Skip to main content


Guidance on questions

Notes and guidance on what should be provided are below


Improve Accessibility

  • Tell us how your scheme directly reduces barriers to travel by non-car modes (include any analysis of particular groups that will benefit)

Reduce Traffic

  • Tell us how your scheme directly reduces overall levels of traffic (this means an anticipated reduction in vehicle flow or reduction in on-street parking owing to increased generalised costs/restrictions)

Electrify Transport

  • Tell us how your scheme will support a shift to zero emission vehicles

Driving growth and productivity through infrastructure investment

  • Proposals should set out the expected benefits and wider impact on the local and national economy, demonstrating how the proposed transport interventions will lead to increased economic growth and productivity. This could include setting out how proposals will affect access to employment and services and how this will generate new growth rather than displacing growth from other areas

Levelling up services towards the standards of the best

  • Proposals should demonstrate how they would level up their city region, considering both economic and social benefits, assessing where improvements to intra-city transport will deliver the best returns in improving growth, productivity and quality of life.

This could include demonstrating:

  • how proposals would increase connectivity from areas that most need access to jobs and amenities to urban centres

  • how transport quality varies locally

  • the impact that levelling up would have on the wider regional and national economy

  • that the intended measures are local priorities that would positively affect people’s lives

  • how transport can open new areas of regeneration and housing

  • the impact the interventions would have on people’s quality of life in areas beyond the city region’s boundaries

Decarbonising transport, especially promoting modal shift from cars to public transport, walking and cycling

  • Tell us how the scheme promotes the use of active travel and public transport; not lead to overall increases in car use or car modal share; tackle traffic congestion; and improve air quality.

Please provide links to the following information, either to the appropriate document or the section in the business case providing the detail. Please also see the guidance notes following the checklist.

If a particular document is not relevant, please briefly explain why not

All schemes will need to demonstrate the process undertaken to arrive at the preferred option. DfT TAG provides further guidance on the requirements

All schemes with a value circa £5m and above will need to prepare an Options Appraisal Report which should covert the following:

  • Articulate the need for intervention.

  • Define the future ‘without scheme’ case.

  • Clearly state the objectives and intended outcomes of the intervention. Define the geographical area of impact to be addressed by the intervention.

  • Document the stakeholder engagement strategy adopted.

  • Document the process of option generation, sifting and assessment including supporting evidence.

  • Summarise the headline results across all options considered

  • Identify the better performing option(s).

Smaller schemes (less than £5m) will need to demonstrate the process to arrive at the preferred option, but not necessarily provide a full OAR.

DfT TAG provides further guidance on the options appraisal process: Stage 5: options appraisal - GOV.UK

A Road Safety Audit will be required for schemes which involve a change to the highway. The exact RSA stage will be dependent on the level of detail of the scheme designs.

  • Stage 1 – Preliminary design

  • Stage 2 – Detailed design.

  • At OBC, it would be expected that the scheme is designed in preliminary design level (So Stage 1 RSA required). A Stage 2 RSA would be expected at the FBC stage.

Provide details of all relevant statutory process that are required for the scheme to commence construction, together with the status of each.

Examples could include:

  • Planning approvals (if required)

  • Traffic Regulation Orders (if required – although the exact detail may not be known at OBC stage).

  • Legal agreements such as land purchase and Compulsory Purchase Orders.

  • This should detail any approvals that have been received that the scheme is dependent on to enable delivery e.g., Planning approvals, Traffic Regulation Orders, Legal agreements such as land purchase and Compulsory Purchase Orders etc. The FBC cannot be approved without these consents in place or without clear evidence of how and when these will be secured and what mitigations are in place in the event of delays to these (with appropriate corresponding coverage in the quantified risk register and assessment).

  • Promoter to detail how any asset delivered by the project will be operated and maintained including how any ongoing revenue costs will be covered.
  • As per CRSTS CA Board approval (January 2022) promoters should describe what engagement has been undertaken with relevant TfWM teams regarding network resilience, behaviour change and construction mitigation and what specific measures will be implemented to deliver the relevant outcomes.
  • All schemes with Active Travel elements need to be reviewed by TfWM Cycling and Walking Team – this includes a completed formal feedback template that will provided to the scheme developer with comments on the scheme. This needs to be included with your submission along with comments on the feedback to address any critical elements.

