Mott MacDonald Report Template - merseytravel.gov.uk · Mott MacDonald has been commissioned by St...

Windle Island

Distribution Impact Appraisal for Full Business Case

June 2015

310 TPN ITD 01 A

P:\Birmingham\ITB\Craig W\TAGs_Liverpool\Windle Island\Submissions\MM_WindleIsland_DIA_FBC_v02-KS_Reviewed-

Final_LMC_Actioned.docx June 2015

Windle Island


Windle Island


June 2015

Mott MacDonald, 9th Floor, Royal Liver Building, Pier Head, Liverpool L3 1JH, United Kingdom

T +44 (0)151 482 9910 F +44 (0)151 236 2985 W www.mottmac.com

310/TPN/ITD/01/A June 2015 P:\Birmingham\ITB\Craig W\TAGs_Liverpool\Windle Island\Submissions\MM_WindleIsland_DIA_FBC_v02-KS_Reviewed-Final_LMC_Actioned.docx

Windle Island Distribution Impact Appraisal for Full Business Case

Revision Date Originator Checker Approver Description

A 19/06/2015 S. Farrace C. Walley

N. Hurst

K. Scott

Final for FBC

Issue and revision record

Information Class: Standard

This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the above-captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose.

We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties.

This document contains confidential information and proprietary intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties without consent from us and from the party which commissioned it.



Chapter Title Page

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Appraisal Overview__________________________________________________________________ 1 1.1.1 Introduction ________________________________________________________________________ 1 1.2 Report purpose and approach _________________________________________________________ 1

2 Distributional impacts of user benefits 3

2.1 Introduction ________________________________________________________________________ 3 2.2 Step 1: Screening __________________________________________________________________ 3 2.3 Step 2: Assessment _________________________________________________________________ 3 2.4 Step 3: Appraisal of impact ___________________________________________________________ 6

3 Distributional impacts of noise 7

3.1 Introduction ________________________________________________________________________ 7 3.2 Step 1: Screening __________________________________________________________________ 7 3.3 Step 2: Assessment _________________________________________________________________ 7 3.4 Step 3: Appraisal of impact __________________________________________________________ 14

4 Distributional impacts of air quality 15

4.1 Introduction _______________________________________________________________________ 15 4.2 Step 1: Screening _________________________________________________________________ 15 4.3 Step 2: Assessment ________________________________________________________________ 15 4.4 Step 3: Appraisal of impact __________________________________________________________ 17

5 Distributional impacts of accidents 18

5.1 Introduction _______________________________________________________________________ 18 5.2 Step 1: Screening _________________________________________________________________ 18 5.3 Step 2: Assessment ________________________________________________________________ 18 5.4 Step 3: Appraisal of impact __________________________________________________________ 26

6 Distributional impacts of security 27

6.1 Introduction _______________________________________________________________________ 27 6.2 Step 1: Screening _________________________________________________________________ 27 6.3 Step 3: Appraisal of impact __________________________________________________________ 27

7 Distributional impacts of severance 28

7.1 Introduction _______________________________________________________________________ 28 7.2 Step 1: Screening _________________________________________________________________ 28 7.3 Step 2: Assessment ________________________________________________________________ 28 7.4 Step 3: Appraisal of Impact __________________________________________________________ 34

Contents



8 Distributional impacts of accessibility 36


9 Distributional impacts of personal affordability 37


10 Step 3B: Summary of DIs and AST 38

10.1 Distributional impact appraisal summary ________________________________________________ 38 10.2 Next steps _______________________________________________________________________ 42



1

1.1 Appraisal Overview

1.1.1 Introduction

Mott MacDonald has been commissioned by St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council to support the

development of the Full Business Case (FBC) for Major Scheme Business Case funding for the proposed

Windle Island junction improvements. The report aims to provide proportionate distributional impact (DI)

input to inform the FBC; it will be included as an appendix to the FBC document.

1.2 Report purpose and approach

DI appraisals consider the variance of a scheme’s impact across different social groups. Both beneficial

and /or adverse DIs of proposed interventions are considered, along with the identification of social groups

likely to be affected.

The impacts considered are: user benefits, noise, air quality, accidents, security, severance, accessibility

and personal affordability. The appraisal approaches for each of these impacts are described in the

following sections in this report. Each impact has been appraised individually using a screening proforma

(TAG Unit 4.2 Step 1 – Screening) to determine whether it requires further assessment.

