Hampshire County Council Central Transport Strategy Panel 14 June 2005 Local Transport Plan Schemes Assessment Framework Report of the Director of Environment

Item 6

Contact: Dominic McGrath, ext 6054 email: dominic.mcgrath@hants.gov.uk

1. Summary

1.1 The report provides feedback on consultation on the proposed methodology for the assessment and prioritisation of potential Local Transport Plan (LTP) schemes, which was considered and views invited at the meeting of this Panel on 26 January 2005. Endorsement for the proposed final assessment framework is sought.

2. Suggested Scheme Prioritisation Framework

2.1 A proposed methodology for the assessment and prioritisation of schemes that might potentially be included in LTP2 was presented to each of the four Transport Strategy Area Panels in January 2005. The Panels were invited to submit comments on the draft assessment framework after the meeting. In particular, comments on the issue of weighting were sought.

2.2 Comments were received from four consultees. These comments, together with comments recorded from Panel meetings, are set out in Appendix 1 to this report. Appendix 1 also sets out the suggested response to each of the comments.

2.3 Most comments relate to the wording of the original background report or to the Appendix to that report. It is suggested that all of these comments are accepted. They can be incorporated in a modified version of the report, providing valuable further background within the final assessment process. A revised finalised version of the report is set out at Appendix 2.

2.4 Comments on the issue of weighting were received from two consultees; New Forest District Council and Cycling Hampshire. When taken in combination, these suggest applying weighting to six of the nine headings. No indication is given of any differential in weighting between any of these six headings. In these circumstances, and in view of the fact that the issue did not raise a high level of comment overall, it is recommended that the framework be utilised without weighting.

2.5 If the recommendations of this report are accepted, the final assessment framework will score all potential schemes against the following headings:

(i) Congestion

(ii) Accessibility

(iii) Safer Roads

(iv) Air Quality

(v) Economy

(vi) Environment and Quality of Life

(vii) Integration

(viii) Value for Money

(ix) Deliverability

2.6 Guidelines on the factors that should be taken into account in determining the score under each heading are as per the original report, updated to reflect consultation responses.

2.7 As highlighted in the original report, such an approach makes the assessment of schemes more transparent and less subjective. It should also be reiterated that the framework will provide a guide for the evaluation of schemes. The final decision on scheme selection will rest with the Executive Members for Environment taking into account the advice of the Panels.

Recommendations

That the Panel:

(i) Notes the comments received on consultation on the proposed scheme assessment framework, as set out in Appendix 1, and advises the Executive Members for Environment that it endorses the suggested responses; and

(ii) Advises the Executive Members for Environment that the assessment framework, as set out in Appendix 2 should be adopted for the prioritisation of schemes and utilised without weighting.

Section 100 D - Local Government Act 1972 - background papers
The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and has been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report.
NB the list excludes:
1.	Published works.
2.	Documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act.

TITLE	LOCATION
None.

Appendix 1

LTP Scheme Prioritisation Framework - Summary of Comments Received

Consultee	Comment	Suggested Response
Cllr M Biermann (Basingstoke and Deane BC)	Appendix - Additional ticks suggested as follows: · Panel Themes (Walking) - suggest additional ticks under `Safer Roads', `Economy' and `Value for Money/Added Value' · Panel Themes (Cycling) - suggest additional ticks under `Safer Roads', `Economy' and `Value for Money/Added Value' · Panel Themes (Safer Routes to School) - suggest additional (i.e. double) tick under `Safer Roads'.	Add additional ticks, as suggested.
Cllr Mrs P Dickens	Supports the proposed methodology	Noted, support welcome.
Hampshire Cycling	Appendix - Additional ticks suggested as follows: · Panel Themes (Cycling) - suggest additional ticks under `Congestion', `Safer Roads' and `Integration' Suggests no weighting at this stage, but leave open the option to revisit weighting if the results of assessment are clearly wrong. Considers that there is "a strong covert weighting, resulting from the definition of the headings". If overt weighting is to be applied, would like to see greater weighting attached to Environment/Quality of Life.	Add additional ticks, as suggested. Noted. Assessment framework will be kept under review and major discrepancies addressed. Noted, although the headings do relate to identified priorities. Noted.

