www.its.leeds.ac.uk/about/events/seminar-series The economic and environmental dimensions of transport have been the subject of extensive academic research and have had a strong influence on transport policy and practice around the world. This is in stark contrast to the social dimension, which in general has been less widely researched, less well defined and generally much less influential in policy circles. However, there is now increased recognition by policymakers that new transport infrastructures can potentially have significant social and distributional impacts (SDIs) beyond those that are usually captured by traditional project appraisal methods. Currently, the methods for capturing these SDIs are under explored and the guidance provided through WebTAG analysis is as yet largely untested. It is in this context that we were asked by Welsh Government to conduct a social and distributional analysis of a new section of the A465, studying the area surrounding the road both during its construction and after. Our talk will outline the integration of desk based quantitative and field work based qualitative methodologies used for the study and the rationale for these, and also present our key findings. We will also outline some of the challenges we faced in undertaking the analysis, and in turn reflect on some of the barriers to embedding effective SDI appraisals into policy practice. We will also reflect on the appropriateness of the WebTAG guidance for practice, and suggest ways in which these could be improved.

1. Institute for Transport Studies
FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENT
ITS Seminar Series
10th February, 2016
Karen Lucas, Ian Philips, Louise Reardon, Ersilia Verlinghieri
Social assessment for transport projects: a case
study of the A465

2. Study aims and objectives
To undertake a pilot study for the Welsh Government that
would:
• Develop and pilot test a methodology for social assessment
in a ‘live’ case study context
• Build on DfT WebTAG 4.1 and 4.2 and adapt for WelTAG
• Identify the availability and usability of existing quantitative
data sources
• Explore the potential to integrate qualitative methodologies
with local communities into social assessment
• Make recommendations for WelTAG to encourage greater
application of social assessments for all transport decision-
making

3. Background
• Economic and environmental impacts of transport projects
are fairly well understood
• Methods appraisal and evaluation of social impacts are less
well-developed
• Increased recognition by policymakers of the need to
consider this more:
• To meet social objectives for sustainable mobility e.g. health,
wellbeing, quality of life
• To protect vulnerable and at risk groups
• To improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the transport
system

4. Current guidance
WebTAG 4.1 & 4.2 = 3-step process
Step 1: Confirm the area of impact
• Identify likely impacts for each indicator using the Screening Proforma
Step 2: Assessment
• Identify the exact areas affected for each impact
• Identify the groups in these areas by building a detailed socio-demographic
profile of each area (based on GIS mapping Census, etc.)
• Transport users, local residents, local incomers
• Income, children under 16 years, young adults 16-25 years, older people
70+ years, people with disabilities, BMEs, h/h with no car, carers.
• Identify the amenities in the affected areas – Table 4 (p.9) summary
worksheet
Step 3: Appraisal of impacts
• Core analysis of impacts (large, moderate, slight – positive/negative)

5. New Social Assessment
methodology
Mixed methods approach: A people rather than infrastructure
focused toolbox of quantitative and qualitative techniques:
• Methods can be adapted for different case studies
• Mixed methods allow ‘triangulation’ or ‘validation’
• Methods work at different spatial resolutions – broadening
analysis
• Qualitative data collection and fieldwork – engages with
hard to reach groups

6. What impacts and disaggregation?
Impacts
1. User benefits (journey time
savings)
2. Noise
3. Air quality
4. Accidents (deaths and injuries)
5. Security (from crime)
6. Severance (walking)
7. Accessibility (to amenities)
8. Affordability
9. Local regeneration
10. Construction disruption
11. Community engagement
processes
Social disaggregation
1. Income quintiles
2. Children under 16
3. Young people
4. Older people
5. Disabled
6. BMEs
7. No car
8. H/Hs with dependent children
Total population in impact
area

7. Section 3 of the A465 corridor
Section 3: 7.8km, dual carriageway
Former A465: De-trunked single carriageway
Cycle infrastructure: parallel to roads

8. Social Assessment:
Geographic Scope
• The large scale covers longer journeys that are sufficiently
long that they are unlikely to be undertaken on a regular,
daily basis. This scale covers the whole of Wales.
• The medium scale is the area that is covered by regular
trips. It runs as far as Cardiff, Swansea and Abergavenny.
• The local area is within 2km of the Section 3 or the former
A465.