A DI appraisal encompasses a number of stages. Step 1 consists of an initial screening process which

examines the eight impacts and determines whether they need to be appraised further. Step 2A confirms

the impact area extent for when the impacts are mapped using GIS software. Step 2B identifies social

groups and 2C identifies related amenities in the impact areas. Finally, Step 3 appraises the results and

provides an assessment of the impacts of the intervention.

The screening process considers the areas where the transport intervention might have negative or

positive impacts on specific social groups. These groups are: children, older people, people with a limiting

long term illness (LLTI), Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) communities, people without access to a car, and

people on low incomes. These are further explained in Table 1.1 overleaf, extracted from WebTAG Unit

4.2, which highlights the groups considered for each impact.

1 Introduction



2

Table 1.1: Scope of socio-demographic analysis for DIs (Step 2b)1

This DI appraisal has been undertaken by giving consideration to the social effects (both beneficial and

adverse) of the proposed scheme, against the eight DIs in TAG Unit 4.2. The effects of the scheme have

been identified using a seven-point scale system, in accordance with the WebTAG criteria as shown in

Table 1.2 below.

Table 1.2: Seven-point scale system for determining scheme distributional impact

Impact

Large adverse

Moderate adverse

Slight adverse

0 Neutral

Slight beneficial

Moderate beneficial

Large beneficial

This scoring utilises the DI grading system prescribed in TAG 4.2. The appraisal looks to identify if the

impact is beneficial, neutral or adverse. Neutral impacts are left as neutral, however beneficial or adverse

impacts are scored using the following guidance:

Social groups that have impact area proportions that are significantly larger (> +5%) than their national

averages are assessed large.

Social groups that have impact area proportions that are broadly in line (+ or -5%) with their national

averages are assessed as moderate,

Social groups that have impact area proportions that are smaller (< -5%) than their national averages

are assessed as slight.

1 Department for Transport (Jan 2014) TAG Unit A4.2 Distributional Impact Appraisal



3

2.1 Introduction

Transport User Benefits Appraisal (TUBA) values have been produced as part of the economic appraisal of

the scheme. These figures have been linked to the proportion of residents in each of the income

deprivation quintiles, to represent the distributional share of user benefits.

2.2 Step 1: Screening

Table 2.1 below has been completed by considering the appraisal output criteria (Column A) to determine

any potential impact (Column B) of the intervention. Additional and wider qualitative comments are then

included in Column C to provide the basis for deciding whether to proceed to steps 2a and 2b (Column D).

Table 2.1: Distributional user benefits impact screening

Indicator (a) Appraisal output criteria (b) Potential

impact (c) Qualitative comments

(d) Proceed to steps 2a & 2b

User benefits The TUBA user benefit analysis software or an equivalent

process has been used in the appraisal; and/or the value of

user benefits Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) table

is non-zero.

Yes, expected to be positive

The user benefit impacts are regarded to be largely positive rather than negative

and therefore the analysis is likely to focus on linking the user benefits to the

income deprivation splits.

Yes

2.3 Step 2: Assessment

Step 2a: Confirmation of areas impacted by the intervention

The TUBA model produced a series of sectors with an associated monetary benefit. The extent of

monetised sectors was used to define the user benefit geographic impact area, and this is displayed in

Figure 2.1 overleaf.

2 Distributional impacts of user benefits



4

Figure 2.1: User benefits impact area

Step 2b: Identification of social groups in the impact area

The income distribution map (Figure 2.2 below) shows that there is a considerable spread of income

deprivation across the user benefit assessment area. Windle Island is located in an area of low income

deprivation when compared to the greater region; however the junction does neighbour areas with high

income deprivation levels. The main areas of income deprivation include Liverpool and Birkenhead to the

west and areas of St Helens to the east of the impact area. Approximately 37% of the impact area

population is located in the lowest income quintile, broadly in line with the St Helens District average of

35%, but significantly higher than the national average figure of 20% (which accounts for 20% of LSOAs

and not the national population).



5

Figure 2.2: Income distribution in the user benefits impact area

Source: 2010 Indices of Multiple Deprivation

Step 2c: Identification of amenities in the impact area

TAG 4.2 states that the identification of amenities within the user benefits DI appraisal is not required due

to the appraisal focusing on the impact across income deprivation quintiles and the impact area being too

large to warrant identification of local attractors.