Consultee	Comment	Suggested Response
New Forest District Council	Endorse all headings as appropriate and generally compatible with NFDC corporate priorities. Suggest additional weighting applied to the following headings, in line with identified NFDC transport priorities: · Congestion · Accessibility · Safer Roads · Air Quality · Environment/Quality of Life · Value for Money/Added Value Para 4.2 (i), should also include opportunity to address congestion on other routes severely affected, e.g A326, A337, A338 and A35.	Noted. Noted. Proposals regarding weighting set out in accompanying report. Reflect in amended text.
North Hampshire Transport Strategy Panel/Central Hampshire Transport Strategy Panel	Para 4.2 (i), should also include reference to " routes experiencing high growth"	Add to text.
	Para 4.3 (ii), "Health" should make specific reference to hospitals as a key destination.	Add to text.
	Para 4.7 (vi), add "fear of crime"	Add to text.

Appendix 2

Final Proposed Assessment Framework

1. Summary

1.1 This report sets out a proposed methodology for the assessment and prioritisation of schemes within the next Local Transport Plan 2006-2011 (LTP2). The suggested approach bases the ranking of schemes on delivery of LTP objectives and against Government and local targets. Infrastructure improvements arising from emerging regional policies, including the South East Plan, will also need to be taken into account.

2. Introduction

2.1 In the light of the recently released Government guidance on LTPs and the publication of indicative settlements for the LTP2 period (both as reported elsewhere on the agenda), it is clear that the level of available funding during the life of the LTP will be significantly short of the cost of delivering the full list of scheme aspirations. There will, therefore, need to be some methodology for the assessment and prioritisation of schemes.

2.2 The Government's LTP guidance indicates that "the process of making allocations [...should be] robust, systematic and equitable", which is in line with best practice. This report sets out the basis for a scheme assessment process that meets these criteria.

2.3 The proposed methodology has been reported to the Panels for general endorsement of the principles, prior to working it up in greater detail for the final assessment of schemes. The views of each of the strategy area Panels have been taken into account in working up the final approach.

3. Future Utilisation of the Assessment System

3.1 The assessment system will be used to score each individual scheme being considered for inclusion in LTP2. This will include proposals previously included in the `preparation pool' of residual schemes (from the 2001-2006 LTP programme).

3.2 In providing a total score for each scheme, this will deliver a ranking of all schemes. This will be an important factor in assessing schemes for inclusion in the LTP programme. However, it will not be the sole determining factor as there are other unquantifiable factors that cannot be taken into account, such as the need to maintain some balance in investment across the County as a whole and between policy objectives and the added value that certain schemes bring in combination with others, as opposed to when being considered in isolation.

3.3 The scoring system will be used as a tool for assessing relative priority, rather than as a hard and fast methodology to be applied without flexibility.

4. Proposed Assessment Methodology

4.1 It is proposed that all schemes for consideration in LTP2 will be assessed against the following headings. The roman numerals under each heading give an indication of the main factors that would be taken into account in making the assessment.

4.2 Congestion

(i) Congestion relief, particularly on indexed routes, in target areas, on other routes severely affected by congestion or on routes experiencing high growth during the LTP period

(ii) Congestion saving, through provision/enhancement/ retention of attractive alternative

(iii) Contribution to demand management

4.3 Accessibility

(i) Tackling identified accessibility problems - model outputs/target areas

(ii) Access to work, learning, health (particularly hospitals), shopping, leisure, `other'

(iii) Improving access to punctual and reliable public transport

(iv) Reducing social exclusion and promoting equality

(v) Introducing infrastructure/schemes to assist disabled people including those with visual impairments

(vi) Town centre access

(vii) Access to the countryside

4.4 Safer Roads

(i) Contributing to achieving national and PSA targets

(ii) Tackling accident record site (KSI)

(iii) Safety improvements for children

(iv) Safety improvements for vulnerable road users

(v) Speed management

(vi) Accident savings - rate of return on investment

4.5 Air Quality

(i) Impact in AQMAs (Air Quality Management Areas)

