Oban Transport HubV4 09-07-09 - Argyll and Bute · Faber Maunsell Oban Transport Hub 41 7.2 Option...

Faber Maunsell Oban Transport Hub 38

This Chapter details the potential options to improve interchange at the Oban transport termini

and appraises their impacts. It is assumed that all options will be accompanied with a degree of

urban realm improvements to pedestrian routes, such as improved lighting, surfacing and

landscaping. The options are not mutually exclusive and there is scope to combine some

complementary measures.

The costs of each option are included in this Chapter. Costs include construction costs but

exclude land acquisition, utilities, detailed design and planning, project management and

procurement costs. All costs are inclusive of a 10% allowance for Accommodation Works and

Local Variance and a 44% Optimism Bias allowance. It is recognised that, for the smaller scale

options, these costs are likely to be conservative. Detailed breakdowns of costs are included in

Appendix D.

7.1 Option 1a: Basic Signage (between rail station and Waterfront Centre)

The aim of this option is to direct pedestrians to and from the ferry terminal, past the south and

west sides of the Waterfront Centre. The route is partially sheltered from the prevailing winds

by the waterfront centre. Pavements exist alongside the rail station building and alongside the

waterfront centre, however the latter is made unattractive by a steep gradient and clutter in the

form of bins etc. This option is illustrated in Figure 7.1.

7.1.1 Components

This option involves the installation of signposts

and / or painted lines / footprints on the ground.

Signage would include the primary transport

modes (bus, coach, taxi and rail) and it is

envisaged that map boards would be provided.

These would be expected to display a large scale

map of the transport hub, and could also include

smaller scale maps of Oban, highlighting places

of interest etc.

7.1.2 Issues

It is recognised that there may be safety issues

relating to pedestrian-vehicle conflicts as

pedestrians traverse the roadway leading toward the rail station car park. Safety

improvements in the form of a pedestrian walkway defined in coloured screed may be required.

Pooling water was noted during a site visit, therefore some degree of drainage improvements

would be recommended.

7.1.3 Achievements

This option would address problems relating to poor signage and provide well defined

pedestrian links between the primary travel modes in the ferry terminal area which would help

to improve interchange between these modes. Appraisal of this option against the Scottish

Government’s five criteria is displayed in Table 7.1.

7 Appraisal


Table 7.1 Appraisal against Government Criteria

Government Criteria Impact of Option

Environment Improved public transport interchange will improve the public transport experience and may help to encourage modal shift away from car use. This would be considered to have a minor positive impact upon Environment.

Safety Any increase in the volume of pedestrian movements along this route

would increase the potential for pedestrian – vehicle conflicts.

However it is considered that the provision of a coloured walkway

would negate this. Overall this option would have a negligible

impact upon safety.

Economy It is considered that urban realm improvements associated with this,

and all other, options would improve the attractiveness of Oban for

tourists, encouraging repeat visits, and would therefore have a minor

positive impact upon the economy.

Integration Improved signage would improve interchange between modes and therefore improve integration. Moderate positive impact.

Accessibility and

Social Inclusion

Any improvements to public transport interchange would convey accessibility benefits for the non-car owning public who are often considered to be socially excluded. This option would therefore have a minor positive impact upon Accessibility and Social Inclusion.

7.1.4 Cost:

The cost of this option would be circa £6,300 – £15,500

The cost variation results from a high cost allowance for applying a thermoplastic surface

treatment to further highlight the pedestrian route.

7.1.5 Risks

There are minimal engineering works associated with this option, with the exception of the

erection of signage and laying of road markings.

It would be prudent to consider the possibility of encountering underground services when

sighting any signage to avoid any conflicts between the foundations of the signs and any public

utilities apparatus.


Figure 7.1 Option 1a Basic Signage (between rail station and Waterfront Centre)


7.2 Option 1b: Basic Signage (via rail station car park.)

The aim of this option is to direct pedestrians to and from the ferry terminal through the rail

station car park. The route is sheltered from the prevailing winds by the waterfront centre, BP

Fuels structures and the ferry terminal. Pavements exist alongside the rail station building and

alongside the waterfront centre, however the latter is made unattractive by a steep gradient and

clutter in the form of bins etc. This option is illustrated in Figure 7.2.

7.2.1 Components

As with Option 1a, this option involves the

installation of signposts and / or painted lines /

footprints on the ground. Signage would include the

primary transport modes (bus, coach, taxi and rail)

and it is envisaged that map boards would be

provided. These would be expected to display a

large scale map of the transport hub, and could also

include smaller scale maps of Oban, highlighting

places of interest etc.

7.2.2 Issues

It is recognised that there may be safety issues

relating to pedestrian-vehicle conflicts as pedestrians traverse the roadway and existing rail

station car park. Safety improvements in the form of a pedestrian walkway defined in coloured

screed may be required.

Pooling water was noted during a site visit, therefore some degree of drainage improvements

would be recommended.

