This section provides guidance for assessing road safety promotion programmes (covering promotion, education and advertising); these programmes are designed to target a reduction in deaths and serious injuries on the road network.
The assessment under the Investment Assessment Framework considers business cases developed using Business Case Approach principles.
Prior to any assessment using the Investment Assessment Framework, the business case must first be assessed by the Transport Agency to provide assurance that a robust case has been developed under Business Case Approach principles.
The road safety promotion activity class incorporates the following work category:
Further to the assessment criteria set out under Results Alignment and Cost-Benefit Appraisal below, Approved Organisations and the Transport Agency should consider the guidance on links to planning documentation, the Communities at Risk Register and the Road Safety Action Planning guidance set out below, to support the assessment of road safety promotion activities. In addition, an activity list template has been provided below which organisations are required to fill out, detailing the activities expected to be delivered through the programme.
It is expected that the majority of programmes will be made up of activities costing less than $1,000,000; these will be treated similarly to low cost, low risk programmes, i.e. formal business case and cost and benefit appraisal information not required.
For the larger programmes, it is expected that a formal business case approach at an appropriate scale is followed. This may be as a standalone business case or may be developed through a programme business case with a focus wider than safety promotion, for example.
The Transport Agency has aligned its Investment Assessment Framework (IAF), and how it applies for the Road Safety Promotion activity class, with the Safer Journeys areas of concern as set out in the Safer Journeys strategy (external link) . However, we know that some communities are over-represented in national statistics for other risk areas.
The Safer Journeys strategy (external link) defines 13 areas of concern where current performance needs to be strengthened and these have been grouped into three levels of significance from a national perspective – areas of high concern, areas of medium concern and areas of continued and emerging focus. The level of significance of these areas may also be defined by the communities at risk register or the new layered spatial tool. The Transport Agency may also consider the investment partner’s own evidence.
The Transport Agency has aligned its investment assessment framework for the Road safety promotion activity class with the Safer Journeys (external link) areas of concern. However, we know that some communities are over-represented in national statistics for other risk areas.
The ‘Communities at Risk' register, based on information in the national Crash Analysis System Database, enables the Transport Agency to
The register is updated prior to the start of each NLTP. Briefing notes issued annually to each Approved Organisation will further define localised risks.
The Road Safety Action Planning process is an essential element for planning activities funded through the NLTP, particularly within road safety promotion. Effective action planning requires a collaborative approach from key partners to provide direction, commitment and urgency to address and mitigate road safety risks.
Action planning works most effectively when led and owned by regional leadership, with alignment to national safety strategies.
Activities delivering on key priority areas for the region, cluster or approved organisation, as informed by evidence, should reflect a number of the Safe System (external link) pillars and integrate investment from all parties utilising advertising, education, enforcement and infrastructure. It is essential that investment proposals to the road safety promotion activity class reflect this broad, Safe System approach.
Default Results Alignment
The default results alignment rating for a road safety promotion programme, or component of a programme, is Low if it only meets some of the requirements for a Medium rating.
Requirements for Medium rating
A road safety promotion programme, or component of a programme, may be given a Medium results alignment rating if each road user behaviour change activity within the programme is contributing to, or has outcomes aligned to one of the following:
Requirements for High rating
A High results alignment rating must only be given to road safety promotion programmes, or component of a programmes, if each road user behaviour change activity within the programme is contributing to, or has outcomes aligned to one of the following:
Further information on Results Alignment assessment is provided in the guidance on Developing an Assessment Profile.
The Cost-Benefit Appraisal methods for road safety promotion activities and programmes are:
A simplified procedure (SP13) for Cost-Benefit Appraisal is available for Road Safety Promotion in the Economic Evaluation Manual. This procedure should be used as part of the value for money assessment and guidance on this is provided within the Economic Evaluation Manual.
Road safety promotion programmes value for money ratings
Road safety promotion programmes, or components of programmes, are given a rating using Low, Medium, or High based on their relative cost effectiveness and benchmarking performance comparisons.
Use of placeholder, generic or default BCR
No placeholder, generic or default BCRs are to be used.
Further information on cost-benefit appraisal and the resulting assessment ratings is provided in the section on Developing an Assessment Profile.
The Transport Agency reserves the right to require a peer review of benefit and cost appraisal determinations and measures, including any non-monetised/additional benefits and adverse impacts, regardless of the scope, prior to an investment decision.