This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Such benefi ts are likely to vary signifi cantly according to the individual scheme location and its design, and need to be considered in the context of existing provision. While it is possible to quantify some of these changes, for example through the use of accessibility mapping, they are extremely hard to monetise, even at a broad brush level. For this reason, the approach in the DfT appraisal guidance is considered the most appropriate: to give basic evidence for the area affected by the scheme such as:

• numbers of people affected overall and numbers currently affected adversely by lack of transport provision;

• existing amenities and destinations which the affected population need to access;

• level of improvement achieved and its social distribution.

This is important because in rural areas some schemes may use forecasts for number of members or distance travelled per car. These may cause a lower BCR than using average fi gures. However, it is likely that in these circumstances the social impacts, as recognised in more detail in Tag Unit 4.1, will be signifi cantly higher.

Bearing in mind the need for proportionate appraisal, it is unlikely that extensive new data collection, modelling or forecasting will be undertaken. Useful existing sources for an evidence base in this case are the Census fi gures for population density, employment and car ownership and basic travel time data for car and other modes.

Comparing urban and rural car club schemes must therefore be approached with care, particularly where local forecasts for use are the basis for calculation of a BCR. This reinforces the inclusion of a policy fi t section in any scheme appraisal.

Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22