scottish transport appraisal guidance · overwhelming majority of potential impacts of a transport...

Summary

The process of appraisal is designed to enable the planner to establish the merits of a proposal - which includes projects, programmes or a strategy - using a consistent and comprehensive framework. The appraisal utilises a two-part appraisal process, and the results of the appraisal are to be summarised using two Appraisal Summary Tables or ASTs.

In Part 1 of the appraisal the following will be provided in the form of written statements:

• the geographic, social and economic context for the study;

• planning objectives and the proposal's performance against them;

• the rationale for the selection or rejection of the proposal being appraised;

• the proposal's fit with relevant land-use and other policies;

• a broad assessment of the scope and scale of costs, benefits and other impacts associated with the proposal;

• issues affecting the proposal's "implementability".

In Part 2, the proposal is appraised in detail against the Government's five objectives set out in Travel Choices for Scotland. However, it should be noted that there are a number of developments, of which the following are the most significant:

• the economy objective is itself divided into two parts, the first a conventional transport cost benefit analysis and a second which enables impacts such as those on GDP, employment and the location of economic activity to be stated explicitly and linked to the transport impacts of the proposal;

• the accessibility objective is designed to pick up on relative ease of movement across areas;

• for each objective, there is a need to identify where there may be impacts on particular social, economic or spatial groups.

The AST is to be used for both large and small proposals; however, it will often be inappropriate to complete all of the AST in detail for small proposals. This is why in Part 1 promoters should assess the scale and scope of a proposal's impacts. Guidance is provided on using the ASTs with small and intermediate projects in the following seven chapters and in Appendix D, Specific Applications of STAG.

While there are areas within the overall appraisal where a flexible and proposal-specific approach is acceptable, any formal appraisal summary submitted to the Scottish Executive will require to be completed following the guidance set out in this and the following ten chapters.

Chapter 5: The Appraisal Process

v1.0 September 2003 STAG 5-1

5. THE APPRAISAL PROCESS

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 A STAG appraisal will have two parts:

• Part 1: this is an initial appraisal and broad assessment of impacts designed to decide whether a proposal meets the planning objectives, fits with relevant transport, land use and other polices and hence should proceed to -

• Part 2: the detailed appraisal against the Government's objectives.

5.1.2 The results of the appraisal process will be summarised in a written report with the appraisal of each proposal presented in a self-contained Appraisal Summary Table or AST. Part 1 is intended to be completed by planners at an early stage in the development of a proposal as a check on the suitability of the proposal and the likelihood of its proceeding to the detailed Part 2 appraisal. In this respect, Part 1 is intended to act as part of a prior/initial appraisal.

5.1.3 As the Scottish Executive wishes to encourage planners to undertake early appraisal prior to committing significant resources to the development of proposals, planners should undertake the Part 1 appraisal as soon as practicable. This is preferable to a situation in which the Scottish Executive receives a final submission for a proposal which has defects, and where an early input from the Scottish Executive would have ensured a better use of time and resources in developing the proposal.

5.1.4 Where a preferred proposal has been identified at the option generation stage, the Part 1 appraisal should be used to scope and test that preferred option. Where a number of alternative proposals have been generated, the Part 1 appraisal should similarly be used to scope and test alternatives. It is feasible that no clear preferred proposal is evident following Part 1, in which case a full Part 2 appraisal should be used to test the alternative proposals.

5.1.5 The Part 1 appraisal is an integral element in the overall appraisal, and where planners decide to develop the proposal beyond the initial stages, they will be expected to ensure that any additional or more up-to-date information relevant to the Part 1 appraisal is included in the submission. Updated Part 1 information will therefore be carried forward and updated as part of completing the full Part 2 appraisal.

5.1.6 To assist the concise yet comprehensive presentation of the more detailed Part 2 appraisal the summary tables contained within this guidance should be submitted. It is important to stress that the tables are a summary of the appraisal, they are not the appraisal per se. Planners must be in a position to demonstrate that supporting analysis has been undertaken to support the appraisal. A summary of the methods adopted and the results derived from the methodology should accompany the completed ASTs. Further details on reporting are contained in Chapter 14.

Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance

5-2 STAG v1.0 September 2003

5.1.7 Although not compulsory, it will frequently be appropriate to carry out the Part 2 appraisal by making use of worksheets. Some examples of suitable worksheets are provided in later Chapters. The scope and complexity of all worksheets should be adapted to the nature of the proposal being appraised and planners should use their professional judgement to determine the most appropriate methodology in a particular case.

5.1.8 The ASTs are to be used for both large and small proposals; however, it will often be inappropriate to complete all of the AST in detail for small proposals. This is why, in Part 1, planners should assess the scale and scope of a proposal’s impacts. Guidance is provided on using the ASTs with small and intermediate proposals in the following seven chapters and in Appendix D, Specific Applications of STAG.

5.1.9 When the AST is being used for the successive sifting and development of alternatives, it may not be necessary to complete all parts of the AST for every alternative. Once sufficient information has been produced to support the elimination of an alternative, and as long as all relevant factors have been taken into account, then the appraisal and the corresponding AST does not necessarily need to be completed in full. The incomplete AST will however form part of the documentation to demonstrate why this alternative was removed from further consideration.

5.1.10 As already noted the AST presents only a summary of the most important aspects of the appraisal of a strategy, plan, programme or project to inform the decision maker of the key findings. The AST therefore forms just one component of the appraisal of a preferred proposal or proposals. When completing the AST planners should strive to ensure the Part 1 AST does not extend to more than four A4 pages and the Part 2 AST to no more than ten A4 pages (as shown in Tables 5.1 and 5.2 later in this chapter). For presentational reasons planners should use a font size no smaller than 10 point when completing the AST. It may be convenient if the AST can also act as an index to the more detailed discussion in the STAG Report (ref. Chapter 14) or technical analyses that are available. In this case the use of, for example, footnotes or references, would be appropriate.

