Major Schemes in Local Transport Plans
TAG Unit 1.4

April 2004

This TAG Unit sets out the procedures to be followed in the appraisal of major public transport and highway schemes ('major schemes') bid for as part of the Local Transport Plan (LTP) process. The submitted bid document should form the 'Annex E' to the 'Annual Progress Report' (APR). The Department requires a full appraisal in accordance with the guidance set out in this TAG Unit1⁽¹⁾.

Major schemes are currently defined as those whose gross cost is greater than £5m⁽²⁾ and where clear additional benefits accrue from the proposal being treated as a single scheme and implemented as such.

This TAG Unit covers the contents of the appraisal (Section 2) and the process to be followed (Section 3). Additional detailed material on the appraisal process and framework is covered in Detailed Guidance on Major Scheme Appraisal in Local Transport Plans (TAG Unit 3.9). All procedures relate to all major schemes unless otherwise stated.

It is important for promoters to identify, within the submission, the plans made to ensure that the project can be delivered both to time and to budget. This also should include demonstrating that good project management is / will be in place for the life of the scheme development and build.

For schemes promoted by the local authority and for which Government approval is not required (for example schemes below the £5m threshold), this TAG Unit should serve as a best practice guide for appraisal. Authorities should assess the scheme's contribution to and consistency with the Local Transport Plan (LTP) using this framework, though the level of detail should be proportionate to the scheme scale. For schemes promoted and funded by the authority or privately, the authority should ensure the scheme is sensible within the context of the LTP and will deliver the expected benefits. Such schemes should be included in the appraisal of the LTP as a whole. Though these schemes are not subject to individual funding approval by the Department, their contribution to and consistency with the LTP, and the appraisal the authority has made of them, will be taken into account when undertaking our overall LTP assessment.

The appraisal must accord with the New Approach To Appraisal (NATA) as developed for multi-modal applications in the Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies (GOMMMS) (TAG Unit 1.2). This is the source of information for NATA assessments and serves as the source for much of the material in this TAG Unit. However, appraisals will need to draw on many separate elements of guidance. A 'checklist of guidance documents' is outlined in Figure 1.

TAG covers the following appraisal strands:

• an assessment of the degree to which central Government's objectives for transport (environment, safety, economy, accessibility, integration) would be achieved, summarised in the Appraisal Summary Table (AST) see Transport Appraisal and the New Green Book (TAG Sub-Unit 2.7);
• an assessment of the degree to which the local and regional objectives for transport would be achieved;
• an assessment of the extent to which problems would be mitigated; and
• supporting analyses of distribution and equity; affordability and financial sustainability; practicality and public acceptability; and contribution to ten year plan targets.

The NATA approach allows all schemes to be assessed across a comprehensive framework. Individual schemes will have very different characteristics and score differently across the five central Government objectives. For example, a public transport interchange scheme⁽³⁾ may score better under the Integration criteria than a light rail scheme. However, it may not score as well under the Economy objective. To ensure consistency, all schemes must be assessed using the NATA framework.

The appraisal structure provides a framework for assessing the impact of the proposals on social inclusion, which must be included in the appraisal submission. The qualitative assessment should be used to highlight impacts on different social groups. The distribution and equity analyses allow particular effects to be assessed comprehensively in one place. Assessment against local authority objectives enables the impact on specific social inclusion objectives to be detailed.

The Department expects that the appraisal process is based on 'first principles' - the identification of the problems, the setting of objectives and the generation of options. From a wide range of initial options considered, a submission should carry at least two options fully through appraisal, the preferred option and a lower cost alternative. Large major schemes (>£20m) may also need to carry a 'next best' option through the appraisal process. This should be assessed against the NATA criteria. The 'next best' option should be the option which performs next best to the preferred option in terms of the NATA assessment. This 'next best' option can coincide with the lower cost alternative if justification from promoters is provided. For all schemes costing in excess of £20m a period of consultation with the Department is expected before any 'next best' option is determined.

