Smarter solutions

Multi-Criteria Analysis Tool – Technical Note

October 2016
Creative Commons information
© State of Queensland (Department of Transport and Main Roads) 2015

http://creativecommons.org.licences/by/4.0/
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Licence. You are free to copy, communicate and adapt
the work, as long as you attribute the authors.
The Queensland Government supports and encourages the dissemination and exchange of information. However,
copyright protects this publication. The State of Queensland has no objection to this material being reproduced, made
available online or electronically but only if its recognised as the owner of the copyright and this material remains
unaltered.
The Queensland Government is committed to providing accessible services to Queenslanders of all cultural
and linguistic backgrounds. If you have difficulty understanding this publication and need a translator,
please call the Translating and Interpreting Service (TIS National) on 13 14 50 and ask them to telephone
the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads on 13 74 68.
Disclaimer: While every care has been taken in preparing this publication, the State of Queensland accepts no
responsibility for decisions or actions taken as a result of any data, information, statement or advice, expressed or
implied, contained within. To the best of our knowledge, the content was correct at the time of publishing.

Smarter solutions – Multi-Criteria Analysis Tool – Technical Note -i-

Document control options
Departmental approvals
Refer to the appropriate Risk Assessment Tool for relevant reviewer and approver
Date Name Position Action required Due
(Review/endorse/approve)

Smarter solutions – Multi-Criteria Analysis Tool – Technical Note - ii -

Contents
1. Purpose 1

2. Project description 1

3. Define options 2

4. Criteria selection 2

5. Weighting approach 3
5.1 Ranking method 3
5.1.1 Rank sum 4
5.1.2 Rank reciprocal 4
5.1.3 Rank order centroid 5
5.1.4 Pairwise 5

6. Weighting assignment 6

7. Scoring 7

8. Sensitivity 7

9. Results 7

Appendix 1: Weighting Methodology Comparison 11

Appendix 2: Criteria for selection 12

Table of Figures
Figure 1 Smarter solutions MCA Tool overview 1

Table of Tables
Table 1 Pairwise scoring approach 6
Table 2 Smarter solutions MCA Tool scoring 7
Table 2 Weighting methodology comparison 11

Smarter solutions – Multi-Criteria Analysis Tool – Technical Note - iii -

1. Purpose
Multi-Criteria Assessment (MCA) is an assessment methodology used to select a preferred option, or hierarchise potential
options, by evaluating the overall performance of short-listed options against a series of selected criteria. MCA forms an
integral part of the Department of Transport and Main Roads’ (TMR) project decision-making and investment process.
The Smarter solutions MCA Tool will provide decision-makers with a framework for undertaking MCA, ensuring that a
consistent approach is applied and that the structure of decision problems effectively captures the benefits and impacts of
low cost and non-infrastructure solutions. The key processes to be undertaken during MCA are outlined below:

Start Project Description Define Options

Criteria Selection

Weighting Select Weighting

Assignment Approach

Scoring Sensitivity Results

Figure 1 Smarter solutions MCA Tool overview

2. Project description
The project must be clearly defined within the MCA to ensure that appropriate options are short- listed for evaluation and
that the criteria selected for assessment reflect the nature of the service requirement or opportunity. Accordingly, the
project should be defined in terms of:
• Decision context - what is the overarching service need or opportunity that this project response seeks to
address? What is the timeframe for required impacts?
• Network context – what is the current transport infrastructure environment? What is the age of current assets at
project site? Is there any complimentary infrastructure investment occurring in close proximity within the transport
network?
• Key objectives - what is the key objective the project is being implemented to achieve? What are the segmented
objectives (ultimate, intermediate, immediate) and corresponding timeframes?

Smarter solutions – Multi-Criteria Analysis Tool – Technical Note -1-

3. Define options
Following the initial identification and evaluation of potential project options during concept development, a refined short-
list of viable options must be selected for inclusion in the MCA. Short-listed options must be clearly defined, at a
minimum, in terms of the impacts, timeframes, benefits and costs. This facilitates the appropriate selection and
assessment of options against the evaluation criteria.
Using the Smarter solutions – Reference Guide, a network optimisation solution (NOS) option should be short-listed
within this stage of the MCA. Understanding the appropriate application of an NOS, as a partial, whole or supporting
solution, will guide this identification.
Note: The identification of potential options must include a Base Case, which is described as the ‘do minimum’ approach.
This approach describes the changes that would be required to maintain the current transport environment across the
evaluation period. While it is not necessary to describe the specific details of the Base Case within the MCA, it should be
understood that the Base Case will include measures to address sensible increases in transport capacity to cater for the
growing population and congestion problem. Preserving the conditions and characteristics of the current transport
network facilitates a more robust comparison of relative options.

4. Criteria selection
Selecting appropriate and relevant criteria is a critical component of the MCA process. Criteria must accurately reflect the
potential impact of all short-listed options and facilitate the appropriate evaluation and comparison of these alternative
options in addressing the identified transport need/ service requirement. Within this MCA Tool a comprehensive range of
criteria have been detailed for selection. This criteria has classified into 5 broad categories:
1. Economic Data
2. Transport Performance and Logistics
3. Construction and Constructability
4. Environmental Impact
5. Social Factors
When NOS are identified in the short-listed options, the following criteria must be selected.
• Implementation Cost
• Whole-of-Life Operating and Maintenance Costs
• Level of Service (LOS)
• Implementation Risk
• Value for money
• Performance horizon (benefitted years)
• Stageability
• Regional Development
• Rapid Benefit Cost Ratio

Smarter solutions – Multi-Criteria Analysis Tool – Technical Note -2-

Criteria relating to intersection delay, public transport patronage and freight should also be selected where appropriate.
Details of each criteria, including method of measurement and scoring principals, are included in Appendix 2. Additional
criteria can be added to the Excel Tool as required.

5. Weighting approach
There are various different preference weighting methodologies that can be utilised for assigning relative weighting to the
criterion in multi-criteria assessment. The key objective in assigning weights is to determine the relative importance of the
decision criteria (against other criteria under consideration) to the specific transport problem and/or project objective.
Four primary weighting techniques are included within this MCA Tool. These techniques can be categorised into two
broad methodologies - ranking method and analytical hierarchy approach. Both weighting methodologies rely on the
subjective judgements of decision-makers to determine priority rankings, before applying objective formulae to obtain
normalised weightings.
Based on the mixed nature (qualitative and quantitative) of the MCA criteria, subjective ranking is required due to the
difficulty experienced in eliciting relative weightings for decision criteria. This difficulty can be attributed to various factors
including the qualitative nature of some criteria, lack of appropriate expertise, incomplete/partial information, stage in the
investment decision making lifecycle, information processing capability and potential difficulty in reaching consensus
among participants/stakeholders.
Accordingly, priority ranking is easier to elicit, however care must be taken to ensure that these rankings are not distorted
by bias. It is further recommended that the ranking of options is facilitated in an open forum to eliminate this potential bias
and to ensure that sufficient discussion and documentation can ensue to support decision-making.

5.1 Ranking method

Ranking methods derive weightings by applying a formula to the straight priority rank of the selected criterion. Because
these methods are based on ordinal information about criteria, ranking methods are considered the easiest and most time
efficient methods for assigning weightings. The three ranking methods included in this MCA Tool are:
5.1.1. Rank Sum
5.1.2. Rank Reciprocal
5.1.3. Rank Order Centroid
Ranking methods are recommended when there is a high level of information asymmetry, particularly for criteria that are
qualitative in nature.

Analytical Hierarchy Process

The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a well-developed method for ordering attributes or characteristics, and can be
effectively used for weighting relative criterion in MCA. The following method of AHP is included in this MCA Tool:
5.1.4. Pairwise Comparison
AHP is not recommended when there is an exhaustive list of criterion, primarily due to the time- intensity of the pairwise
comparison task.
Overall, the approach chosen to derive criterion weightings will strongly influence the final results of the MCA. The choice
of weighting approach should be contingent on the level of information available to support the prioritisation of criteria,
either through straight rank or pairwise comparison.

Smarter solutions – Multi-Criteria Analysis Tool – Technical Note -3-

5.1.1 Rank sum
The rank sum weighting method assigns weightings by first ranking each criteria in order by preference; the most
preferred option is selected as the first rank. The relative weightings are then calculated by applying the following formula
to the ranked criterion.

Where:

• ri is the rank of the ith objective

• K is the total number of objectives
Results summary
The rank sum methodology derives weightings that are more narrowly distributed relative to alternative ranking
methodologies (see Appendix 1).