Please expect for Active Travel England (ATE) to also request to review drawings. While this process and the framework is being developed, you will be expected to share drawings with ATE and address critical issues to achieve compliance to LTN 1/20 standard before proceeding with further development of the scheme.

This should include at SOBC:

  • A drawing of the route plan

  • Side road junction strategy

  • Bus stop treatment strategy

  • Crossing (cycling/pedestrian) strategy

  • Summary of any barriers for achieving LTN 1/20 compliance e.g., lack of political support, physical constraints

  • Completed TfWM Cycling and Walking Feedback Template for any drawings submitted to

  • Cycling and Walking Team for review. And at OBC/FBC

  • OBC – Concept Design

  • FBC – Detail design

  • Cycling and Walking Feedback template for each of the above

  • Issues log

  • Cycling Level of Service (CLOS) and Junction Assessment tool analysis for each option

  • Annotated designs clearly outlining type of provision and dimensions – if these do not meet standard, ensure this is included in the issues log

  • Walking Assessment (e.g., London Healthy Streets Tool)

  • Document any issues relating to roadside treatments to determine whether there will be issues with visibility for drivers/cyclists and where there are potential negative interactions.

  • Document any issues relating to pedestrian crossings – ensuring that they are safe and appropriate for the level of traffic (e.g., formal crossings for busier roads).


  • This can be demonstrated through the following outputs as appropriate:

  • A drawing of the route plan

  • Side road junction strategy

  • Bus stop treatment strategy

  • Crossing (cycling/pedestrian) strategy

  • Summary of any barriers for achieving LTN 1/20 compliance e.g., lack of political support, physical constraints

Compliance with Bus Back Better required for all schemes which involve bus improvements Bus back better - GOV.UK (

Promoters should demonstrate how any proposals would support Government goals to make buses:

  • More frequent

  • Faster and more reliable

  • Cheaper

  • More comprehensive

  • Easier to understand

  • Easier to use

  • Better to ride in

  • Better integrated with other modes and each other

  • Greener

  • Accessible and inclusive by design

  • Innovative

  • Seen as a safe mode of transport

Where appropriate, the promoter should also demonstrate alignment with the West Midlands Bus Service Improvement Plan (BSIP) and how any proposals support the delivery of:

  • Better Buses – with more zero emission buses

  • Better Journeys – through an enhanced network with more bus priority

  • Better Fares – by keeping the lowest, simplest fares in England

At FBC stage we would expect a clear description of bus priority outputs delivered as part of the scheme (KM of bus lanes, no of improved junctions etc), where applicable, and evidence of support from TfWM/Bus operators for any scheme designs.

The WMCA has an Enhanced Partnership (EP) that covers the West Midlands. An EP is a statutory partnership, and is in two parts:

  • EP Plan – a clear vision of the improvements to bus services, mirroring our Bus Service Improvement Plan (BSIP)

  • EP Scheme – an accompanying document that sets out the precise detail of how the improvements to bus services will be achieved. This will need to include the CRSTS and BSIP funded schemes and programmes

  • The ultimate goal is that the EP Scheme is very specific with the full details of the scheme being delivered. For example, what bus priority will be provided by (date), in what format (bus lane 24/7) and where (description naming roads start and finish) and with the operators support on the scheme.

  • For a bus priority scheme, further detailed design and consultation may be required before precise details can be included. In that case, at the SOC stage, we would expect to see details on the:

  • Corridor that the priority will serve, with clear start and end locations (of the corridor) as a minimum)

  • Targets for journey time savings and reductions in peak vehicle requirements (overall or for particular services) agreed with operators that the detailed scheme design (and OBC and FBC) stages) will seek to confirm/achieve
  • The next steps and delivery timescales for the scheme including a target operational date
  • Commitments to consultation on the scheme, including measures to understand full breath of support – such as surveys of bus users on the corridors and representative polling
  • Details on how operators have and will continue to be engaged in scheme design and consultation

At the OBC and FBC stages, the precise details should be updated and confirmed as well as being captured and committed in the EP Scheme.

All schemes to support or enhance bus services or infrastructure which are funded directly or indirectly by central governmental should be incorporated into the EP Scheme once funding is secured – on a similar basis to the approach set out.