Figure 1: Checklist of guidance documents

Document	Coverage	Guided Bus and LRT Schemes	Other Major Public Transport Schemes	Major Road Schemes
The Appraisal Process (TAG Unit 2.5) The Overall Approach: The Steps in the Process (TAG Unit 2.1)	Sets out the methodology that needs to be followed in putting together the appraisal.
Values of Time and Operating Costs (TAG Unit 3.5.6)	Provides the latest values of transport user time savings and vehicle operating costs.
Highways Economics Note No.1 (DfT Web Site)	Provides the latest values for the benefits of preventing road accidents and casualties.
TUBA User Guidance (DfT Web Site)	Guidance on the application of the TUBA program - the way it relates to transport modelling and other aspects of a transport study.
TUBA User Manual (DfT Web Site)	Guidance on program installation, running TUBA (data entry and editing etc), scheme and economics data and interpretation of output.
Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) (Highways Agency)	Originally designed for trunk roads appraisal but includes volumes that have relevance for major transport schemes, such as the COBA Manual Volume 13.
The TEMPRO Version 4.2 Web Site (TEMPRO Web Site)	Provides forecast data on trips for transport planning purposes.
COBA User Manual (DfT Web Site)	Guidance on program installation, running COBA (data entry and editing etc), scheme and economics data and interpretation of output.	Only relevant if using COBA to calculate accident savings.
QUADRO User Manual (DfT Web Site)	Guidance on program installation, running QUADRO (data entry and editing etc), road maintenance data and interpretation of output.	Only relevant if using QUADRO to assess disbenefits during construction and maintenance.
Applying the Multi-Modal New Approach to Appraisal to Highway Schemes (TAG Unit 2.6)	Provides the link between TAG's treatment of environment, accessibility and integration criteria and the advice in DMRB.	-	-
The Wider Economic Impacts Sub-Objective (Tag Unit 3.5.8)	Provides guidance on how to assess wider economic benefits of transport schemes.
Major Scheme Appraisal in Local Transport Plans: Part 3 Detailed Guidance on Forecasting Models for Major Public Transport Schemes (DfT Web Site)	Guidance on the modelling approach the Department expects for the appraisal of LRT and Guided Bus Schemes.		May be useful, primarily for LRT and Guided Bus.	-

A single, comprehensive appraisal document ('Annex E' to the APR) should be prepared. This document should include the information set out in this section.

The scheme's name and the identity of the promoter(s) should be clearly shown. The executive summary to the submission document should contain a brief scheme description, set out the overall aims and objectives of the proposal, and provide the headline results from the appraisal. These should include the AST, the capital cost, and the AMCB table of the preferred option.

The appraisal should include a physical description of each option including maps, diagrams and a written commentary. This description should set out clearly the location, plan, characteristics and phases of the options. For example, if a highway scheme is proposed, the appraisal should clearly outline which routes are affected; the junction types and their location; the scheme length and alignment; and link standards (e.g. single or dual carriageway). It is also important that the description not only includes the scheme itself, but information on the surrounding areas which the scheme affects. Promoters should bear in mind that the reviewer is unlikely to be familiar with the area. Ordnance survey map references should be given in the Appraisal Summary Tables for the assessed options.

The appraisal should include estimates of capital costs, operating and maintenance costs, the required public sector contribution and the size of the bid to Government for LTP capital funding for each option. The derivation of the cost figures and a breakdown of the total scheme cost by individual elements should be clearly set out. This breakdown should include such categories as land costs, design fees, advanced works, main works by item, vehicles, etc. The cost estimates must reflect the risk analysis undertaken and should represent the expected value of costs. More information on risk assessment is given in MSA: Risk Analysis (TAG Unit 3.9.3).

Capital cost estimates should be based on an independent surveyor's report. Costs should be compared against benchmarks and where possible reflect market testing. The time profile and price base for the costs should be clearly outlined. In the bid for LTP funding, promoters should allow for realistic cost inflation between the submission of the appraisal and scheme works and construction and the appraisal costs should reflect this.

The appraisal should provide an indication of relevant problems in the area, including a summary of the area's socio-economic characteristics. The key objectives of the options should be outlined, with an explanation of how these objectives relate to local problems and the LTP. It is a prerequisite of acceptance of major schemes that they are consistent with LTP objectives. For road schemes, promoters should also explain how the scheme fits in to the Government's categories of road schemes that are set out in the Trunk Roads Review, A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England (DETR 1998), i.e. safety and healthier communities; supporting jobs and prosperity; and regeneration and integration with other modes.