5.1.2 Rank reciprocal

The reciprocal (or inverse) weights method assigns weights by ranking each criteria in order by preference; the most
preferred option is selected as the first rank. The relative weightings are then calculated by applying the following formula
(which calculates the normalised reciprocal of each preference ranking) to the ranked criteria.

Where:

• ri is the rank of the ith objective

• K is the total number of objectives
Results summary
The rank reciprocal methodology returns weights that are more dispersed than the rank sum methodology, with greater
‘importance’ placed on the first rank (see Appendix 1). This weighting distribution may be sought if a particular criteria
addresses a specific requirement of the project need / opportunity.

Smarter solutions – Multi-Criteria Analysis Tool – Technical Note -4-

5.1.3 Rank order centroid
The rank order centroid weighting method aims to minimise the maximum error of each weight by identifying the centroid
of all possible weights relative to the assigned ranking of alternatives. Similar to the other rank methods, the criteria must
first be ranked by preference before applying the following formula to elicit the weightings.

Where:
• rj is the rank of the jth objective
• K is the total number of objectives
Results summary
Comparable to the rank reciprocal methodology, the rank order centroid methodology returns weights that are more
dispersed than the rank sum methodology. However, rather than placing additional importance on the first rank only, rank
order centroid exaggerates both the first and last ranked criterion (see Appendix 1). As above, the weighting method
selected should reflect the relative importance of specific criteria to the project need / opportunity.

5.1.4 Pairwise
Pairwise comparisons allow decision makers to weight coefficients and compare alternatives with relative ease. As a
process, the pairwise comparison technique involves comparing and prioritising each of the selected decision criteria
against each other sequentially. For example, criterion A is compared against criterion B and assessed in terms of which
criterion is ‘preferred’ over the other. This process results in a pair-wise matrix, as illustrated in Table 1 (over), and
generates a series of weightings for each criterion.

Smarter solutions – Multi-Criteria Analysis Tool – Technical Note -5-

Table 1 Pairwise scoring approach

Results summary
The elicitation of pairwise ranking provides decision-makers with oversight into the relative degree of importance of each
criterion with respect to each other. However, care must be taken as the nature and design of the pairwise comparison
can result in logical flaws.

6. Weighting assignment
The weighting technique selected above will determine the method undertaken to assign weightings to the selected
criteria. As mentioned, the selection of weighting technique should reflect the nature of the criteria selected to evaluate an
options’ suitability in satisfying a transport opportunity or service need.
This MCA Tool is designed to automate the assignment of weightings according to either the prioritised ranking of criteria
or the pairwise comparison of criteria, depending on the weighting methodology selected.

Smarter solutions – Multi-Criteria Analysis Tool – Technical Note -6-

7. Scoring
Each project option should be scored against each criteria according to the following five point scale:

Table 2 Smarter solutions MCA Tool scoring

Score Scale Description (unless otherwise specified in Appendix 2)

5 Very Positive Option achieves a significantly better outcome than the Base Case.

4 Positive Option achieves a better outcome than the Base Case.

3 Neutral Option achieves an outcome equivalent to the Base Case.

2 Negative Option achieves a poorer outcome than the Base Case.

1 Very Negative Option achieves a significantly poorer outcome than the Base Case.

Note: The MCA Tool prepopulates the score for the Base Case option, which will equal 3 × ݊݊, where ݊݊ equals the
number of criteria selected. The Base Case score is important for project prioritisation and decision-making; options that
score near or below the Base Case should be further evaluated to assess the viability of these options to deliver value for
money and material improvements in network performance (or meet future service requirements).
The Base Case is defined in Section 4.
Further details regarding the explicit description of each scale rating to the criteria can be found in Appendix 2.

8. Sensitivity
A sensitivity analysis should be conducted in order to assess the robustness of the final ranking against the assigned
criterion weights. Various methods of sensitivity testing can be applied to MCA; this Tool incorporates a form of
‘thresholding’.
This sensitivity analysis approach assesses the robustness of selected options by changing the proportional weightings of
each criteria by ±25% in the first instance and then by ±50%. This approach exposes the individual criteria that are most
sensitive to changes in weighting and accordingly facilitates the narrowing of options to finalise the project decision.

9. Results
The results of the MCA, inclusive of the sensitivity analysis, must be assessed to determine which option is most suitable,
within the defined MCA criteria, at addressing the identified service need / requirement.

