessment recommended.

Landscape and Visual Limited impacts anticipated. Impacts on the AGLV and local character of the area

Landscape survey and assessment recommended.

Cultural Heritage No impacts anticipated. No impacts anticipated.

Air Quality and Noise No impacts anticipated. Potential for impacts on local residents.

Pedestrians and Others No impacts anticipated. Beneficial impact.

Plans and Policies No conflicts with current development plan policies anticipated.

Potential conflict with POL.E15 regarding AGLV.

6 References

BGS (2005) British Geological Survey Base data – Britain beneath our feet http://www.bgs.ac.uk/education/britainbeneath/base_compass.html 2008 (accessed August 2008).

CIRIA (2000). Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems – Design Manual for Scotland and Northern Ireland (C521).


7

Highways Agency (2008) Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (2001). Volume 11. Highway Agency, UK.

Macaulay Institute (1983). Soil Survey of Scotland – Land Capability for Agriculture 1:250,000 Scale Eastern Scotland Map Sheet 5. Ordnance Survey for the Macaulay Institute for Soil Research.

Stirling Council (1999) Local Plan.

Stirling Council (2008) Final Draft Core Path Plan.


8

7 Figure 1 – Environmental Constraints

Figure 1: M9 Chartershall Bridge - Environmental Constraints

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

A

A

B

B

C

C

D

D

E

E

5 5

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

Key

Study Area

Local Plan Designations

Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV)

Greenbelt

Land Use

Arable

Rough Grazing

Woodland of Long-established plantation origin

Rights of Way

! Sites on National Monuments Record of Scotland

! Category A Listed Building

±

Scale: 1:5,000 at A3

0 10.5Km

Pirnhall Road

Cha

rters

hall

Roa

d

Chartershall Bridge

M9

Bannock Burn

Sauchie Burn

Transport Scotland


Appendix G

Public Consultation Material

Documents

informe de viabilidad PUENTE CHARTERSHALL (ESCOCIA)