The appraisal should assess how the options mitigate problems that have been identified. Problem mitigation contributes to the achievement of objectives, and should be identified within the framework provided by the local authority and Government objectives. Concentrating on problems brings into sharper focus aspects of the transport system where change is most required. It also provides a stimulus to the development of solutions. Guidance on how the proposal should address problems is given in The Appraisal Process (TAG Unit 2.5).

• environmental impact - to protect the built and natural environment;
• safety - to improve safety;
• economy - to support sustainable economic activity and get good value for money;
• accessibility - to improve access to facilities for those without a car and to reduce severance; and
• integration - to ensure that all decisions are taken in the context of the Government's integrated transport policy and other relevant policies.

The assessment of the degree to which central Government objectives would be achieved is made using the Appraisal Summary Table (AST) see Transport Appraisal and the New Green Book (TAG Sub-Unit 2.7). The five objectives are divided into sub-objectives. The AST should be supported by a short summary of key impacts and accompanied by worksheets, including the Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) tables, see The Economy Objective (TAG Unit 3.5). The Department expects to see ASTs for the preferred, lower cost and 'next best' options as appropriate.

A full set of worksheets and appropriate ASTs must be included in the submission documents for each of the fully appraised options. For options discounted at an earlier stage ASTs and some worksheets will be required. The level of detail provided in these ASTs and worksheets should be proportionate to the stage at which the option was scoped out. For smaller schemes (<£20m) non-quantified ASTs are sufficient for all options except the preferred and low-cost option. For larger schemes the level of detail required for discounted options may need to be discussed with the Department. Electronic copies of these documents also need to be provided separately. Worksheets can be downloaded from this website.

Guidance on how to complete the AST is provided in Detailed Guidance on Major Scheme Appraisal in Local Transport Plans (TAG Unit 3.9). More detailed guidance may be found in The Appraisal Process (TAG Unit 2.5). Major schemes should be assessed at a level of detail consistent with this guidance. Proportionality of assessment is important, however, and schemes may differ greatly in terms of their impact and gross cost and funding sought. Accordingly, there may be some flexibility in the level of detail required. Early contact with the Department should be made to discuss on a case-by-case basis.

Assessment against local objectives provides an opportunity to focus on local priorities, if it is considered that these are inadequately reflected by central Government objectives. Local objectives may usefully be nested within the five central Government objectives in a "local AST" or covered in a written summary.

• distribution and equity;
• affordability and financial sustainability;
• practicality and public acceptability; and
• contribution to 10 year plan targets.

The supporting analyses are an integral part of the decision making process and analysis of each issue should be provided with the AST. Guidance on how to undertake these analyses can be found in The Appraisal Process (TAG Unit 2.5).

The distribution and equity supporting analysis shows the distribution of the overall impacts recorded in the AST. It is important that the distributional implications of each option are considered during appraisal. This type of analysis enhances the understanding of the fairness of proposals, their social impacts and their scale.

Promoting social inclusion is an important consideration within local transport, as noted in paragraph 297 of the Guidance on Full Local Transport Plans. It is important that major schemes pay due regard to social inclusion impacts and the effect on all groups in society and transport users, especially those who face difficulties in accessing and using transport. In particular, differential impacts concerning age, gender, ethnic group, health, location, income, mobility, along with other relevant factors should be assessed. The appraisal can present key effects for each AST sub-objective in the Qualitative Impacts column of the AST. The distribution and equity supporting analysis should present the main social inclusion analysis. It should highlight particular impacts and bring all the identified distributional and equity effects together within one section.

The prime criterion against which major schemes are assessed is overall value for money. However, for public transport schemes, authorities must also consider financial performance. Analysis of affordability and financial sustainability provides an assessment of this performance, identifying separately services provided by the private and public sectors. Key financial performance indicators, including the operating ratio (operating revenues divided by operating costs) and, if appropriate, operating costs and revenue per vehicle-km, should be included. Where appropriate, the assessment of larger schemes should also consider the effect on the cost benefit case and financial sustainability of higher and lower fare assumptions. Approval is unlikely to be given for schemes requiring operating subsidy.