5.2 Performance Against the Various Sets of Objectives

5.2.1 The appraisal process requires that proposals be tested against three sets of objectives:

• The planning objectives established by the planner;

• The Government’s five objectives (environment, safety, economy, integration and accessibility); and

• Any other relevant external objectives relating to transport, land-use or wider policies, identified either in the objective formulation process (Chapter 2) or initial scoping of the integration aspects (see Chapter 9).

5.2.2 Performance against the first of these sets of objectives is crucial from the planner’s perspective since it is in their interest to seek the most effective and efficient way of meeting planning objectives. The choice of the preferred proposal(s) and the



rationale for that choice (as required in the Part 1 appraisal) should therefore be founded upon the planning objectives. As an aid to assessing performance against planning objectives, planners are expected to develop their own version of the ASTs defined in this chapter. Such ASTs can be used to:

• Determine the preferred options to be taken forward;

• Demonstrate the fit of the preferred options against the planning objectives.

5.2.3 Planners should also be aware that when they are seeking funding from the Scottish Executive, the Government’s five objectives are central to the appraisal. The Scottish Executive has a national role and must balance the competing needs of different areas and communities and assess the extent to which transport proposals represent value for money in allocating available funds. This therefore is the principal reason for carrying out appraisal against the Government’s five objectives. These objectives play another important role by capturing the overwhelming majority of potential impacts of a transport proposal: a thorough appraisal will alert the planner to any unexpected or undesired impacts additional to those which the planning objectives were designed to encompass.

5.2.4 The third set of objectives can quite reasonably be seen as constraints upon the proposal being put forward. A clear conflict between a proposal and, for example, established land-use planning policy or transport targets in the area is likely to jeopardise its potential for both funding and implementation. A positive contribution towards the achievement of other relevant objectives will be to the proposal’s credit.

5.3 Overview of Part 1

5.3.1 The Part 1 appraisal should provide basic information on the proposal and consider its impacts as a check on the suitability of the proposal and the likelihood of its proceeding to the detailed Part 2 appraisal. The Part 1 appraisal requires a scoping appraisal of the impacts of the proposal against both the planning objectives and the Government’s five objectives. At this stage the planner should produce an indicative assessment of the scope and scale of the benefits and impacts associated with a proposal.

5.3.2 The Part 1 appraisal should be summarised using Table 5.1, further guidance on reporting is contained at Chapter 14.

Part 1 Appraisal Summary

5.3.3 The Part 1 appraisal summary table sets out in one place:

• a brief description of the proposal;

• summary background information on the geographic, social and economic context of the study area likely to be affected by the proposal;

• the planning objectives set by the planner, as defined in Chapter 2 together with any relevant additional external objectives and a summary of the performance of the proposal against these objectives;



• a brief summary of the rationale for taking the proposal forward to a Part 2 assessment or a summary explanation of why the proposal is being rejected;

• a statement of the scope for implementation;

• a summary of the scoping appraisal of the impacts of the proposal against the Government’s five objectives.

5.3.4 The Part 1 AST is divided into five sections:

• the proposal’s details;

• background information;

• Scoping appraisal of the impacts against planning objectives;

• Implementability Appraisal; and

• A scoping appraisal of the impacts against the Government's five objectives.

5.3.5 The first section of the Part 1 AST Proposal Details is largely self explanatory. Planners may submit supporting information relating to the proposal’s cost estimates and, in any event, must be in a position to justify those estimates. The proposal description should be kept brief and should highlight the key components. Where appropriate, a fuller description of the proposal, possibly including maps or diagrams, could be provided in the accompanying submission.

5.3.6 In the second section of the Part 1 AST Background Information planners should present a summary of:

• the Geographical Context. A general statement describing the geographic area likely to be affected by the proposal. This should include a description of the built and natural environment (baseline information) as well as a description of the existing transport infrastructure. Relevant journey to work areas should also be described.

• the Social Context. A summary of the social makeup of the area likely to be affected by the proposal. Areas of deprivation and social exclusion should be identified as well as noting any relevant policy designations, such as whether the area is within a European Structural Fund area, a Priority Partnership or a Social Inclusion Partnership area.

• the Economic Context. A description of the principle sectors and industries within the study areas as well as a summary of the factors affecting performance.

5.3.7 The third section of the Part 1 AST, Planning Objectives is a tabular listing of the planning objectives established and a summary assessment of the performance of the proposal against each objective. When a decision has been taken to either take a proposal forward to a Part 2 appraisal or reject it the rationale of the key reasons for this decision should be set out in this section.

5.3.8 The rationale for rejection or retention should always be explained although, as noted in §5.1.9, it is possible that a proposal may be rejected without fully completing all elements of the appraisal, for instance where a proposal performs particularly badly against a Government objective to make it highly unfeasible.



5.3.9 The fourth section of the Part 1 AST is an Implementability Appraisal. Here the planner should summarise the proposal’s impact on:

• Technical Issues - a preliminary assessment of the feasibility of construction or implementation (if relevant) of a proposal and the status of its technology (e.g. proven, prototype, in development etc.) as well as any cost, timescale or deliverability risks associated with the construction of a proposal, including consideration of the need for any departure from design standards that may be required;

• Operational Issues - who would operate the proposal, including, if relevant, their statutory powers to operate a proposal and any other issues (e.g. cost) which may impact on its operation;

• Financial Issues - what is the scale of the financing burden on the promoting authority and other possible funding organisations and what are the risks associated with these. What is the level of risk associated with a proposal’s on-going operating or maintenance costs and its likely operating revenues (if applicable);

• Public Issues - the likely public response to a proposal. Reference to supporting evidence, for example results from a consultation exercise, should be provided where appropriate.