Smarter solutions – Multi-Criteria Analysis Tool – Technical Note -7-

Appendix 1: Weighting Methodology Comparison
The following table illustrates the different weighting allocation to criteria based on the selection of weighting methodology.

Table 3 Weighting methodology comparison

Rank Sum Rank Reciprocal Rand Order Centroid

Criterion Straight Rank
Weight Normalised Weight Reciprocal Weight Normalised Weight Reciprocal Weight Normalised Weight

A 4 2 13.3% 0.250 10.9% 0.250 9.0%

B 2 4 26.7% 0.500 21.9% 0.500 25.7%
C 5 1 6.7% 0.200 8.8% 0.200 4.0%
D 1 5 33.3% 1.000 43.8% 1.000 45.6%
E 3 3 20.0% 0.333 14.6% 0.333 15.7%
Total 15 100.0% 2.283 100.0% 2.283 100.0%

11
Appendix 2: Criteria for selection
Scoring Range
Criterion Indicator Measure
1 2 3 4 5

Economic Data

Estimated cost is Estimated cost is Estimated cost is Estimated cost is Estimated cost is
Estimated cost of moderately less significantly less
significantly moderately equivalent to the
Implementation construction and than NOS option than NOS option
$ higher than NOS higher than NOS cost of the
Costs* procurement (outturn
option (> $100 option ($0 - $100 identified NOS ($0 - $100 million (> $100 million
estimate)
million more) million more) option less) less)

Estimated cost is Estimated cost is Estimated cost is Estimated cost is Estimated cost is
Whole-of-life Estimated cost of whole- significantly moderately equivalent to the moderately less significantly less
Operation and of-life asset operation higher than NOS higher than NOS cost of the than NOS option than NOS option
Maintenance* and maintenance $
option (> $100 option ($0 - $100 identified NOS ($0 - $100 million (> $100 million
million more) million more) option less) less)

Significant Moderate Moderate Significant

negative impact negative impact positive impact positive impact
on the direct on the direct No impact on the on the direct on the direct
Impact on direct end-to- direct end-to-
end-to-end cost end-to-end cost / end-to-end cost / end-to-end cost /
End-to-end cost end cost or price of Descriptive end cost / price
/ price of travel price of travel price of travel price of travel
travel (incl. amenity) of travel relative
(50% - 100% (0% - 50% (0% - 50% (50% - 100%
increase on increase on to Base Case reduction on reduction on
Base Case) Base Case) Base Case) Base Case)

12
 Scoring Range
Criterion Indicator Measure
1 2 3 4 5
Significant Significant
Estimated change in increase in Moderate Moderate
vehicle operating costs ( increase in No change to reduction in reduction in
vehicle
Vehicle/Bus operating vehicle operating vehicle operating vehicle operating vehicle operating
Road User $ operating costs
costs: fuel, tyre wear, costs (0% - 50% costs relative to cost (0% - 50% cost (50% -
Vehicle (50% - 100%
lubricants, repairs, increase on increase on Base Base Case reduction on 100% reduction
Operating Costs maintenance) Case) Base Case) on Base Case)
Base Case)

BCR Rapid Benefit Cost Ratio Ratio 0 to 0.5 0.5 to 1 N/A 1 to 1.5 > 1.5

Traffic Performance and Integration

Significant Moderate Moderate Significant

Impact on the directness negative impact negative impact No impact on positive impact positive impact
Network of links and the density on network on network network on network on network
Connectivity of connections in the Descriptive connectivity connectivity connectivity connectivity connectivity
network relative to Base relative to Base relative to Base relative to Base relative to Base
Case Case Case Case Case

Significant Moderate Moderate Significant

negative impact negative impact No impact on positive impact positive impact
Operating Change in the efficiency on operating on operating operating on operating on operating
Conditions of operating conditions Descriptive conditions conditions conditions conditions conditions
relative to Base relative to Base relative to Base relative to Base relative to Base
Case Case Case Case Case

13
 Scoring Range
Criterion Indicator Measure
1 2 3 4 5

Travel delay Travel delay

Impact on time travel measured by Travel delay equal to Travel delay Travel delay Travel delay
reliability, measured by actual travel equal to above between 35% equal to 35% of equal to equal to less that
Travel
the percent variation in time net 45% of and 45% of average travel between 25% to 25% of average
Time
travel time average travel average travel average travel time 35% of travel time
Reliability
time time time average travel
time

