Scottish Government

D: Process

66. This section sets out the steps expected for the creation of a regional transport strategy.

(i) STAG, SEA and assurance

67. The process follows that set out in the Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance ( STAG) and should meet the requirements of Strategic Environmental Assessment ( SEA) legislation. Further information on STAG and SEA can be found in Annexes G and H respectively, which include references to the guidance and support that is available.

68. The RTPs will be supported throughout this process by the Scottish Executive on an ongoing, informal basis and through a formal assurance process. This will enable the Scottish Executive to give feedback to RTPs at key stages of the strategy development process and should give RTPs confidence that their strategies are developing in line with this guidance and are on course to achieve Ministerial approval. The assurance process is set out in Annex I.

(ii) Timetable

69. RTPs are required by legislation to complete their first RTS by 31 March 2007 unless an extension has been approved. A model timetable is attached at Annex J which also indicates where the RTS process links to the key stages of STAG and SEA.

70. An RTP may, any time before 1 August 2006 ¹³, apply to Ministers for an extension to this deadline. An application for an extension can be a simple written request from the Chair of the RTP to the Minister for Transport, following an affirmative decision by the partnership's board, setting out the additional time requested and the reasons for the request. Ministers will consider the case made and respond in writing setting out the length of the extension granted or the reason why it has not been granted.

(iii) Scoping - challenges and opportunities

71. The first stage of drawing up a regional transport strategy is the initial scoping. This will look at the current situation of transport in the region. In following the STAG process it is imperative to have a detailed and, where practicable, a quantified understanding of the transport problems, constraints and opportunities within the region. In particular it is essential to understand where established policies and objectives are not being achieved as a result of deficiencies within the transport system.

72. When undertaking the scoping exercise, RTPs should have regard to the specific requirements of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005. Relevant provisions include:

• the requirement to have regard to future needs including those occasioned by demographic and land-use changes;
• the requirement to make provision for meeting the needs of all inhabited places including those which the RTP considers different from the remainder of the region by reason of their remoteness or the sparsity of their populations;
• the need for efficient transport links between heavily populated places.

73. The provisions in section 5(2)(d) of the Act, the 5 national objectives and the principles set out in paragraph 18 should also be kept in mind.

74. In taking stock of the current state of transport in the region, and looking ahead to how trends are likely to develop over the timescale of the strategy, the RTP will need access to a variety of information sources. Annex E provides some suggestions although the RTP will want to carry out its own identification of data sources and data collection. This should include some engagement with stakeholders.

75. The output of this stage should be an Issues and Objectives Report that can form an early chapter of the strategy detailing the current state of transport in the region, the problems that currently exist, the opportunities for development, the predicted state on the basis of identifiable trends, and the outcomes this would lead to.

76. The issues report will enable the RTP to determine which issues need to be addressed, which problems solved, which opportunities realised and at what point in time - and to set objectives accordingly.

77. This report should also contribute to the requirement for an SEA scoping report ¹⁴.

(iv) Agreeing the vision

78. Agreeing a vision for transport in the region is not a statutory requirement but is recommended by the Executive.

79. This stage can run in parallel with the scoping. Although the vision needs to be informed by an understanding of the needs and current state of transport in the region, it can be developed without the input of the detailed evidence base required for later stages. The vision should be a general and aspirational statement that is focused more on the future than the current situation ( i.e. up to and beyond the timescale of the RTS). It should be consistent with the Executive's vision, aim and objectives (see Annex C) and the principles set out in paragraph 18.

80. To have value, the vision must be owned by the members of the partnership. To be useful - and memorable - the vision should be short and should not try to cover every concern, focusing instead on those issues of most importance in the region.

(v) Setting the objectives

81. Whilst the vision will set a high-level direction for the strategy and the work of the RTP, a series of more specific objectives will also be required. These objectives will steer the appraisal and prioritisation of transport interventions in the region.