5.3.10 The final section of the Part 1 AST summarises the scoping appraisal of the impacts of the proposal against the Government’s five objectives. For each of the categories in this section of the Part 1 AST, the planner should consider the relative size or scale of its impacts, and should note whether the proposal would bring:

• major benefit – these are benefits or positive impacts which, depending on the scale of benefit or severity of impact, the planner feels should be a principal consideration when assessing a proposal’s eligibility for funding;

• moderate benefit – the proposal is anticipated to have only a moderate benefit or positive impact. Moderate benefits and impacts are those which taken in isolation may not determine a proposal’s eligibility for funding, but taken together could do so;

• minor benefit – the proposal is anticipated to have only a small benefit or positive impact. Small benefits or impacts are those which are worth noting, but the planner believes are not likely to contribute materially to determining whether a proposal is funded or otherwise;

• no benefit or impact – the proposal is anticipated to have no or negligible benefit or negative impact;

• small minor cost or negative impact – the proposal is anticipated to have only a small cost or negative impact. Small costs or impacts are those which are worth noting, but the planner believes are not likely to contribute materially to determining whether a proposal is funded or otherwise;

• moderate cost or negative impact – the proposal is anticipated to have only a moderate cost or negative impact. Moderate costs /negative impacts are those which taken in isolation may not determine a proposal’s eligibility for funding, but taken together could do so;



• major cost or negative impacts – these are costs or negative impacts which, depending on the scale of cost or severity of impact, the planner should take into consideration when assessing a proposal’s eligibility for funding.

5.3.11 Qualitative information on impacts is all that is required at this stage, but where available quantitative information should also be provided. Supporting qualitative, and where possible quantitative, information should be presented in the Supporting Information column and where necessary either referenced to further information contained in the main body of the submission or in associated technical reports.



Table 5.1: Part 1 Appraisal Summary Table

Nam

e of

prin

cipl

e co

ntac

t with

in

the

auth

ority

or o

rgan

isat

ion

prom

otin

g th

e pr

opos

al.

Cap

ital c

osts

/gra

nt

Ann

ual r

even

ue s

uppo

rt

Pre

sent

Val

ue o

f Cos

t to

Gov

t.

Sum

Nam

e of

Pla

nner

:

Est

imat

ed T

otal

Pub

lic S

ecto

r Fu

ndin

g R

equi

rem

ent:

Am

ount

of A

pplic

atio

n:

Des

crib

e th

e lo

catio

n of

the

prop

osal

and

the

area

s lik

ely

to b

e af

fect

ed.

Des

crib

e th

e bu

ilt a

nd n

atur

al e

nviro

nmen

t of t

he a

reas

like

ly to

be

affe

cted

.

Des

crib

e th

e so

cial

mak

e up

of t

he a

reas

like

ly to

be

affe

cted

. Id

entif

y ar

eas

whi

ch s

uffe

r fro

m p

robl

ems

of

depr

ivat

ion

and

soci

al e

xclu

sion

. Is

the

area

like

ly to

be

affe

cted

with

in a

Eur

opea

n S

truct

ural

Fun

d ar

ea, a

Prio

rity

Par

tner

ship

are

a or

a S

ocia

l Inc

lusi

on P

artn

ersh

ip a

rea?

Des

crib

e th

e ec

onom

ic c

onte

xt o

f the

are

a lik

ely

to b

e af

fect

ed.

Wha

t are

the

prin

cipl

e se

ctor

s / i

ndus

tries

and

w

hat a

re th

e fa

ctor

s af

fect

ing

perfo

rman

ce?

Prop

osal

Det

ails

Nam

e an

d ad

dres

s of

aut

horit

y or

org

anis

atio

n pr

omot

ing

the

prop

osal

: (A

lso

prov

ide

nam

e of

any

sub

sidi

ary

orga

nisa

tions

als

o in

volv

ed in

pr

omot

ing

the

prop

osal

)

Pro

posa

l Nam

e:

Pro

posa

l Des

crip

tion:

Fund

ing

Sou

ght F

rom

: (if

app

licab

le)

Bac

kgro

und

Info

rmat

ion

Geo

grap

hic

Con

text

:

Soc

ial C

onte

xt:

Eco

nom

ic C

onte

xt:



Table 5.1: Part 1 Appraisal Summary Table – continued

Per

form

ance

aga

inst

pla

nnin

g ob

ject

ive:

For e

ach

plan

ning

obj

ectiv

e de

scrib

e to

wha

t ext

ent t

he p

ropo

sal i

s ex

pect

ed to

mee

t the

obj

ectiv

e.

Sta

te w

heth

er th

e pr

opos

al is

bei

ng s

elec

ted

for c

onsi

dera

tion

at P

art 2

or b

eing

reje

cted

. D

escr

ibe

why

the

prop

osal

is fa

vour

ed o

ver t

he o

ther

alte

rnat

ives

or w

hy th

e pr

opos

al is

bei

ng re

ject

ed fr

om fu

rther

co

nsid

erat

ion.

Plan

ning

Obj

ectiv

es

Obj

ectiv

e:

List

eac

h of

the

pla

nnin

g ob

ject

ives

in s

umm

ary

(Thi

s sh

ould

be

supp

orte

d in

the

acco

mpa

nyin

g re

port

by a

mor

e de

taile

d de

scrip

tion

on o

bjec

tives

and

how

they

wer

e de

rived

)

Rat

iona

le fo

r Sel

ectio

n or

R

ejec

tion

of P

ropo

sal:




From

a te

chni

cal s

tand

poin

t, ho

w s

traig

htfo

rwar

d w

ill it

be

to im

plem

ent t

he p

ropo

sal?

Are

any

nov

el /

untri

ed /

lead

ing

edge

tech

nolo

gies

invo

lved

? A

re th

ere

any

risks

invo

lved

in d

evel

opin

g or

impl

emen

ting

the

prop

osal

?

Are

ther

e an

y fa

ctor

s w

hich

mig

ht a

dver

sely

affe

ct th

e ab

ility

to o

pera

te th

e pr

opos

al o

ver i

ts p

roje

cted

life

with

out

maj

or a

dditi

onal

cos

ts?

Can

the

capi

tal c

osts

of t

he p

ropo

sal b

e fu

nded

and

und

er w

hat m

etho

ds o

f fun

ding

? C

an th

e pr

opos

al m

eet i

ts o

n-go

ing

oper

atin

g co

sts?

