Assessment and Methodology

Proposals considered for inclusion in this SIP were submitted by our key strategic partners. Overall, 101 proposals were received and narrowed down to 38 priorities. 

The impacts of each proposal were assessed against 12 criteria drawn from the Strategic Transport Plan and related to the 5 Key Aims, as illustrated below. The benefits identified were then compared to the estimated cost of each proposal to calculate a high level benefit-cost ratio that forms the basis of the overall prioritisation.

Return to the home page

Skip this section

Sustainable growth and economy

  1. Support the economy to thrive and level up across the whole region, particularly where prosperity is constrained by poor connectivity
  2. Facilitate sustainable visitor access to our key tourism areas
  3. Maintain and improve sustainable access for goods and people to national and international gateways

Decarbonisation and air quality

  1. Reduce annual regional transport carbon emissions from 6,250kt CO2e (2019) to net zero by 2050 
  2. Minimise embodied carbon
  3. Deliver the infrastructure/conditions/services necessary to prioritise a shift to low carbon modes

Access to services and opportunities

  1. Improve access to essential goods, services and opportunities in target areas
  2. Maintain and improve access to important regional and national destinations through our strategic transport networks 

Facilitating strategic north-south movement

  1. Improve north-south rail and road links between the Midlands and South Coast on identified corridors/routes delivering social and economic benefits & levelling up southern parts of the region 
  2. Improve journey time reliability on strategic routes (identified in STP)

Movement of goods

  1. Increase ability for goods moved by road to shift to rail or coastal shipping
  2. Improve HGV facilities on strategic freight routes to increase attractiveness, discouraging running on unsuitable alternatives.



A summary of the assessment methodology and the underlying theory of change can be seen here.

Do you feel the methodology described is appropriate for identification of proposals to meet our Aims?





Please add an explanation if you would like: