Travel behaviour change guidance handbook

Print version: Travel behaviour change guidance handbook (PDF, 1.29 MB, 87 pages)

Appendix A:   Completing the land transport programme assessment framework

Project description

Complete on-line LTP form as relevant. Information required includes: project name, description, aims and outcomes, whether or not project is part of a package, location, and identification of supporting documents (including evaluation arising from Interim TBhC Procedures)

Problem seriousness and urgency

Describe the predominant type of problem

Describe the problems and their context in terms of: •   The purpose of LTMA (Sustainability, Integration, Safety, Responsiveness) •   The five outcomes (economic development, safety and personal security, access and mobility, protecting and promoting public health, environmental sustainability) The breadth of issues over transport networks and services and related land use

Describe the scale of problem

The seriousness of a problem can be assessed on three scales: national, regional / district (regional, district network or transport corridor) or local (smaller areas). As the assessment of national level factors is carried out in the table below, it is not necessary to repeat it here. As relevant, describe how the project: •   Supports the goals of the RLTS, how well matched it is with the policies and plans, whether it is in keeping with project specific sections of the strategy. •   Contributes to local outcomes as per District Plans; LTCCPs, etc.

Development context

Alternatives and options
Not relevant for most TBhC projects.
National strategic context
Describe how the needs of the transport disadvantaged have been considered	Describe the impact of project development in this area
Describe how walking and cycling have been considered during design	This section is more relevant for physical infrastructure projects — generally left blank for TBhC projects.
Describe how walking and cycling features have been incorporated into the construction phase	This section is more relevant for physical infrastructure projects — generally left blank for TBhC projects.
Regional and local context
This section provides information as to how the project aligns with RLTS and other local outcomes or documents, such as the LTCCP, as well as identifying the project’s priority number.
Consultation
Community / target population consultation (s. 15 of the LTMA)	Describe how: •   the target population “buy-in” (support) and commitment to the project has been gained •   the project has been “shaped” to fit the target population or been modified as a result of consultation with the community •   there has been the opportunity for the early and full ability of a target population to input into the project development.
Iwi or Hapu consultation (s. 18 of the LTMA)	This section is more relevant for physical infrastructure projects — generally left blank for TBhC projects.

