Improving interchange is identified in the Government's white paper A New Deal for Transport (DETR, 1998) as a key factor in achieving truly integrated transport. The Government's objectives for freight also include a shift towards rail, which is likely to involve additional modal transfers to/from road at each end of the journey. The transport interchange sub-objective has therefore been split into two elements according to whether the proposed strategy is likely to affect freight and/or passengers. In the Interchange row of the AST it would be appropriate to report an assessment for either freight or passenger interchange or both, according to the nature of the strategy. In each case the numbers of users likely to be affected should be estimated and changes in the indicators assessed in very broad terms, ignoring marginal differences.

1.2 Passenger Interchange

Assuming all benefits relating to travel time changes and the interchange penalty have been valued and included in the CBA at the 'Economic efficiency of the transport system', see The Economy Objective (TAG Unit 3.5) element of the assessment, this leaves a series of additional factors that can be assessed using a qualitative approach.
The aim of the passenger interchange assessment is to identify in broad terms the extent to which particular indicators would change following implementation of a particular strategy or plan together with the number of passengers affected. The first stage is to assess the level on each indicator both prior to and following the strategy or plan. The levels can be assessed according to Table 1 and recorded in Worksheet 1. In addition to recording the overall assessment of passenger interchange in the AST, a qualitative description of the ways in which passenger interchange would be improved by the strategy or plan in the study area and on particular modes should be given in the qualitative column. An entry in the quantitative column of the AST should include the number of interchanges improved, the number of new interchanges created and the approximate number of users affected (as appropriate).
Note that the passenger interchange assessment should include intermodal interchange, including interchange between public transport modes (such as bus-train) and between public and private modes (such as park and ride by bus or train).

Table 1: Recognition of Low and High Standards for Interchange Quality

Passenger Indicator	Poor standard	Moderate standard	High standard
Waiting environment	Old, uninviting, uncomfortable, non-existent or poorly-lit waiting room.	Some comfortable waiting rooms, but improvement or upgrades still needed.	New, inviting and comfortable well-lit waiting room.
Level of Facilities	Terminal old and needing upgrade. No or very poor buffet. No other facilities available.	Some good facilities, but others needing replacement or upgrade.	Modern terminal, good buffet and/or other facilities available.
Level of information	No announcements, partial timetables, absence of automatic displays or information office.	Full timetables and announcements, no automatic displays or information office. Information level could be improved.	Frequent announcements, full timetables, automatic displays, information office.
Visible staff presence	No visible staff presence for most of the time the terminal is open.	Staff presence visible at some times terminal is open.	Staff presence visible at all times terminal is open.
Physical linkage for next stage of journey	Physical linkage impossible without use of more than one bridge or subway. Need to change to a physically separate terminal.	Physical linkage possible with use of a single bridge or subway. No need to change to a physically separate terminal.	Physical linkage possible without use of bridge, subway or changing to a physically separate terminal.
Reliability of connection	Timetable largely un-coordinated. High risk of missing connections.	Some timetable coordination but still a moderate risk of missing connections.	Timetable coordinated or guaranteed either within or between modes to minimise risk of missing connections.

An overall assessment of passenger interchange impact can then be made, taking into account the approximate numbers of passengers affected, given the following guidelines.

The overall assessment is likely to be neutral if increases on some interchange indicators are generally balanced by decreases on other interchange indicators.

For the following categories, if the shift is generally to the right of Table 8.1 the assessment would be beneficial and the assessment would be adverse for a shift to the left:

the overall assessment is likely to be slight where changes on a small number of indicators is a shift between adjacent columns or the total number of passengers affected is low (less than 500 per day, say);
the overall assessment is likely to be large where changes on most or all indicators is a shift of more than one column or the total number of passengers affected is high (greater than 10000 say); and
the overall assessment is likely to be moderate where a change on most indicators is a shift between adjacent columns.

1.3 Freight Interchange

Assuming all benefits relating to travel time changes and the interchange penalty are included in the CBA at the 'Economic efficiency of the transport system' element, a small number of additional freight-related indicators might be assessed. These include changes in rail freight reliability, which have been identified as a particular concern. It is assumed that changes in reliability outside the interchange terminal have been included in the assessment against the reliability sub-objective within the economy objective. Freight interchange security is also included as an indicator relating to security at the interchange terminal only. It is assumed that an assessment of security outside the interchange terminal has been included in the security sub-objective, see The Safety Objective (TAG Unit 3.4).

The aim of the freight interchange assessment is to identify in broad terms the extent to which particular indicators would change following implementation of a particular strategy or plan together with the number of freight users affected. The first stage is to assess the level on each indicator both prior to and following the strategy or plan. The levels can be assessed according to Table 2 and recorded in Worksheet 2. In addition to recording the overall assessment of freight interchange in the AST Assessment column, a qualitative description of the ways in which freight interchange would be improved by the strategy in the study area and on particular modes could be given in the Qualitative column. An entry in the Quantitative column of the AST should include the number of interchanges improved, the number of new interchanges created and the approximate number of users affected (as appropriate).

