{
  "entity_id": "B-004055",
  "folder": "Australian-Transport-Assessment-and-Planning-Steering-Committee",
  "name": "Australian Transport Assessment and Planning Steering Committee",
  "type": "Ministerial Council",
  "jurisdiction": "Commonwealth",
  "portfolio": "Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, \r\nCommunications, Sport and the Arts",
  "website": "https://www.atap.gov.au/",
  "data_status": "partial",
  "completeness": {
    "has_strategy_brief": true,
    "has_strategy_structured": true,
    "has_vision": false,
    "has_kpi_targets": true,
    "has_kpi_results": true,
    "has_strategy_overview": true,
    "has_legislation_text": true,
    "has_legislation_structured": false,
    "has_global_initiatives_text": false,
    "has_ideas": true,
    "has_artifacts": true,
    "n_ideas": 12,
    "n_legislation": 0,
    "n_artifacts": 5,
    "n_kpi_targets": 1,
    "n_kpi_results": 1,
    "n_outcomes": 2,
    "verified_own_data": true
  },
  "strategy_profile": {
    "status": "needs_review",
    "confidence": "medium",
    "summary": "Generating a full range of non-capital and capital investment options that consider supply and demand factors, to be assessed against a suitable Base Case (do-minimum).",
    "official_site_url": "https://www.atap.gov.au/",
    "source_documents": [],
    "purpose": null,
    "vision": null,
    "strategic_priorities": [
      {
        "title": "Generating a full range of non-capital and capital investment options that consider supply and demand factors.",
        "description": "Generating a full range of non-capital and capital investment options that consider supply and demand factors.",
        "source_url": "https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/atap-f3-options-assessment.pdf",
        "source_page": 5,
        "source_deep_url": "https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/atap-f3-options-assessment.pdf#page=5"
      }
    ],
    "values": [
      {
        "name": "Strategic alignment with goals, transport system objectives, strategic plans, policies or policy objectives of the government",
        "description": "",
        "source_url": "https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/atap-f3-options-assessment.pdf",
        "source_page": null
      },
      {
        "name": "Delivering net benefits",
        "description": "",
        "source_url": "https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/atap-f3-options-assessment.pdf",
        "source_page": null
      }
    ],
    "outcomes": [
      {
        "name": "Outcome 1: Strategic alignment with goals, transport system objectives, strategic plans, policies or policy objectives of the government",
        "description": "The assessment process aims to determine the best option in terms of strategic alignment with goals, transport system objectives, strategic plans, policies or policy objectives of the government.",
        "activities": [
          "Stage 1: Strategic alignment — Strategic Merit Test",
          "Stage 2: Rapid appraisal",
          "Stage 3: Detailed appraisal"
        ],
        "source_url": "https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/atap-f3-options-assessment.pdf",
        "source_page": 16,
        "source_deep_url": "https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/atap-f3-options-assessment.pdf#page=16"
      },
      {
        "name": "Outcome 2: Delivering net benefits",
        "description": "The assessment process aims to determine the best option in terms of the overall economic, social and environmental merit of options, including net benefits (benefits less costs — both monetised and non-monetised), and distributional (equity) effects.",
        "activities": [
          "Stage 2: Rapid appraisal",
          "Stage 3: Detailed appraisal"
        ],
        "source_url": "https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/atap-f3-options-assessment.pdf",
        "source_page": 16,
        "source_deep_url": "https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/atap-f3-options-assessment.pdf#page=16"
      }
    ],
    "performance_measures": [
      {
        "code": "CCE01",
        "measure": "Net benefits",
        "target": "Largest net benefits",
        "latest_result": "Target met",
        "status": "Achieved",
        "target_source_url": "https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/atap-f3-options-assessment.pdf",
        "target_source_page": null,
        "result_source_url": "",
        "result_source_page": null
      }
    ],
    "document_alignment_terms": {
      "must_support": [
        "Generating a full range of non-capital and capital investment options that consider supply and demand factors."
      ],
      "watch_terms": [
        "Net benefits"
      ],
      "avoid_claiming_without_evidence": []
    },
    "review_note": "Structured strategy exists but is incomplete."
  },
  "strategy_brief_md": "# Australian Transport Assessment and Planning Steering Committee — Strategy Brief\n\n**Reporting period**: 2024-25\n**Corporate plan in force**: 2025-26\n**Corporate Plan**: [2025-26](https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/atap-f3-options-assessment.pdf)\n\n## How we deliver\n\n> Generating a full range of non-capital and capital investment options that consider supply and demand factors, to be assessed against a suitable Base Case (do-minimum). [[CP p.5](https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/atap-f3-options-assessment.pdf#page=5)]\n\n## Government priorities for this department\n\n- Generating a full range of non-capital and capital investment options that consider supply and demand factors. [[CP p.5](https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/atap-f3-options-assessment.pdf#page=5)]\n\n## Outcomes\n\n### Outcome 1: Strategic alignment with goals, transport system objectives, strategic plans, policies or policy objectives of the government\nThe assessment process aims to determine the best option in terms of strategic alignment with goals, transport system objectives, strategic plans, policies or policy objectives of the government. [[CP p.16](https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/atap-f3-options-assessment.pdf#page=16)]\n\n**Key activities:**\n- Stage 1: Strategic alignment — Strategic Merit Test\n- Stage 2: Rapid appraisal\n- Stage 3: Detailed appraisal\n\n### Outcome 2: Delivering net benefits\nThe assessment process aims to determine the best option in terms of the overall economic, social and environmental merit of options, including net benefits (benefits less costs — both monetised and non-monetised), and distributional (equity) effects. [[CP p.16](https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/atap-f3-options-assessment.pdf#page=16)]\n\n**Key activities:**\n- Stage 2: Rapid appraisal\n- Stage 3: Detailed appraisal\n\n## Values and principles\n\n- Strategic alignment with goals, transport system objectives, strategic plans, policies or policy objectives of the government\n- Delivering net benefits\n\n## What they will measure themselves on this year (targets from 2025-26 corporate plan)\n\n| Code | Measure | Target | Source |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| CCE01 | Net benefits | Largest net benefits |  |\n\n## How they performed last year (results from 2024-25 annual report)\n\n| Code | Measure | Result | Status | Source |\n|---|---|---|---|---|\n| CCE01 | Net benefits | Target met | Achieved |  |",
  "strategy_overview_evidence_md": null,
  "internal_strategy_evidence_md": "# Australian Transport Assessment and Planning Steering Committee - Strategy, Performance, and Operating Profile\n\n**Generated at**: 2026-05-09T22:07:55.812232+00:00\n**Entity ID**: B-004055\n**Entity type**: Ministerial Council\n**Jurisdiction**: Commonwealth\n**Portfolio**: Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, \n\nCommunications, Sport and the Arts\n**Website**: https://www.atap.gov.au/\n\n> Draft generated from scraped source material. Treat this as an evidence pack for editorial review, not a final judgement.\n\n## Source Coverage\n\n| Source type | Count |\n|---|---:|\n| other-pdfs | 5 |\n| pages | 13 |\n\n## Executive Readout\n\n### Purpose\n\n- [pages 26,27,28,29]\niative has achieved its intended outcomes\nand objectives once it is delivered.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/atap-f3-options-assessment.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/atap-f3-options-assessment.pdf)`\n- 3.3 Stage 1: Strategic alignment — Strategic Merit Test\nThe purpose of the strategic merit test (SMT) in options assessment is to check how well the\nidentified options align with the economic, environmental and social goals and transport system\nobjectives defined in Step 1, and approved strategies and policies.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/atap-f3-options-assessment.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/atap-f3-options-assessment.pdf)`\n- Figure 5 Examples of linked transport objective, KPI and target\nExample 1 Example 2\nSafety considerations at corridor level Efficiency considerations at network level\nObjective Objective\nImprove transport safety within the corridor Enhance the efficiency of the transport network to\nsupport industry competitiveness\nKPI KPI\nNumber of fatalities and serious injuries within Variability in travel times for freight moving to\nthe corridor international gateways\nTarget Target\nA 10% reduction in fatalities from road crashes No more than 10% variability in freight travel times\nin the corridor by 2020 along major routes\nThe comparison of targets with performance indicators is a gap analysis, which shows the extent to\nwhich objectives are being met.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f1-goals-objectives-kpis-and-targets.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f1-goals-objectives-kpis-and-targets.pdf)`\n- [pages 16,17,18]\n, KPI and target\nExample 1 Example 2\nSafety considerations at corridor level Efficiency considerations at network level\nObjective Objective\nImprove transport safety within the corridor Enhance the efficiency of the transport network to\nsupport industry competitiveness\nKPI KPI\nNumber of fatalities and serious injuries within Variability in travel times for freight moving to\nthe corridor international gateways\nTarget Target\nA 10% reduction in fatalities from road crashes No more than 10% variability in freight travel times\nin the corridor by 2020 along major routes\nThe comparison of targets with performance indicators is a gap analysis, which shows the extent to\nwhich objectives are being met.