Effectiveness

Qualitative factors
Factor	Describe and quantify the impact of the proposed project on each factor. In each case, provide a reasoned statement describing how the overall impact rating is obtained, considering all relevant factors and the net outcome of beneficial and adverse impacts.	Rate the impact of the proposal on this factor, using the scale: •   Beneficial •   Neutral •   Adverse	Rate the confidence in the assessed impact of the proposal on this factor, using the scale: Low, Medium, High High: analysis well proven; data is current, complete and accurate; outcomes not sensitive to minor input factor variability. Low: assessed impacts speculative or unproven or sensitive to minor input factor variability
Integration of transport networks and services, and land use	Describe how the proposal, its development, implementation and operation affect: •   The efficient and integrated mix of transport modes •   Efficient use of existing and new public investment •   Encourage cooperation and collaboration between stakeholders. How does it align with current and planned land use? Important considerations include: •   Does it contribute to efficient and effective transport interchange between modes and at hubs for passengers and freight? •   How complementary are the transport services and networks? •   Does the proposal benefit or hinder land use policies overall? • Does the proposal assist or hinder non-transport policies?	A Beneficial rating is warranted if the proposal provides: •   Significant improvement to at least two independent modes of transport or services without disadvantage to another mode or service •   Significantly reduces trip lengths OR •   Significantly increases transport choice for trips. A Neutral rating applies if the significant advantage to one mode is associated with a significant disadvantage to another mode or if there are only minor effects on trip lengths or mode choice.	Generally considered to be Medium, depending on the individual TBhC project.
Sustainability of transport networks and services, and land use	Describe how the proposal, its development, implementation and operation affect: •   The resilience and flexibility of transport networks and services •   The transport issues of future generations •   The medium and long term benefits and costs of transport networks and services •   Economic, social and environmental well being.	The Interim TBhC Procedures assume that benefits arising in the first year of implementation for a TBhC project will be largely maintained, in some cases due to periodic or ongoing maintenance activities, for a 10-year period. Hence, in most cases, a Beneficial rating would apply. If there are circumstances where the proponent considers that the benefits will not be maintained for the 10-year period, then a Neutral rating may be more appropriate.	Until more experience has been gained with TBhC projects in New Zealand, it is expected that the confidence rating will be Medium or Low, depending on the nature of the project.
Safety of transport networks and services	Describe how the proposal, its development, implementation and operation affect: •   High standards of health, safety and personal security •   A robust health and safety framework •   The emphasis given individual and personal responsibility for safety.	Rate according to how the proposal reduces the current accident or assault rate by: •   Beneficial: if the rate reduces by ≥25% •   Neutral: if the rate is only mildly affected, whether positively or negatively •   Adverse: if the rate is affected negatively by ≥25%.	Until more experience has been gained with TBhC projects in New Zealand, it is expected that the confidence rating will be Medium or Low, depending on the nature of the project.
Responsiveness to the transport and related needs of communities	Describe how the proposal, its development, proposed implementation and operation: •   Reflects transport related partnerships with community and key stakeholders •   Responds to needs as identified by the target population / community •   Encourages participation in decision making though community involvement in the process	Neutral: where implementation and operation of the proposal utilise collaborative efforts by many transport stakeholders, or many diverse communities transport needs are enhanced, or communities are satisfied with how they were involved in the development of the proposal. Beneficial: when most of the factors were present and none absent. Adverse: where one of these factors failed to occur as required by the circumstances.	Generally, expected to be rated as High, given the nature of TBhC projects.
Quantitative factors
Economic development	Describe how the proposal, its development, implementation, and operation: •   Affects flows of people, goods and services •   Uses new knowledge about the transport system •   Integrates land use planning and energy efficiency to facilitate sustainable land transport systems Describe how the project will affect: •   Wider economic impacts •   Travel delay between economic nodes •   Land use policies •   Congestion •   Travel time reliability – Improved reliability reduces the uncertainty of transport users when planning journeys •   Energy efficiency.	Expected rating for most TBhC projects is Neutral (only minor positive effects) for the following: •   Wider economic impacts •   Travel delay between economic nodes •   Land use policies •   Travel time reliability With respect to Congestion and Energy efficiency, the rating will be Beneficial only if significant numbers of motorised trips are replaced by environmentally friendly modes. Generally, workplace travel plans may have a Beneficial rating; other TBhC projects will be Neutral, as the benefits occur outside of peak periods. School travel plans are assumed to be Neutral as there is insufficient evidence (as yet) about parental driving behaviour.	Generally considered to be Medium.
Safety and personal security	Describe how the proposal, its development, implementation, and operation: •   Assists implementation of the Road Safety 2010 strategy and other measures •   Recognises the contribution reduced dependence on private vehicles can make to improved safety •   Addresses personal security concerns associated with land transport •   Promotes modes such as walking, cycling and passenger transport •   Strengthens road safety education.	Generally, most TBhC projects will have a Neutral rating. The rating will be Beneficial only if: •   A significant reduction in accident rate and consequence can be achieved •   The proposal would significantly improve overall levels of perceived and actual personal security.	Until more experience has been gained with TBhC projects in New Zealand, it is expected that the confidence rating will be Medium or Low, depending on the nature of the project.
Access and mobility	Describe how the proposal, its development, implementation, and operation: •   Promotes optimal use of different modes •   Ensures the needs of pedestrian and cyclists are catered for •   Improves the ease and quality of access to appropriate transport for all people •   Encourages local solutions for local needs with a national consistency.	Usually rated as Beneficial, as TBhC projects are considered to contribute to: •   Perceived access and mobility by providing awareness of and education about opportunities •   Encouraging optimal use of different modes •   Encouraging local solutions (particularly school and workplace travel plans) •   Considering the needs of different sets of users of the transport network – e.g. helping children to progress towards independent mobility through a staged series of age-appropriate travel choices A Neutral rating may be appropriate where the effect is small.	It is expected that the confidence rating will be Medium or High, depending on the individual project.
Public health	Describe how the proposal, its development, implementation, and operation: •   Improve physical fitness and health outcomes •   Promote walking and cycling for short trips •   Reduce dependency on private vehicles for mobility •   Reduce exposure to transport noise or other aspects of transport systems that can impinge on community and personal health.	Physical fitness and health (including mental and physical) effects: •   Beneficial – if a significant increase in number of walking and/or cycling trips is anticipated (e.g. through a school-travel plan) and/or strengthening of social networks is expected or improved perceptions of area as a “good place to live” •   Neutral – if a minor or modest amount of walking and/or cycling trips is anticipated (e.g. through a workplace travel plan or household-based initiative)	It is expected that the confidence rating will be Medium or High, depending on the individual project.
Environmental sustainability	Describe how the proposal, its development, implementation, and operation: •   Reduce local and global effects of transport (greenhouse gas emissions and other air-borne pollutants) •   Reduce local and global effects of transport (greenhouse gas emissions and other air-borne pollutants) •   Improve efficiency of existing road and rail networks •   Promote alternatives to road use and reduced traffic growth •   Minimises negative impacts of transport on natural, cultural and heritage values •   Reflect New Zealand's commitment to energy efficiency.	Generally, TBhC projects will be rated as Beneficial, unless no or very little reduction in vehicle kilometres travelled is anticipated (such as for school travel plans), whereupon the rating should probably be Neutral.	It is expected that the confidence rating will be Medium or High, depending on the individual project.
Other factors	Describe the nature of the factor and why it is important. Describe the impact of the proposal on this factor.	Enter the rating supported by the reasoned statement in the description.	Rating dependent on individual project

Economic efficiency

Efficiency — monetised

Complete the relevant fields using information from appropriate worksheet in the Evaluation Procedure. Note that the TBhC evaluation does not identify specific values for the “do minimum” (the calculations are based on the change from the baseline or do minimum); nor are separate values supplied for different benefit types – project proponents should report the base “composite benefit value” used and the NPV of the project benefits.

Efficiency — non-monetised

Generally, the evaluation of TBhC projects ignores any non-monetised benefits. However, project proponents may provide information about these as desired.

Confidence-rating (risk management)

This section is only completed for projects where costs are >$3 million. Hence, for most TBhC projects, this section is left blank.

Project phase

This section should be filled in as appropriate to the individual TBhC project. In most cases, project proponents will only complete parts of the “Project phase outline” and “Timeframe” sections.

 

< previous | next >

Page created: 22 October 2008