6

2.4 Step 3: Appraisal of impact

Step 3a: Core analysis of impacts

Table 2.2: Distributional analysis of user benefits

User benefits impact area

< Most deprived Income quintiles Least deprived>

Total 0% <20% 20% <40% 40% <60% 60% <80% 80% <100%

Population 37% 18% 18% 16% 12% 1,819,804

Share of user benefits (£) 2,692,736 1,290,888 1,313,395 1,187,569 873,885 7,358,473

Share of user disbenefits - - - - - 0

National average* 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 53,012,456

Assessment

Source: TUBA sectorised benefits

The TUBA model produced a non-business benefit figure of £7,358,473. The distributional analysis of user

benefits in Table 2.2 assigns this overall benefit figure proportionately amongst the income quintiles found

in the user benefits impact area.

Table 2.2 shows the scheme improvements will generate a moderate beneficial assessment score due to

three of the income quintiles experiencing user benefit shares that are in line (+/-5%) with the share of

population in the impact area.

Summary assessment score: Moderate beneficial



7

3.1 Introduction

Noise impacts are likely to occur where an intervention results in changes to traffic flows, speeds or where

the physical gap between people and traffic is altered.


Table 3.1: Distributional impact - noise screening




Noise Any change in alignment of transport corridor or any links

with significant changes (>25% or <-20%) in vehicle flow, speed

or %HDV content. Also note comment in TAG Unit A3.

Expected to be neutral or

potentially adverse

Impacts during construction and operation will be considered, however the change in flow is unlikely to cause

impacts above a slight classification.

Yes



The second study area (as shown in Figure 3.1 below) has been created to more accurately portray the

effects of the DI of noise in the vicinity of the corridor. This is currently set to 1km around the scheme

boundary with an inner study area of 250m to align with the environment appraisal. The study shows that

there are 2943 households within 1km, and 184 households within 250m (see Figure 3.2).

Figure 3.1 should also be referred to when reviewing the DI of air quality within the next section of this

report (Section 4).

3 Distributional impacts of noise



8

Figure 3.1: 1km impact area



9

Figure 3.2: Households in the 1km impact area


As listed in Table 1.1, WebTAG Unit 4.2 states that the social groups required to analyse distributional

noise impacts for this project are children under the age of 16 and income distribution of the population

within the impact area.

Figure 3.3 shows the proportion those aged under 16 in the study area is 17%, broadly in line with the St

Helen’s District and national figures of 18% and 19% respectively. Population density of children under 16

is low in the impact area, with large areas containing less than 3 under 16s per hectare (see Figure 3.4).



10

Figure 3.3: Proportion of children < 16 years of age in the 1km impact area



11

Figure 3.4: Proportion of children < 16 years of age in the 1km impact area

Source: 2011 Census

As shown in Figure 3.5 below, Windle Island is situated in between areas of both the lowest and highest

income deprivation. The lowest income quintiles are located east of the A580. South and west of Windle

Island contains a large proportion of the highest income quintiles.

Approximately 73% of the impact area population is located in the highest income quintile (significantly

higher than the St Helens average of 13%); this is also significantly higher than the national average figure

of 20% (which accounts for 20% of LSOAs and not the national population).



12

Figure 3.5: Income distribution in the noise and air quality impact area

Source: IMD 2010


Step 2C of the appraisal looks to identify which trip attractors / amenities are located within the impact

area. TAG Unit 4.2 states that the “only clearly established evidence of social impact as a result of noise

level changes is the impact of noise levels on children’s concentration when learning”. Consideration has

been given to the number and locations facilities that are used by young persons. Using GIS software and

Ordnance Survey address base data, the following amenities were mapped (see Figure 3.6 below):

Education establishments including nurseries, schools, secondary schools and colleges

Leisure facilities and sports centres / clubs

Medical facilities including surgeries and hospitals

Public parks and playgrounds



13

The map indicates that there are six facilities utilised by young persons within 1km of the scheme boundary

and these are listed within Table 3.2 below.

Figure 3.6: Amenities within the noise impact area

Source: OS Address Base / Census 2011

Table 3.2: Amenities frequented by children <16 in the noise impact area

Amenity Total

Nursery / Creche 3

Sports / Leisure Centre 2

Primary School 1



14



The environmental appraisal2 conducted as part of the Windle Island transport appraisal process

concluded that the scheme is likely to produce neutral noise impacts. Increases in traffic flow and speed

may produce noise impacts; however this could be offset with mitigation measures in the form of acoustic

barriers. Assuming appropriate noise impact measures are put into place, it is not anticipated that there will

be any significant noise impacts.