As for passenger interchange, this assessment should include intermodal interchange, including interchange between road and public transport.

Table 2: Assessing Freight Interchange Quality

FreightIndicator	Poor	Moderate	High
Reliability (at the interchange facilities only)	Evidence of poor reliability for freight users. Frequent cancellations, delays, postponed services. Unreliable staffing/handling arrangements.	Evidence of a generally good reliability record but still some problems with cancellations, delays, postponed services or handling	Evidence of a high standard of reliability with very little incidence of cancellations, delays or postponed services. Reliable crew and handling arrangements in place
Level of facilities for freight users	Generally poor level of facilities for freight personnel and freight goods or vehicles (access to storage, weighing, testing facilities etc, buffet or other services)	Generally good level of facilities for personnel, goods and vehicles with some facilities poor and in need of replacement/Upgrade	Evidence of a high standard of facilities for personnel, goods and vehicles. All facilities new or with no need for improvement or upgrade
Freight transfer	Generally difficult or non-existing transfer facilities. Goods or vehicles require significant or time-consuming handling. Poor or no interoperability of equipment	Some transfer facilities in place to reduce handling and time involved. Some equipment with compatibility between vehicles or modes	Well-constructed transfer facilities designed to operate to minimise handling and time required.
Timetabling/connections/co-ordination	No or very poor arrangements to timetable or co-ordinate connections	Evidence of some co-ordination of services, but other services still lack integration	Services well co-ordinated with good connections
Level of information for freight users	Poor level of information, poor signing, no electronic and other information displays	Adequate level of basic information	High standard of information provision with updated electronic and other types of information displays
Freight security at the interchange	Poor or no level of security reflected in absence of measures such as alarms, lighting, staff presence etc	Some security measure in place such as good lighting, warnings etc, but no alarms, patrols or visible staff presence	Good security measures in place including patrols, staff presence, alarms, lighting etc

An overall assessment of the freight interchange impact can then be made by considering the approximate numbers of freight users affected, giving the following guidelines.

The overall assessment is likely to be neutral if increases on some interchange indicators are generally balanced by decreases on other interchange indicators.
For the following categories, if the shift is generally to the right of Table 2 the assessment would be beneficial and the assessment would be adverse for a shift to the left:
- the overall assessment is likely to be slight where changes on most indicators is a shift between adjacent columns or the total number of freight users affected is low (less than 10 per day, say);
- the overall assessment is likely to be large where changes on most indicators is a shift of more than one column or the total number of freight users affected is high (greater than 100 say); and
- the overall assessment is likely to be moderate in all other cases.

1.4 Application to Strategies

Given its qualitative nature and the absence of any requirement for numerical data for the do-something scenario, the above methodology will be equally as applicable to strategies as it is to plans.

2 Application of TAG to Highway Schemes

This section provides advice on the links between TAG's treatment of the physical fitness sub-objective and the advice given in Volume 11 of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), which deals with the environmental assessment of highway projects. An explanation of the correspondence between the advice set out in TAG and DMRB is given in Applying the multi-modal new approach to appraisal to highway schemes (TAG Unit 2.6).

2.1 Methods and Worksheets

This category did not previously appear in DMRB.
With regard to highway schemes, this sub-objective will only be applicable in certain cases where an interchange between different modes forms part of the scheme, such as a park and ride facility.

Worksheet 1: Integration - Passenger Interchange

Worksheet 2: Integration - Freight Interchange

3. Further Information

The following documents provide information that follows on directly from the key topics covered in this TAG Unit.

For information on:	See:	TAG Unit Number:
Economic efficiency of the transport system	The Economy Objective	TAG Unit 3.5
Passenger security	The Safety Objective	TAG Unit 3.4
Appraisal Summary Table	Transport Appraisal and the New Green Book	TAG Unit 2.7

4. References

DETR (July 1998) A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone

Highways Agency Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB)

5. Document Provenance

This Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG) Unit is based on Chapter 8 Section 2 of Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies(DETR, 2000).

Technical queries and comments on this TAG Unit should be referred to:

Transport Appraisal and Strategic Modelling (TASM) Division
Department for Transport
Zone 2/25 Great Minster House
33 Horseferry Road
London
SW1P 4DR
tasm@dft.gsi.gov.uk
Tel 020 7944 6176
Fax 020 7944 2198

Updated: April 2009

Documents

Guidance documents - Expert

TAG unit 3.7: The Integration Objective

TAG Unit 3.7.1: The Transport Interchange Sub-Objective

WebTAG