Return to Agenda

ITEM EX8

MINOR TRAFFIC SCHEMES ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK

1. The Transport Capital Programme Procurement (TCPP) Best Value Review recommended the development and adoption of a framework to assess requests for minor traffic schemes in a systematic and consistent manner. This report details and recommends the adoption of an assessment framework for these requests.

Background

2. In August 2000 the former Highways & Road Safety Sub-Committee approved the procedure outlined in Annex 1 for dealing with requests for minor traffic schemes. Currently over 100 requests have been referred by the Area Engineers for assessment and possible inclusion in the County Council’s Capital Programme. Currently these are being assessed using engineering judgement and included in the programme where they are considered appropriate. The TCPP Best Value Review recommended the development of an assessment framework to assess these requests in a more structured and consistent way.

Assessment Framework

3. The development of an assessment framework for Casualty Reduction schemes has been considered. However, this type of scheme is specifically targeted at locations where casualty savings can be achieved. Since National Government publish figures for the cost of accidents, it is proposed that these schemes are considered for inclusion in the capital programme on the basis of the First Year Economic Rate of Return (FYERR).

i.e. value of predicted accident savings

----------------------------------------------- x 100%

Cost of scheme

This will ensure that this programme is focused on achieving the County Council’s Casualty Reduction targets. It is recommended that to be included in this programme schemes must achieve a minimum FYERR of 25% and schemes that give the highest rates of return are given priority.

4. The majority of the requests received for minor traffic schemes would not qualify for inclusion in the Casualty Reduction Programme. Therefore, they need to be assessed for inclusion in either Community Safety Transport, or the Integrated Transport Strategy programmes. The framework detailed in Annex 2, Annex 3, Annex 4, Annex 5 covers the majority of the common types of request. It proposes a points ranking system based on a number of easily identifiable and measurable factors which are indicators of the level of the problem at that location. In order to bring an element of ‘value for money’ into the assessment framework it is proposed to prioritise schemes on the basis of cost per point.

i.e. Estimated cost of scheme

---------------------------------

Number of points scored

5. Community Safety Transport schemes are aimed at addressing the concerns of local communities that cannot be addressed by other programmes. In some cases requests are received from individuals for proposals that may prove to be controversial. It is considered that before any proposal resulting from such a request is considered for inclusion in the programme, it should have the support of at least one of the following – the local member, the Town or Parish Council, or the District Council - as a measure that will have wider community benefits.
6. From time to time requests of a different nature are received, e.g. requests for improvements to improve the capacity of junctions etc. These requests will be assessed on an individual basis using engineering judgement. However, they will only be considered for inclusion in the Capital Programme where they are in line with the Local Transport Plan Policies and benefit pedestrians and cyclists, improve public transport, or remove traffic from less appropriate routes. The Executive Members for Transport and Strategic Planning and Waste Management will be consulted on these individual schemes before they are considered for inclusion in the programme.
7. The Sustainable Transport Programme also includes similar types of scheme as part of the Better Ways to School, Cycling or Public Transport Programmes. These schemes are designed to achieve policy objectives by influencing people’s behaviour and cannot be assessed purely on existing conditions. The Better Ways to School Programme already has an approved assessment system for selecting the schools to be included in the programme. The principles of the proposed minor schemes assessment programme will be used to evaluate schemes that are developed as part of School Travel Plans but policy objectives will take priority.

Future Development of Assessment Framework

8. As the Assessment framework is applied to the outstanding requests it will become clear that there is a points score threshold below which it is very unlikely that requests will result in schemes being included in the programme. Requests that will clearly not meet this threshold will not be fully assessed to avoid wasting resources on traffic counts and speed surveys. The results of the first 12 months operation of the assessment framework will be reported to the Executive.

Financial and Staff Implications

9. The adoption of this framework will allow the more efficient assessment of the large number of requests received. It will also help to ensure that the Council targets its Transport Capital resources where they can be of most benefit.

RECOMMENDATIONS

10. The Executive is RECOMMENDED to:

1. approve the prioritisation of Casualty Reduction schemes on the basis of First Year Economic Rates of Return as set out in Paragraph 3 of this report; and
2. approve the assessment framework for minor traffic schemes as set out in paragraphs 4-6 and Annexes 2-5 of this report.

DAVID YOUNG
Director of Environmental Services

Contact Officer: Phil Crossland Tel: Oxford 815083

March 2002

Return to TOP