(ii) Encouraging low/zero emissions

(iii) Reducing output of specific air pollutants, including particulates

4.6 Economy

(i) Enabling inward investment and retention of existing firms

(ii) Opening up access to new development opportunities

(iii) Balancing investment with external funding opportunities (pump priming, balance between the two)

4.7 Environment/Quality of Life

(i) Contribution to SEA objectives

(ii) Encouraging low environmental impact alternatives to the car

(iii) Environmental/community impact - visual, severance, etc

(iv) Landscape impact

(v) Neighbourhood renewal

(vi) Community safety, personal safety and tackling fear of crime

(vii) Health improvement

(viii) Noise reduction

(ix) Climate change

(x) Improving public spaces

4.8 Integration

(i) Contribution to wider network (same and/or other modes)

(ii) Delivering against passenger transport targets

(iii) Delivering against walking/cycling targets

4.9 Value for Money/Added Value

(i) Best option available, reflecting scheme cost and cost of alternatives

(ii) Building on/consolidating past investment

(iii) Ongoing cost implications - revenue costs, maintenance, lifecycle/replacement

(iv) Extending asset life/effective asset management

(v) Financial implications of not implementing scheme

(vi) Availability of external funding

(vii) Number of people likely to benefit from the scheme

4.10 Deliverability

(i) Realistic assessment of likelihood of being able to deliver scheme within LTP period (by 2011), taking account of scheme development, consultation, legislative, public inquiry, etc requirements

(ii) General level of local support for scheme - District Council/Local Strategic Partnerships/Community/local Member

4.11 The annex to this report sets out a matrix demonstrating how each of the above headings relate to the various priorities impacting on LTP2. The priorities include those set out in Government guidance, those indicated through the `themes' discussions at the last round of Panel meetings and those arising from the County Council's corporate strategy and priorities.

5. Proposed Methodology

5.1 It is envisaged that the final assessment process will score each scheme against all of the above headings, giving an individual mark under each and a cumulative score for every scheme. Initial thoughts are that the scoring system should be simple to apply, perhaps straightforwardly ranging between 0 and +3 (and with a -1 to -3 score for negative impacts). A simple scoring system will aid the transparency of the process.

5.2 The case for `weighting' scores under particular headings, incorporating a `multiplier' to certain headings to give higher priority to those which are considered more important, has been considered. Such an approach potentially had the advantage of reflecting respective priorities, but on the other hand could make the process more subjective. Views were sought on the desirability of possible weightings and which of the categories should receive higher weighting.

5.3 This methodology provides a guide for the evaluation of schemes. The final decision on scheme selection will rest with the Executive Member for Environment taking into account the advice of the Panels.

Annex 1 to Appendix 2

Revised Checklist - Relationship Between Assessment Headings and Priorities

	Suggested Assessment Headings
	Congestion	Accessibility	Safer Roads	Air Quality	Economy	Environment/ Quality of Life	Integration	Value for Money/ Added Value	Deliverability
Shared Priorities
- Congestion	_			_	_			_
- Accessibility		_			_	_	_
- Safety			_			_
- Air Quality				_		_
Suggested LTP Objectives
- Promoting Safety			_			_
- Improve Public Transport		_			_	_	_
- Accessibility of Services		_			_	_	_
- Air Quality				_		_
- Wider Quality of Life					_	_
- Reduce Congestion	_			_	_			_
- Value for Money & Asset Management					_			_
Panel Themes
- Walking		_	_	_	_	_		_
- Cycling	_	_	_	_	_	_		_
- Public Transport		_			_	_	_
- Travel Behaviour							_	_
- Road Network	_
- Water Transport	_	_	_		_		_
- Integration		_			_		_
- Road Safety			_			_
- Safer Routes to School	_	_	_			_
- Maintenance								_
- Town Centre Access	_	_			_
- PT Interchange		_					_
- Developer - led jnct improvements	_		_		_			_
HCC Corporate Priorities
- Maximising Life Opportunities		_			_	_	_
- Stewardship of the Environment				_		_
- Economic Prosperity	_				_			_
- Strong and Safe Communities			_			_	_
- Improving Services		_						_	_
Not applicable - Developing Councillors and Staff

366/DM