7.2.3 Achievements

This option would address problems relating to poor signage and provide well defined

pedestrian links between the primary travel modes in the ferry terminal area which would help

to improve interchange between these modes. Appraisal of this option against the Scottish

Government’s five criteria is displayed in Table 7.2 below.




Safety Any increase in the volume of pedestrian movements along this route

would increase the potential for pedestrian – vehicle conflicts.

However it is considered that the provision of a coloured walkway

would negate this. Overall this option would have a negligible

impact upon safety.






Accessibility and

Social Inclusion


7.2.4 Cost:

The cost of this option would be circa £7,000 - £16,500

The cost variation is a result of a high cost allowance for applying a thermoplastic surface

treatment to further highlight the pedestrian walkway


7.2.5 Risks


erection of signage and laying of road markings.





Figure 7.2 Option 1b Basic Signage (via rail station car park)


7.3 Option 1c: Basic Signage (via waterfront)

The aim of this option is to direct pedestrians to and from the ferry terminal along the waterfront.

The majority of the route is currently paved with high-quality block paving and offers attractive

views toward the Western Isles and the interest of docked fishing vessels. This option is

illustrated in figure 7.3.

7.3.1 Components

This option involves the installation of signposts and / or painted lines / footprints on the ground.

Signage would include the primary transport modes (bus, coach, taxi and rail) and it is

envisaged that map boards would be provided. These would be expected to display a large

scale map of the transport hub, and could also include smaller scale maps of Oban, highlighting

places of interest etc.

7.3.2 Issues

It is recognised that there may be safety issues relating to the low harbour wall which separates

the footpath from the harbour. This could become a trip hazard where significant volumes of

pedestrians are using this route. It is considered that the provision of railings would be

inappropriate as access to fishing vessels is required, therefore the provision of lifebelts is

recommended.

In addition, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts would be likely to occur as this route is used by vehicles

servicing fishing vessels and retailing facilities. BP Fuels vehicles also use this route at

present. It may be necessary to restrict access for

services vehicles to times outwith ferry departure

peaks, however this may not be an acceptable

solution.

Pooling water was noted during a site visit, therefore

some degree of drainage improvements would be

recommended.

7.3.3 Achievements

This option would address problems relating to poor

signage and provide well defined pedestrian links

between the primary travel modes in the ferry

terminal area which would help to improve

interchange between these modes. Appraisal of this option against the Scottish Government’s

five criteria is displayed in Table 7.3 below.




Safety There are several safety concerns with this option, relating to the low

harbour wall and pedestrian – vehicle conflicts. The provision of

lifebelts would negate the former issue however, any increase in the

volume of pedestrian movements along this route would increase

problems with pedestrian – vehicle conflicts. Overall this option would

have a minor negative impact upon safety.






Accessibility and

Social Inclusion



7.3.4 Cost:

The cost of this option would be circa £6,300 - £16,100

The cost variation results from a high cost allowance for applying a thermoplastic surface

treatment to further highlight the pedestrian routes.

7.3.5 Risks


erection of signage and laying of some road markings.





Figure 7.3 Option 1c Basic Signage (via waterfront)


7.4 Option 2: Relocation of Rail Station Car Park

This option involves relocating the existing rail station car parking to the south of the rail tracks.

There are two sites identified as possible relocation areas; John Anderson Car Park and the

existing (vacant) bowling alley. The two sites incur significantly different costs and implications

therefore the appraisal of these options will be undertaken in two stages:

� Option 2a: Relocation of rail station car park to John Anderson House car park; and

� Option 2b: Relocation of rail station car park to existing (vacant) bowling alley site.

7.4.1 Option 2a: Relocation of rail station car park to John Anderson House car park

This option involves the use of an existing car park to

the south of the rail tracks. The car park currently

provides some 150 general pay and display parking

spaces, of which approximately half would be

removed to accommodate rail station parking. It is

recognised that reconfiguration of the existing car

park may result in the loss of fewer spaces. A direct

pedestrian link to the rail station (landward) platform,

passing behind the existing bowling alley, would be

required. In addition, this option presents the

opportunity to relocate Shopmobility to a site giving

greater exposure and proximity to bus / coach / rail /

taxi termini. The removal of vehicular traffic from the rail station car park would permit the

provision of covered walkways from the rail station to / from the ferry terminal, via routes

illustrated in Options 1a and 1b, albeit the Option 1b route would require re-routing of BP Fuels

vehicles.

This Option is illustrated in Figure 7.4.

7.4.1.1 Components

John Anderson car park is well surfaced, therefore and would therefore only require lining

works. The pedestrian link behind the Bowling Alley would require surfacing, and a gate to

restrict out-of-hours platform access would be required. Covered walkways would be provided

linking the rail station to the ferry terminal, by routes illustrated in Options 1a and 1b.

7.4.1.2 Issues

Both the use of John Anderson car park and the land behind the Bowling Alley would be subject

to the economical availability of the land. At the time of writing, both sites are available for

lease. There would be a loss of general parking spaces associated with this option.