An overall assessment of the practicality and public acceptability is required. It is important that acceptability is looked at within a framework that assesses the views of diverse societal groups and transport users. The analysis should identify the main practical issues that must be satisfactorily addressed for the scheme to proceed. The feasibility of the scheme should be fully assessed with a clear, detailed timetable for the necessary work. For example, this should include planning permission, publication of the relevant statutory orders (e.g. Compulsory Purchase Orders), public inquiry, start of advance works, start of main works, and opening of scheme.

This assessment should identify phasing and any significant issues where action by or agreement of a third party is required. The level of support from the general public and from key stakeholders in the scheme, such as local transport operators and businesses, must be considered. Promoters should indicate whether a public consultation has been, or is being, held and how the results of public consultation have affected the final proposal.

Appropriate Statutory Bodies should be consulted throughout the design process of all schemes, and it is essential that their views are sought in the process of option appraisal. The Department expects to see both evidence of consultation and the views of the Bodies when the appraisal is submitted. The relevant Statutory Bodies are English Nature, English Heritage, Environment Agency and Countryside Agency. In order to assist the Statutory Bodies in their assessment, OS map references should be provided in the AST of the fully worked up options.

Design quality is an important element of all public sector building projects and should be addressed during the scheme design. Impacts upon civic pride, user experience, quality of service, and staff recruitment and retention should all be assessed relative to the design of the project. As monetisation of design quality is difficult, the Department recognises that in many cases comparison and benchmarking will be the only tools available to assess design quality for promoters.

Submissions should include a section on how schemes contribute to meeting the Department's Ten Year Plan and Public Service Agreement targets. These comprise of eight targets which are as follows:

• to reduce road congestion on the inter-urban network and in large urban areas in England below current levels by 2010 by promoting integrated transport solutions and investing in public transport and the road network;
• to increase rail use in Great Britain (measured in passenger kilometres) from 2000 levels by 50% by 2010, with investment in infrastructure and capacity, while at the same time securing improvements in punctuality and reliability;
• to increase bus use in England (measured by the number of passenger journeys) from 2000 levels by 10% by 2010, while at the same time securing improvements in punctuality and reliability;
• to double light rail use in England (measured by the number of passenger journeys) by 2010 from 2000 levels;
• to cut journey times on London Underground services by increasing capacity and reducing delays. Specific targets will be agreed with the Mayor after the Public Private Partnership has been established;
• to improve air quality by meeting our National Air Quality Strategy targets for carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, particles, sulphur dioxide, benzene and 1-3 butadiene;
• to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5% from 1990 levels, and move towards a 20% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2010; and;
• to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured in Great Britain in road accidents by 40% by 2010 and the number of children killed or seriously injured by 50%, compared with the average for 1994-98.

Full details on how to undertake the assessment of 10YP/PSA targets is given in Treatment of 10 Year Plan Targets in Multi-Modal Study Recommendations (TAG Unit 3.8.2).

The degree of confidence in cost and benefit estimates is a key element of scheme appraisal. The greater the likelihood that these estimates are close to their 'true' values the more confidence can be place upon them. As such the Department places importance on the assessment of risk and optimism bias in appraisal. Risk, optimism bias, sensitivity and scenario testing are all interconnected in this area.

Optimism bias is the tendency of appraisers to underestimate costs and to overestimate benefits. Capital cost optimism bias should be assessed according to the guidance given in TAG Unit 3.9.4. The potential impact of benefit optimism bias should be tested through sensitivity and scenario testing.

Risk assessment

The appraisal should include an assessment of the risks of the project, in line with How to Construct a Public Sector Comparator (Treasury Taskforce Technical Note 5).

The risk analysis should cover construction and operational issues. All schemes should undertake a thorough risk assessment, consistent with the advice given in MSA: Risk Analysis (TAG Unit 3.9.3). The risk assessment should show the likely level of exposure to particular areas of risk and the probabilities of those risks occurring.