Carbon impacts of the traffic changes can be derived from TUBA assessments undertaken for highway schemes.

Other methods for estimating the operational carbon impacts of schemes can be found here: TAG UNIT A3 Environmental Impact Appraisal (

Embedded carbon impacts are only required for larger schemes (£20m+) and commentary should be provided on steps which have been taken to reduce the embedded carbon e.g., use of low carbon materials, utilise waste materials in scheme design rather than removal from site.

At OBC stage, some level of quantified risk assessment is required for all schemes to ensure all risks have been accurately considered together with their cost implications. A quantified Risk Assessment is required for all schemes at FBC stage.
A generic risk / contingency allowance based on the proportion of the overall scheme cost is not acceptable.

Further guidance can be found here

  • It is not essential to have Early Contractor Involvement at OBC stage of scheme development for schemes under £20m.
    Although it should be noted that engaging with a contractor at this stage can be beneficial to the scheme in providing a greater understanding of buildability and, programme and construction risk.
  • At FBC stage some evidence of early contactor engagement should be provide for all schemes over £5m.
  • At OBC, this should be the best estimate of construction cost for the scheme using published information, industry knowledge and experience from similar schemes.
  • At FBC, this should be the price used for tender. The promoter should also state the preferred/agreed commercial model e.g., design and build etc.
  • Where a full firm tender price is not available to support the FBC due to the commercial or procurement model selected this must be clearly justified with a detailed explanation of how surety of the final cost has been established and robustly assured and which elements of the project do have firm fixed market tested costing.
  • Independent review of construction cost estimate to be provided for larger schemes (guide: £20m+)
  • This needs to be provided by a different company/organisation than the one that produced the tender price schedule.
  • Monitoring and Evaluation scoping is required for all schemes at this stage of scheme development. This should include consideration of an impact evaluation and process evaluation including identifying data sources linked to scheme objectives and potential methodological approaches.
  • At OBC stage, a M&E scoping exercise and outline M&E plan is expected.
  • Agreement on scope and content of the M&E plan to be made between scheme promoter and TfWM Transport Planning team in advance of submission of FBC.

SDI Screening to be undertaken for all schemes to determine whether a more detailed SDI is required.

Further detail of the SDI Screening and appraisal process is here:

TAG UNIT A4.2 Distributional Impact Appraisal 

Schemes which have used data need to provide a report detailing the data sources, processing and use in the analysis. Types of data which may be relevant include:

  • Transport volume data (e.g., traffic counts)

  • BIM models

  • This should include a summary and links to any scheme dependant data used in the development of the scheme e.g., traffic counts, modelling files, construction phasing and impact etc. The scope of this should be agreed in advance with the TfWM Data Insight team.

A report should also be provided setting out what data assets will be generated by the project during construction and operation and where appropriate how this data will be shared into and consumed by the regional common transport data environment. This should include details of what APIs will be produced and what data sharing agreements will be required and committed to. This report should be scoped and agreed with the TfWM Data Insight team.

TAG provides more detail on data inputs to transport models and analysis

Schemes over £5m will need to append an Appraisal Specification Report (ASR) which considers the following:

  • The proposed approach to modelling and forecasting.

  • The proposed methodology for assessing each of the sub-impacts presented in the Appraisal

  • Summary Table (AST). Or provide reasons for why an assessment of these impacts has been scoped out.

  • Detail the proposed level of design or specification which will inform the cost estimation.

  • Provide evidence that views on the appraisal methodology have been sought from statutory

  • environmental bodies and others (schemes over £20m only).

  • Note that the appraisal is expected to be proportional based on the size of the intervention and likely scale of impact.

All schemes which have undertaken traffic modelling will need to append a LMVR.

Some of the schemes may have used PRISM / CASM – In these instances the calibration / validation in the area of influence surrounding the scheme is likely to be sufficient.

An LMVR is not required for those projects that do not have an impact on traffic flows.
Walking and cycling schemes will not require a LMVR unless some element of modelling was used to inform the appraisal.

See section F3 of the link below which lists the requirements of an LMVR TAG UNIT M3.1 Highway Assignment Modelling (

All schemes which have undertaken traffic modelling will need to append a MFR.

Some of the schemes may have used PRISM / CASM – In these instances the forecasted changes in the area of influence surrounding the scheme are likely to be sufficient.