If o

pera

ting

subs

idie

s ar

e re

quire

d, h

ow w

ill th

ese

be fu

nded

?

Has

the

prop

osal

bee

n m

ade

publ

ic?

If s

o, h

ow a

ccep

tabl

e is

the

prop

osal

? A

re th

ere

obje

ctio

ns fr

om p

artic

ular

se

ctio

ns o

f the

com

mun

ity o

r fro

m p

artic

ular

are

as?

Impl

emen

tabi

lity

App

rais

al

Tech

nica

l:

Ope

ratio

nal:

Fina

ncia

l:

Pub

lic:




Sup

porti

ng In

form

atio

n

How

the

prop

osal

will

con

tribu

te to

war

ds re

duci

ng e

mis

sion

s of

CO

2 and

oth

er p

ollu

tant

s, a

nd p

rom

ote

bette

r air

and

wat

er

qual

ity.

Are

ther

e ad

vers

e im

pact

s on

the

envi

ronm

ent?

W

hat a

re th

e di

strib

utio

nal i

mpa

cts,

who

will

be

the

gain

ers

and

lose

rs?

How

will

the

prop

osal

enh

ance

saf

ety

for d

iffer

ent t

ypes

of

trans

port

user

s? W

ill it

invo

lve

gain

ers

and

lose

rs in

term

s of

sa

fety

? A

re th

ere

impa

cts

on p

erso

nal s

afet

y / s

ecur

ity?

How

will

the

prop

osal

affe

ct tr

affic

vol

umes

, jou

rney

tim

es, o

r th

e re

liabi

lity

of tr

avel

tim

es?

Will

ther

e be

gai

ner a

nd lo

sers

, an

d if

so w

hat a

re th

e im

pact

s on

use

rs a

nd o

pera

tors

of

diffe

rent

tran

spor

t mod

es a

nd in

diff

eren

t are

as?

How

mig

ht

the

prop

osal

hel

p at

tract

new

jobs

, hel

p ex

istin

g bu

sine

sses

, op

en u

p ap

prop

riate

land

for d

evel

opm

ent?

How

will

the

prop

osal

pro

mot

e or

enh

ance

tran

spor

t in

tegr

atio

n? W

ill s

ervi

ces

be a

ble

to fu

nctio

n in

a m

ore

com

plem

enta

ry m

anne

r?

How

doe

s th

e pr

opos

al fi

t with

wid

er g

over

nmen

t pol

icy

incl

udin

g na

tiona

l tra

nspo

rt ta

rget

s?

How

doe

s th

e pr

opos

al a

ffect

acc

essi

bilit

y fo

r tra

nspo

rt us

ers

and

for o

ther

s, in

clud

ing

acce

ss to

jobs

, com

mun

ities

, sho

ps,

serv

ices

and

oth

er fa

cilit

ies?

How

doe

s it

impa

ct in

term

s of

ta

cklin

g so

cial

exc

lusi

on?

Ass

essm

ent S

umm

ary

Des

crip

tion

of Im

pact

s A

sses

smen

t usi

ng 7

leve

ls o

f im

pact

Des

crip

tion

of Im

pact

s A

sses

smen

t usi

ng 7

leve

ls o

f im

pact

Des

crip

tion

of Im

pact

s A

sses

smen

t usi

ng 7

leve

ls o

f im

pact

Des

crip

tion

of Im

pact

s A

sses

smen

t usi

ng 7

leve

ls o

f im

pact

Des

crip

tion

of Im

pact

s A

sses

smen

t usi

ng 7

leve

ls o

f im

pact

Gov

ernm

ent's

Obj

ectiv

es fo

r Tra

nspo

rt

Obj

ectiv

e

Env

ironm

ent:

Safe

ty:

Eco

nom

y:

Inte

grat

ion:

Acc

essi

bilit

y &

Soc

ial I

nclu

sion

:



5.4 Part 2 AST

5.4.1 The Part 2 appraisal is the main appraisal within STAG and should be completed following development of the proposal(s) and more detailed investigation of its potential positive and negative impacts, including its capital and operating costs, and the risks involved in implementation and operation. A completed Part 2 appraisal is required when final approval or funding is sought from the Scottish Executive. As will be seen from the AST, elements of the Part 1 appraisal must be carried forward and developed to Part 2. The remainder of Part 2 is essentially a much more detailed exploration and appraisal against the objectives which formed the Part 1 appraisal. Obviously, a positive result from the Part 1 appraisal is a prerequisite for moving on to Part 2.

5.4.2 The Part 2 appraisal should include the following elements carried forward from the Part 1 appraisal:

• The proposal details and background information, which will largely replicate and update the information provided in Part 1;

• An updated assessment of the proposals performance against the established planning objectives, which at this stage should include quantified information against each planning objective; and

• An updated and more detailed implementability assessment, reflecting any work done to test feasibility, seek the views of the public or the publication of new policy documents relevant to the proposal.

5.4.3 The Part 2 appraisal goes on to deal with the Government’s five objectives in detail:

• Environment, where all environmental impacts are considered;

• Safety – these are accident and security benefits, which are assessed in terms of accident savings and qualitative changes respectively;

• The impact on the Economy, itself broken down into two parts:

• Transport economic efficiency (TEE): this addresses the economic welfare impacts of the proposal, which are assessed in terms of what users are willing to pay in order to use it and the financial impact on private sector transport providers; the TEE assessment should also include any demand side impacts arising from land use or other impacts of the proposal;

• Economic activity and location impacts (EALIs): this addresses the need to include an assessment of any national, and where appropriate regional, sub-regional or local, employment/GDP impacts which may accompany improvements in TEE, together with any impacts associated with land use changes attributable to the proposal.

• Integration, which addresses the impact of the proposal against a three-fold definition of the objective;

• Accessibility and Social Inclusion, which addresses community and comparative accessibility, which are broken down into public transport network coverage, local accessibility, and the distribution of impacts by people group and location.



