Policy Context
LCR Transport Network
PCT and Walkability Toolkit
g
Travel to Work Patterns
m
atherin
Trip Generators & Attractors
Ipsun G
Liverpool City Region
emtio
Travel to School Data
Lor
Informa
Road Traffic Accident Data
Deprivation
Car Ownership
Air Quality

LCWIP Prioritisation
Effectiveness
Forecast Increase in walking and cycling trips:-
• Cycle trips can be taken from PCT using government
target intervention
• How do we forecast increase in walking?
Population who directly benefit from the intervention –
Buffer around intervention. Bike Life uses 125m, should we
adopt this?
Policy
Improves road safety
Serves a school or major employment area/site
Tourism link
Area of deprivation
Area of low car ownership
Improved transport connections
Economic
Cost of construction
Proximity to a major development site
Value for money (using AMAT)
Deliverability
Scheme feasibility

Effectiveness
Criteria
Score 0
Score 1
Score 2
Score 3
Forecast Increase in  <100 pedestrians or
walking and cycling  cyclists / day (one
100-200 pedestrians  200 - 500 pedestrians  >500 pedestrian or
trips
way trips)
or cyclists
or cyclists
cycle trips
Population who
<1000 residents
directly benefit from  within a 200m buffer
the intervention
(2001  census)
1000 - 2000 residents 2000 - 3000 residents >3000 residents

Policy
Criteria
Score 0
Score 1
Score 2
Score 3
Includes actions to
Significant actions to
improve road safety
improve road safety, such
Smaller scale
such as improved
as crossing points,
Improves road safety
improvements such as  crossing points,
segregated routes AND
or makes DDA
improved lighting,
segregation etc or
where a an existing known
compliant
No improvement
signage
makes DDA compliant
road safety issue exists
Serves a school or
Would provide part of a  Scheme covers majority  Scheme feeds directly into
major employment
journey to school or
of journey to a school or  school or major trip
area/site
No link
major trip attractor
major trip attractor
attractor
Scheme will provide a  Scheme will provide a car-
Scheme will indirectly  car-free alternative to  free alternative to tourist
link to tourist
tourist destinations
destinations (REGIONAL
Tourism link
No improvement destinations
(LOCAL significance)
significance).
<25th percentile
Area of deprivation
IMD
25-75th percentile
75-90th percentile
90th - 100th percentile
Area of low car
<13% households
ownership
without car
13-20%
20-40%
>40%
Would provide part of a  Scheme covers majority
Improved transport
journey to a transport  of journey to a transport Links to key transport
connections
No improvement interchange
interchange
interchanges

Economic
Criteria
Score 0
Score 1
Score 2
Score 3
Cost of construction  >£1m
£500k - £1m
£100k - £500k
<£100K
Route serves a large  Committed S106 or
Proximity to a major  No private sources of  Possible future
proposed residential  other source of
development site
funding likely
development
or employment site private funding
Value for money
(using AMAT)
Very poor
Poor / low
Medium
High

Deliverability
Criteria
Score 0
Score 1
Score 2
Score 3
Dependent on
another scheme/ land Dependent scheme
Land ownership or
ownership which is  or landship
No issues, scheme
other issue unlikely to  likely to delay the
ownership issue likely  feasible to be
Scheme feasibility
be overcome
scheme
to be overcome
undertaken

Document Outline