7.4.1.3 Achievements

This option drastically reduces the volume of vehicles using the pedestrian routes, as proposed

in Options 1a and 1b. In addition to the benefits noted for Options 1a and 1b, this option would

provide a safe walking route, the attractiveness of which could be improved through

landscaping, and would offer the potential to provide covered walkways to improve the overall

interchange experience. Appraisal of this option against the Scottish Government’s five criteria

is displayed in Table 7.4.




Environment Improved safety and the provision of covered walkways for pedestrians routing through the existing rail station car park will improve the public transport and interchange experience and may encourage modal shift away from private cars. Overall minor positive impact.

Safety This option will remove general vehicular traffic from the pedestrian

route between the taxi rank / bus / coach / rail station and the ferry

terminal and will therefore have a moderate positive impact upon

safety.



tourists, encouraging repeat visits. This option provides additional

scope for urban realm improvements in the existing rail station car

park. However, the use of John Anderson car park would result in a

net loss of parking within Oban to the potential detriment of tourists

and local businesses. Overall negligible impact.

Integration This option increases the scope for integration improvements such as Options 1a and 1b. Minor positive impact.

Accessibility and

Social Inclusion

Any improvements to public transport interchange would convey

accessibility benefits for the non-car owning public who are often

considered to be socially excluded. In addition, the relocation of

Shopmobility to a site giving them greater exposure and closer

proximity to the bus / coach / rail / taxi termini will provide accessibility

benefits for the mobility impaired. Overall minor positive impact.

7.4.1.4 Cost:

The cost of this option would be circa £6,500.

This cost does not include land costs

7.4.1.5 Risks


provision of a pedestrian link behind the existing Bowling Alley. This option is dependent upon

the economical availability of the site and may be dependent upon achieving agreement from

Network Rail and ScotRail.

7.4.2 Option 2b: Relocation of rail station car park to existing (vacant) bowling alley site

This option involves the demolition of an existing

vacant bowling alley to the south of the rail tracks and

use of the site for rail station car parking. A gated

pedestrian link directly from this site to the landward

rail station platform would be provided. The removal

of vehicular traffic from the rail station car park would

permit the provision of covered walkways from the rail

station to / from the ferry terminal, via routes

illustrated in Options 1a and 1b, albeit the Option 1b

route would require re-routing of BP Fuels vehicles.

This option is illustrated in Figure 7.4.

7.4.2.1 Components

This option requires the demolition of an existing building, the re-surfacing of the site and

creation of a new access arrangement. The creation of a new pedestrian link from the

relocated car park to the station would be required.


7.4.2.2 Issues

The use of this site would be subject to the economical availability of the land.

7.4.2.3 Achievements

This option drastically reduces the volume of vehicles using the pedestrian routes, as proposed

in Options 1a and 1b. In addition to the benefits noted for Options 1a and 1b, this option would

provide a safe walking route, the attractiveness of which could be improved through

landscaping, and would offer the potential to provide covered walkways to improve the overall

interchange experience. Unlike Option 2a, this option would result in no net loss of parking

provision within Oban.

Appraisal of this option against the Scottish Government’s five criteria is displayed in Table 7.5

below.



Environment Improved safety and the provision of covered walkways for pedestrians routing through the existing rail station car park will improve the public transport and interchange experience and may encourage modal shift away from private cars. Overall minor positive impact.

Safety This option will remove general vehicular traffic from the pedestrian

route between the taxi rank / bus / coach / rail station and the ferry

terminal and will therefore have a moderate positive impact upon

safety.


and all other options, would improve the attractiveness of Oban for



park and would therefore have a moderate positive impact upon the

economy.

Integration This option increases the scope for integration improvements such as Options 1a and 1b. Minor positive impact.

Accessibility and

Social Inclusion



considered to be socially excluded. In addition, the relocation of

Shopmobility to a site giving them greater exposure and closer

proximity to the bus / coach / rail / taxi termini will provide accessibility

benefits for the mobility impaired. Overall minor positive impact.

7.4.2.4 Cost:

The cost of this option would be circa £930,000

This cost does not include land costs. The bulk of this cost is as a result of the demolition of the

existing bowling alley structure which is estimated to cost approximately £500,000.

7.4.2.5 Risks

This option involves the demolition of an existing structure. Various structural, servicing and

asbestos surveys may be required. Following demolition, the area will have to be levelled off

and any public utilities moved before the carriageway for the car park can be constructed. This

option is dependent upon the economical availability of the site and may be dependent upon

achieving agreement from Network Rail. It must be is noted that the NHS are currently

negotiating with the landlord to use part of the bowling alley therefore this site may not be

available in future.