5.4.4 The AST table allows space to include a summary of SEA outcome, for those cases where SEA has been undertaken on the proposal.

5.4.5 Following the assessment of benefits against each of the Government’s five objectives, the cost to Government of the proposal should be assessed. This includes public sector investment costs, operating and maintenance costs, grant and subsidy payments, and taxation impacts. Overall value for money can then be judged by comparing all of the benefits (whether monetised or not) with the cost to Government.

5.4.6 Detailed guidance on the methods that should be adopted to complete the Part 2 AST is given in the next seven chapters. As for the Part 1 AST, references to supporting text in the STAG Report (Ref. Chapter 14) or technical documentation could usefully be included within the AST, however it should be made clear that the AST is intended to be self-contained and sufficient for the decision-maker. References should only be provided to assist in finding supporting information, not to avoid the need for the planner to provide an adequate summary.

5.4.7 The final section of the Part 2 AST is a summary of the monetised information contained in the AST. Two monetised value for money indicators should be calculated – the Net Present Value of the project and the Benefit/Cost to Government Ratio. References (PV1, PV2 etc) are provided in the AST for ease of calculation.

Net Present Value (NPV)

5.4.8 Net Present Value is regarded as the best measure of the absolute ranking of economic welfare, for comparable proposals. NPV is the sum of the present value of all costs and benefits of the proposal.

Benefit/Cost to Government Ratio

5.4.9 In order to measure best value for Government expenditure, it is helpful to compare total external benefits with the cost to Government. This is defined as:

Present Value of Benefits

Present Value of Cost to Government

where the denominator is defined as the present value of the sum of:

• the net impacts on public sector providers including investment and operating costs, but netting off revenues accruing to the public sector;

• taxation impacts; and

• total payments of grant and subsidy to the private sector.

Limitations of Monetised Value for Money Indicators

5.4.10 As these indicators only cover impacts which have been valued in monetary terms (namely safety benefits and transport economic efficiency benefits), they only offer



a partial analysis and must be seen within the context of the whole AST. They are of most value when seeking a ranking of proposals of similar scope, e.g. competing road proposals. Caution should be taken when comparing proposals which have a different emphasis of objectives and which are likely to differ significantly in terms of their wider impacts on the environment, social inclusion, etc. Undue weight should not be given to the monetised indicators in comparison with other parts of the overall appraisal.

5.4.11 A specific feature of the appraisal is the inclusion of both social and spatial distributional considerations. These are important as they enable decision makers to identify how changes in transport provision and in travel opportunities will impact upon groups in society which are the subject of other areas of policy. These include residents of particular areas, economic groups such as the unemployed and mobility groups.

5.4.12 When producing the full Part 2 appraisal, planners should note if their assessment of a proposal’s benefits or impacts departs from the scoping exercise that was undertaken to support the Part 1 appraisal. If so, they should explain in a supporting statement why their view changed.

5.4.13 The Part 2 Appraisal Summary Table is shown as Table 5.2.



Table 5.2: Part 2 Appraisal Summary Table

Nam

e of

prin

cipl

e co

ntac

t with

in th

e au

thor

ity o

r org

anis

atio

n pr

omot

ing

the

prop

osal

.

Cap

ital c

osts

/gra

nt (u

ndis

coun

ted)

Ann

ual r

even

ue s

uppo

rt

Pre

sent

Val

ue o

f Cos

t to

Gov

t.

Sum

Nam

e of

Pla

nner

:

Tota

l Pub

lic S

ecto

r Fun

ding

R

equi

rem

ent:

Am

ount

of A

pplic

atio

n:

Des

crib

e th

e lo

catio

n of

the

prop

osal

and

the

area

s lik

ely

to b

e af

fect

ed.

Des

crib

e th

e bu

ilt a

nd n

atur

al e

nviro

nmen

t of t

he a

reas

like

ly to

be

affe

cted

.

Des

crib

e th

e so

cial

mak

e up

of t

he a

reas

like

ly to

be

affe

cted

. Id

entif

y ar

eas

whi

ch s

uffe

r fro

m p

robl

ems

of

depr

ivat

ion

and

soci

al e

xclu

sion

. Is

the

area

like

ly to

be

affe

cted

with

in a

Eur

opea

n S

truct

ural

Fun

d ar

ea, a

Prio

rity

Par

tner

ship

are

a or

a S

ocia

l Inc

lusi

on P

artn

ersh

ip a

rea?

Des

crib

e th

e ec

onom

ic c

onte

xt o

f the

are

a lik

ely

to b

e af

fect

ed.

Wha

t are

the

prin

cipl

e se

ctor

s / i

ndus

tries

and

w

hat a

re th

e fa

ctor

s af

fect

ing

perfo

rman

ce?

Prop

osal

Det

ails

Nam

e an

d ad

dres

s of

aut

horit

y or

org

anis

atio

n pr

omot

ing

the

prop

osal

: (A

lso

prov

ide

nam

e of

any

sub

sidi

ary

orga

nisa

tions

als

o in

volv

ed in

pr

omot

ing

the

prop

osal

)

Pro

posa

l Nam

e:

Pro

posa

l Des

crip

tion:

Fund

ing

Sou

ght F

rom

: (if

app

licab

le)

Bac

kgro

und

Info

rmat

ion

Geo

grap

hic

Con

text

:

Soc

ial C

onte

xt:

Eco

nom

ic C

onte

xt:



Table 5.2: Part 2 Appraisal Summary Table - continued

Per

form

ance

aga

inst

pla

nnin

g ob

ject

ive:

For

each

obj

ectiv

e de

scrib

e to

wha

t ex

tent

the

pro

posa

l is

expe

cted

to

mee

t the

obj

ectiv

e. P

rovi

de q

uant

itativ

e in

form

atio

n w

here

ava

ilabl

e.

Sta

te w

heth

er t

he p

ropo

sal

is b

eing

sel

ecte

d fo

r co

nsid

erat

ion

at P

art

2 or

bei

ng r

ejec

ted.