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f1-goals-objectives-kpis-and-targets.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f1-goals-objectives-kpis-and-targets.pdf)`\n\n### Role and Functions\n\n- 20 per cent for 500 AADT and 5 per cent for 2 000\nAADT)\n• Road duplication for rural roads to be considered when traffic volumes exceed 10 000 AADT or\nwhere there is a significant component of heavy vehicles interacting with tourism traffic\n• More, and longer, passing loops and eventually track duplication when train delays or\nunreliability exceed the standard accepted by the market\n• Resealing of roads to depend on a number of factors but, as a general guide, a frequency of\nbetween seven and 10 years being likely for surface seals (depending on the climatic zone)\nand around 14 years for thin asphalt seals\n• Pavement rehabilitation to be an option where pavement has deteriorated to a point where it no\nlonger meets serviceability requirements such as roughness and rutting or where it is\nstructurally inadequate for current or expected loadings, with consideration of whether a\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f01-policy-choices-and-system-planning.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f01-policy-choices-and-system-planning.pdf)`\n- [Page 24]\nF1 Goals Objectives and Targets\nReferences\nDepartment of Agriculture, Water and Environment 2020, National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable\nDevelopment - Part 1 Introduction, Australian Government: http://www.environment.gov.au/about-\nus/esd/publications/national-esd-strategy-part1\nInfrastructure Australia 2018, Assessment Framework, Australian Government, March, available at:\nhttps://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/publications/assessment-framework-initiatives-and-projects\nNSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment 2020, Strategic planning toolkit,\nhttps://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/Plans-for-your-area/Local-Planning-and-Zoning/Strategic-Planning-\nToolkit\nVictorian Department of Transport 2012, Transport and the triple bottom line: Transport’s role in driving the\neconomic, social and environmental objectives of the Transport Integration Act 2010,\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f1-goals-objectives-kpis-and-targets.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f1-goals-objectives-kpis-and-targets.pdf)`\n- This guidance is set out as follows:\n Chapter 2 explains where in the ATAP Framework transport problems are addressed, and\nprovides a brief initial overview of the three-stage process presented here\n Chapter 3 discusses stage 1, problem identification, the link to goals and objectives and\nscoping the problem\n Chapter 4 considers stage 2, problem assessment, explaining why it is important and its key\ndimensions, especially having a rich evidence-base\n Chapter 5 presents stage 3, problem prioritisation, as the mechanism for deciding which\nproblems are the most important and should be tackled first\n Chapter 6 discusses the important role played by stakeholder engagement, mentioning tools\nfor engagement and providing a checklist for practitioners.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf)`\n- [pages 6,7,8,9]\nge process presented here\n Chapter 3 discusses stage 1, problem identification, the link to goals and objectives and\nscoping the problem\n Chapter 4 considers stage 2, problem assessment, explaining why it is important and its key\ndimensions, especially having a rich evidence-base\n Chapter 5 presents stage 3, problem prioritisation, as the mechanism for deciding which\nproblems are the most important and should be tackled first\n Chapter 6 discusses the important role played by stakeholder engagement, mentioning tools\nfor engagement and providing a checklist for practitioners.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf)`\n- Examples of long-term multi-modal network performance targets include:\n• Annual level of fatal and serious injuries in rural transport to decline by 30 per cent by 2030\n• Rural travel times not to increase until 2025\n• No more than 10 per cent variability in travel times on major interstate freight routes\n• Multi-modal interchange transfer times to be reduced by 10% within 3 years\n• Noise levels for residents along major urban transport routes not to increase by more than\n2dB(A) before 2030\n• Emissions from transport vehicles not to increase beyond a future target year.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f01-policy-choices-and-system-planning.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f01-policy-choices-and-system-planning.pdf)`\n- [pages 38,39,40,41,42]\nmovement of freight is one of the road’s primary functions.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f02_integrated_transport_and_land_use_planning.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/f02_integrated_transport_and_land_use_planning.pdf)`\n\n### Strategic Priorities\n\n- [Page 13]\nF1 Goals Objectives and Targets\nFigure 3 Sample objectives\nDarwin Regional Transport Plan 2018 Transport Integration Act Transport Coordination Plan for Sydney City Centre Access\n(Victoria) 2010 Queensland 2017-27 Strategy 2013\nThe Transport Coordination Plan\nThe Darwin Regional Transport Plan has five Victoria’s Transport Integration This strategy presents a number\narticulates the government’s\nobjectives: Act 2010 defines objectives of actions aligned against three\nobjectives for the transport system\nunder six broad headings. objectives (called priorities):\n Strengthening the integration between land over the next decade, and provides\nObjectives include:\nuse and transport, and integration of the overarching framework for  Reducing congestion\ntransport modes to manage and respond to  Providing tailored strategic planning and management of  Servicing future growth in\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f1-goals-objectives-kpis-and-targets.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f1-goals-objectives-kpis-and-targets.pdf)`\n- [Page 10]\nF3 Options generation & assessment\n2.1.4 Service options\n• Increased services – through new routes, more frequent services and longer operating hours\n• Improved integration between modes – such as better coordinated timetables and interchange\narrangements\n• Other options designed to improve services – such as priority measures for public transport\nand improved information for customers.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/atap-f3-options-assessment.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/atap-f3-options-assessment.pdf)`\n- Examples of long-term multi-modal network performance targets include:\n• Annual level of fatal and serious injuries in rural transport to decline by 30 per cent by 2030\n• Rural travel times not to increase until 2025\n• No more than 10 per cent variability in travel times on major interstate freight routes\n• Multi-modal interchange transfer times to be reduced by 10% within 3 years\n• Noise levels for residents along major urban transport routes not to increase by more than\n2dB(A) before 2030\n• Emissions from transport vehicles not to increase beyond a future target year.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f01-policy-choices-and-system-planning.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f01-policy-choices-and-system-planning.pdf)`\n- 20 per cent for 500 AADT and 5 per cent for 2 000\nAADT)\n• Road duplication for rural roads to be considered when traffic volumes exceed 10 000 AADT or\nwhere there is a significant component of heavy vehicles interacting with tourism traffic\n• More, and longer, passing loops and eventually track duplication when train delays or\nunreliability exceed the standard accepted by the market\n• Resealing of roads to depend on a number of factors but, as a general guide, a frequency of\nbetween seven and 10 years being likely for surface seals (depending on the climatic zone)\nand around 14 years for thin asphalt seals\n• Pavement rehabilitation to be an option where pavement has deteriorated to a point where it no\nlonger meets serviceability requirements such as roughness and rutting or where it is\nstructurally inadequate for current or expected loadings, with consideration of whether a\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f01-policy-choices-and-system-planning.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f01-policy-choices-and-system-planning.pdf)`\n- Figure 5 Examples of linked transport objective, KPI and target\nExample 1 Example 2\nSafety considerations at corridor level Efficiency considerations at network level\nObjective Objective\nImprove transport safety within the corridor Enhance the efficiency of the transport network to\nsupport industry competitiveness\nKPI KPI\nNumber of fatalities and serious injuries within Variability in travel times for freight moving to\nthe corridor international gateways\nTarget Target\nA 10% reduction in fatalities from road crashes No more than 10% variability in freight travel times\nin the corridor by 2020 along major routes\nThe comparison of targets with performance indicators is a gap analysis, which shows the extent to\nwhich objectives are being met.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f1-goals-objectives-kpis-and-targets.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f1-goals-objectives-kpis-and-targets.pdf)`\n- [pages 16,17,18]\n, KPI and target\nExample 1 Example 2\nSafety considerations at corridor level Efficiency considerations at network level\nObjective Objective\nImprove transport safety within the corridor Enhance the efficiency of the transport network to\nsupport industry competitiveness\nKPI KPI\nNumber of fatalities and serious injuries within Variability in travel times for freight moving to\nthe corridor international gateways\nTarget Target\nA 10% reduction in fatalities from road crashes No more than 10% variability in freight travel times\nin the corridor by 2020 along major routes\nThe comparison of targets with performance indicators is a gap analysis, which shows the extent to\nwhich objectives are being met.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f1-goals-objectives-kpis-and-targets.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f1-goals-objectives-kpis-and-targets.pdf)`\n- Table 4 Example road safety target in reference case\nActual from 2012-2016 Possible reference case\nRoad fatality rate (Number of 0.50 0.35\nfatalities per 100 MVKT)\nSerious injury rate (Number of 9.53 6.67\nserious injuries per 100 MVKT)\nThe following problem costs should be included if the road crash rate is higher than the target set\nout in the strategy:\n Road crash cost: Include the crash cost for the crash rate above the target.