Summary assessment score: Neutral

2 Mott MacDonald (June 2015) Windle Island Junction Improvement Scheme – Full Business Case Environmental Impact Appraisal



15

4.1 Introduction

Air quality impacts, like noise impacts, are likely to occur where an intervention results in changes to traffic

flows, speeds or where the physical gap between people and traffic is altered.


Table 4.1: Distributional impact – air quality screening




Air quality Any change in alignment of transport corridor or any links

with significant changes in vehicle flow, speed or %HDV

content: • Change in 24 hour AADT of

1000 vehicles or more • Change in 24 hour AADT of HDV of 200 HDV vehicles or

more • Change in daily average speed

of 10kph or more • Change in peak hour speed of

20kph or more • Change in road alignment of

5m or more

Expected to be neutral

Impacts during construction and operation will be considered, however the change in flow is unlikely to cause

impacts above a slight classification

Yes



Air quality impacts are assessed in the same way as noise impacts. As such, Figures 3.1 and 3.2 within

Section 3.3 should be reviewed in conjunction with this appraisal as they are relevant to the air quality

assessment.


Children under the age of 16 are most likely to be affected by changes in air quality as they tend to spend

more time outside. Air quality can also affect those living in areas of low car ownership as these people

experience impacts of car use but they themselves do not have access to a car. The review of air quality

impacts therefore focuses on children and those living in relatively high income deprivation areas in

relation to the site. WebTAG guidance also suggests amenities frequented by older people aged over 70

should be mapped and considered as part of the air quality appraisal.

As mentioned in Section 3.3, 17% of residents within the impact area are aged under 16, and 73% of the

impact area is within a low income deprivation area.

4 Distributional impacts of air quality



16


The amenities displayed in Figure 4.1 are applicable to the air quality assessment. WebTAG Unit 4.2

requires the addition of care / nursing homes, surgeries and hospitals to analyse the impact of air quality

on elderly residents as well as children, as these facilities have limited or no alternative options to lessen

interference from local emissions sources. Figure 4.1 and Table 4.2 below show there is one nursing / care

home in addition to the amenities identified for noise impacts.

Figure 4.1: Amenities within the air quality impact area



17

Table 4.2: Amenities frequented by children U16 and elderly residents aged 70+ in the air quality impact area



Air quality impacts were assessed as part of the schemes environmental appraisal. The appraisal concluded that the scheme is likely to produce slight beneficial local air quality impacts. The scheme aims to reduce congestion at the junction, which would improve air quality due to “less idling vehicles and less very low speed traffic”.

Table 4.3 below looks to summarise the DI assessment scores given to the social groups related to this

impact. The mapping of social groups has resulted in the slight beneficial score awarded in the

environmental appraisal becoming a moderate beneficial distributional score.

Table 4.3: Air quality - social group assessment summary table

Social Group Impact

area National average Assessment

Most deprived quintile 9% *20% Slight beneficial

Children (<16) 17% 19% Moderate beneficial

Older people (70+) 16% 12% Moderate beneficial

Overall assessment Moderate beneficial

* 20% of LSOAs


Amenity Total

Nursery / Creche 3

Sports / Leisure Centre 2

Primary School 1

Nursing / Care Home 1



18

5.1 Introduction

Accident impacts mostly occur on the road network and distribution impacts need to be assessed for

children under 16, older people (70+) and young adults.


Table 5.1: Distributional impacts – accident screening




Accidents Any change in alignment of transport corridor (or road layout)

that may have positive or negative safety impacts, or any links with significant changes in

vehicle flow, speed, %HDV content or any significant change

(>10%) in the number of pedestrians, cyclists or

motorcyclists using road network.


Improvement in road safety is expected due to a number of improvements at the site. These include: improved pedestrian

and cyclist facilities and improving the poor road surface.

Yes



The Liverpool City Region has been used as the geographic area for reviewing the distributional impacts of

accidents; see Figure 5.1 below.

