Approach to the FSDA
Introduction
The FSDA and other impact assessments have aligned with each STAG stage, in order to maximise influence of impact assessment work in the overall assessment process. Table 5-1 sets out how the FSDA process aligns with STAG’s four-stage assessment process throughout the A96 Corridor Review.
|
Initial Appraisal: Case for Change Transport Planning Objectives (TPOs) |
|
The impact assessment team set out the evidence base for problems and opportunities linked to the transport network for all modes within the study area to influence the development of TPOs that align closely with STPR2. TPOs represent the positive outcomes sought for the corridor and provide the basis for the appraisal of alternative options. The FSDA aligns in particular with: TPO2 - An inclusive strategic transport corridor that improves the accessibility of public transport in rural areas for access to healthcare, employment and education. TPO4 - An integrated strategic transport system that contributes towards sustainable inclusive growth throughout the corridor and beyond. |
|
Preliminary Appraisal |
|
A multi-criterion sifting approach of shortlisted transport intervention options was undertaken, considering a matrix-based assessment in the context of likely disproportionate or differential effects on socio-economically disadvantaged groups. Commentary has been provided to justify the rating and consider relevant likely significant effects, mitigation, risk and uncertainty. |
|
Detailed Appraisal |
|
A more detailed assessment of Full Dualling and sifted transport packages against aligned STAG topics and socio-economic related considerations. The assessment utilises a matrix approach for Full Dualling and each of the transport packages as shown in Table 5-2 which aligns with a seven-point rating system, as shown in Table 5-3 . The commentary justifies the rating and considers relevant likely significant effects, mitigation, assumptions and uncertainties where relevant. |
Assessment of Impacts
This FSDA presents an assessment of the potential socio-economic impacts for Full Dualling and six transport intervention packages that were developed in the detailed appraisal stage from the sifted options identified through the initial appraisal. The current Scottish Government commitment, the A96 Full Dualling (from Hardmuir to Craibstone), has also been appraised as part of the Detailed Appraisal in order to assess its performance against current appraisal criteria, and this also forms part of the FSDA.
Assessment Framework: Matrix Approach
The FSDA process assesses the contribution of Full Dualling and each package option in helping reduce the inequalities of outcome which result from socio-economic disadvantage.
The assessment of impacts used a matrix-based approach, with a qualitative rating system to identify likely impacts on socio-economically disadvantaged groups. Impacts for each of the assessments have been determined against two assessment criteria: magnitude and sensitivity. These consist of:
Magnitude of impact : the extent to which socio-economically disadvantaged groups would be impacted (positively or negatively) by Full Dualling or the package option, considering the numbers or proportion that would experience the impact.
Sensitivity of impact: this considers how those impacted might respond; whether they are able to adapt to Full Dualling or the package option (where negatively impacted). If the impacted group has no alternatives and, as such, will be greatly impacted, then it is considered to be highly sensitive to the change. Where they are able to continue to function as normal, sensitivity would be low.
The identification of likely significant impacts has involved combining the sensitivity of those affected with the predicted magnitude of impact (change) using the assessment matrix provided in Table 5-2 .
|
Sensitivity of impact |
Magnitude of impact No change |
Magnitude of impact Low |
Magnitude of impact Medium |
Magnitude of impact High |
|
High |
Neutral |
Minor or Moderate |
Moderate or Major |
Major |
|
Medium |
Neutral |
Minor |
Moderate |
Moderate or Major |
|
Low |
Neutral |
Neutral or minor |
Minor or Moderate |
Minor or Moderate |
Where two significance categories are shown in the matrix, professional judgement has been used to select the appropriate category of significance. Evidence and rationale is provided for the selection of category.
The seven-point rating system describing the assessment of equality effects is outlined in Table 5-3 .
|
Major positive impact |
|
The proposed option provides a major contribution to reducing inequalities of outcome which result from socio-economic disadvantage. |
|
Moderate positive impact |
|
The proposed option contributes significantly to reducing inequalities of outcome which result from socio-economic disadvantage. |
|
Minor positive impact |
|
The proposed option contributes to reducing inequalities of outcome which result from socio-economic disadvantage, but not significantly. |
|
Neutral impact |
|
The proposed option is related to, but does not have any impact on, reducing inequalities of outcome which result from socio-economic disadvantage. |
|
Minor negative impact |
|
The proposed option detracts from reducing inequalities of outcome which result from socio-economic disadvantage, but not significantly. |
|
Moderate negative impact |
|
The proposed option detracts significantly from reducing inequalities of outcome which result from socio-economic disadvantage. Mitigation is therefore required. |
|
Major negative impact |
|
The proposed option results in a major detraction from reducing inequalities of outcome which result from socio-economic disadvantage. An alternative option or significant mitigation is therefore required. |
Following each stage of assessment, any potentially negative impacts identified have been discussed with the project team to consider reasonable alternatives, effective mitigation and enhancement recommendations.
The key relevant findings and recommendations of the detailed appraisal options are recorded in Chapter 6 of this report, with overall assessment scores for the FSDA.