Figure 7.4 Options 2a and 2b Relocation of Rail Station Car Park


7.5 Option 3: Footbridge Link

This option involves the re-location of one or more of the existing congested bus / coach / taxi

drop off facilities to the existing John Anderson car park area. A DDA compliant (ramped)

footbridge would be provided to link the new drop area off with the ferry terminal. This option

includes the relocation of the rail station car park to the site currently occupied by a vacant

bowling alley (as with Option 2b) which permits the inclusion of covered walkways between the

existing landscaped area to the north east and the ferry terminal. In addition, the removal of

one or more of bus / coach / taxi services from the existing landscaped area presents a range

of potential options for this area. These options are explored as Options A, B, C and D.

This option is illustrated in Figure 7.5.

7.5.1 Components

This option would require the creation of a new

access and exit from John Anderson car park with

lining works within the car park. The construction of

a footbridge over the railway would be required to

link the new drop off area to the ferry terminal. A

link between the drop off area and rail station

platform would also be created. In addition, as with

Option 2b, this option involves the demolition of an

existing vacant Bowling Alley to the south of the rail

tracks and use of the site for rail station car parking.

7.5.2 Issues

This option would see the relocation of one or more

of bus / taxi / coach facilities to a site further from the town centre, albeit there may be scope to

retain reduced scale facilities in their existing locations. The option would result in a reduction

in general parking provision within John Anderson car park. The use of both the John

Anderson car park and bowling alley site would be subject to the economical availability of the

land. Although the footbridge would be DDA compliant, it introduces a physical obstacle for the

mobility impaired and people with luggage.

7.5.3 Achievements

This option would increase the available space for bus / coach / taxi interchange and reduce

over-crowding of these facilities. The option would also reduce the distance between transport

termini, albeit the footbridge may be seen as a barrier for the mobility impaired and people with

excessive luggage. The option would provide well defined pedestrian links which would help to

improve interchange between modes. Appraisal of this option against the Government’s Five

primary criteria is detailed in Table 7.6. It must be noted that the full impacts of this option

would be dependent upon the use of the Landscaped Area, as explored in Options A, B, C and

D




Environment Improved safety for pedestrians routing through the existing rail station car park, and the provision of expanded drop-off facilities will improve the public transport and interchange experience and may encourage modal shift away from private cars. Overall minor positive impact.

Safety This option will remove the majority of traffic from the pedestrian route

between the taxi rank / bus / coach / rail station and the ferry terminal

and will provide a dedicated pedestrian link between the new drop off

and the ferry terminal. Overall moderate positive impact upon

safety.


and all other options, would improve the attractiveness of Oban for



park and would therefore have a moderate positive impact upon the

economy.

Integration This option increases the scope for integration improvements such as options 1a and 1b. The provision of covered walkways has the potential to significantly improve interchange experiences. Moderate positive impact.

Accessibility and

Social Inclusion



considered to be socially excluded. However, the replacement of an

at-grade pedestrian route with a (ramped) footbridge for some

interchanges may result in decreased accessibility for the mobility

impaired. Overall the impact of this option on Accessibility and Social

Inclusion is considered to be negligible.

7.5.4 Cost:

The cost of this option would be circa £2.5million

This cost does not include land costs. The bulk of costs for this option result from the

demolition of the bowling alley (£500,000,) construction of a covered walkway (£488,000) and

construction of a footbridge (£350,000.) It is recognised that there may be opportunities to

reduce the cost of covered walkway provision.

7.5.5 Risks

Risks related to the use of the bowling alley site are described in Option 2b.

In addition, the option involves construction of a footbridge over a railway line which will require

agreement with Network Rail and line closure / possessions etc.


Figure 7.5 Option 3 Footbridge Link


7.6 Option 4: Combination of Rail, Coach and Ferry Passenger Facilities

This option involves the relocation of rail passenger facilities (ticketing and welfare) to the ferry

terminal where is also envisaged that coach tickets would be sold, creating an integrated

transport facility. Alternative uses for the existing rail station building are explored within

Options A and D. This option is illustrated in Figure 7.6.

7.6.1 Components

This option would require the provision of a footbridge link

between the ferry terminal and the landward rail platform

to allow quick access to trains for passengers having

purchased tickets within the ferry terminal. This option

also requires the provision of on-platform ticket machines.

7.6.2 Issues

This option would result in rail station ticketing facilities

being further removed from the town centre, however the

disbenifits associated with this could be alleviated to some

degree through the provision of on-platform ticket vending

machines. Consultation highlighted potential trade union issues associated with combining

facilities which may result in the requirement for separate rail ticketing desks and welfare

facilities within the ferry terminal. Although the footbridge from the ferry terminal to the rails

station platform would be DDA compliant, it introduces a physical obstacle for the mobility

impaired and people with luggage.

7.6.3 Achievements

This option would achieve the provision of an integrated ticketing facility. Appraisal of this

option against the Government’s Five primary criteria is detailed in table 7.7 below. It must be

noted that the full impacts of this option would be dependent upon the use of the Landscaped

Area, as explored in Options A, B, C and D



Environment The provision of integrated ticketing facilities would improve the public transport experience and may encourage modal shift away from private cars. Minor positive impact.