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf)`\n- [Page 39]\nF2 Problem identification & assessment\nReferences\nAustroads 2010, Road Safety Engineering Risk Assessment, Part 7, Crash Rate Database, Technical report\nInfrastructure Australia 2018, Assessment Framework, available at\nhttps://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/publications/assessment-framework-initiatives-and-projects\nKPMG 2011, Manage the future through scenario planning, available at\nhttps://www.kpmg.com/AU/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/Manage-the-future-\nthrough-scenario-planning-v3.pdf\nOregon Sustainable Transportation Initiative (OSTI), Scenario Planning Guidelines, available at\nhttps://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Planning/Documents/Oregon-Scenario-Planning-Guidelines.pdf\nTransport for NSW, Bureau of transport Statistics, datasets and statistics available at\nwww.bts.nsw.gov.au/Statistics/Statistics?FolderID=214\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf)`\n- [pages 13,14,15]\nes not to increase by more than\n2dB(A) before 2030\n• Emissions from transport vehicles not to increase beyond a future target year.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f01-policy-choices-and-system-planning.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f01-policy-choices-and-system-planning.pdf)`\n- [Page 47]\nF0.2 Integrated Transport and Land Use Planning\nTable 4 Implementation tools\nDistrict Corridor Local\nUrban structure and form Corridor categorisation Activity/accessibility zoning\nUrban density Planning new Type I corridors Transit-friendly land use\nThe right activity in the right Planning new Type II corridors Increasing choices in transport\nlocation\nA hierarchy of multi-purpose Adapting Type I corridors Increasing choices in land use\ncentres\nKey district and transit centres Adapting Type II corridors Cycle networks and land use\nPublic transport and land use Access to roads Pedestrians and land use\nFreight movement and land The right transport task on the Parking standards and\nuse right mode management\nRoad systems and land use Congestion management Corridors and precincts\nIntegrated development areas Transport pricing and tolls Centres as precincts\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f02_integrated_transport_and_land_use_planning.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/f02_integrated_transport_and_land_use_planning.pdf)`\n\n## KPIs, Targets, and Where They Are At\n\n- Figure 5 Examples of linked transport objective, KPI and target\nExample 1 Example 2\nSafety considerations at corridor level Efficiency considerations at network level\nObjective Objective\nImprove transport safety within the corridor Enhance the efficiency of the transport network to\nsupport industry competitiveness\nKPI KPI\nNumber of fatalities and serious injuries within Variability in travel times for freight moving to\nthe corridor international gateways\nTarget Target\nA 10% reduction in fatalities from road crashes No more than 10% variability in freight travel times\nin the corridor by 2020 along major routes\nThe comparison of targets with performance indicators is a gap analysis, which shows the extent to\nwhich objectives are being met.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f1-goals-objectives-kpis-and-targets.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f1-goals-objectives-kpis-and-targets.pdf)`\n- [pages 16,17,18]\n, KPI and target\nExample 1 Example 2\nSafety considerations at corridor level Efficiency considerations at network level\nObjective Objective\nImprove transport safety within the corridor Enhance the efficiency of the transport network to\nsupport industry competitiveness\nKPI KPI\nNumber of fatalities and serious injuries within Variability in travel times for freight moving to\nthe corridor international gateways\nTarget Target\nA 10% reduction in fatalities from road crashes No more than 10% variability in freight travel times\nin the corridor by 2020 along major routes\nThe comparison of targets with performance indicators is a gap analysis, which shows the extent to\nwhich objectives are being met.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f1-goals-objectives-kpis-and-targets.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f1-goals-objectives-kpis-and-targets.pdf)`\n- Outputs usually measure the level of activity and not its end result (economic, social\nand environmental).\n Enable benefit measurement — Formulating KPIs in terms of positive outcomes or\nimprovements enables the estimation of the benefits of a specific initiative.\n Be measurable from a practical perspective — The analytical tools, data and/or resources\nneeded to monitor a KPI or target should be readily available at a reasonable cost.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f1-goals-objectives-kpis-and-targets.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f1-goals-objectives-kpis-and-targets.pdf)`\n- Examples of long-term multi-modal network performance targets include:\n• Annual level of fatal and serious injuries in rural transport to decline by 30 per cent by 2030\n• Rural travel times not to increase until 2025\n• No more than 10 per cent variability in travel times on major interstate freight routes\n• Multi-modal interchange transfer times to be reduced by 10% within 3 years\n• Noise levels for residents along major urban transport routes not to increase by more than\n2dB(A) before 2030\n• Emissions from transport vehicles not to increase beyond a future target year.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f01-policy-choices-and-system-planning.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f01-policy-choices-and-system-planning.pdf)`\n- Table 4 Example road safety target in reference case\nActual from 2012-2016 Possible reference case\nRoad fatality rate (Number of 0.50 0.35\nfatalities per 100 MVKT)\nSerious injury rate (Number of 9.53 6.67\nserious injuries per 100 MVKT)\nThe following problem costs should be included if the road crash rate is higher than the target set\nout in the strategy:\n Road crash cost: Include the crash cost for the crash rate above the target.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf)`\n- [pages 13,14,15]\nes not to increase by more than\n2dB(A) before 2030\n• Emissions from transport vehicles not to increase beyond a future target year.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f01-policy-choices-and-system-planning.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f01-policy-choices-and-system-planning.pdf)`\n- 12\nFigure 5 Examples of linked transport objective, KPI and target ...........................................................\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f1-goals-objectives-kpis-and-targets.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f1-goals-objectives-kpis-and-targets.pdf)`\n- [Page 5]\nF3 Options generation & assessment\nStep 3: Options generation and assessment\nAt a glance\n• Step 3 of the Framework provides guidance on generating and assessing options to address\nthe problems/opportunities identified and prioritised in Step 2.\n• The purpose of this step is to:\n– Generate a full range of non-capital and capital investment options that consider supply and\ndemand factors, to be assessed against a suitable Base Case (do-minimum)\n– Narrow down a long list of possible options to a preferred option, using a three–tiered\nassessment process: Strategic Merit Test (SMT), rapid appraisal and detailed appraisal.\n• Recommended tools are provided for each tier of the options assessment process.\n• This step should result in the selection of a preferred option (or package of options) that is\nsupported by a rich set of information about its impacts, benefits and costs.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/atap-f3-options-assessment.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/atap-f3-options-assessment.pdf)`\n- [pages 26,27,28,29]\niative has achieved its intended outcomes\nand objectives once it is delivered.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/atap-f3-options-assessment.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/atap-f3-options-assessment.pdf)`\n- For the example in the last dot point, the target could be a 10% reduction\n Step 1 is separated into two parts:\n– Step 1a focuses on goals\n– Step 1b then considers supporting transport system objectives, KPIs and targets.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f1-goals-objectives-kpis-and-targets.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f1-goals-objectives-kpis-and-targets.pdf)`\n- 20 per cent for 500 AADT and 5 per cent for 2 000\nAADT)\n• Road duplication for rural roads to be considered when traffic volumes exceed 10 000 AADT or\nwhere there is a significant component of heavy vehicles interacting with tourism traffic\n• More, and longer, passing loops and eventually track duplication when train delays or\nunreliability exceed the standard accepted by the market\n• Resealing of roads to depend on a number of factors but, as a general guide, a frequency of\nbetween seven and 10 years being likely for surface seals (depending on the climatic zone)\nand around 14 years for thin asphalt seals\n• Pavement rehabilitation to be an option where pavement has deteriorated to a point where it no\nlonger meets serviceability requirements such as roughness and rutting or where it is\nstructurally inadequate for current or expected loadings, with consideration of whether a\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f01-policy-choices-and-system-planning.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f01-policy-choices-and-system-planning.pdf)`\n- [Page 27]\nF0.1 Policy Choices and System Planning\nthe economic worth of remedying a deficiency, which is driven primarily by costs and demand.10\nTherefore, if the aim is to use deficiency assessment to help initial identification of initiatives that\nhave economic worth (i.e. that are economically justified/warranted), benchmarks should be set at\nlevels where intervention is likely to yield an acceptable CBA result.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f01-policy-choices-and-system-planning.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f01-policy-choices-and-system-planning.pdf)`\n- However, an MCA can involve risks of bias, lack of transparency and ease\nof manipulation to obtain a predetermined result (see discussion in Part F3, Sections 3.2 and 3.3,\nespecially Box 1 of the ATAP Guidelines).