For smaller schemes it may be acceptable to assess the probability of any one outcome occurring using a simple four-point scale, expanded to more levels if appropriate. This scale would use, at a minimum, very unlikely, moderately unlikely, unlikely or most likely, where the most likely outcome would normally be the central forecast value. This method (along with the assessment of impacts) can be used to inform 'expected' contingencies to apply on smaller schemes.

The refinement of the risk assessment should be a continual process. Further unanticipated areas of risk should be included as they are discovered. The risk assessment should allow expected values to be determined for the capital costs of the scheme. Risks should be identified, their impacts tested and risk management outlined.

The risk analysis will be used to assess the practicality and robustness of the scheme and to inform funding discussions.

Scenario and Sensitivity testing

Scenarios should be examined against each option's 'most likely' or central case. This should encompass optimistic and pessimistic states of the world covering exogenous (outside of the promoters' control) variables to the scheme. Examples of these may include GDP growth rates or local development uncertainties upon which the success of the scheme depends.

Sensitivity analysis is a key element of the appraisal. Sensitivity testing should focus upon individual variables, rather than groups of variables as per scenario testing. Sensitivities should cover endogenous (scheme specific) variables such as costs, patronage, revenues (as appropriate) and underlying assumptions. These may be undertaken relative to the optimistic and pessimistic scenarios and the central case. More information on sensitivity and scenario testing is given in MSA: Cost Benefit Analysis (TAG Unit 3.9.2).

The appraisal must include a detailed assessment of the scheme against alternative options that would, as far as possible, broadly meet the same objectives. The testing of alternatives is not an add-on to the appraisal but an integral part of the process of determining the preferred option. Any major scheme for which the appraisal of alternative options is considered inadequate or where the Department considers alternative options to be preferable, will not be accepted for funding.

For public transport schemes options should include: different technologies, such as bus based schemes instead of light rail; or lower cost alternatives, such as bus lanes or shorter lengths of busways compared to fully segregated busways. For highway schemes there should be a consideration of different link/junction standards and other alternatives to address the problems in the area, such as public transport provision, demand management policies, traffic management measures and strategies. Assessment of detailed option designs should form part of the sensitivity analysis in determining the optimum configuration of the scheme.

The assessment of alternatives should start from an initial wide base of possible options. The Department requires a clear understanding of why some particular options are preferred to others. Each option must be assessed against both local and central Government objectives, and in terms of the contribution to LTP objectives. The assessment of alternatives must be sufficiently robust to allow a detailed comparison between the preferred scheme and its alternatives. The Department may wish to see ASTs and worksheets (including TEE tables) for the rejected alternatives, though the level of detail provided in these ASTs and worksheets should be proportionate to the stage at which the rejected alternative was scoped out. For smaller schemes (<£20m) non-quantified ASTs are sufficient for all rejected alternatives except the preferred and low-cost option. For larger schemes the level of detail required for discounted options should be discussed with the Department on a case by case basis.

After a thorough justification has been given for the rejection of some of the initial set of options, the Department requires that all major schemes move toward a final appraisal of the preferred option and a 'fully worked up' lower cost alternative. A scaled down version of this may be acceptable for smaller major schemes, however only after prior agreement with the Department. For larger majors (>£20m) a 'next best' alternative may also need to be carried through the appraisal process. In these cases promoters should enter into discussion with the Department to determine the exact requirements for their scheme.

Evaluation is about objectively monitoring and assessing the outcomes of a decision. An evaluation, therefore, is an independent quantitative and qualitative assessment of the processes of implementing a scheme and its impacts. Evaluating major schemes will help the Department meet its commitment to assess the impacts of its policies, and provide authorities with valuable evidence to inform future decision-making.

The Department therefore expects promoters to set out their evaluation arrangements. They should propose evaluations that will:

• Be proportionate and cost-effective. Usually the extent of evaluation effort should reflect the costs and scale of the scheme. However, innovative or controversial schemes may require more significant evaluation;
• Start before the implementation of the scheme, to ensure that baseline data have been collected;
• Include some assessment of the processes of implementing and constructing the scheme, and how these have affected its impacts;
• Go beyond checking the accuracy of appraisal predictions by assessing whether a scheme achieved its objectives and whether it had any wider and unexpected results (positive and negative);
• Include an assessment of what the scheme added, against what might otherwise have happened;
• Identify any problems with the scheme and recommend potential improvements; and
• Report regularly, with findings effectively disseminated so that other authorities can identify transferable lessons for their schemes.