Safety This option will have no impact upon safety.



tourists, encouraging repeat visits. The relocation of rail passenger

facilities to the ferry terminal may create potential for franchise cost

savings which would benefit Central Government. Overall minor

positive impact.

Integration The provision of an integrated ticketing and welfare facility conveys major benefits for Integration. Overall major positive impact.

Accessibility and

Social Inclusion



considered to be socially excluded. However, the relocation of rail

passenger facilities further away from the town centre may result in

decreased accessibility. Overall negligible impact.

7.6.4 Cost:

The cost of this option would be circa £700,000.

The main cost of this option is associated with the construction of a footbridge (£350,000.)

7.6.5 Risks

This option involves construction of a footbridge over a railway line which will require agreement

with Network Rail and line closure / possessions etc. The combination of rail ticketing and


welfare facilities within the ferry terminal may result in trade union issues requiring duplication of

facilities and therefore increasing costs.


Figure 7.6 Option 4 Combination of Rail, Coach and Ferry Passenger Facilities


7.7 Options A, B, C, D

To be viewed in conjunction with Options 3 and 4, these options explore potential uses for the

existing landscaped area:

� Option A: Remodelled Pedestrian Zone;

This option involves the relocation of the overcrowded bus and taxi ranks, permitting

expansion of the pedestrian area. This option shows the existing rail station building

being used as a retail outlet / Shopmobility premises.

� Option B: Expanded Taxi Rank;

This option involves the relocation of the overcrowded bus station and expansion of the

existing taxi rank to reduce overcrowding.

� Option C: Expanded Bus Station; and

This option involves the relocation of the overcrowded taxi rank and expansion of the

existing bus station to reduce overcrowding.

� Option D: Expanded Bus Station and Taxi Rank.

This option involves the expansion of the existing bus station and taxi ranks, utilising

space created by the removal of the existing rail station building.

These options are illustrated in Figure 7.7.

7.7.1 Components

Option A involves minimal physical changes beyond

infilling and paving of the existing bus bays, and

potential infilling and re-paving of parts of the taxi rank.

Options B and C would require the removal of existing

street furniture and a degree of break-out and

resurfacing works.

Option D would require the demolition of the existing

rail station building, alongside removal of existing street

furniture and a degree of break-out and resurfacing

works.

7.7.2 Issues

Option A would result in pedestrian-vehicle conflicts where access is required for servicing retail

outlets and fishing vessels. Although vehicle numbers passing through the landscaped area

would be reduced as a result of the removal of the taxi rank, the reduced delineation of roadway

and pedestrian zone may increase safety problems.

Options B, C and D would see an increase in vehicle movements within the landscaped area

and may therefore increase pedestrian – vehicle conflicts.

Options C and D would result in a reduced pedestrian area to the detriment of Oban as a tourist

centre.

Option D would involve the demolition of a structure and would be dependent upon rail

franchise agreements and agreement with Network Rail.

7.7.3 Achievements

Option A would increase the area available for pedestrians which is likely to be attractive for

tourists.

Option B would reduce overcrowding in the taxi rank.

Option C would reduce overcrowding in the bus station.

Option D would reduce overcrowding in both the taxi rank and the bus station.

Appraisal of these options against the Government’s Five primary criteria is detailed in Table

7.8 overleaf. It must be noted that the full impacts of these options would be dependent upon

the option that they are used in conjunction with.


Government

Criteria

Impact of Option A Impact of Option B Impact of Option C Impact of Option D

Environment The provision of increased pedestrian facilities will increase the attractiveness of cycling and walking and may encourage modal shift away from private cars. Minor positive impact.

This option is to the detriment of pedestrians. The expansion of the existing taxi rank may reduce circulating vehicles waiting for a space and may therefore reduce emissions to a small degree. Overall negligible impact.

This option is to the detriment of pedestrians. The expansion of the existing bus station will reduce overcrowding and improve the public transport experience which may encourage modal shift away from private cars. Overall negligible impact.

The impacts of this option on the Environment are the same as those for B and C. Overall negligible impact.

Safety Vehicle numbers within the

landscaped area will be

reduced, however the lack of

delineation between may

increase pedestrian – vehicle

conflicts. Overall negligible

impact.

This option would increase

vehicle movements within the

landscaped area and therefore

increase the potential for

pedestrian – vehicle conflicts.

Overall minor negative impact

The expanded bus station would

increase vehicle movements

within the landscaped area and

therefore increase the potential

for pedestrian – vehicle conflicts.

Overall minor negative impact

This option would increase vehicle

movements within the landscaped

area and therefore increase the

potential for pedestrian – vehicle

conflicts. Overall moderate

negative impact

Economy Urban Realm improvements

associated with

pedestrianisation would make

Oban more attractive to tourists

and encourage repeat visits.

Overall minor positive impact.

This would be to the detriment of

pedestrians which may make the

area less attractive for tourists.

Overall negligible impact.

This would be to the detriment of

pedestrians which may make the

area less attractive for tourists.

Overall negligible impact.

This option would negate the need

for the existing rail station building,

the disposal of which may result in

rail franchise savings. However, this

option would be detrimental to

pedestrians and unattractive for

tourists. Overall negligible impact.

Integration The removal of bus and taxi facilities from this area may result in detrimental impacts upon integration. Overall minor negative impact

The removal of bus facilities from this area may result in detrimental impacts upon integration. Overall minor negative impact

The removal of taxi facilities from this area may result in detrimental impacts upon integration. Overall minor negative impact

Enhanced bus and taxi facilities would benefit integration, however the rail station would no longer be in close proximity to these facilities. Overall negligible impact.

Accessibility

and Social

Inclusion

This option has no impact upon

Accessibility and Social

Inclusion


Accessibility and Social Inclusion







7.7.4 Costs

The cost of Option A would be circa £42,000

The cost of Option B would be circa £42,000

The cost of Option C would be circa £91,000

The cost of Option D would be circa £840,000

The primary cost of Option D is associated with the demolition of the existing rail station

building (£500,000.)

7.7.5 Risks

Options B, C and D would require investigative works to locate existing public utilities and

remove them from carriageways.


Figure 7.8 Options A, B, C and D Landscaped Area


7.8 Option 5 Alma Crescent Widening

This option involves widening Alma Crescent to formalise on-street parking and permit easy

passage for HGVs. This option is illustrated in Figure 7.8

7.8.1 Components

This option requires the extension of road surfacing on

the west side of Alma Crescent.

7.8.2 Issues

A public telephone box may require to be relocated and

the loss of green space may be undesirable.

7.8.3 Achievements

This option would increase the available space for

vehicle marshalling which would alleviate existing

congestion problems. Appraisal of this option against

the Government’s Five primary criteria is detailed in

table 7.9 below.



Environment This option would reduce HGV congestion which would reduce emissions. However, increased road space may attract additional road users which would increase emissions. Overall negligible impact.

Safety Formalised parking will stop parked vehicles encroaching onto the

carriageway and improve safety. Minor positive impact

Economy Reduced congestion and journey times for HGVs will benefit the

economy. Minor positive impact.

Integration This option will have no impact upon Integration.

Accessibility and

Social Inclusion

This option will have no impact upon Accessibility and Social Inclusion.

7.8.4 Costs


7.8.5 Risks

This option may require the re=location of a public telephone box which could increase costs.

7.9 Option 6: Use of CalMac Crew Parking Area for Additional Marshalling

This option involves the relocation of CalMac crew parking to free up space for additional

marshalling. This option is illustrated in Figure 7.8.

7.9.1 Components

A degree of lining and some engineering improvements

within the existing CalMac crew parking area would be

required. Alternative secure crew parking would be

required and shuttle buses may have to be provided.

7.9.2 Issues

There may be industrial relations issues associated with

this option. Suitable, secure and convenient alternative

crew parking would be required.

7.9.3 Achievements

This option would provide additional marshalling space


for approximately 21 cars, more than compensating for space lost due to the provision of a

second link-span.

Appraisal of this option against the Government’s Five primary criteria is detailed in Table 7.10

below.



Environment This option may reduce circulating traffic waiting for marshalling space and would therefore reduce emissions. Overall minor positive impact.


Economy This option will have no impact upon Economy.


Accessibility and

Social Inclusion


7.9.4 Costs


This cost does not include for alternative crew parking provision.

7.9.5 Risks

This option would require investigative works to locate existing public utilities and remove them

from the extended carriageway.


Figure 7.9 Options 5 and 6 Alma Crescent Widening and Use of CalMac Crew Parking Area for Additional Marshalling


7.10 Option 7: Park and Ride

There are three potential park and ride sites within Oban. Improvements to, and successful

marketing of, these sites would result in removing traffic from the road network. These park

and ride sites can also provide secure long stay parking for ferry foot passengers.

7.10.1 Components

The three sites identified are existing car parks which are well surfaced and are suitable for

park and ride purposes. Each site would require improvements such as the provision, or

improvement, of lighting, CCTV and bus shelters.

7.10.2 Issues

The success of park and ride sites will heavily influenced by their marketing. There are no bus

priority measures in Oban which may limit the successful implementation of park and ride

facilities.

7.10.3 Achievements

Park and ride sites will provide secure long stay parking for ferry foot passengers and remove

vehicles from the road network.

Appraisal of these options against the Government’s Five primary criteria is detailed in table

7.11 below.