9. Features of: the local study area

10. Photos of the local study area

11. Rassau

12. Desk-based analysis of
quantitative evidence
Special interest person
groups vs impact domains
%of
Population
Localuser
Benefits
Noise
Airquality
Accidents
andSecurity
Severance
Accessibility
Affordability
Resident
population
in the
impact
area
WIMD
quintiles
1 52%
2 24%
3 25%
4 15%
5 0
Children (<16) 18%
Young people (16-
24) 12%
Older people (>65) 19%
People with a
disability 16%
Black Minority
Ethnic 0%
No car households 28%
Households with
dependent
children 30%

13. Quantitative data sets
overview
• Secondary data from open government sources e.g.
census.
• Digital data from consultants / govt. generated for appraisal
process e.g. pollution data, traffic forecasts
• Fine resolution data with issues over anonymity e.g.
STATS19
[Further details on data sources: Speak to Ian after
presentation]

14. Accessibility: Simple analysis
using Google maps
Recommended route 5.1 miles, 11
minutes. Use Old A465. Accessed
May 2015
Recommended route: 3.7 miles, 11
minutes Use A4047 Accessed December
2015

15. Road traffic collisions
Year
Number
of
collisions
per year,
A4047
Collision
s per km,
A4047
Number of
collisions per
year (old A465
Pre-opening)
Collision
s per km,
old A465
(Pre-
opening)
2005 11 2.82 15 2.05
2006 17 4.36 10 1.37
2007 10 2.56 17 2.33
2008 7 1.79 10 1.37
Average
over 4
years
11.3 2.88 13 1.78
Total over
4 years
45 11.5 52 7.12
A465
Local roads

16. Severance: Desk based map
analysis

17. Change in emissions
and areas of potential congestion

18. Limits of desk-based quantitative
analysis
• Quantitative analysis can identify impacts that are large in
magnitude and scale (spatial)
• But cannot identify precisely who is affected by how much
or where and when
• This is important because some people are more
vulnerable or at risk than others
• The same people are also usually under-represented in the
quantitative data and consultation processes
• It also doesn’t capture people’s perceptions of
risk/safety/etc.

19. Rationale for additional
qualitative approach
Qualitative methods can:
•Provide micro-scale, locally specific data
•Target specific at risk groups and non-average individuals
•Add nuance
•Complement, validate and triangulate quantitative evidence
•Offer opportunity for critical analysis, challenge assumptions
and ‘evidence-based broader perspectives’

20. Qualitative data collection
• Site visits, foot surveys and audio-visual methodologies
• Meetings with Welsh Government and Carrillion
(developers)
• Interviews with local stakeholders e.g. councillors,
employers, local authority officers, etc.
• Contact with local community gatekeepers
• Before and after focus groups with a selection of 5 local
communities and a secondary school
• Feedback reports to local participants

21. Add nuance quantitative data:
deprivation index
• The most deprived
of the deprived are
effected by the
road
• (water floods,
severance, longer
journey times)
• They have lower
expectations
• They are not using
the new road and
getting problems
with the old road.
• Many no car
Households

22. Complement quantitative data:
safety/severance

23. Checking validity of
quantitative data

25. Some other reflections
- Majority are not road users, ‘the road is not for us’
- Road increased severance and perception of severance
- Collateral, unplanned benefits – cycle route as new walkway
- Low expectations and resignation
- Prolonged exposure to disruption
 Positive evaluation of ‘minimum’ done in engagement process and
during construction
 Never fulfilled hopes of regeneration and safety; Circuit of Wales,
another promise

26. Policy recommendations:
A465
1. A full social assessment of the impacts of the A465 should be re-
conducted for the whole road (sections 1-6) when the last section is
completed
2. Further analysis out to assess significance of any displacement of
accident risk.
3. The culture of dangerous driving needs to be addressed, particularly
on the former A465.
4. Evaluation of the design and speed limits on the former A465 should
occur within a year of opening.
5. A post-implementation review of Nant-y-Bwch roundabout should be
undertaken.
6. The local council should consider how to continue to improve active
travel infrastructure in the area to link into the new infrastructure.

27. Methodological conclusions
• In future, the full social assessment of a transport scheme should be
undertaken as an integral part of the scheme appraisal.
• Combining fieldwork results with GIS analysis allows quantified results to be
checked against other evidence,
• Accessibility analyses should consider the impact of a scheme on short as well
as longer distance trips.
• Had a data archive of all assessment, appraisal, engagement and planning
documentation data and models been established and maintained, the
quantitative analysis of accident benefits and changes in accessibility would
have been possible to carry out in greater depth.
• Local fieldwork exercises with communities can increase the chance of
engaging with hard to reach groups who are most likely to experience social
impacts. The use of simple recruitment protocols with local stakeholders and
the design of focus group activities can make the fieldwork more practicable.

28. Thank you
Karen Lucas - K.Lucas@leeds.ac.uk
Ian Philips - I.Philips@leeds.ac.uk
Louise Reardon – L.Reardon@leeds.ac.uk
Ersilia Verlinghieri - ml10e2v@leeds.ac.uk