5 Distributional impacts of accidents



19

Figure 5.1: Accidents impact area


The accidents analysis requires groups that are more susceptible to road and traffic accidents to be

represented. As such, modelling has been undertaken for children aged under 16 (Figures 5.2 and 5.3),

young persons aged 16-25 (Figures 5.4 and 5.5), and older people aged over 70 (Figures 5.6 and 5.7).



20

Figure 5.2: Proportion of children < 16 in the accidents impact area

Source: 2011 Census



21

Figure 5.3: Density of children <16 in the accidents impact area

Source: 2011 Census

Figure 5.2 and 5.3 display the proportion and density of children under 16 years of age within the LCR.

Approximately 18% of the total population are children and this is in line with the district (St Helens) and

national figures (18% and 19% respectively). The highest densities of children under 16 are primarily

concentrated in and around urban developments.



22

Figure 5.4: Proportion of young people 16 – 25 in in the accidents impact area

Source: 2011 Census



23

Figure 5.5: Density of young people 16 – 25 in the accidents impact area

Source: 2011 Census

Figures 5.4 and 5.5 display the proportion and density of young people aged 16 and 25 children within

LCR, approximately 14% of the population. This is broadly in line with the district and national figures

(12% and 13% respectively). The highest densities of children under 16 are primarily concentrated in and

around urban developments.



24

Figure 5.6: Proportion of older people 70+ in in the accidents impact area

Source: 2011 Census



25

Figure 5.7: Density of older people 70+ in the accidents impact area

Source: 2011 Census

Figures 5.6 and 5.7 display the proportion and density of older people over 70 within LCR, approximately

12% of the population, which is the same as the district and national averages (both 12%). On average

between two and eight (people over 70) per hectare live within the impact area and the highest densities

are primarily concentrated in and around urban developments.



26


The identification of amenities has been deemed inappropriate for the accidents impact areas as it is too

large to warrant identification of local trip attractors.



The Social Impact (SI) appraisal conducted alongside this report anticipates a moderate beneficial

accidents impact as a result of the scheme. The total average cost savings associated with road and

pedestrian accident prevention as a result of road safety improvements at the junction is calculated to be

nearly £2.2 million over the period from 2008 to 2013.

The mapping of social groups in the impact area has revealed that the social groups considered to be at

risk of accidents (children under 16, young adults aged 16-25, and older people aged over 70) all have

proportions that are in line with their respective national averages. Table 5.2 summarises the assessment

scores for accident impacts. The moderate beneficial score awarded in the SI appraisal has been

preserved.

Table 5.2: Accidents - social group assessment summary table

Social Group Impact

Area National Average Assessment


Young people (16 - 25) 14% 13% Moderate beneficial



* 20% of LSOAs




27

6.1 Introduction

The social groups considered relevant when considering potential security impacts are children (under 16),

young adults (16-25), older people (over 70), those with an LLTI and those from BME communities.


Table 6.1: Distributional impact – security screening




Security Any change in public transport waiting/interchange facilities including pedestrian access

expected to affect user perceptions of personal security.


People’s perception of personal safety at the site will increase due to the

improvement of facilities for pedestrians and cyclists. These improvements

include larger pedestrian/cyclist refuge areas at crossings, and protective guard

rails.

Security impacts overlap with accident impacts and to avoid double counting

security has been scoped out of the DI appraisal

No



It can be expected that personal safety at Windle Island junction will increase as a result of scheme

improvements; however these have been accounted for and scored in the accidents impacts assessment.

As such security impacts have been scoped out of the appraisal.

Summary assessment score: Neutral (scoped out)

6 Distributional impacts of security



28

7.1 Introduction

Severance is defined in WebTAG as the separation of residents from facilities and services they use within

their community caused by significant changes in transport infrastructure which impede pedestrian

movement or present a physical barrier to movement.


Table 7.1: Distributional impact - severance screening




Severance Introduction or removal of barriers to pedestrian movement,

either through changes to road crossing provision, or through

introduction of new public transport or road corridors. Any areas with significant changes (>10%) in vehicle flow, speed,

%HDV content.


The scheme should remove a major severance point for pedestrians and

cyclists.

Yes



The WebTAG appraisal of severance impacts focuses on pedestrian movement in the area. The 1km

impact area (also used for noise and air quality) has been used, as this is considered a suitable maximum

distance for foot journeys. This can be seen in figure 3.1 in section 3.3.


Severance impacts are experienced mostly by social groups in households without access to a car,

children (under 16), older people (over 70) and those with an LLTI. These social groups are mapped

below, with the exception of children aged under 16 which is presented in Figures 3.3 and 3.4 in Section

3.3.

