EIR/202600514435 · FOI/EIR · not held
Transport Scotland - Information relating to the active travel provision within the A9 dualling scheme at Birnam: EIR release
Information requested
I request recorded information relating to the active travel provision within the A9 dualling scheme at Birnam, specifically the traffic-free cycle path connection between the B867/A9 end and Birnam Station, which forms part of the current approved scheme scope:
1. The latest cost estimate for the currently proposed traffic-free cycle path alignment located between the A9 and the railway, including:
a) total estimated capital cost b) a breakdown by major cost elements (including but not limited to: earthworks, drainage, surfacing, fencing/barriers, structures/retaining measures, traffic management, rail interface/third-party costs, design and supervision, risk/contingency) c) the estimate stage, date, and price base.
2. Any quantified risk allowance (QRA), contingency or optimism bias applied to this path element, and documentation explaining the principal cost and delivery risks identified.
3. Drawings, cross-sections or typical details showing the design assumptions for the A9–railway path alignment, including barrier provision, clearances, and drainage strategy.
4. Any option appraisal, route assessment, or decision record that considered alternative alignments for delivering the required traffic-free connection between the B867 end and Birnam Station, including any options on the Birnam hillside side of the railway.
5. For any alternatives considered, please provide:
a) the options assessed b) comparative assessments of cost, deliverability, safety, environmental impact, and user experience c) reasons for selection of the preferred alignment and reasons for discounting alternatives.
6. Any whole-life or maintenance cost assessments prepared for the A9–railway alignment, including assumptions on inspection, maintenance access, drainage maintenance, resurfacing, and safety interventions.
Response
As the information you have requested is 'environmental information' for the purposes of the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (EIRs), we are required to deal with your request under those Regulations. We are applying the exemption at section 39(2) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA), so that we do not also have to deal with your request under FOISA.
This exemption is subject to the 'public interest test'. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exemption, because there is no public interest in dealing with the same request under two different regimes. This is essentially a technical point and has no material effect on the outcome of your request.
Please find below the requested information for each of the points above:
1. While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance the Scottish Government does not have some of the information you have requested. Therefore we are refusing your request under the exception at regulation 10(4)(a) of the EIRs. The reasons why that exception applies are explained below.
Under the terms of the exception at regulation 10(4)(a) of the EIRs (information not held), the Scottish Government is not required to provide information which it does not have. The Scottish Government does not have the information you have requested because we do not hold a separate or stand alone capital cost estimate for the proposed WCH provision between the B867 and Dunkeld & Birnam Station.
This exception is subject to the ‘public interest test’. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exception. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exception. While we recognise that there may be some public interest in information about the estimated cost of the proposed WCH provision, clearly we cannot provide information which we do not hold.
Notwithstanding the above, we have provided some information below which we hope you will find helpful.
The design of the WCH provision between the B867 and Dunkeld & Birnam Station has predominately been accommodated within the verge of the dualled A9 carriageway. As such, the verge width required to accommodate the WCH provision would be necessary regardless of whether dedicated WCH facilities were included or not. Consequently, the cost estimate for the WCH provision at this location is included within the overall scheme cost estimate for the dual carriageway and a separated cost breakdown is not available for all items.
Further details on the cost estimate for the proposed scheme can be found within Chapter 3 Section 3.3 of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Stage 3 Report available on the Transport Scotland website at the following location - https://www.transport.gov.scot/publication/dmrb-stage-3-report-pass-of-birnam-to-tay-crossing-a9-dualling/description-of-the-proposed-scheme/. Under regulation 6(1)(b) of the EIRs, we do not have to give you information which is already publicly available and easily accessible to you in another form or format.
Please see further details in Table 1 below:
Table 1 – Cost breakdown of major elements for WCH provision
Element Cost Earthworks The proposed earthworks required along the northbound carriageway adjacent to the WCH provision would be required regardless of whether the WCH provision is included within the verge. Therefore the cost associated with this element is not directly linked to the WCH provision. Drainage The proposed filter drain located between the edge of the A9 carriageway and the WCH route is required to capture the carriageway runoff and provide the first level of treatment to remove pollutants. This provision would be required regardless of whether the WCH provision is included within the verge. Therefore the cost associated with this element is not directly linked to the WCH provision. Pavement The estimated cost associated with the construction of a 2.5m wide paved surface for the WCH facility, extending 760m, is approximately £43,000 at Q3 2023 prices. Fencing There is no fencing proposed within the DMRB Stage 3 design at this location. Road Restraint Systems The proposed road restraint system located to the rear of the verge behind the WCH route is required to reduce the risk of errant vehicles to the local hazards including the earthworks embankment and proximity of the Highland Main Line railway. This provision would be required regardless of whether the WCH provision is included within the verge. Therefore the cost associated with this element is not directly linked to the WCH provision. Structures There are no structures proposed within the DMRB Stage 3 design at this location. Traffic Management The costs associated with traffic management are included within the preliminaries and indirect costs and are a percentage of the overall scheme cost. Rail interface/third party costs There are no railway interface or third party costs associated with the WCH provision within the DMRB Stage 3 design at this location. Design and supervision Design and preparation costs and Client’s costs during construction are outlined in Table 3.8: Cost Estimate in Section 3.3 of Chapter 3 of the DMRB Stage 3 Report for the proposed scheme. These costs are not calculated on a per element basis. Risk/contingency Risk, opportunity and uncertainty costs are outlined in Table 3.8: Cost Estimate in Section 3.3 of Chapter 3 of the DMRB Stage 3 Report for the proposed scheme. These costs are not calculated on a per element basis.