\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f02_integrated_transport_and_land_use_planning.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/f02_integrated_transport_and_land_use_planning.pdf)`\n- For example, a KPI of fatalities\nper million vehicle kilometres travelled enables us to monitor performance with respect to the\nobjective of improving road safety.\n A target is a specific desired level of an outcome, as measured by a specific KPI, that is being\npursued.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f1-goals-objectives-kpis-and-targets.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f1-goals-objectives-kpis-and-targets.pdf)`\n\n## Key Metrics\n\n| Values found | Evidence | Source |\n|---|---|---|\n| 30 per cent, 10 per cent | Examples of long-term multi-modal network performance targets include:\n• Annual level of fatal and serious injuries in rural transport to decline by 30 per cent by 2030\n• Rural travel times not to increase until 2025\n• No more than 10 per cent variability in travel times on major interstate freight routes\n• Multi-modal interchange transfer times to be reduced by 10% within 3 years\n• Noise levels for residents along major urban transport routes no | `other-pdfs/f01-policy-choices-and-system-planning.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f01-policy-choices-and-system-planning.pdf)` |\n| 20 per cent, 5 per cent | 20 per cent for 500 AADT and 5 per cent for 2 000\nAADT)\n• Road duplication for rural roads to be considered when traffic volumes exceed 10 000 AADT or\nwhere there is a significant component of heavy vehicles interacting with tourism traffic\n• More, and longer, passing loops and eventually track duplication when train delays or\nunreliability exceed the standard accepted by the market\n• Resealing of roads to depend on a number of factors but, as a | `other-pdfs/f01-policy-choices-and-system-planning.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f01-policy-choices-and-system-planning.pdf)` |\n| $60m, $80m, $20m, $95m, $2,730m | In this illustrative example, the problem cost is estimated at\n$60m (i.e. $80m - $20m) in the current year and increases to $80m and $95m respectively at years\n2026 and 2036, with the total problem cost estimated at $2,730m over 30-year period. | `other-pdfs/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf)` |\n| $80 , $100 , $115 , $120\n, $20 | [Page 27]\nF2 Problem identification & assessment\nTable 5 Illustrative example of presenting problem costing results (undiscounted)\nGeneralised road user costs 2019 2026 2036 2049\nBase case ($m) $80 $100 $115 $120\nReference case ($m) $20 $20 $20 $20\nProposed solution ($m) $50 $70 $85 $90\nProblem cost $60 $80 $95 $100\nA.2 Sourcing useful data for estimating the problem cost\nQuantifying and monetising the problem cost should occur at an early stage | `other-pdfs/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf)` |\n| $64.0\n, $6.4\n, $4.3\n, $0.9\n, $1.6\n, $77.3 | Results are summarised in Table 8 Problem cost in the base case by\n2026\nProblem Cost of problem if existing Southbound Bridge\nremains open to traffic\nCongestion cost\nDelay cost ($m) $64.0\nVOC cost ($m) $6.4\nCrash cost ($m) $4.3\nFreight inefficiency ($m) $0.9\nAdditional maintenance cost ($m) $1.6\nDiversion ($m)\nTotal cost ($m) $77.3\n. | `other-pdfs/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf)` |\n| $1.6\n, $77.3 | [pages 30,31,32]\n0.9\nAdditional maintenance cost ($m) $1.6\nDiversion ($m)\nTotal cost ($m) $77.3\n. | `other-pdfs/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf)` |\n| $79.3m, $1.6m | An engineering study has\nestimated that the additional maintenance cost for the 1881 Bridge was $79.3m in a 50-year\nperiod, equivalent to $1.6m per annum. | `other-pdfs/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf)` |\n| $64.0\n, $6.4\n, $4.3\n, $0.9\n, $1.6 | Table 8 Problem cost in the base case by 2026\nProblem Cost of problem if existing Southbound Bridge\nremains open to traffic\nCongestion cost\nDelay cost ($m) $64.0\nVOC cost ($m) $6.4\nCrash cost ($m) $4.3\nFreight inefficiency ($m) $0.9\nAdditional maintenance cost ($m) $1.6\nInfrastructure and Transport Ministers \\| Australian Transport Assessment and Planning Guidelines 27 | `other-pdfs/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf)` |\n| $77.3 | [Page 32]\nF2 Problem identification & assessment\nProblem Cost of problem if existing Southbound Bridge\nremains open to traffic\nDiversion ($m)\nTotal cost ($m) $77.3\nNote: Assuming 30% traffic is diverted\nA.4 Example 2: Prospect Highway, Western Sydney\nThe Prospect Highway is an arterial north-south corridor approximately 25-kilometres west of the\nSydney CBD. | `other-pdfs/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf)` |\n| $3.4m, $4.8m | For this segment of road, the travel time unreliability problem cost was estimated at\n$3.4m in 2018, increasing to $4.8m in 2028. | `other-pdfs/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf)` |\n| $11.9m, $19.2m | The additional VOC was estimated at $11.9m in 2018, increasing to $19.2m\nin 2028. | `other-pdfs/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf)` |\n| $2.3m, $2.5m | The additional road crash cost was estimated at $2.3m in\n2018, increasing to $2.5m in 2028. | `other-pdfs/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf)` |\n| $30.1 , $42.1 , $3.4 , $4.8 , $11.9 , $19.2 | Table 10 Problem Cost of Prospect Highway\nProblem item Problem cost Medium to long term Proportion of problem\nas at 2018 problem cost in 2028 cost in 2018\n($m) ($m)\nCongestion caused delay $30.1 $42.1 63%\nUnreliable travel time $3.4 $4.8 7%\nAdditional vehicle operating cost $11.9 $19.2 25%\nAdditional road crash cost $2.3 $2.5 5%\nTotal problem cost $47.7 $68.6 100%\nSource: TfNSW Analysis, using Advanced Analytics and Insights’ Data in 2018\nThe pro | `other-pdfs/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf)` |\n| $100 million, 100 million | For example:\n• If an option has a monetised net benefit of $100 million, but non-monetised net disbenefits, ask\nwhether the non-monetised net disbenefits would be worth more than $100 million. | `other-pdfs/atap-f3-options-assessment.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/atap-f3-options-assessment.pdf)` |\n| $3.6 billion, 3.6 billion | In terms of supporting infrastructure, the Australian and NSW governments have committed over\n$3.6 billion to road upgrades to connect the Western Sydney Airport site to Sydney’s road network. | `other-pdfs/f02_integrated_transport_and_land_use_planning.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/f02_integrated_transport_and_land_use_planning.pdf)` |\n| 30 per cent, 10 per cent | Examples of long-term multi-modal network performance targets include:\n• Annual level of fatal and serious injuries in rural transport to decline by 30 per cent by 2030\n• Rural travel times not to increase until 2025\n• No more than 10 per cent variability in travel times on major interstate freight routes\n• Multi-modal interchange transfer times to be reduced by 10% within 3 years\n• Noise levels for residents along major urban transport routes no | `other-pdfs/f01-policy-choices-and-system-planning.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f01-policy-choices-and-system-planning.pdf)` |\n| 20 per cent, 5 per cent | 20 per cent for 500 AADT and 5 per cent for 2 000\nAADT)\n• Road duplication for rural roads to be considered when traffic volumes exceed 10 000 AADT or\nwhere there is a significant component of heavy vehicles interacting with tourism traffic\n• More, and longer, passing loops and eventually track duplication when train delays or\nunreliability exceed the standard accepted by the market\n• Resealing of roads to depend on a number of factors but, as a | `other-pdfs/f01-policy-choices-and-system-planning.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f01-policy-choices-and-system-planning.pdf)` |\n\n## Key Achievements\n\n- [pages 26,27,28,29]\niative has achieved its intended outcomes\nand objectives once it is delivered.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/atap-f3-options-assessment.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/atap-f3-options-assessment.pdf)`\n- Examples of long-term multi-modal network performance targets include:\n• Annual level of fatal and serious injuries in rural transport to decline by 30 per cent by 2030\n• Rural travel times not to increase until 2025\n• No more than 10 per cent variability in travel times on major interstate freight routes\n• Multi-modal interchange transfer times to be reduced by 10% within 3 years\n• Noise levels for residents along major urban transport routes not to increase by more than\n2dB(A) before 2030\n• Emissions from transport vehicles not to increase beyond a future target year.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f01-policy-choices-and-system-planning.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f01-policy-choices-and-system-planning.pdf)`\n- 20 per cent for 500 AADT and 5 per cent for 2 000\nAADT)\n• Road duplication for rural roads to be considered when traffic volumes exceed 10 000 AADT or\nwhere there is a significant component of heavy vehicles interacting with tourism traffic\n• More, and longer, passing loops and eventually track duplication when train delays or\nunreliability exceed the standard accepted by the market\n• Resealing of roads to depend on a number of factors but, as a general guide, a frequency of\nbetween seven and 10 years being likely for surface seals (depending on the climatic zone)\nand around 14 years for thin asphalt seals\n• Pavement rehabilitation to be an option where pavement has deteriorated to a point where it no\nlonger meets serviceability requirements such as roughness and rutting or where it is\nstructurally inadequate for current or expected loadings, with consideration of whether a\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f01-policy-choices-and-system-planning.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f01-policy-choices-and-system-planning.pdf)`\n- [Page 31]\nF0.2 Integrated Transport and Land Use Planning\nImpact of infrastructure on housing types in Melbourne\nAn assumed percentage uplift in relative EJD was applied to the inner, middle and outer rings of\nMelbourne, based on previous work completed by SGS on major transport infrastructure projects\n(14% for inner, 7% for middle and 2% for outer rings).\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f02_integrated_transport_and_land_use_planning.