D

escr

ibe

why

the

pr

opos

al is

favo

ured

ove

r the

oth

er a

ltern

ativ

es o

r why

the

prop

osal

is b

eing

reje

cted

from

furth

er c

onsi

dera

tion.

Plan

ning

Obj

ectiv

es

Obj

ectiv

e:

List

eac

h of

the

plan

ning

obj

ectiv

es in

sum

mar

y.

(Thi

s sh

ould

be

supp

orte

d in

the

acc

ompa

nyin

g re

port

by a

mor

e de

taile

d de

scrip

tion

on o

bjec

tives

and

how

they

wer

e de

rived

)

Rat

iona

le fo

r Sel

ectio

n or

R

ejec

tion

of P

ropo

sal:




From

a te

chni

cal s

tand

poin

t, ho

w s

traig

htfo

rwar

d w

ill it

be to

impl

emen

t the

pro

posa

l?

Are

any

nov

el /

untri

ed /

lead

ing

edge

tech

nolo

gies

invo

lved

? A

re th

ere

any

risks

invo

lved

in d

evel

opin

g or

impl

emen

ting

the

prop

osal

?

Are

ther

e an

y fa

ctor

s w

hich

mig

ht a

dver

sely

affe

ct th

e ab

ility

to o

pera

te th

e pr

opos

al o

ver i

ts p

roje

cted

life

with

out

maj

or a

dditi

onal

cos

ts?

Can

the

capi

tal c

osts

of t

he p

ropo

sal b

e fu

nded

, and

und

er w

hat m

etho

ds o

f fun

ding

? C

an t

he p

ropo

sal

mee

t its

on-

goin

g op

erat

ing

cost

s?

If op

erat

ing

subs

idie

s ar

e re

quire

d, h

ow w

ill t

hese

be

fund

ed?

Has

the

prop

osal

bee

n m

ade

publ

ic?

If s

o, h

ow a

ccep

tabl

e is

the

prop

osal

? A

re th

ere

obje

ctio

ns fr

om p

artic

ular

se

ctio

ns o

f the

com

mun

ity o

r fro

m p

artic

ular

are

as?

Impl

emen

tabi

lity

App

rais

al

Tech

nica

l:

Ope

ratio

nal:

Fina

ncia

l:

Pub

lic:




Sign

ifica

nce

of Im

pact

Qua

ntita

tive

Info

rmat

ion

Incr

ease

in p

eopl

e an

noye

d (p

opul

atio

n)

Dec

reas

e in

peo

ple

anno

yed

Net

cha

nge

in C

O2 e

mis

sion

s (to

nnes

)

No.

peo

ple/

prop

ertie

s w

ith in

crea

se in

PM

10

No.

peo

ple/

prop

ertie

s w

ith d

ecre

ase

in P

M10

No.

peo

ple/

prop

ertie

s w

ith in

crea

se in

NO

2

No.

peo

ple/

prop

ertie

s w

ith d

ecre

ase

in N

O2

Rec

ord

all a

ffect

ed w

ater

res

ourc

es a

nd th

eir

use

and

qual

ity

Rec

ord

num

bers

of

each

typ

e of

des

igna

ted

site

or

min

eral

rese

rve

affe

cted

Rec

ord

all

desi

gnat

ed

site

s af

fect

ed

and

thei

r de

sign

atio

ns.

List

all

prot

ecte

d sp

ecie

s af

fect

ed

Rec

ord

all r

ecep

tors

affe

cted

Ha.

Cla

ss 1

/2/3

land

affe

cted

Rec

ord

all

desi

gnat

ed

site

s af

fect

ed

and

thei

r de

sign

atio

ns

Rec

ord

all

desi

gnat

ed

site

s af

fect

ed

and

thei

r de

sign

atio

ns

Qua

litat

ive

Info

rmat

ion

Sen

sitiv

e re

cept

ors

with

in tr

ansp

ort c

orrid

or

Per

form

ance

re

lativ

e to

A

ir Q

ualit

y S

trate

gy

for

Eng

land

, Sco

tland

, Wal

es &

N. I

rela

nd

Des

crib

e ov

eral

l effe

cts,

incl

udin

g flo

od ri

sk

Des

crib

e ov

eral

l effe

cts

on th

e di

strib

utio

n of

impa

cts

Des

crib

e ov

eral

l des

igna

ted

site

s af

fect

ed

Des

crib

e al

l rec

epto

rs a

ffect

ed

Des

crib

e ov

eral

l effe

cts

Des

crib

e al

l des

igna

ted

site

s af

fect

ed

Des

crib

e ef

fect

on

land

scap

e ch

arac

ter

/ ch

arac

ter

area

s.

Envi

ronm

ent

Miti

gatio

n O

ptio

ns In

clud

ed:

(Cos

ts &

Ben

efits

)

Sub-

obje

ctiv

e

Noi

se a

nd V

ibra

tion

Air

Qua

lity

- Ove

rall

CO

2 - G

loba

l

PM10

- Lo

cal

NO

2 - L

ocal

Wat

er Q

ualit

y, D

rain

age

and

Floo

d D

efen

ce

Geo

logy

Biod

iver

sity

Vis

ual A

men

ity

Agr

icul

ture

and

Soi

ls

Cul

tura

l Her

itage

Land

scap

e




Qua

ntita

tive

Info

rmat

ion

Cha

nge

in a

nnua

l per

sona

l inj

ury

acci

dent

s.

Cha

nge

in a

ccid

ents

by

seve

rity

clas

sific

atio

n.

PV

1

Sco

re, q

uant

itativ

e in

form

atio

n if

appr

opria

te.

Qua

litat

ive

Info

rmat

ion

Com

men

t on

deriv

atio

n. N

ote

any

sign

ifica

nt

dist

ribut

iona

l im

pact

s (b

y ar

ea o

r soc

ial

grou

p).

Com

men

t on

deriv

atio

n.

Com

men

t on

deriv

atio

n.