Significant Moderate Moderate Significant

Impact on transport negative impact negative impact No change in positive impact positive impact
network performance as on level of on level of level of service on level of on level of
LOS captured by the level of A-F LOS Scale service relative service relative relative to Base service relative service relative
service rating to Base Case to Base Case Case to Base Case to Base Case
(-2 ratings) (-1 rating) (+1 rating) (+2 ratings)

Significant Moderate No impact on Moderate Significant

Change in intersection negative impact negative impact intersection positive impact positive impact
delay min on intersection on intersection delay relative to on intersection on intersection
Intersection Delay
delay delay Base Case delay delay

No impact on
Change in user % of public Significant Moderate public transport Moderate Significant
behaviour to increase transport mode reduction in reduction in patronage increase in public increase in public
Public Transport public transport share public transport public transport transport transport
relative to Base
Patronage patronage patronage patronage patronage patronage
Case

Significant Moderate No impact on Significant

Impact on active negative impact negative impact active transport Moderate positive impact
transport users Descriptive on active on active relative to Base positive impact on active
Active transport active transport
transport transport Case transport

14
 Scoring Range
Criterion Indicator Measure
1 2 3 4 5

Performance of the Duration of Duration of Duration of

Performance option over time, as Years N/A N/A benefits benefits between benefits
Horizon measured by the 5 – 10 years
duration of benefits < 5 years > 10 years

Significant Moderate Moderate Significant

negative impact negative impact No impact on the positive impact positive impact
on the perceived on the perceived perceived quality on the perceived on the perceived
Change in the perceived quality and quality and and amenity of quality and quality and
Amenity of travel quality or amenity of Descriptive amenity of amenity of transport amenity of amenity of
travel transport transport network relative transport transport
network relative network relative to Base Case network relative network relative
to Base Case to Base Case to Base Case to Base Case

Safety

Significant
Impact on safety incl. negative impact Moderate No impact on Moderate Significant
Safety accidents, injuries, # crashes on safety negative impact safety relative to positive impact positive impact
casualties and property per million relative to Base on safety relative Base Case on safety relative on safety relative
damage VKT Case to Base Case to Base Case to Base Case

Freight

Significant Moderate Moderate Significant

reduction in reduction in No change in increase in increase in
Freight Volume Impact on freight freight volume freight volume freight volume freight volume freight volume
m3/pkt
volume relative to Base relative to Base relative to Base relative to Base relative to Base
Case Case Case Case Case

15
 Scoring Range
Criterion Indicator Measure
1 2 3 4 5

Significant Moderate Significant

Estimated change in Moderate reduction in
increase in reduction in
freight vehicle operating increase in No change to vehicle operating
vehicle vehicle operating
Freight Vehicle costs ( Vehicle operating vehicle operating vehicle operating
$ operating costs cost (0% - 50% cost (50% -
Operating costs: fuel, tyre wear, costs (0% - 50% costs relative to
(50% - 100% reduction 100% reduction
Costs lubricants, repairs, increase relative Base Case
increase relative relative to Base relative to Base
maintenance) to Base Case)
to Base Case) Case) Case)

Significant
# reduction in Moderate No change in Moderate Significant
Frequency of Impact on the frequency (measured freight reduction in freight frequency increase in increase in
Service of freight services relative to Base frequency freight frequency relative to Base freight frequency freight frequency
Case) relative to Base relative to Base Case relative to Base relative to Base
Case Case Case Case

Construction and Constructability

Significant Moderate Moderate Significant

negative impact negative impact No impact on positive impact positive impact
Impact on traffic on traffic on traffic traffic on traffic on traffic
Traffic management during Descriptive management management management management management
construction / during during during during during
Management
implementation construction / construction / construction / construction / construction /
implementation implementation implementation implementation implementation

Impact of construction
on the local community, Significant Moderate No impact on
Community including visual amenity, Descriptive negative impact negative impact local community N/A N/A
Disruption safety risk, increased on local on local as a result of
traffic and additional community community construction
parking demand

16
 Scoring Range
Criterion Indicator Measure
1 2 3 4 5

Significant Moderate
Potential engineering or evidence of evidence of No evidence of
Engineering / construction challenges potential potential potential
Constructability - during construction or Descriptive engineering or engineering or engineering or N/A N/A
across lifecycle construction construction construction
challenges challenges challenges