82. In line with STAG, objectives should be 'smart': specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and timed. They should also be challenging. They should be written in such a way that it will be clear when they are achieved and that progress can be measured along the way. They can be supported by lower-level targets and performance indicators for particular projects or services. Community planning partners and other stakeholders will be able to make a contribution to the setting of objectives.

83. Objectives should focus on working towards the vision of the RTP, the Executive's 5 broad transport objectives and the emerging aims of the National Transport Strategy. Objectives should also be informed by the needs, problems and opportunities identified through the RTP's work on scoping and by the principles set out in paragraph 18.

84. The Issues and Objectives Report produced during the scoping stage should be approved by the RTP board. This is also the stage at which the first progress assurance report should be provided to the Scottish Executive. This will give the RTP an opportunity to receive feedback on the progress of the RTS development to date and on the direction it is taking.

(vi) Generating the options and initial appraisal/sifting

85. Once the problems, constraints and opportunities are understood and a set of objectives has been established for the RTS, the next step is to develop a number of different options to achieve those objectives. These are likely to consist of packages of complementary measures and activities covering several transport modes. Whilst this systematically follows on from the scoping, vision and objective-setting stages, in reality options for projects, services and initiatives will be generated throughout the strategy development process.

86. The generation of strategy options should be an inclusive process and draw in ideas from the wider community as well as transport professionals, land-use planning professionals, community planning partners and other interest groups. Option generation should be wide-ranging and bring in ideas for new or improved infrastructure, new or improved services, but also new or improved 'smart' measures such as schemes to promote changes in travel behaviour. (Ideas for reductions and closures might also feature.) Options should include those covering passenger transport, freight transport and those which apply equally to both.

87. However, there is a balance to be struck between inviting suggestions, many of which could fall at the first hurdle of appraisal, and using limited time and resources most effectively. Option generation should be constrained by and steered towards the RTP's objectives. Where strategy options do not appear to fit with the objectives at this stage they should be discounted at the generation stage unless they can be developed into a strategy that can fit with and contribute towards the objectives. This reflects the STAG approach of sifting the possible options to concentrate on those most likely to deliver in practice against the objectives.

88. Strategies can contribute to and make recommendation for outcomes that are not, strictly speaking, transport outcomes but relate to, for example, planning, service provision, economic development or job creation. This will need to be handled carefully in order to minimise conflict with existing policies and strategies in other fields. In the first round of strategies, given the limited timescales, the extent to which an RTS goes far beyond a focus on transport should perhaps be limited.

89. The outcome at this stage should be an Options Report to go to the RTP board for approval. This report will outline the main alternative strategies proposed for further appraisal and wider consultation.

90. The SEA Scoping Report should be sent to the Consultation Authorities (Historic Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency) at this stage (see Annex H). The SEA Consultation Authorities expect that the SEA Scoping Report will contain more than the issues report produced at the end of the RTS scoping stage and will need to report on the vision (if one is drawn up), objectives and option generation and appraisal. The SEA Scoping Report should include an outline of alternative strategies to be considered. The SEA Scoping Report should also include general details about the RTS, a summary of existing environmental problems in the region associated with transport and an identification of those likely to be significantly affected by the RTS. It should then set out the intended scope of the Environmental Report.

(vii) Appraising the options

91. Each of the strategy options should be appraised against the RTP's objectives and the five STAG criteria. As part of this, the potential environmental impact of each alternative strategy will have to be assessed. Annex H gives details of the guidance available to assist in undertaking an SEA.

92. Appraisal should include engagement with key stakeholders and could include wider public consultation. An assessment of the options should include the practicality and feasibility of their delivery. This should take account of levels of control and influence and levels of stated financial and political commitment. Each option should be subject to at least a provisional assessment of cost and affordability. This should include an identification of what funds (definite, possible, or targeted) are, or could be, available to the RTP.

