Skip to content

Access keys for

  • h Home
  • m Menu
  • 0 Show list of access keys
  • 2 Skip to content
  • 3 Skip to top

Some information within the 2018–21 NLTP Investment Assessment Framework (IAF) pages may currently be out of date. We are in the process of updating the Planning and Investment Knowledge Base to reflect the new draft IAF that has been developed for the 2018–21 National Land Transport Programme (NLTP). This work will be completed by mid-May 2018. The draft IAF is currently available for feedback until 18 May, and will be finalised by 30 June 2018.

Find out more about the draft IAF


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.

Prior requirements for Assessment

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. 

Work Categories

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.

Links to planning

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.

Safer Journeys areas of concern

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.

Communities at risk register

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

  • prioritise funding to those communities that feature highly within a national risk area; and
  • address issues that are not identified as an area of high concern in the Safer Journeys strategy, but are still a significant local risk issue, by helping local authorities identify and prioritise resources towards the specific areas of concern.

The register is updated prior to the start of each NLTP. Briefing notes issued annually to each Approved Organisation will further define localised risks.

Road safety action planning

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.

Results Alignment for road safety promotion programmes

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:


  • a local programme for a community at risk that has a medium risk;


  • a national programme that supports delivery of a local programme for a community at medium risk (such as support for local driver-licensing programmes targeting at-risk young people).

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:


  • a local programme for a community at risk that has a high risk


  • a national programme that support delivery of a local programme for a community at high risk (such as support for local driver-licensing programmes targeting at-risk young people).

Further information

Further information on Results Alignment assessment is provided in the guidance on Developing an Assessment Profile

Cost-Benefit appraisal for road safety promotion programmes


The Cost-Benefit Appraisal methods for road safety promotion activities and programmes are:

  1. All activities that individually cost $1,000,000 or more will require a formal cost-benefit appraisal to calculate a benefit cost ratio (BCR). Activities costing more than $1,000,000 must not be split up into smaller components to avoid determining a BCR.
  2. All programmes shall be justified under a value for money assessment. This assessment should be based on the priorities identified in a road safety strategy or action plan using benchmarking and cost effectiveness methodologies, and any other means of Cost-Benefit Appraisal that may be applicable.

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.

  • Low - when cost effectiveness and benchmarking shows below-average band efficiency
  • Medium - when cost effectiveness and benchmarking shows average band efficiency
  • High - when cost effectiveness shows above-average band efficiency

Use of placeholder, generic or default BCR

No placeholder, generic or default BCRs are to be used.

Further information

Further information on cost-benefit appraisal and the resulting assessment ratings is provided in the section on Developing an Assessment Profile.

Peer review

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.