The cost estimate range has been prepared for the A9 Dualling Pass of Birnam to Tay Crossing scheme in accordance with the Transport Analysis Guidance (Department for Transport, 2024). The quantifiable items of the works have been measured and a cost per unit has been based on rates from similar projects and published data to a base rate of Q3 2023. Other works elements have been assessed as a percentage of the total construction costs.
The total outturn cost estimate is the sum of:
Pre-construction phase costs, including Design and Preparation, Advanced Works and Land Costs; Professional fees – including all consultants and other advisors appointed in respect of the Proposed Scheme during both preparation and site supervision stages; Survey costs – including ground investigations; Land purchase and compensation payments; and District valuer and legal costs. Construction phase costs (including any non-recoverable VAT); Risk, opportunity and uncertainty; and Inflation through to the end of the construction phase
The range of costs presented i.e. “minimum” and “maximum” estimates were developed from these risk range values.
In line with guidance for costs associated with construction schemes, the proposed scheme costs range is from £409 million to £468 million at Q3 2023 prices.
We have provided information held relating to the cost of the WCH provision; however, no separate or stand-alone capital cost estimate for the WCH route is held, as the cost associated with the WCH provision at this location is fundamentally integrated within and inseparable from the overall A9 dualling scheme cost estimate.
2. While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance the Scottish Government does not have some of the information you have requested. Therefore we are refusing your request under the exception at regulation 10(4)(a) of the EIRs. The reasons why that exception applies are explained below.
Under the terms of the exception at regulation 10(4)(a) of the EIRs (information not held), the Scottish Government is not required to provide information which it does not have. The Scottish Government does not have the information you have requested because we do not hold a separate quantified risk allowance (QRA) or optimism bias allowance for the proposed WCH provision between the B867 and Dunkeld & Birnam Station.
This exception is subject to the ‘public interest test’. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exception. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exception. While we recognise that there may be some public interest in information about quantified risk allowance (QRA) for the proposed WCH provision, clearly we cannot provide information which we do not hold.
Notwithstanding the above, we have provided some information below which we hope you will find helpful.
Transport Scotland holds information relating to project risks and opportunities considered in the cost estimates. These risks and opportunities were evaluated with potential impact and potential likelihood assessed to establish an overall risk profile. The analysis was undertaken to generate appropriate risk allowances to apply to cost estimates in line with HM Treasury Guidance.
This information forms part of the wider risk register for the Pass of Birnam to Tay Crossing scheme and quantified risk assessment (QRA) process. Items included within the QRA contribute to elements associated with the WCH provision and have been assessed as part of the wider cost estimate for the scheme: a separated WCH QRA is not available. We can also confirm that no WCH risks directly associated with the WCH at this location have been identified.
Optimism bias is considered and included in the overall net project cost estimate as published in Table 3-8: Cost Estimate (base year Q3 2023) in Chapter 3 of the DMRB Stage 3 Report and is not considered separately for the WCH provision. Chapter 3 of the DMRB Stage 3 report can be accessed on the Transport Scotland website at the following location - https://www.transport.gov.scot/media/32gjwrxh/a9-dualling-pass-of-birnam-to-tay-crossing-dmrb-stage-3-scheme-assessment-report-volume-1-chapter-3.pdf
3. Some of the information you have requested is available on the Transport Scotland website and can be found by following the links below. Under regulation 6(1)(b) of the EIRs, we do not have to give you information which is already publicly available and easily accessible to you in another form or format. If, however, you do not have internet access to obtain this information from the website(s) listed, then please contact me again and I will send you a paper copy.
While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance the Scottish Government does not have some of the information relating to drainage strategy for the WCH provision you have requested. Therefore we are refusing your request under the exception at regulation 10(4)(a) of the EIRs. The reasons why that exception applies are explained below.
Under the terms of the exception at regulation 10(4)(a) of the EIRs (information not held), the Scottish Government is not required to provide information which it does not have. The Scottish Government does not have some of the information you have requested because we do not hold it.