(viii) Decision on options and prioritisation

93. The strategy option the RTP proposes to adopt should show a clear pathway towards all its objectives and a contribution to national objectives and have at least a reasonable chance of being delivered within known time and cost constraints. So far as possible, component parts of the strategy should reinforce one another and any contradictions or tensions between different initiatives should be minimised. Component parts of the strategy (projects, services, campaigns and other interventions) will have to be prioritised. Given the long-term nature of the RTS and the number of unknowns, particularly on funding, this is essential.

94. Prioritisation should take into account timing, deliverability and impact (favouring those with the most significant contribution to the objectives of the RTP and the 5 national objectives for transport).

95. It is recognised that, at the time of the first strategies being developed, there are a number of proposals for projects and other interventions in each region at various stages of development, including those that have already undergone a full appraisal. The purpose of prioritisation is to decide which of the new and current identified projects should move forward to the next stage of development and which should not (at least not yet). That could mean that a fully appraised project, with identified funding, moves to become a definite commitment that the RTP will deliver. It could equally mean deciding to take a new and only partly appraised project on to the next stage of appraisal, while ruling out for the time being further work on other projects that have lower priority. In order to make these decisions on prioritisation, some further appraisal work on some interventions may be needed, but that should be proportionate to the existing state of development of each idea - the time available to draw up this first set of strategies does not allow for all possible interventions to be developed to the same extent. Some work on comparing and ranking interventions will be required. Although this will involve making comparisons between different types of intervention, this is the essence of the STAG approach, albeit on a different scale. The clearer and more precise (and arguably fewer) the RTP's objectives, the more straightforward the ranking of interventions against these objectives will be.

96. Public acceptability/desirability and the feasibility/deliverability of schemes where these are dependent on other organisations should feature among the criteria used when setting priorities.

97. A second progress assurance report should be submitted around this time to coincide with the completion of a draft RTS and its approval by the RTP board prior to public consultation. The purpose of this assurance stage is to enable the Executive to comment on the emerging RTS before it goes for wider consideration. The assurance report should also give an update on progress against the RTP's timetable and outline how the RTP has arrived at the draft RTS.

(ix) Consultation

98. Meaningful and effective engagement with regional stakeholders and the wider public should have a significant bearing on the overall direction of the RTS. In line with STAG, appropriate engagement and consultation should be carried out throughout the strategy development process, though the length of consultation periods will be constrained by the demands of the overall timetable.

99. Where already available, user feedback will provide a valuable source of information on the public perception of current transport services and infrastructure during the scoping stage. Engagement should also be used, alongside technical appraisal work, in assessing the comparative benefits of alternative strategies.

100. It is expected that the main public consultation will take place on the draft strategy itself. The RTP should therefore give particular attention to views expressed in the consultation exercise and give proper consideration to the consultation responses in finalising the strategy. The SEA Environmental Report should be issued alongside the draft strategy and comments on it also fed into the final decision-making. The period of consultation with the Consultation Authorities needs to be agreed with them in advance. The RTP's proposals in this respect should be set out in its scoping report.

101. A variety of approaches are available for consultation and engagement. For example, key stakeholders can be kept engaged throughout the process through the use of consultative forums. RTPs could consider establishing a consultative forum (where one does not already exist), or focused working groups, to provide input to the strategy; such a forum could then provide a valuable source of feedback on the progress of the RTS implementation. Chapter 13 of STAG highlights different groups that should be considered for specific consultation and also describes some consultation methods. Section 13.5 identifies useful publications.

102. Only the constituent councils and health boards are statutory consultees but other community planning partners will also be key participants in the consultation process. The draft strategy should be made available for comment to any interested party.

(x) RTP sign-off and s ubmission to Ministers for approval

103. When the RTP considers the final RTS it should make reference to a number of supporting documents including the SEA Environmental Report and consultation responses and the outcomes of the consultation on the draft RTS.

104. The RTS has to be submitted to the Scottish Ministers for their approval. For the first strategy, this has to be submitted by 31 March 2007 (see paragraph 70). The strategy should be formally approved by the Partnership and a record of the decision, including the result of a vote, if taken, should be forwarded to Ministers along with the strategy.

