Archived decisions

Contact: Dominic McGrath, ext 6054 e-mail: [email protected]

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 is being reported to the Panels at this stage 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 will be taken into account in working up the final approach.

3. Future Utilisation of the Assessment System

3.1 Assuming the general approach set out below is endorsed, 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

(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, 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

(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 appendix 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, will need to be considered. Such an approach has the advantage of reflecting respective priorities, but on the other hand can make the process more subjective. The Panel's views are sought on the desirability of possible weightings, and if supported, which of the categories it considers 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.

Recommendation

That the Panel:

(i) is invited to consider whether the headings cover all objectives that should be incorporated in the final assessment scheme and whether the Panel has any views on the issue of `weighting'.

(ii) advises, subject to its views on (i) above, the Executive Member for Environment that it endorses the headings indicated in the report (in Section 4) as the basis for future assessment and ranking of schemes within the Local Transport Plan 2006-2011.

PANEL

9143/DM

Relationship Between Assessment Headings and Priorities