This exception is subject to the ‘public interest test’. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exception. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exception. While we recognise that there may be some public interest in information requested about the proposed WCH provision, clearly we cannot provide information which we do not hold.
Notwithstanding the above exceptions, we have provided some information below which we hope you will find helpful.
Drawings were published as part of the DMRB Stage 3 Scheme Assessment Report and Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR). These include Plan & Profiles, cross sections and typical details.
Plan and Profile drawings and Drainage Catchment Areas drawings for the DMRB Stage 3 design can be accessed within Volume 2 – Drawings (Chapter 4) on the Transport Scotland website at the following location https://www.transport.gov.scot/media/it2jhun2/view-a9-dualling-pass-of-birnam-to-tay-crossing-dmrb-stage-3-scheme-assessment-report-volume-2-drawings-chapter-4.pdf. The specific drawings covering this WCH provision include:
Plan & Profile drawings
A9P02-JAC-HML-D_ML015_ML-DR-RD-0002 A9P02-JAC-HML-D_ML030_ML-DR-RD-0003 A9P02-JAC-HML-D_JC01A_JC-DR-RD-0001 A9P02-JAC-HSR-D_SR034_AC-DR-RD-0001 A9P02-JAC-HSR-D_SR034_SR-DR-RD-0001
Cross Sections for the design can be accessed within Figure 10.7 (Cross Sections) of the EIAR on the Transport Scotland Website at the following location - https://www.transport.gov.scot/media/wononjkf/view-eiar-volume-3-figure-107-cross-sections.pdf The specific cross sections illustrating the WCH route alignment are illustrated on Figure 10.7c and Figure 10.7d.
A drainage strategy for the WCH provision is not available. As set out above, a filter drain is located between the edge of A9 carriageway and the WCH route, and is required to capture the carriageway runoff and provide the first level of treatment to remove pollutants. This provision would be required regardless of whether the WCH provision is included within the verge.
The drainage strategy for the proposed scheme is discussed in Section 4.14 of Chapter 4 of the DMRB Stage 3 Report available on the Transport Scotland website at the following location - https://www.transport.gov.scot/media/wlxjhfef/a9-dualling-pass-of-birnam-to-tay-crossing-dmrb-stage-3-scheme-assessment-report-volume-1-chapter-4.pdf.
The WCH provision has been designed in accordance with the relevant design guidance (Cycling by Design 2021).
4. and 5. While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance the Scottish Government does not have some of the information you have requested. Therefore we are refusing your request under the exception at regulation 10(4)(a) of the EIRs. The reasons why that exception applies are explained below.
Under the terms of the exception at regulation 10(4)(a) of the EIRs (information not held), the Scottish Government is not required to provide information which it does not have. The Scottish Government does not have some of the information you have requested because we do not hold it.
This exception is subject to the ‘public interest test’. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exception. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exception. While we recognise that there may be some public interest in information requested about the proposed WCH provision, clearly we cannot provide information which we do not hold.
Notwithstanding the above, we have provided some information below which we hope you will find helpful.
As part of the DMRB Stage 3 design development, five options for WCH provision between Birnam Junction and Dunkeld and Birnam Station were identified and presented to the ‘Non-motorised User (NMU) and Accessibility Forum’ in April 2024 that included an option on the Birnam hillside side of the railway.
The options presented at the ‘NMU and Accessibility Forum’ were:
Option B1 – Direct replacement adjacent to the northbound A9 carriageway; Option B2 – Utilise a short length of Perth Road before joining the existing core path DUNK/10 Option B3 – Utilise existing Perth Road; Option B4 – Utilise a short length of Perth Road before joining adjacent to the southbound A9 carriageway; and Option B5 – Upgrade existing core paths on Birnam Hill (south of the Highland Main Line Railway).
Please see Annex A for plans of the route options.
At this stage of the project, a high-level assessment was undertaken to inform decisions on which option(s) should be taken forward for further consideration. This assessment considered engineering and environmental constraints. For example compliance with Cycling by Design guidance or the impacts on woodland, Ancient Woodland Inventory and the functional flood plain.
The review was undertaken by the appointed design consultant as part of general scheme design development. The conclusions and outcomes presented reflect the consultant’s professional judgement and constitute a recommendation from the designer.
Option B1 – Direct replacement adjacent to the northbound A9 carriageway
Option B1 proposes a direct replacement of the existing track located adjacent to the northbound A9 carriageway. However, as the available corridor width is constrained, there is limited space to accommodate a WCH provision and the desirable 3.5 m buffer to the carriageway without encroaching onto Network Rail land for a length of approximately 55m. Additional spatial constraints are also present in the vicinity of Birnam and Dunkeld Station.