Item

Cha

nge

in A

nnua

l Per

sona

l In

jury

Acc

iden

ts

Cha

nge

in B

alan

ce o

f S

ever

ity

Tota

l Dis

coun

ted

Sav

ings

Safe

ty

Sub-

obje

ctiv

e

Acci

dent

s

Sec

urity




Qua

ntita

tive

Info

rmat

ion

PV

2

PV

3

PV

4

PV

5

PV

6

PV

7

PV

8

Qua

litat

ive

Info

rmat

ion

Illus

trate

with

exa

mpl

es (

e.g.

par

ticul

ar jo

urne

y tim

e sa

ving

s) to

de

mon

stra

te th

e so

urce

/ sc

ale

of b

enef

its.

Dis

tingu

ish

fare

s, p

arki

ng c

harg

es, t

olls

or o

ther

cha

rges

and

ill

ustra

te w

ith e

xam

ples

.

Sum

mar

ise

the

appr

oach

ado

pted

, e.g

. ana

lysi

s of

vo

lum

e:ca

paci

ty ra

tios

for r

oad

prop

osal

s.

Dis

tingu

ish

the

cost

by

mod

e. D

o no

t inc

lude

cos

ts in

curre

d by

pu

blic

sec

tor p

rovi

ders

.

Dis

tingu

ish

the

cost

by

mod

e. D

o no

t inc

lude

cos

ts in

curr

ed b

y pu

blic

sec

tor p

rovi

ders

.

Dis

tingu

ish

betw

een

fare

s an

d ot

her r

elev

ant r

even

ue s

tream

s.

Diff

eren

tiate

fina

ncia

l im

pact

s on

diff

eren

t mod

es.

Dis

tingu

ish

betw

een

gran

t and

ong

oing

reve

nue

supp

ort.

Ide

ntify

po

tent

ial d

evel

oper

con

tribu

tions

.

Item

Trav

el T

ime

Use

r Cha

rges

Veh

icle

Ope

ratin

g C

osts

Qua

lity

/ Rel

iabi

lity

Ben

efits

Inve

stm

ent C

osts

Ope

ratin

g &

Mai

nten

ance

C

osts

Rev

enue

s

Gra

nt/S

ubsi

dy p

aym

ents

Econ

omy

(Tra

nspo

rt E

cono

mic

Effi

cien

cy)

Sub-

obje

ctiv

e

Use

r Ben

efits

Priv

ate

Sec

tor O

pera

tor

Impa

cts




Qua

ntita

tive

Info

rmat

ion

Net

cha

nges

in e

mpl

oym

ent/G

DP

at t

he lo

cal (

TTW

A)

leve

l.

Not

e ye

ar to

whi

ch im

pact

refe

rs.

Net

cha

nges

in e

mpl

oym

ent/G

DP

at t

he S

cotti

sh

leve

l.

Not

e ye

ar to

whi

ch im

pact

refe

rs.

Rel

evan

t dis

aggr

egat

ed in

form

atio

n, e

.g. c

hang

e in

un

empl

oym

ent i

n lo

cal a

rea.

Qua

litat

ive

Info

rmat

ion

Whi

ch lo

cal s

ecto

rs a

re li

kely

to g

ain/

lose

eco

nom

ic

activ

ity a

s a

resu

lt of

the

proj

ect?

Whi

ch lo

cal

geog

raph

ic a

reas

are

like

ly to

gai

n/lo

se?

Whi

ch s

ecto

rs a

re li

kely

to g

ain/

lose

eco

nom

ic a

ctiv

ity

as a

resu

lt of

the

proj

ect?

Whi

ch g

eogr

aphi

c ar

eas

are

likel

y to

gai

n/lo

se?

(NB

net

impa

cts

at th

e na

tiona

l lev

el a

re u

nlik

ely

to b

e si

gnifi

cant

due

to d

ispl

acem

ent a

nd c

row

ding

out

ef

fect

s. N

et n

atio

nal b

enef

its w

ill u

sual

ly b

e ad

equa

tely

cov

ered

by

the

asse

ssm

ent o

f dire

ct

trans

port

bene

fits.

)

Is th

e lo

cal e

cono

my

econ

omic

ally

dep

ress

ed o

r ot

herw

ise

depr

ived

? A

re th

ere

spec

ific

gain

s or

lo

sses

in d

esig

nate

d re

gene

ratio

n ar

eas?

Whi

ch

soci

al g

roup

s ga

in o

r los

e? W

ho fi

lls th

e jo

bs –

un

empl

oyed

loca

l res

iden

ts o

r in-

mig

rant

s?

Item

Loca

l Eco

nom

ic Im

pact

s

Nat

iona

l Eco

nom

ic Im

pact

s

Dis

tribu

tiona

l Im

pact

s

Econ

omy

(Eco

nom

ic A

ctiv

ity a

nd L

ocat

ion

Impa

cts)

Sub-

obje

ctiv

e

Econ

omic

Act

ivity

an

d Lo

catio

n Im

pact

s



Table 5.2: Part 2 Appraisal Summary Table - continued Q

uant

itativ

e In

form

atio

n

Num

ber o

f pas

seng

er jo

urne

ys a

ffect

ed.

Pos

itive

/ ne

gativ

e im

pact

.

Num

ber o

f pas

seng

er jo

urne

ys a

ffect

ed.

Pos

itive

/ ne

gativ

e im

pact

. M

onet

ary

valu

atio

n of

impa

cts

may

be

feas

ible

.

Qua

litat

ive

Info

rmat

ion

Sea

mle

ss p

ublic

tran

spor

t sys

tem

? S

eam

less

tick

etin

g?

Ben

efits

sho

uld

usua

lly a

lread

y be

co

vere

d by

TE

E a

sses

smen

t; ju

stifi

catio

n is

requ

ired

for n

otin

g an

y w

ider

ben

efits

he

re.

Ben

efits

may

alre

ady

be c

over

ed b

y TE

E

asse

ssm

ent;

just

ifica

tion

is re

quire

d fo

r no

ting

any

wid

er b

enef

its h

ere.