Government Criteria Impact of Options

Environment The removal of vehicles from the road network will reduce emissions. However the freeing up of additional road space may attract additional vehicles. Overall negligible impact

Safety The removal of vehicles from the road network is likely to result in

reduced accidents. However the freeing up of additional road space

may attract additional vehicles. Overall negligible impact

Economy The removal of vehicles from the road network will reduce congestion

within Oban, reducing journey times, increasing reliability and making

the town more attractive for tourists. However the freeing up of

additional road space may attract additional vehicles. The provision of

Park and Ride Services will enable more visitors to enter Oban, whist

minimising congestion impacts. Overall moderate positive impact

Integration The provision of dedicated park and ride facilities will increase integration between private cars and bus use. Minor positive impact.

Accessibility and

Social Inclusion



Figure 7.9 Option 7 Park and Ride


7.11 Option 8: Vehicle Signage

This option involves improving vehicle signage to the ferry terminal. This option is illustrated in

Figure 7.10

7.11.1 Components

This option includes the provision of traditional roadside signage and road markings.

7.11.2 Issues

There may be issues with clearance for HGVs and pavement space related to the provision of

an additional sign at the junction between Alma Crescent and Albany Street.

7.11.3 Achievements

This option would improve vehicle signage to the ferry terminal, addressing identified issues

with poor signage.


below.



Environment Improved signage could reduce wasted mileage associated with lost drivers. Minor positive impact.

Safety This option has no impact upon Safety.

Economy Improved signage has the potential to reduce congestion and

therefore benefit the economy. Overall negligible impact.


Accessibility and

Social Inclusion


7.11.3.1 Costs

The cost of this option would be circa £800

7.11.4 Risks


sighting any signage so that no clash between the foundations of the signs and any public

utilities apparatus occurs.


Figure 7.10 Option 8 Vehicle Signage


7.12 Option 9: Use of Seaward Rail Platform

At present, trains arriving into Oban crossover the tracks on approach to the station and decant

onto the landward platform. This results in an extended indirect walk distance to the ferry

terminal for train passengers. This option aims to have arriving and departing trains using the

seaward rail platform to enable a short, direct link between the rail platform and the ferry

terminal. This option is illustrated in Figure 7.11

7.12.1 Components

The current track arrangement allows a train to crossover from the seaward platform to the

landward platform as it enters the station but not to cross in the opposite direction as the

crossover in this direction has been removed. Therefore to allow a train to decant on the

seaward platform the train would have to enter the station on the seaward platform and then

exit the station from the seaward platform also. However the current signalling arrangements

do not allow bi-directional running on this section of track as it enters the station area and

therefore a train cannot come in and out of Oban on the same track. Alterations to the signalling

and track arrangements would therefore be required to allow the trains to access Oban on the

seaward platform.

7.12.2 Issues

Alterations to the signalling and track arrangements would be required to allow the trains to

access Oban on the seaward platform.

7.12.3 Achievements

This option would provide a short, direct pedestrian link between the rail station platforms and

the ferry terminal, which may help to reduce missed connections resulting from delayed

services.


below.



Environment Improving interchange between rail and ferry services may encourage people to travel to Oban by train as opposed to private car. Minor positive Impact

Safety This option would minimise the walk distance between rail and ferry

services, thus reducing the potential for pedestrian – vehicle conflicts.

Minor positive impact

Economy Improved interchange may increase the attractiveness of Oban to

tourists which would benefit the local economy. Minor positive

impact

Integration This option will improve integration between rail and ferry services. Moderate positive impact.

Accessibility and

Social Inclusion

Any improvements to public transport interchange would convey accessibility benefits for the non-car owning public who are often considered to be socially excluded. Minor positive impact.

7.12.4 Cost

The cost of this option would be circa £1.6m.

7.12.5 Risks

The track and signalling alterations would have to be carried out under a number of

possessions, Installation of the crossover may even require a longer blockade on the tracks

depending on the complexity of the unit. Perhaps Oban Station would have to be closed for a

weekend with a bus replacement service in operation to allow for installation of these works, all

of which would add to the cost.


Figure 7.11 Option 9 Use of Seaward Rail Platform


7.13 Option 10: Link Road through the Ferry Terminal (using rail sidings area)

This option proposes the construction of a one-way link road through the ferry terminal for use

by buses, coaches and taxis only. The link road would include a drop off / pick up area

adjacent to the ferry terminal. The one-way link could operate in either direction however it is

considered that east to west operations would be desirable as they would allow incoming coach

and bus services to drop passengers off at the ferry terminal within minimal diversions. This

option is illustrated in Figure 7.12

7.13.1 Components

This option would require the removal of the existing rail sidings and surfacing of the area to

provide a link road. The provision of a public transport pick up / drop off area and associated

infrastructure would be required and a new access on to Queens Park Place would require to

be constructed. The rail station car park would require to be relocated to permit this option.

7.13.2 Issues

This option would result in bus and taxi services dropping off / picking up passengers further

from the town centre. The option would result in a loss of pedestrianised space and would have

safety implications for pedestrians using the route through the existing rail station car park. In

addition, this option may result in safety issues at the junction with Queens park place.

