Project appraisal - Transport Policy and Planning in Great Britain - page 345

transparent and consistent manner, that they fulfil objectives most effectively and that
they provide 'value for money'. The appraisal methods developed by the Department
of Transport previously had much the same purpose and only minor adjustments were
needed in order to bring them into line with the Treasury guidelines.
The Department developed its appraisal methods by commissioning research and
building up a body of knowledge about what it considers to be best practice. Much of
this is now incorporated in a 'virtual' loose-leaf manual of Transport Analysis Guidance
(TAG) which is accessible at its own website (www.webtag.org.uk). This is organised
at three levels (labelled 'overview', 'project manager' and 'expert') which enable topics
to be interrogated at different levels of detail. Readers are encouraged to visit the site
and to follow the link from 'Documents' at the top of the home page to 'Guidance
Documents' in order to view the table of contents. Each section typically includes
directions for further information and a list of specialist references.
Scotland and Wales have their own variants of these procedures known as STAG
and WelTAG respectively (Transport Scotland 2008a; Transport Wales 2008).
Use of the term 'guidance' in this context is really a misnomer. It makes the
Government's advice appear less overbearing but in fact it represents 'instructions'
for its own staff and 'requirements' placed on others. Although there will be scope for
discussion in exactly how the guidance is interpreted in individual cases, all applications
for major scheme funding have to follow its basic procedures and incorporate its technical
methods. Haggling over compliance with the minutiae of these requirements is one of
the frustrations which scheme promoters encounter, often believing this to be a delaying
tactic. But this should not detract from the value of the DfT's role more generally in
promoting high standards of technical competence in professional practice.
The use of a common appraisal process has clear advantages as far as the internal
workings of government are concerned. It enables the evidence informing funding
decisions to be presented in a standard, consistent manner. It also enables debates
to be conducted between professionals about the merits of rival schemes on a basis
with which they are all familiar. From a wider perspective however the role of the
Department's appraisal process within public decision-making is more problematic.
Although its requirements are devised to be as 'fair' and soundly based as possible
within their own terms, they nevertheless represent conventions rather than absolute
truths. These inevitably cut across different 'views of the world' likely to be held by
other groups seeking to influence transport decision-making and impose their own,
implicitly superior, legitimacy. In this we are not talking about differences in objective
or policy which are acknowledged to reflect value judgements but about the power of
technically derived 'evidence' and its presentation being treated as value-free when
inevitably it is not.
21.3 The Appraisal Summary Table (AST)
The summary table was the central feature of the new transport appraisal framework
(NATA) originally devised for the review of highways schemes inherited by the Labour
Government in 1997. It was developed subsequently in the context of the Multi-Modal
Studies to enable it to be applied to other types of scheme. This and the guidance
prepared for the Studies' overall methodology (known as GOMMMS) have since been
incorporated in the DfT's advice. Elements of the advice continue to be updated and
added to and further changes are anticipated as a result of a more thoroughgoing
review announced in June 2007 (24.8).