Sum

mar

y st

atem

ent o

n co

nsis

tenc

y of

pr

opos

al w

ith N

atio

nal a

nd L

ocal

Pla

nnin

g P

olic

ies,

indi

catin

g re

fere

nces

to

supp

ortin

g do

cum

enta

tion.

Fit w

ith k

ey p

olic

ies

incl

udin

g D

isab

ility

, he

alth

, rur

al a

ffairs

, nat

iona

l tar

gets

: cite

re

leva

nt p

olic

y do

cum

ents

.

Item

Ser

vice

s &

Tic

ketin

g

Infra

stru

ctur

e &

Info

rmat

ion

Inte

grat

ion

Sub-

obje

ctiv

e

Tran

spor

t In

terc

hang

es

Land

-use

Tra

nspo

rt In

tegr

atio

n

Pol

icy

Inte

grat

ion




Qua

ntita

tive

Info

rmat

ion

Do-

min

imum

and

Do-

som

ethi

ng

mea

sure

s of

pop

ulat

ion

catc

hmen

t for

PT

serv

ices

and

the

utili

ty o

f the

se s

ervi

ces

in ta

king

peo

ple

whe

re th

ey n

eed

to

trave

l.

Cha

nge

in p

opul

atio

n ca

tchm

ents

for

loca

l sho

ps, h

ealth

cen

tres

etc.

bas

ed o

n ch

ange

s to

wal

king

/cyc

ling

etc

rout

es.

Cha

nge

in ra

tio o

f im

pact

s of

un

empl

oyed

peo

ple/

job

seek

ers/

disa

bled

pe

ople

/eth

nic

min

oriti

es e

tc. t

o po

pula

tion

as a

who

le.

Cha

nge

in ra

tio o

f im

pact

s on

soc

ially

ex

clud

ed a

reas

and

dev

elop

men

t are

as

to a

ll ar

eas.

Q

ualit

ativ

e In

form

atio

n

Issu

es e

mer

ging

from

con

sulta

tion

rega

rdin

g ga

ps in

acc

ess

to jo

bs a

nd

train

ing,

hea

lth, a

nd s

hopp

ing

and

antic

ipat

ed im

pact

s of

sch

eme.

Issu

es e

mer

ging

from

con

sulta

tion

abou

t lo

cal b

arrie

rs to

wal

king

and

cyc

ling.

Com

men

t on

rele

vanc

e of

dis

tribu

tion

asse

ssm

ents

for a

ll ke

y po

pula

tion

grou

ps a

s co

ntex

t for

qua

ntita

tive

anal

ysis

.

Iden

tify

mai

n br

oad

dist

ribut

iona

l im

pact

s by

urb

an/ru

ral,

area

cla

ssifi

catio

n, e

tc.

Item

Pub

lic T

rans

port

Net

wor

k C

over

age

Acc

ess

to O

ther

Loc

al

Serv

ices

Dis

tribu

tion/

Spat

ial I

mpa

cts

by S

ocia

l Gro

up

Dis

tribu

tion/

Spat

ial I

mpa

cts

by A

rea

Acc

essi

bilit

y &

Soc

ial I

nclu

sion

Sub-

obje

ctiv

e

Com

mun

ity

Acc

essi

bilit

y

Com

para

tive

Acc

essi

bilit

y

Stra

tegi

c En

viro

nmen

tqal

Ass

essm

ent (

SEA

)

Sum

mar

y of

SE

A

outc

ome

whe

re

appr

opria

te



Table 5.2: Part 2 Appraisal Summary Table - continued Q

uant

itativ

e in

form

atio

n

PV

9

PV

10

PV

11

(NB

PV

11 s

houl

d eq

ual P

V8

x -1

)

PV

12

PV

13

Qua

litat

ive

info

rmat

ion

Quo

te c

osts

in c

urre

nt p

rices

, und

isco

unte

d. O

nly

appl

icab

le to

dire

ctly

-pr

ovid

ed p

ublic

inve

stm

ent,

e.g.

mos

t roa

ds p

roje

cts.

Quo

te a

nnua

l cos

ts in

cur

rent

pric

es.

Onl

y ap

plic

able

to p

ublic

ly-fu

nded

se

rvic

es.

Dis

tingu

ish

betw

een

gran

t and

ong

oing

reve

nue

supp

ort.

Iden

tify

pote

ntia

l dev

elop

er c

ontri

butio

ns.

Quo

te c

osts

in c

urre

nt p

rices

.

Dis

tingu

ish

betw

een

tolls

, par

king

cha

rges

, and

any

oth

er re

leva

nt

reve

nue

stre

ams.

Iden

tify

any

chan

ges

in ta

x re

venu

es a

ttrib

utab

le to

the

prop

osal

, e.g

. los

s of

fuel

dut

y du

e to

mod

al s

hift.

Tota

l PV

B =

PV

1 +

PV

2 +

PV

3 +

PV

4 +

PV

5 +

PV

6 +

PV

7 +

PV

8 (N

egat

ive

valu

es =

dis

bene

fits)

Tota

l PV

C =

PV

9 +

PV

10 +

PV

11 +

PV

12 +

PV

13

(Neg

ativ

e va

lues

=co

sts)

Tota

l NP

V =

PV

B +

PV

C

Rat

io =

PV

B/(P

VC

x-1

)

Cos

t to

Publ

ic S

ecto

r

Item

Publ

ic S

ecto

r Inv

estm

ent C

osts

Pub

lic S

ecto

r Ope

ratin

g &

M

aint

enan

ce C

osts

Gra

nt/S

ubsi

dy P

aym

ents

Rev

enue

s

Taxa

tion

impa

cts

Mon

etis

ed S

umm

ary

Pre

sent

Val

ue o

f Tra

nspo

rt B

enef

its

Pre

sent

Val

ue o

f Cos

t to

Gov

ernm

ent

Net

Pre

sent

Val

ue

Ben

efit-

Cos

t to

Gov

ernm

ent R

atio

scottish transport appraisal guidance · overwhelming majority of potential impacts of a transport...

Documents