7.13.3 Achievements

This option would enable bus, coach and taxi services to drop off / pick up passengers adjacent

to the ferry terminal. In addition, this option may provide the opportunity to re-work traffic

arrangements in proximity to the transport termini.


below.



Environment This option will improve interchange between bus, coach, taxi and ferry services and may encourage modal shift to public transport. Minor positive impact.

Safety This option will remove existing safety issues related to overcrowding

at the existing bus station / taxi rank area. However the new junction

with Queens Park Place may result in safety issues. In addition, there

may be safety issues for pedestrians using the route between the rail

station and Waterfront Centre. Overall Minor negative impact.

Economy Improved interchange may increase the attractiveness of Oban to

tourists which would benefit the local economy. Minor positive

impact

Integration This option will improve integration between bus, coach, taxi and ferry services. Moderate positive impact.

Accessibility and

Social Inclusion

Any improvements to public transport interchange would convey accessibility benefits for the non-car owning public who are often considered to be socially excluded. Minor positive impact.

7.13.4 Cost

The cost of this option would be circa £370,000 to £1.3m.

The cost variance of this option results from the relocation of the rail station car park.

Relocation of the station car park to the exiting bowling alley site, to avoid a net loss of parking,

would add significant demolition and resurfacing costs.

7.13.5 Risks

Risks relating to the relocation of the rail station car park are identified within options 2a and 2b.

This option would depend upon the removal of two existing railway sidings. Network Rail have

suggested that they will require these sidings for their National Delivery Strategy and further

discussions regarding this would be required. In addition, this option may have undesirable

impacts upon safety at the junction with Queens Park Place


Figure 7.12 Option 10 Link Road through the Ferry Terminal (using rail sidings area)


7.14 Option 11: Additional Marshalling Area (using rail sidings area)

This option involves removal of two of the existing rail sidings to permit additional space for

vehicle marshalling. This option is illustrated in Figure 7.13. A possible alternative would be in-

fill of the sidings area to permit dual use by road and rail vehicles.

7.14.1 Components

This option would require the removal of the existing rail sidings and surfacing of the area to

provide additional marshalling space. As an alternative, the option would require in-fill of the

sidings area.

7.14.2 Issues

This option would require agreement with Network Rail to permit removal / infill of the sidings

area and transfer / lease of the land.

7.14.3 Achievements

This option would increase the available marshalling space and relieve existing congestion

problems.

Appraisal of this option against the Government’s five primary criteria is detailed in Table 7.15

below.



Environment This option will remove the need for ferry vehicle traffic to circulate whilst awaiting marshalling space. Minor positive impact.


Economy Increased marshalling space may provide the potential for increased

efficiency of ferry operations. Minor positive impact

Integration This option will improve integration between private cars and ferry services, however the option will have no impact upon integration between ferry services and public transport modes. Negligible impact.

Accessibility and

Social Inclusion

This option will have no impact upon Accessibility and Social Inclusion

7.14.4 Cost


7.14.5 Risks

The primary risk of this option is related to the availability of the rail sidings area. Network Rail

have suggested that they will require these sidings for their National Delivery Strategy and

further discussions regarding this would be required. In addition, this option would require

agreement from freight operators DB Schenker.


.

Figure 7.13 Option 10 Link Road through the Ferry Terminal (using rail sidings area)


7.15 Summary of Appraisal Against Government Criteria

Table 7.16 overleaf presents a summary of the impacts of each option against the

Government’s five criteria as defined in STAG.


Table 7.16 – Summary of Appraisal against Government Criteria

Key: �� Major positive impact �� Moderate positive impact � Minor positive impact - Negligible / No impact � Minor negative impact �� Moderate negative impact �� Major negative impact

Options Impact against Government Criteria

Environment Safety Economy Integration Accessibility and Social Inclusion

Options 1a, 1b and 1c – Basic Signage ��

Option 2a – Relocation of Rail Station Car Park (John Anderson car park) �� - ��

Option 2b – Relocation of Rail Station Car Park (bowling alley) ��

Option 3 – Footbridge Link �� -

Option 4 – Combination of Rail, Coach and Ferry Passenger Facilities �� - �� -

Option A – Remodelled Pedestrian Zone �� - �� -

Option B – Expanded Taxi Rank - �� - �� -

Option C – Expanded Bus Station - �� - �� -

Option D – Expanded Taxi and Bus Station - �� - - -

Option 5 – Alma Crescent Widening - �� - -

Option 6 – Additional Marshalling Space (CalMac crew parking) �� - - - -

Option 7 – Park and Ride - - �� -

Option 8 – Vehicle Signage �� - - - -

Option 9 – Use of Seaward Rail Platform ��

Option 10 - Link Road through Ferry Terminal (using sidings area) ��

Option 11 – Additional Marshalling Space (using sidings area) �� - �� - -

Date post:	29-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Oban Transport HubV4 09-07-09 - Argyll and Bute · Faber Maunsell Oban Transport Hub 41 7.2 Option...

Documents