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/f02_integrated_transport_and_land_use_planning.pdf)`\n- Figure 5 Examples of linked transport objective, KPI and target\nExample 1 Example 2\nSafety considerations at corridor level Efficiency considerations at network level\nObjective Objective\nImprove transport safety within the corridor Enhance the efficiency of the transport network to\nsupport industry competitiveness\nKPI KPI\nNumber of fatalities and serious injuries within Variability in travel times for freight moving to\nthe corridor international gateways\nTarget Target\nA 10% reduction in fatalities from road crashes No more than 10% variability in freight travel times\nin the corridor by 2020 along major routes\nThe comparison of targets with performance indicators is a gap analysis, which shows the extent to\nwhich objectives are being met.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f1-goals-objectives-kpis-and-targets.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f1-goals-objectives-kpis-and-targets.pdf)`\n- [pages 16,17,18]\n, KPI and target\nExample 1 Example 2\nSafety considerations at corridor level Efficiency considerations at network level\nObjective Objective\nImprove transport safety within the corridor Enhance the efficiency of the transport network to\nsupport industry competitiveness\nKPI KPI\nNumber of fatalities and serious injuries within Variability in travel times for freight moving to\nthe corridor international gateways\nTarget Target\nA 10% reduction in fatalities from road crashes No more than 10% variability in freight travel times\nin the corridor by 2020 along major routes\nThe comparison of targets with performance indicators is a gap analysis, which shows the extent to\nwhich objectives are being met.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f1-goals-objectives-kpis-and-targets.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f1-goals-objectives-kpis-and-targets.pdf)`\n- Table 4 Example road safety target in reference case\nActual from 2012-2016 Possible reference case\nRoad fatality rate (Number of 0.50 0.35\nfatalities per 100 MVKT)\nSerious injury rate (Number of 9.53 6.67\nserious injuries per 100 MVKT)\nThe following problem costs should be included if the road crash rate is higher than the target set\nout in the strategy:\n Road crash cost: Include the crash cost for the crash rate above the target.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf)`\n- [Page 35]\nF2 Problem identification & assessment\nFigure 5 Prospect Highway traffic (Source: google map on 23 Oct 2018)\nUnreliable travel time due to congestion and intersection performance\nIn TfNSW’s Advanced Analytics and Insights (AAI) data, Journey Time Reliability (JTR) is the\npercentage of journeys completed within 117% of the expected journey time for a particular period.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf)`\n- [Page 39]\nF2 Problem identification & assessment\nReferences\nAustroads 2010, Road Safety Engineering Risk Assessment, Part 7, Crash Rate Database, Technical report\nInfrastructure Australia 2018, Assessment Framework, available at\nhttps://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/publications/assessment-framework-initiatives-and-projects\nKPMG 2011, Manage the future through scenario planning, available at\nhttps://www.kpmg.com/AU/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/Manage-the-future-\nthrough-scenario-planning-v3.pdf\nOregon Sustainable Transportation Initiative (OSTI), Scenario Planning Guidelines, available at\nhttps://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Planning/Documents/Oregon-Scenario-Planning-Guidelines.pdf\nTransport for NSW, Bureau of transport Statistics, datasets and statistics available at\nwww.bts.nsw.gov.au/Statistics/Statistics?FolderID=214\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf)`\n- Assessment has a very high\ndegree of confidence\nSource: ATC (2006)\nD.3 AST examples\nFigure 7 provides a completed AST for a generic road transport example and Figure 8 shows the\naccompanying footnotes.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/atap-f3-options-assessment.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/atap-f3-options-assessment.pdf)`\n- [pages 13,14,15]\nes not to increase by more than\n2dB(A) before 2030\n• Emissions from transport vehicles not to increase beyond a future target year.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f01-policy-choices-and-system-planning.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f01-policy-choices-and-system-planning.pdf)`\n- [Page 47]\nF0.2 Integrated Transport and Land Use Planning\nTable 4 Implementation tools\nDistrict Corridor Local\nUrban structure and form Corridor categorisation Activity/accessibility zoning\nUrban density Planning new Type I corridors Transit-friendly land use\nThe right activity in the right Planning new Type II corridors Increasing choices in transport\nlocation\nA hierarchy of multi-purpose Adapting Type I corridors Increasing choices in land use\ncentres\nKey district and transit centres Adapting Type II corridors Cycle networks and land use\nPublic transport and land use Access to roads Pedestrians and land use\nFreight movement and land The right transport task on the Parking standards and\nuse right mode management\nRoad systems and land use Congestion management Corridors and precincts\nIntegrated development areas Transport pricing and tolls Centres as precincts\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f02_integrated_transport_and_land_use_planning.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/f02_integrated_transport_and_land_use_planning.pdf)`\n\n## Key Issues, Risks, and Recommendations\n\n- 20 per cent for 500 AADT and 5 per cent for 2 000\nAADT)\n• Road duplication for rural roads to be considered when traffic volumes exceed 10 000 AADT or\nwhere there is a significant component of heavy vehicles interacting with tourism traffic\n• More, and longer, passing loops and eventually track duplication when train delays or\nunreliability exceed the standard accepted by the market\n• Resealing of roads to depend on a number of factors but, as a general guide, a frequency of\nbetween seven and 10 years being likely for surface seals (depending on the climatic zone)\nand around 14 years for thin asphalt seals\n• Pavement rehabilitation to be an option where pavement has deteriorated to a point where it no\nlonger meets serviceability requirements such as roughness and rutting or where it is\nstructurally inadequate for current or expected loadings, with consideration of whether a\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f01-policy-choices-and-system-planning.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f01-policy-choices-and-system-planning.pdf)`\n- [Page 39]\nF2 Problem identification & assessment\nReferences\nAustroads 2010, Road Safety Engineering Risk Assessment, Part 7, Crash Rate Database, Technical report\nInfrastructure Australia 2018, Assessment Framework, available at\nhttps://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/publications/assessment-framework-initiatives-and-projects\nKPMG 2011, Manage the future through scenario planning, available at\nhttps://www.kpmg.com/AU/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/Manage-the-future-\nthrough-scenario-planning-v3.pdf\nOregon Sustainable Transportation Initiative (OSTI), Scenario Planning Guidelines, available at\nhttps://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Planning/Documents/Oregon-Scenario-Planning-Guidelines.pdf\nTransport for NSW, Bureau of transport Statistics, datasets and statistics available at\nwww.bts.nsw.gov.au/Statistics/Statistics?FolderID=214\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf)`\n- It should include:\n• A robust and objective analysis supported by strong evidence\n• Consideration of as many monetised benefits and costs as possible\n• Presentation of standard CBA outputs (NPV, BCR, etc — see Box 3 and T2 Chapter 10)\n• Consideration of non-monetised benefits and costs as well alongside the monetised results\n• Consideration of issues of risk and uncertainty (usually provided through sensitivity testing).\n  Source: `other-pdfs/atap-f3-options-assessment.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/atap-f3-options-assessment.pdf)`\n- [Page 31]\nF0.1 Policy Choices and System Planning\nReferences\nARTC 2001, Interstate Rail Network Audit - Audit of ATC Performance Targets, April, Appendix B, available\nat: http://www.artc.com.au/library/appendix_b.pdf\nATC (Australian Transport Council) 2003, National Charter for Integrated Land Use and Transport Planning:\nhttp://www.transportinfrastructurecouncil.gov.au/publications/files/National_Charter_ATC_MAY_03.pdf\nATC (Australian Transport Council) 2006, National Guidelines for Transport System Management, Volume 5:\nBackground material\nAustroads 2009, Guide to Road Transport Planning\nAustroads 2020, Guide to Traffic Management, https://austroads.com.au/network-operations/network-\nmanagement/guide-to-traffic-management\nHarvey M, 1995, Assessing the adequacy of national transport infrastructure: A methodology, Road and\nTransport Research, 4(1), pp.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f01-policy-choices-and-system-planning.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f01-policy-choices-and-system-planning.pdf)`\n- Table 3 Indicative road capacity, estimated free-flow speed and typical intersection delays\nRoad / intersection type Indicative Assumed Estimated free- Typical Intersection\ncapacity speed limit flow speed at delays per vehicle\n(Veh/h/ln) (km/h) LOS A/B (km/h) at LOS B (Seconds)\nRegional freeway 2000 110 110\nRegional highway 2000 90 90\nUrban motorway 1800 90 90\nUrban arterial road 1000 70 66^\nUrban sub-arterial road 800 60 55&\nSignalised intersection 10-20\nStop / Give Way Control 10-15\nRoundabout 10-20\n* Flee flow speed at LOS A and B is almost the same.\n^ Free-flow speed is estimated based on 8 road access points form roadside\n& Free-flow speed is estimated based on 12 road access points form roadside\nThe following problem costs should be included if the network performance is below LOS B:\n Congestion cost: Additional travel time due to the operational speed slower than free flow\nspeed\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf)`\n- [pages 24,25,26]\nub-arterial road 800 60 55&\nSignalised intersection 10-20\nStop / Give Way Control 10-15\nRoundabout 10-20\n* Flee flow speed at LOS A and B is almost the same.