Promoters should discuss these requirements on a case-by-case basis with the Department.

Promoters should outline the justification for pursuing funding as a LTP major scheme rather than funding through the block allocation. As stated in paragraph 77 of the Guidance on Full Local Transport Plans, promoters will '...need to demonstrate that there are additional benefits to be gained in implementing the different elements...in one go (rather than on an incremental basis funded from the block allocation)'. Links with other policies and schemes should also be outlined (e.g. multi-modal studies, charging schemes, trunk roads, other major schemes, whether already in place or proposed).

Authorities are required to assess the potential suitability of each scheme for funding in whole or in part through the Private Finance Initiative (PFI). The Department will wish to consider procurement options further in the light of responses to the questions in Annex G of the LTP guidance and may ask authorities to carry out further work.

Authorities will be expected to seek to minimise the amount of scheme costs that fall to the public sector. Promoters should explore fully the scope for contributions from developers and, where appropriate, transport operators, and outline all sources of funding and their contribution (e.g. private funding or grants from other public sector bodies). In periods where there is excess demand for LTP funds, the proportion of developer funding may influence the decision to provide funding on schemes. The Department may also require an authority to provide a further contribution towards costs met by the public sector. For light rail and other large public transport schemes, the local contribution will generally be expected to be at least a quarter of scheme costs in present value terms, after netting off the value of any concession being let for the construction and operation of the scheme. Historically, under the LTP Capital Finance procedures, funding provided for major transport schemes has been ring-fenced and remained outside the Single Capital Pot introduced in 2002/03.

Once a scheme is fully approved the central Government funding provision usually comprises a split between borrowing approvals and grant. Historically the borrowing approval support provided has been in the form of a Supplementary Credit Approval (SCA), and the grants have been provided in the form of Public Transport Facilities Grant (sometimes called S56 Grant) for major public transport schemes and Transport Supplementary Grant (TSG) for major road schemes. LTP have tried to achieve roughly a 50% grant and 50% borrowing approval balance over the life of the scheme, though this is not always possible.

Public Transport Facilities Grant is allocated under Section 56 of the Transport Act 1968 and is awarded under specific conditions and requirements detailed in a grant award letter issued prior to the start of each financial year. It is claimed in arrears. Transport Supplementary grant is issued under Section 87 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and is allocated in four quarterly payments in May, August, November and February. Levels of TSG awarded are dictated by the LTP Capital Settlement allocations in the previous December, and the grant is paid out partly in advance and partly in arrears.

The new Prudential capital finance system will be introduced when the Local Government Act 2003 comes fully into force in April 2004. The Local Government Act allows councils to fund local improvements by borrowing money without government consent, provided that they can afford to take on the debt. However, central government support for borrowing for local authority capital investment will continue. From 2004/05 Government support for capital investment will be described as either Supported Capital Expenditure (Revenue) known as SCE(R) or Supported Capital Expenditure (Capital Grant) known as SCE(C). SCE(R)'s have replaced SCA's (Supplementary Credit Approvals) and BCAs (Basic Credit Approvals). SCE can be further classified as either Single Capital Pot or ringfenced.

To provide extra flexibility for authorities assessed as 'good' and 'excellent' in the Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) process, the 2004-05 SCE(R) for major schemes is unringfenced and part of their Single Capital Pot allocation, giving them the freedom to spend the allocation on their priorities. For other authorities, the SCE(R) for major schemes is ringfenced, which means that it must be spent on the scheme in question. Major maintenance schemes are funded wholly through ringfenced SCE(R).

As SCE(R)'s cannot be issued in year, LTP's 2004-05 holdback on major schemes has been held in the form of Transport Supplementary Grant or Public Transport Facilities Grant.

Promoters need to be aware that until a scheme is fully approved by the Department any costs incurred other than those specifically related to the purchase of land or any other asset required for the build of the scheme or actual physical works cannot be claimed as main scheme costs and may only be eligible for preparatory costs. Detailed guidance on how to apply for a contribution towards preparatory costs is available on the DfT website. Promoters should refer to this guidance before submitting any applications.