7 Distributional impacts of severance



29

Figure 7.1: Proportion of older people aged over 70 in the severance impact area

Source: 2011 Census



30

Figure 7.2: Density of older people aged over 70 in the severance impact area

Source: 2011 Census

Figures 7.1 and 7.2 display the proportion and density of older people aged over 70 within the severance

impact area. Approximately 16% of the population are aged over 70, which is higher (yet still broadly in

line) with the district and national averages of 12%.



31

Figure 7.3: Proportion of residents with an LLTI in the severance impact area

Source: 2011 Census



32

Figure 7.4: Density of residents with an LLTI in the severance impact area

Source: 2011 Census

Figures 7.3 and 7.4 display the proportion and density of those with LLTI within the severance impact area.

Approximately 19% of the population has a LLTI, which is broadly in line with the district figure of 23%, and

the national average of 18%.



33

Figure 7.5: Proportion of households with no access to a car in the severance impact area

Source: 2011 Census



34

Figure 7.6: Density of households with no access to a car in the severance impact area

Source: 2011 Census

Figures 7.5 and 7.6 display the proportion and density of households with no access to a car within the

severance impact area. Approximately 14% of households do not have access to a vehicle, considerably

lower than both district and national figures (27% and 26% respectively).

7.4 Step 3: Appraisal of Impact


The SI appraisal anticipates a moderate beneficial score for severance. All of the severance related social

groups (with the exception of no car households) have proportions that are broadly in line with their

respective national averages, preserving the moderate beneficial score awarded in the SI appraisal as

shown in Table 7.2 below.



35

Table 7.2: Severance - social group assessment summary table

Social Group Impact

area National average Assessment



Those with a LLTI 19% 18% Moderate beneficial

No car households (% of households) 14% 26% Slight beneficial





36

8.1 Introduction

Accessibility assessment within a DI appraisal focuses on public transport accessibility in terms of

accessing employment, services and social networks. Social groups included within this appraisal section

include:

Income distribution

Children < 16

Young people 16 – 25

Older people 70+

Those with an LLTI

Those from BME backgrounds

Households with no car

Households with dependent children


Table 8.1: Distributional impacts – accessibility screening




Accessibility Changes in routings or timings of current public transport services, any changes to public transport

provision, including routing, frequencies, waiting facilities (bus stops / rail stations) and

rolling stock, or any indirect impacts on accessibility to

services (e.g. demolition & re-location of a school).

Neutral There are no proposed public transport improvements associated with the

Windle Island scheme and as such this has been scoped out of the DI appraisal.

No



WebTAG 4.2 guidance for the DI appraisal primarily focuses on public transport when analysing

accessibility impacts. The Windle Island proposal does not incorporate any proposed public transport

improvements and as such this has been scoped out of this appraisal.

Summary Assessment Score: Neutral (scoped out)

8 Distributional impacts of accessibility



37

9.1 Introduction

The most significant affordability impacts relating to travel costs are experienced by young adults (16-25)

and older people (over 70) and those within low income households, particularly when travelling to

employment and education sites.


Table 9.1: Distributional impacts – affordability screening




Affordability In cases where the following charges would occur; Parking

charges (including where changes in the allocation of free

or reduced fee spaces may occur); Car fuel and non-fuel

operating costs (where, for example, rerouting or changes in

journey speeds and congestion occur resulting in changes in

costs); Road user charges (including discounts and

exemptions for different groups of travellers); Public transport

fare changes (where, for example premium fares are set

on new or existing modes or where multi-modal discounted

travel tickets become available due to new ticketing

technologies); or public transport concession availability (where,

for example concession arrangements vary as a result of a move in service provision from

bus to light rail or heavy rail, where such concession

entitlement is not maintained by the local authority).


The scheme’s impacts are unlikely to affect affordability issues directly.

No



There are no changes identified that affect travel affordability so this has been scoped out of the DI

appraisal.

Summary Assessment Score: Neutral (scoped out)

9 Distributional impacts of personal affordability



38

10.1 Distributional impact appraisal summary

This appraisal has addressed the eight distributional impact areas outlined in TAG Unit 4.2. The report has

followed a quantitative and qualitative approach, assigning an assessment score on a seven point scale of

beneficial, neutral and adverse for each impact area.