\n^ Free-flow speed is estimated based on 8 road access points form roadside\n& Free-flow speed is estimated based on 12 road access points form roadside\nThe following problem costs should be included if the network performance is below LOS B:\n Congestion cost: Additional travel time due to the operational speed slower than free flow\nspeed\n Intersection delay cost: Additional travel time due to extra delays above the typical intersection\ndelays\n Travel time variability: Day to day travel time variability due to less than free-flow speed\nInfrastructure and Transport Ministers | Australian Transport Assessment and Planning Guidelines 20\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf)`\n- Results are summarised in Table 8 Problem cost in the base case by\n2026\nProblem Cost of problem if existing Southbound Bridge\nremains open to traffic\nCongestion cost\nDelay cost ($m) $64.0\nVOC cost ($m) $6.4\nCrash cost ($m) $4.3\nFreight inefficiency ($m) $0.9\nAdditional maintenance cost ($m) $1.6\nDiversion ($m)\nTotal cost ($m) $77.3\n.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf)`\n- Table 8 Problem cost in the base case by 2026\nProblem Cost of problem if existing Southbound Bridge\nremains open to traffic\nCongestion cost\nDelay cost ($m) $64.0\nVOC cost ($m) $6.4\nCrash cost ($m) $4.3\nFreight inefficiency ($m) $0.9\nAdditional maintenance cost ($m) $1.6\nInfrastructure and Transport Ministers | Australian Transport Assessment and Planning Guidelines 27\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf)`\n- Table 9 Reference case for the Prospect Highway\nCriteria Current situation Reference case\nCongestion and delay The average speed in the PM peak To achieve the average speed of 66\nhour is 13 km/h in 2017/18. km/h for the LOS ‘B’ for the proposed\nspeed limit of 70 km/h.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf)`\n- Table 10 Problem Cost of Prospect Highway\nProblem item Problem cost Medium to long term Proportion of problem\nas at 2018 problem cost in 2028 cost in 2018\n($m) ($m)\nCongestion caused delay $30.1 $42.1 63%\nUnreliable travel time $3.4 $4.8 7%\nAdditional vehicle operating cost $11.9 $19.2 25%\nAdditional road crash cost $2.3 $2.5 5%\nTotal problem cost $47.7 $68.6 100%\nSource: TfNSW Analysis, using Advanced Analytics and Insights’ Data in 2018\nThe problem cost was only estimated for the 3.6 km length of the Prospect Highway and the\nrelated intersections.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf)`\n- Where the related action is\nnot dependent on the appraisal process, the Base Case should include an assumption about whether or\nnot a related action proceeds and the issue should be fully addressed in the risk assessment.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/atap-f3-options-assessment.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/atap-f3-options-assessment.pdf)`\n- Examples of long-term multi-modal network performance targets include:\n• Annual level of fatal and serious injuries in rural transport to decline by 30 per cent by 2030\n• Rural travel times not to increase until 2025\n• No more than 10 per cent variability in travel times on major interstate freight routes\n• Multi-modal interchange transfer times to be reduced by 10% within 3 years\n• Noise levels for residents along major urban transport routes not to increase by more than\n2dB(A) before 2030\n• Emissions from transport vehicles not to increase beyond a future target year.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f01-policy-choices-and-system-planning.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f01-policy-choices-and-system-planning.pdf)`\n- The Bureau\nof Infrastructure Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE) has undertaken economic\nassessment of networks using an optimal timing criterion to identify potential investment needs\nwhere there is no budget constraint (see section 1.4 in ATC (2006) and Harvey (1995)).\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f01-policy-choices-and-system-planning.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f01-policy-choices-and-system-planning.pdf)`\n- However, an MCA can involve risks of bias, lack of transparency and ease\nof manipulation to obtain a predetermined result (see discussion in Part F3, Sections 3.2 and 3.3,\nespecially Box 1 of the ATAP Guidelines).\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f02_integrated_transport_and_land_use_planning.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/f02_integrated_transport_and_land_use_planning.pdf)`\n\n## Corporate Values and Operating Culture\n\n- 20 per cent for 500 AADT and 5 per cent for 2 000\nAADT)\n• Road duplication for rural roads to be considered when traffic volumes exceed 10 000 AADT or\nwhere there is a significant component of heavy vehicles interacting with tourism traffic\n• More, and longer, passing loops and eventually track duplication when train delays or\nunreliability exceed the standard accepted by the market\n• Resealing of roads to depend on a number of factors but, as a general guide, a frequency of\nbetween seven and 10 years being likely for surface seals (depending on the climatic zone)\nand around 14 years for thin asphalt seals\n• Pavement rehabilitation to be an option where pavement has deteriorated to a point where it no\nlonger meets serviceability requirements such as roughness and rutting or where it is\nstructurally inadequate for current or expected loadings, with consideration of whether a\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f01-policy-choices-and-system-planning.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f01-policy-choices-and-system-planning.pdf)`\n- Expansion Factor and VOT can be\nsourced from ATAP M2 and PV2.\n Line 2: Value of Travel Time Reliability (VTTR) (NSW approach):\n– STD denotes the Standard Deviation of travel time for the same route for the same time\nperiod due to day to day traffic volume and traffic condition variations\n– S, S and b are equation parameters estimated for different road types, provided in “TfNSW\n0\nEconomic Guidelines” (pg.119, Table 7.1)\n– VCR = volume capacity ratio\n– STD1, 2,….,n are the travel time standard deviations on different road sections\nInfrastructure and Transport Ministers | Australian Transport Assessment and Planning Guidelines 33\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf)`\n- [Page 38]\nF2 Problem identification & assessment\n– PAT AR is the Preferred Arrival Time Applicability Ratio, provided in “TfNSW Economic\nGuidelines” (pg.121, Table 7.2).\n Line 3 – Vehicle Operating Cost:\n– VOC model can be found ATAP PV2\n– V represents journey speed (km/h)\n– A, B, C0, C1 and C2 are model coefficients (see ATAP PV2 for values)\n– Coefficient A represents the constant fixed cost\n– Coefficient B represents the relationship between speed and VOC for the urban stop-start\nmodel\n– The coefficients C1 and C2 represent the relationship between speed and VOC for the\nfreeway model, and vary by vehicle type (see ATAP PV2 for values)\n Line 4 – Crash Cost:\n– VKT is can be calculated from traffic volume and road length, or from the output of traffic\nmodelling if available at the problem definition stage\n– Crash cost is provided in ATAP PV2\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf)`\n- [Page 10]\nF3 Options generation & assessment\n2.1.4 Service options\n• Increased services – through new routes, more frequent services and longer operating hours\n• Improved integration between modes – such as better coordinated timetables and interchange\narrangements\n• Other options designed to improve services – such as priority measures for public transport\nand improved information for customers.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/atap-f3-options-assessment.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/atap-f3-options-assessment.pdf)`\n- Examples of long-term multi-modal network performance targets include:\n• Annual level of fatal and serious injuries in rural transport to decline by 30 per cent by 2030\n• Rural travel times not to increase until 2025\n• No more than 10 per cent variability in travel times on major interstate freight routes\n• Multi-modal interchange transfer times to be reduced by 10% within 3 years\n• Noise levels for residents along major urban transport routes not to increase by more than\n2dB(A) before 2030\n• Emissions from transport vehicles not to increase beyond a future target year.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f01-policy-choices-and-system-planning.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f01-policy-choices-and-system-planning.pdf)`\n- Figure 5 Examples of linked transport objective, KPI and target\nExample 1 Example 2\nSafety considerations at corridor level Efficiency considerations at network level\nObjective Objective\nImprove transport safety within the corridor Enhance the efficiency of the transport network to\nsupport industry competitiveness\nKPI KPI\nNumber of fatalities and serious injuries within Variability in travel times for freight moving to\nthe corridor international gateways\nTarget Target\nA 10% reduction in fatalities from road crashes No more than 10% variability in freight travel times\nin the corridor by 2020 along major routes\nThe comparison of targets with performance indicators is a gap analysis, which shows the extent to\nwhich objectives are being met.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f1-goals-objectives-kpis-and-targets.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f1-goals-objectives-kpis-and-targets.pdf)`\n- [pages 16,17,18]\n, KPI and target\nExample 1 Example 2\nSafety considerations at corridor level Efficiency considerations at network level\nObjective Objective\nImprove transport safety within the corridor Enhance the efficiency of the transport network to\nsupport industry competitiveness\nKPI KPI\nNumber of fatalities and serious injuries within Variability in travel times for freight moving to\nthe corridor international gateways\nTarget Target\nA 10% reduction in fatalities from road crashes No more than 10% variability in freight travel times\nin the corridor by 2020 along major routes\nThe comparison of targets with performance indicators is a gap analysis, which shows the extent to\nwhich objectives are being met.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f1-goals-objectives-kpis-and-targets.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f1-goals-objectives-kpis-and-targets.pdf)`\n- Table 4 Example road safety target in reference case\nActual from 2012-2016 Possible reference case\nRoad fatality rate (Number of 0.50 0.35\nfatalities per 100 MVKT)\nSerious injury rate (Number of 9.53 6.67\nserious injuries per 100 MVKT)\nThe following problem costs should be included if the road crash rate is higher than the target set\nout in the strategy:\n Road crash cost: Include the crash cost for the crash rate above the target.