Promoters should discuss scheme appraisal with the Department and Government Offices at an early stage.

The final appraisal should be presented in a single and complete document, with annexes as necessary, by the LTP submission deadline of the last working day of July (for 2004 this is 30th July). In addition to the paper copies of this document an electronic version also needs to be submitted.

To assist with the provision of full documentation the Major Scheme checklist (Figure 2) is provided below. This outlines the components required within the appraisal document. This checklist must be submitted with the final appraisal, and any omissions from this list must be agreed with the Department prior to submission.

As the resources of the Department are limited, priority will be given to timely and thorough submissions. Earlier working papers may be included, but the derivation of the numbers and the analysis should be clear from the final submission without any need to refer back to earlier documents.

Promoters should be prepared for a period of discussion with the Department and Government Offices before any provisional or final offer of funding will be made. In particular, it may be necessary to discuss key assumptions and methodologies with individual promoters in order for the Department and Government Offices to develop a clear understanding of the value for money of the scheme. This may take the form of correspondence and / or meetings between promoters and the Department and Government Offices. Promoters are also welcome to enter into discussion with the Department prior to submission, this can reduce the amount of correspondence required during the settlement process.

Where Transport and Works Act (TWA) powers are needed, authorities should approach the Department well in advance of applying for these powers. If funding from the Department is essential for the project to proceed, promoters should seek a provisional view from the Department on whether the scheme passes the Government's appraisal tests which are used to decide whether a project is eligible for funding before seeking powers. Authorities should note that to consider requests for a provisional view, the Department requires a fully developed appraisal document and robust transport model to be prepared in accordance with this and other related guidance (see Figure 1).

For larger schemes, or schemes with unusual modelling or appraisal issues the Department may appoint its own consultants to carry out technical audits of appraisals. Promoters will be informed if consultants are appointed on their scheme. These consultants may be used at an early stage of the scheme development to assess the quality of the data and the robustness of the modelling methodology. Promoters will be expected to provide access for such consultants to all relevant analysis.

This TAG Unit will be revised regularly in the light of developments in appraisal methodology. This includes any new guidance issued by the Department on modelling and scheme appraisal. The Department reserves the right to request revisions due to changes in its scheme appraisal methodology.

Figure 2: Major Scheme Checklist

The following needs to be provided in any submission to the DfT. Any omissions from this list should be agreed with the Department prior to submission.

4 Further Information
	The following documents provide information that follows on directly from the key topics covered in this TAG Unit. For information on: See: TAG Unit number: The New Approach To Appraisal (NATA) as developed for multi-modal applications Multi-Modal Studies TAG Unit 1.2 Guidance on how to undertake analysis The Appraisal Process TAG Unit 2.5 The Appendices accompanying this document on Major Scheme Appraisal Detailed Guidance on Major Scheme Appraisal in Local Transport Plans TAG Unit 3.9 Transport Economic Efficiency Tables (TEEs) The Economy objective TAG Unit 3.5

5 References
	The Institute of Logistics and Transport in (2000) Joining up the journey DETR (July 1998) A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone DETR (July 1998) A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England Treasury Taskforce Technical Note 5 How to Construct a Public Sector Comparator Steer Davis Gleave Guidance on Full Local Transport Plans H.M. Treasury (January 2003) Green Book DETR (2000) Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies DfT (2003) Guide to Producing Regional Transport Strategies Highways Agency Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB)

6 Document Provenance
	This Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG) Unit is based on Major Scheme Appraisal in Local Transport Plans Part 1: Detailed Guidance on Public Transport Schemes Version 3: (DfT April 2003) Sections 1 to 3, and provides further detail in support of the Guidance on Full Local Transport Plans, which summarises the main appraisal requirements. The Annexes to Major Scheme Appraisal in Local Transport Plans Part 1 can be found in TAG Unit 3.9. Technical queries and comments on this TAG Unit should be referred to: Economics of Local Transport & General (EcLTG) Division Department for Transport Zone 3/14 Great Minster House 76 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DR ecltg@dft.gsi.gov.uk Tel 020 7944 2295 Fax 020 7944 2207