Level of risk attributed

to the geotechnical Significant Moderate No geotechnical
Geotechnical Risk conditions at Descriptive geotechnical risk geotechnical risk risk N/A N/A
construction site

Level of political and

construction risk Significant Moderate No change in Moderate Significant
Ease of resulting in delays and Descriptive increase in increase in construction and decrease in decrease in
Construction disruptions during construction and construction and political risk construction and construction and
construction political risk political risk political risk political risk

Ability for the option to No ability for the Ability for the
Stageability be implemented in Binary N/A option to be N/A option to be N/A
discrete stages over implemented in implemented in
time stages stages

Environmental Impact

Significant Moderate Moderate Significant

reduction in reduction in No change in increase in noise increase in
Noise and Impact on noise and air Descriptive noise and air noise and air noise and air and air quality noise and air
Air Quality quality quality relative quality relative to quality relative to relative to Base quality relative
to Base Case Base Case Base Case Case to Base Case

17
 Scoring Range
Criterion Indicator Measure
1 2 3 4 5

Significant Moderate Moderate Significant

increase in fuel increase in fuel No change in fuel reduction in fuel reduction in fuel
Vehicle Emissions Impact on vehicle Descriptive emissions emissions emissions emissions emissions
emissions relative to Base relative to Base relative to Base relative to Base relative to Base
Case Case Case Case Case

Significant Moderate Moderate Significant

negative impact negative impact No impact on positive impact positive impact
Impact on vegetation on vegetation on vegetation vegetation and / on vegetation on vegetation or
and / or sites of and / or sites of and / or sites of or sites of and / or sites of sites of
Flora and fauna environmental Descriptive environmental environmental environmental environmental environmental
importance importance importance importance importance importance
relative to Base relative to Base relative to Base relative to Base relative to Base
Case Case Case Case Case

Social Factors

Land Use & Development

Significant Moderate
Are there any significant barriers to barriers to No barriers to
barriers to implementation implementation implementation
Barriers to development? E.g. Descriptive arising from arising from arising from N/A N/A
development existing land use or existing land use existing land us existing land
cultural significance relative to Base relative to Base use relative to
Case Case e Base Case

Significant Moderate
misalignment of misalignment of No change to Well aligned to Perfectly aligned
Degree of alignment to option to option to future land use strategic land use to strategic land
Future land use strategic land use and Descriptive strategic land strategic land use relative to Base and planning use and
planning objectives use and planning and planning Case objectives planning
objectives objectives objectives

18
 Scoring Range
Criterion Indicator Measure
1 2 3 4 5

Socioeconomic

Significant
negative impact Moderate Moderate Significant
on user negative impact No impact on positive impact positive impact
Impact on user behaviour and on user user behaviour on user on user
Mode Shift behaviour and influence Descriptive mode shift and behaviour and and mode shift behaviour and behaviour and
on mode shift mode shift mode shift relative to Base mode shift mode shift
relative to Base relative to Base Case relative to Base relative to Base
Case Case Case Case

Additional Additional
Impact to local land, properties properties
property and Quantity of affected relative affected relative No addition
Impact on businesses resulting affected to Base Case – to Base Case – N/A N/A properties
property owners from disruption during properties impact across a impact across a affected relative
construction and corridor/route localised spatial to Base Case
operation spatial area area

Impact on visual
amenity and urban Significant Moderate No impact on
quality as a result of reduction in reduction in visual amenity Moderate Significant
Visual Amenity changes in bikeways, Descriptive visual amenity visual amenity and urban quality increase in increase in
and Urban Quality walking paths, noise and urban and urban relative to visual amenity visual amenity
during construction and quality quality Base Case and urban and urban
design/aesthetic quality quality

No impact on
Significant Moderate community Moderate Significant
Severance Impact on community Descriptive increase in increase in severance reduction in reduction in
severance community community relative to Base community community
severence severence Case severence severence

19
 Scoring Range
Criterion Indicator Measure
1 2 3 4 5

Significant Moderate No impact on Moderate Significant

Change in the economic negative impact negative impact future regional positive impact positive impact
Regional and social impact of the Descriptive on future on future development on future on future
development transport system on regional regional relative to Base regional regional
regional development development development Case development development

* Where an NOS option has not been short-listed for assessment, please refine these criteria to reflect the options identified and the key project objectives.

20
2