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf)`\n\n## Global Ideas and Case Study Inputs\n\n_No global-intelligence source text found yet. Run `CLAUDE/global-ideas-scraper.py <entity>` to populate case-study sources._\n\n## Source Artifacts Used\n\n- `pages/about.html` - pages - https://www.atap.gov.au/about/index\n- `pages/homepage.html` - pages - https://www.atap.gov.au/\n- `pages/strategies-index.html` - pages - https://www.atap.gov.au/framework/index\n- `pages/strategies-index__00.html` - pages - https://www.atap.gov.au/framework/index\n- `pages/strategies-index__01.html` - pages - https://www.atap.gov.au/framework/policy-choices-system-planning/index\n- `pages/strategies-index__02.html` - pages - https://www.atap.gov.au/framework/integrated-transport-land-use-planning/index\n- `pages/strategies-index__03.html` - pages - https://www.atap.gov.au/framework/goals-objectives-targets/index\n- `pages/strategies-index__04.html` - pages - https://www.atap.gov.au/framework/problem-identification-assessment/index\n- `pages/strategies-index__05.html` - pages - https://www.atap.gov.au/framework/options-generation-assessment/index\n- `pages/strategies-index__06.html` - pages - https://www.atap.gov.au/framework/business-cases/index\n- `pages/strategies-index__07.html` - pages - https://www.atap.gov.au/framework/prioritisation-program-development/index\n- `pages/strategies-index__08.html` - pages - https://www.atap.gov.au/framework/delivery/index\n- `pages/strategies-index__09.html` - pages - https://www.atap.gov.au/framework/review-evaluation/index\n- `other-pdfs/atap-f3-options-assessment.pdf` - other-pdfs - https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/atap-f3-options-assessment.pdf\n- `other-pdfs/f01-policy-choices-and-system-planning.pdf` - other-pdfs - https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f01-policy-choices-and-system-planning.pdf\n- `other-pdfs/f02_integrated_transport_and_land_use_planning.pdf` - other-pdfs - https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/f02_integrated_transport_and_land_use_planning.pdf\n- `other-pdfs/f1-goals-objectives-kpis-and-targets.pdf` - other-pdfs - https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f1-goals-objectives-kpis-and-targets.pdf\n- `other-pdfs/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf` - other-pdfs - https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf\n\n## Gaps To Fix\n\n- No corporate plan text source found.\n- No annual report text source found.\n- No global comparison/case-study sources found.",
  "legislation_md": "# Australian Transport Assessment and Planning Steering Committee - Acts and Legislation Discovery\n\n**Generated at**: 2026-05-09T21:02:35.203268+00:00\n**Entity ID**: B-004055\n**Jurisdiction**: Commonwealth\n**Portfolio**: Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, \n\nCommunications, Sport and the Arts\n\n> This is an evidence-based discovery list from scraped department material. A mention does not always mean the department administers the legislation; high-confidence and official register links should be reviewed.\n\n## Summary\n\n- Source files scanned: 18\n- Unique legislation references found: 1\n\n| Type | Count |\n|---|---:|\n| Act | 1 |\n\n## Legislation References\n\n### Transport Integration Act 2010\n\n**Type**: Act\n**Confidence**: medium\n**Mentions**: 1\n**Register search**: https://www.legislation.gov.au/search?query=Transport+Integration+Act+2010\n\n**Sources**:\n- `other-pdfs/f1-goals-objectives-kpis-and-targets.pages.jsonl`\n\n**Evidence contexts**:\n- ww.planning.nsw.gov.au/Plans-for-your-area/Local-Planning-and-Zoning/Strategic-Planning-\nToolkit\nVictorian Department of Transport 2012, Transport and the triple bottom line: Transport’s role in driving the\neconomic, social and environmental objectives of the Transport Integration Act 2010,\nhttps://transport.vic.gov.au/-/media/tfv-documents/transport-and-the-triple-bottom-line-june-\n2012.doc?la=en&hash=69EFDE05E2C1CA6022B130556D038C0D\nInfrastructure and Transport Ministers | Australian Transport Assessment and Planning Guidelines 21\n\n[page 25]\n  Source: `other-pdfs/f1-goals-objectives-kpis-and-targets.pages.jsonl`\n\n## Files Scanned\n\n- `pages/about.html` (page)\n- `pages/homepage.html` (page)\n- `pages/strategies-index.html` (page)\n- `pages/strategies-index__00.html` (page)\n- `pages/strategies-index__01.html` (page)\n- `pages/strategies-index__02.html` (page)\n- `pages/strategies-index__03.html` (page)\n- `pages/strategies-index__04.html` (page)\n- `pages/strategies-index__05.html` (page)\n- `pages/strategies-index__06.html` (page)\n- `pages/strategies-index__07.html` (page)\n- `pages/strategies-index__08.html` (page)\n- `pages/strategies-index__09.html` (page)\n- `other-pdfs/atap-f3-options-assessment.pages.jsonl` (pdf_pages)\n- `other-pdfs/f01-policy-choices-and-system-planning.pages.jsonl` (pdf_pages)\n- `other-pdfs/f02_integrated_transport_and_land_use_planning.pages.jsonl` (pdf_pages)\n- `other-pdfs/f1-goals-objectives-kpis-and-targets.pages.jsonl` (pdf_pages)\n- `other-pdfs/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pages.jsonl` (pdf_pages)",
  "global_initiatives_md": null,
  "strategy": {
    "reporting_period": "2024-25",
    "corporate_plan_period": "2025-26",
    "vision": null,
    "vision_source_page": null,
    "purposes": null,
    "purposes_source_page": null,
    "how_we_deliver": "Generating a full range of non-capital and capital investment options that consider supply and demand factors, to be assessed against a suitable Base Case (do-minimum).",
    "how_we_deliver_source_page": 5,
    "government_priorities": [
      {
        "text": "Generating a full range of non-capital and capital investment options that consider supply and demand factors.",
        "source_page": 5
      }
    ],
    "outcomes": [
      {
        "name": "Outcome 1: Strategic alignment with goals, transport system objectives, strategic plans, policies or policy objectives of the government",
        "description": "The assessment process aims to determine the best option in terms of strategic alignment with goals, transport system objectives, strategic plans, policies or policy objectives of the government.",
        "key_activities": [
          "Stage 1: Strategic alignment — Strategic Merit Test",
          "Stage 2: Rapid appraisal",
          "Stage 3: Detailed appraisal"
        ],
        "source_page": 16
      },
      {
        "name": "Outcome 2: Delivering net benefits",
        "description": "The assessment process aims to determine the best option in terms of the overall economic, social and environmental merit of options, including net benefits (benefits less costs — both monetised and non-monetised), and distributional (equity) effects.",
        "key_activities": [
          "Stage 2: Rapid appraisal",
          "Stage 3: Detailed appraisal"
        ],
        "source_page": 16
      }
    ],
    "values": [
      "Strategic alignment with goals, transport system objectives, strategic plans, policies or policy objectives of the government",
      "Delivering net benefits"
    ],
    "values_framework_name": null,
    "kpi_targets_2025_26": [
      {
        "code": "CCE01",
        "measure": "Net benefits",
        "target": "Largest net benefits",
        "source_page": null
      }
    ],
    "kpi_results_2024_25": [
      {
        "code": "CCE01",
        "measure": "Net benefits",
        "result": "Target met",
        "status": "Achieved",
        "source_page": null
      }
    ],
    "_source_urls": {
      "annual_report_url": "",
      "corporate_plan_url": ""
    }
  },
  "ideas": [
    {
      "entity_id": "B-004055",
      "entity_name": "Australian Transport Assessment and Planning Steering Committee",
      "folder_name": "Australian-Transport-Assessment-and-Planning-Steering-Committee",
      "category": "Data & Performance",
      "scale": "small",
      "title": "KPI evidence register with named owners",
      "idea": "Create a simple register mapping each KPI to source data, owner, frequency, target, and last result.",
      "quote": "Where this\nis not the case, consideration needs to be given to how the KPI/target will be measured, and\nthe cost and other implications of developing new tools or methodologies.\n Reflect recognised performance measures — KPIs/targets should incorporate measures that\nare recognised as reliable and appropriate.",
      "impact": "High",
      "effort": "Low",
      "proof": "Evidence-backed",
      "beneficiaries": "Executives / Parliament / public",
      "source": "other-pdfs/f1-goals-objectives-kpis-and-targets.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f1-goals-objectives-kpis-and-targets.pdf)",
      "implementation": [
        "Pick one high-volume process or document family.",
        "Name an owner and baseline current volume, time, cost, and satisfaction.",
        "Run a 4-8 week pilot with clear before/after metrics.",
        "Publish lessons and decide whether to scale."
      ],
      "risks": [
        "Privacy and data quality",
        "Change fatigue",
        "Unclear accountability"
      ]
    },
    {
      "entity_id": "B-004055",
      "entity_name": "Australian Transport Assessment and Planning Steering Committee",
      "folder_name": "Australian-Transport-Assessment-and-Planning-Steering-Committee",
      "category": "Data & Performance",
      "scale": "large",
      "title": "Outcome dashboard linking budget, delivery, and public impact",
      "idea": "Build a public-facing outcome dashboard showing spend, outputs, outcomes, and delivery confidence.",
      "quote": "Where this\nis not the case, consideration needs to be given to how the KPI/target will be measured, and\nthe cost and other implications of developing new tools or methodologies.\n Reflect recognised performance measures — KPIs/targets should incorporate measures that\nare recognised as reliable and appropriate.",
      "impact": "Very High",
      "effort": "High",
      "proof": "Evidence-backed",
      "beneficiaries": "Executives / Parliament / public",
      "source": "other-pdfs/f1-goals-objectives-kpis-and-targets.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f1-goals-objectives-kpis-and-targets.pdf)",
      "implementation": [
        "Create a senior responsible owner and cross-functional delivery team.",
        "Map legislation, data, privacy, procurement, cyber, and workforce constraints.",
        "Co-design with users and frontline staff before technology selection.",
        "Stage delivery through pilots, benefits tracking, and public reporting."