105. If this guidance has been followed, then the RTP should be confident of gaining approval. The assurance process should reinforce this.

(xi) Ministerial approval

106. The Transport (Scotland) Act 2005 provides that an RTS has effect when it has been approved by the Scottish Ministers and that, when considering whether to approve a strategy, the Scottish Ministers consider, amongst other things, how far the RTS will contribute to the Executive's own transport objectives - that is, the 5 national transport objectives and the National Transport Strategy. The RTP will also have to demonstrate that the strategy will contribute towards the regional objectives agreed by the RTP.

107. Ministers will not withhold approval of an RTS on the basis of its detailed contents. Instead they will seek assurance that it is a coherent and realistic strategy that is based on sound evidence, an inclusive process and objective appraisal, that will tackle the transport issues of the region and improve services for the people of that region. Ministers will aim to approve or return a submitted RTS within 3 months. This should allow time for minor agreed revisions but not a significant rewrite, should that be required.

108. Ministerial consideration will cover both process and content:

Process

• Has the strategy been developed by strong partnership working and does it plan for this for its implementation?
• Have all statutory consultees (local authorities, health boards) been properly consulted?
• Have people and businesses in the region and other interested parties been adequately consulted?
• Have neighbouring RTPs been involved?
• Is there evidence that the results of consultation have been taken into account?
• Have the issues in the SEA Environmental Report and views expressed upon it during consultation been considered in the decision-making process?
• Have existing relevant development plans (at present, structure plans and local plans) been taken into account?
• Has a meaningful analysis of current position and trends been carried out?
• Have 'smart' objectives been set?
• Have alternative strategy options been identified?
• Have the costs of options been estimated?
• Has the strategy option selected been chosen on the basis of objective appraisal?
• Are spending plans supported by an identification of the necessary financial and non-financial resources?
• Have delivery agents been identified for each planned intervention? Do these agents have capacity?
• Have the additional statutory transport functions that the RTP will itself need to deliver the strategy been identified?
• Are robust monitoring, reporting and review mechanisms in place?
• What outcome evaluation is proposed?
• In general, has the RTS been drawn up in accordance with this RTS guidance?

Content

• Does the strategy provide a clear pathway to the achievement of its stated objectives?
• Does the RTS incorporate and place a high priority on the fulfilment of all statutory obligations including those set out in section 5 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005?
• Will the RTS contribute to the Executive's vision, aim and 5 key transport objectives (including the Executive's top priority of growing the economy), help towards achievement of specific Executive targets for transport (including those set out in the National Transport Strategy) and incorporate the principles set out in paragraph 18?
• Does the RTS support the land-use planning priorities of the National Planning Framework and SPP17?
• Does the strategy cover all regional transport and all relevant modes?
• Are there any significant adverse environmental impacts identified in the SEA Environmental Report? What has been done to take account of these?
• What is the balance between the achievable and the aspirational? Does the RTS give priority to interventions that the RTP and its constituent councils can themselves deliver?
• Where relevant, does the RTS make the case for additional financial or policy interventions by the Scottish Ministers?
• Are there likely to be any significant problems arising from contradictions between the RTS and those of neighbouring RTPs or the LTSs of constituent councils?

(xii) Publication

109. Sub-sections 6(6) and (7) of the Act require that when the RTS is approved, Ministers must inform the RTP and the RTP must inform its constituent councils and send them a copy. The RTP must also publish the strategy. The Executive recommends that the strategy be published in such a way that it is widely accessible and that this should include at least:

• publication of the completed RTS on the RTP's website;
• publication of the SEA Statement;
• copies sent or e-mailed to key stakeholders;
• arrangements for those without access to the internet, such as hard copies to be placed in all public libraries in the region;
• inclusion within the publication schedule required of each RTP by Freedom of Information legislation.

110. Consideration should also be given to other means of disseminating the RTS in either an entire or a summarised form. This should include consideration of publication in languages other than English and in other formats whenever requested.