Option B2 – Utilise a short length of Perth Road before joining the existing core path DUNK/10
Option B2 would route WCH users along a section of the realigned B867/Perth Road before transitioning to the existing DUNK/10 route. The alignment would pass the sewage works and follow the existing path adjacent to the River Tay, before passing through the community orchard and rejoining the NCR77 on the A823 south of the Telford Bridge. This option provides a largely remote route once users pass under the A9 via the realigned B867/Perth Road.
The option is approximately 1 km longer than the existing NCR77, and therefore users familiar with the area may be inclined to remain on Perth Road rather than follow the diverted route. Due to existing trees and tight bends at both the southern and northern extents desirable gradients and forward visibility for cyclist may not be achieved. The option, which lies within the extent of the River Tay flood plain and the woodland setting, may also introduce higher ongoing maintenance requirements.
Option B3 – Utilise existing Perth Road
Option B3 would route WCH users along the existing Perth Road, that integrates NCN77 through Birnam and offers potential benefits for local businesses. Utilising the existing carriageway would require minimal construction works, largely limited to maintenance of the existing carriageway. However, the presence of on-street parking and bus stops constrains the available road width, preventing the provision of dedicated cycle lanes. As a result, the option introduces an additional 1.5 km of mixed-traffic cycling.
Option B4 – Utilise a short length of Perth Road before joining adjacent to the southbound A9 carriageway
Option B4 would route WCH users along a section of the existing Perth Road before transitioning to a route adjacent to the southbound A9 carriageway. This option provides sufficient space for a cycle track greater than 4 m in width with a 3.5 m buffer, enables fully compliant gradients and provides an almost direct replacement of the existing cycle route and core path. However, the route would pass in close proximity to residential properties, may require additional land take if noise or visual mitigation measures are necessary, and would result in additional tree felling.
Option B5 – Upgrade existing core paths on Birnam Hill (south of the Highland Main Line Railway)
Option B5 proposes upgrading the existing core path network on Birnam Hill, south of the Highland Main Line Railway. This option would provide a predominantly remote route beyond the railway underpass and improve connectivity for residential properties within Birnam Glen. However, achieving fully compliant gradients is unlikely without realignment at several locations, and the option would require additional tree felling. The woodland setting may also introduce higher ongoing maintenance requirements, increase WCH traffic through the residential area of Birnam Glen, and would necessitate use of an existing private access route between Birnam Glen and the property at Craigbeithe.
Option Appraisal
Through consultation with the A9 Dualling NMU Forum it was highlighted that a provision similar to the existing was preferable. Therefore, based on the details above the emerging preferred option identified was Option B1. The reasons for this was to retain the route similar to the existing desire line and to provide a route that was in accordance with the relevant design guidance (Cycling by Design) while minimising the engineering and environmental impacts set out above.
This option was presented at the Community Engagement Event held in August 2024. The Community Engagement Event allowed the local communities and road users see and provide feedback on the work that had taken place since the preferred scheme announcement, including facilities for walkers, wheelers, cyclists and horse-riders.
Following assessment and presentation of these options at the Community Engagement Event in August 2024, the design has continued to be developed to provide the required 3.5m buffer along this section in accordance with Cycling by Design.
6. While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance the Scottish Government does not have some of the information you have requested. Therefore we are refusing your request under the exception at regulation 10(4)(a) of the EIRs. The reasons why that exception applies are explained below.
Under the terms of the exception at regulation 10(4)(a) of the EIRs (information not held), the Scottish Government is not required to provide information which it does not have. The Scottish Government does not have the information you have requested because a standalone whole life or maintenance cost assessments for the proposed WCH provision has not been undertaken.
This exception is subject to the ‘public interest test’. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exception. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exception. While we recognise that there may be some public interest in information requested about the whole life or maintenance cost of the proposed WCH provision, clearly we cannot provide information which we do not hold.
A standalone whole-life or maintenance cost assessment for the A9 railway alignment, which we have interpreted to be the WCH provision between the B867 at Birnam Junction and the connection to Dunkeld and Birnam Station, has not been undertaken. Operation and maintenance costs are not included in the total outturn cost estimate, however these have been included in the appraisal of the economic performance of the proposed scheme.
Further details can be found within Chapter 7 Section 7.3 of the DMRB Stage 3 Report available on the Transport Scotland website at the following location - https://www.transport.gov.scot/publication/dmrb-stage-3-report-pass-of-birnam-to-tay-crossing-a9-dualling/economic-performance-of-scheme/.
About FOI
The Scottish Government is committed to publishing all information released in response to Freedom of Information requests. View all FOI responses at https://www.gov.scot/foi-responses.
Detected exemption language
We are applying the exemption at section 39(2) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA), so that we do not also have to deal with your request under FOISA. This exemption is subject to the 'public interest test'. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exemption, because there is no public interest in dealing with the same request under two different regimes. Therefore we are refusing your request under the exception at regulation 10(4)(a) of the EIRs.