The appraisal has found that the scheme will deliver broadly positive benefits. Table 10.1 below provides a

summary of the assessment scores assigned to each impact area.

Table 10.1: Summary assessment scores

Impact area Score

User benefits Moderate beneficial

Noise Neutral

Air quality Moderate beneficial

Accidents Moderate beneficial

Security Neutral (scoped out)

Severance Moderate beneficial

Accessibility Neutral (scoped out)

Personal affordability Neutral (scoped out)

The overall output summary table and distributional impact matrix can be seen in Tables 10.1 and 10.2

overleaf. These tables were used as the basis of assigning DI assessment scores to each of the impact

areas.

10 Step 3B: Summary of DIs and AST

39 310/TPN/ITD/01/A June 2015 P:\Birmingham\ITB\Craig W\TAGs_Liverpool\Windle Island\Submissions\MM_WindleIsland_DIA_FBC_v02-KS_Reviewed-Final_LMC_Actioned.docx


Figure 10.1: Output Summary Table

User

Ben

efi

ts

No

ise

Air

qu

ali

ty

Accid

en

ts

Secu

rity

Severa

nce

Accessib

ilit

y

Aff

ord

ab

ilit

y

St

Hele

ns

En

gla

nd

0-20% 37% 9% 9% 35% *20%

20-40% 18% 1% 1% 23% *20%

40-60% 18% 9% 9% 11% *20%

60-80% 16% 9% 9% 19% *20%

80-100% 12% 73% 73% 13% *20%

17% 17% 18% 17% 18% 19%

10% 10% 14% 12% 13%

16% 12% 16% 12% 12%

19% 23% 18%

3% 20%

14% 27% 26%

29% 29%

1,819,804 5,261 5,261 1,506,935 5,261 175,308 53,012,456

- -

- -

- -

- -

- - -

- -

- -

* This value represents the proportion of LSOA's within the IMD Income Distribution band

Indicator population in the impact area

Amenities present

within the impact area

Schools / nurseries

Playgrounds

Parks and open spaces

Hospitals

Care homes / day centres

Community centre

Social group and amenities indicators

Resident population in

the impact area

Children (<16)

Young people

Older people

People with a disability

Black Minority Ethnic

No car households

Households with dependent children

Income distribution

quintiles



Figure 10.2: Distributional Impact Appraisal Matrix

0-20% 20-40% 40-60% 60-80% 80-100%

User benefits

No

Noise

No

Air quality

No

Affordability

Accessibility

Children

& young

people

Older

people Carers Women Disabled BME Pedestrians Cyclists

Motor-

cyclists

Young

male

drivers

Noise Neutral

Neutral

Air Quality

Beneficial and the population impacted is broadly in line w ith the

proportion of the group in the total population.

Accidents



Security

Neutral

Severance



Accessibility

Neutral

Scoped out at initial screening stage


AST entry

The noise impact study area has a disproportionate spread of income deprivation, therefore noise impacts w ould

be spread disproportionately amongst the income deprivation quintiles. How ever, the environmental analysis has

show n the level of noise impact is expected to be neutral and therefore this is unlikely to result in an impact for this

scheme.

The air quality impact study area has a disproportionate spread of income deprivation, therefore air quality impacts

w ould be spread disproportionately amongst the income deprivation quintiles. How ever, the environmental analysis

has show n the level of air quality impact is expected to be slight and therefore this is unlikely to result in a

signif icant overall impact for this scheme.

The impact area has a mixed spread of income deprivation, how ever the largest proportion of the population w ithin

the impact area is w ithin the most income deprived quintile (37%). Therefore it can be expected that impacts w ill be

slightly disproportionate, w ith a geater share of the benefits being seen by low income residents.

Not quantitatively assessed





Qualitative statement (including any impact on

residential population AND identified amenities)

Key impacts - Qualitative statements (example below)

Windle Island

Distributional impact of income deprivation

Are the

impacts

distributed

evenly?

Impact

Social groups User groups



42

10.2 Next steps

This DI appraisal will be included as an appendix to the FBC for the proposed Windle Island scheme. This

appraisal will help inform the decision-making for major transport scheme funding.

Mott MacDonald Report Template - merseytravel.gov.uk · Mott MacDonald has been commissioned by St...

Documents

Transcript of Mott MacDonald Report Template - merseytravel.gov.uk · Mott MacDonald has been commissioned by St...