      ],
      "risks": [
        "Privacy and data quality",
        "Change fatigue",
        "Unclear accountability"
      ]
    },
    {
      "entity_id": "B-004055",
      "entity_name": "Australian Transport Assessment and Planning Steering Committee",
      "folder_name": "Australian-Transport-Assessment-and-Planning-Steering-Committee",
      "category": "Case Processing",
      "scale": "small",
      "title": "Triage queue for stuck or ageing cases",
      "idea": "Use existing case data to flag ageing, duplicate, incomplete, or high-risk cases for earlier intervention.",
      "quote": "[Page 39]\nF2 Problem identification & assessment\nReferences\nAustroads 2010, Road Safety Engineering Risk Assessment, Part 7, Crash Rate Database, Technical report\nInfrastructure Australia 2018, Assessment Framework, available at\nhttps://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/publications/assessment-framework-initiatives-and-projects\nKPMG 2011, Manage the future through scenario planning, available at\nhttps://www.kpmg.com/AU/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/Manage-the-future-\nthrough-scenario-planning-v3.pdf\nOregon Sustainable Transportation Initiative (OSTI), Scenario Planning Guidelines, available at\nhttps://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Planning/Documents/Oregon-Scenario-Planning-Guidelines.pdf\nTransport for NSW, Bureau of transport Statistics, datasets and statistics available at\nwww.bts.nsw.gov.au/Statistics/Statistics?FolderID=214",
      "impact": "High",
      "effort": "Low",
      "proof": "Evidence-backed",
      "beneficiaries": "Applicants / case officers",
      "source": "other-pdfs/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf)",
      "implementation": [
        "Pick one high-volume process or document family.",
        "Name an owner and baseline current volume, time, cost, and satisfaction.",
        "Run a 4-8 week pilot with clear before/after metrics.",
        "Publish lessons and decide whether to scale."
      ],
      "risks": [
        "Privacy and data quality",
        "Change fatigue",
        "Unclear accountability"
      ]
    },
    {
      "entity_id": "B-004055",
      "entity_name": "Australian Transport Assessment and Planning Steering Committee",
      "folder_name": "Australian-Transport-Assessment-and-Planning-Steering-Committee",
      "category": "Case Processing",
      "scale": "large",
      "title": "End-to-end case processing redesign",
      "idea": "Redesign the case pathway around risk-based triage, reusable evidence, and automated eligibility checks.",
      "quote": "[Page 39]\nF2 Problem identification & assessment\nReferences\nAustroads 2010, Road Safety Engineering Risk Assessment, Part 7, Crash Rate Database, Technical report\nInfrastructure Australia 2018, Assessment Framework, available at\nhttps://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/publications/assessment-framework-initiatives-and-projects\nKPMG 2011, Manage the future through scenario planning, available at\nhttps://www.kpmg.com/AU/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/Manage-the-future-\nthrough-scenario-planning-v3.pdf\nOregon Sustainable Transportation Initiative (OSTI), Scenario Planning Guidelines, available at\nhttps://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Planning/Documents/Oregon-Scenario-Planning-Guidelines.pdf\nTransport for NSW, Bureau of transport Statistics, datasets and statistics available at\nwww.bts.nsw.gov.au/Statistics/Statistics?FolderID=214",
      "impact": "Very High",
      "effort": "High",
      "proof": "Evidence-backed",
      "beneficiaries": "Applicants / case officers",
      "source": "other-pdfs/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf)",
      "implementation": [
        "Create a senior responsible owner and cross-functional delivery team.",
        "Map legislation, data, privacy, procurement, cyber, and workforce constraints.",
        "Co-design with users and frontline staff before technology selection.",
        "Stage delivery through pilots, benefits tracking, and public reporting."
      ],
      "risks": [
        "Privacy and data quality",
        "Change fatigue",
        "Unclear accountability"
      ]
    },
    {
      "entity_id": "B-004055",
      "entity_name": "Australian Transport Assessment and Planning Steering Committee",
      "folder_name": "Australian-Transport-Assessment-and-Planning-Steering-Committee",
      "category": "Regulation & Policy",
      "scale": "small",
      "title": "Regulatory burden scan for forms, guidance, and reporting",
      "idea": "Identify the top 10 highest-friction reporting obligations and simplify guidance, forms, or evidence requirements.",
      "quote": "[Page 39]\nF2 Problem identification & assessment\nReferences\nAustroads 2010, Road Safety Engineering Risk Assessment, Part 7, Crash Rate Database, Technical report\nInfrastructure Australia 2018, Assessment Framework, available at\nhttps://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/publications/assessment-framework-initiatives-and-projects\nKPMG 2011, Manage the future through scenario planning, available at\nhttps://www.kpmg.com/AU/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/Manage-the-future-\nthrough-scenario-planning-v3.pdf\nOregon Sustainable Transportation Initiative (OSTI), Scenario Planning Guidelines, available at\nhttps://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Planning/Documents/Oregon-Scenario-Planning-Guidelines.pdf\nTransport for NSW, Bureau of transport Statistics, datasets and statistics available at\nwww.bts.nsw.gov.au/Statistics/Statistics?FolderID=214",
      "impact": "High",
      "effort": "Low",
      "proof": "Evidence-backed",
      "beneficiaries": "Regulated entities / policy teams",
      "source": "other-pdfs/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf)",
      "implementation": [
        "Pick one high-volume process or document family.",
        "Name an owner and baseline current volume, time, cost, and satisfaction.",
        "Run a 4-8 week pilot with clear before/after metrics.",
        "Publish lessons and decide whether to scale."
      ],
      "risks": [
        "Privacy and data quality",
        "Change fatigue",
        "Unclear accountability",
        "Regulatory capture",
        "Over-automation of judgement"
      ]
    },
    {
      "entity_id": "B-004055",
      "entity_name": "Australian Transport Assessment and Planning Steering Committee",
      "folder_name": "Australian-Transport-Assessment-and-Planning-Steering-Committee",
      "category": "Regulation & Policy",
      "scale": "large",
      "title": "Adaptive regulation program with live feedback loops",
      "idea": "Create an adaptive regulation model using sandboxes, industry data, risk scoring, and regular rule updates.",
      "quote": "[Page 39]\nF2 Problem identification & assessment\nReferences\nAustroads 2010, Road Safety Engineering Risk Assessment, Part 7, Crash Rate Database, Technical report\nInfrastructure Australia 2018, Assessment Framework, available at\nhttps://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/publications/assessment-framework-initiatives-and-projects\nKPMG 2011, Manage the future through scenario planning, available at\nhttps://www.kpmg.com/AU/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/Manage-the-future-\nthrough-scenario-planning-v3.pdf\nOregon Sustainable Transportation Initiative (OSTI), Scenario Planning Guidelines, available at\nhttps://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Planning/Documents/Oregon-Scenario-Planning-Guidelines.pdf\nTransport for NSW, Bureau of transport Statistics, datasets and statistics available at\nwww.bts.nsw.gov.au/Statistics/Statistics?FolderID=214",
      "impact": "Very High",
      "effort": "High",
      "proof": "Evidence-backed",
      "beneficiaries": "Regulated entities / policy teams",
      "source": "other-pdfs/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf)",
      "implementation": [
        "Create a senior responsible owner and cross-functional delivery team.",
        "Map legislation, data, privacy, procurement, cyber, and workforce constraints.",
        "Co-design with users and frontline staff before technology selection.",
        "Stage delivery through pilots, benefits tracking, and public reporting."
      ],
      "risks": [
        "Privacy and data quality",
        "Change fatigue",
        "Unclear accountability",
        "Regulatory capture",
        "Over-automation of judgement"
      ]
    },
    {
      "entity_id": "B-004055",
      "entity_name": "Australian Transport Assessment and Planning Steering Committee",
      "folder_name": "Australian-Transport-Assessment-and-Planning-Steering-Committee",
      "category": "Citizen Services",
      "scale": "small",
      "title": "Plain-language service pages and proactive status updates",
      "idea": "Rewrite high-volume pages and letters into plain language, add status notifications, and measure contact reduction.",
      "quote": "[Page 10]\nF3 Options generation & assessment\n2.1.4 Service options\n• Increased services – through new routes, more frequent services and longer operating hours\n• Improved integration between modes – such as better coordinated timetables and interchange\narrangements\n• Other options designed to improve services – such as priority measures for public transport\nand improved information for customers.",
      "impact": "High",
      "effort": "Low",
      "proof": "Evidence-backed",
      "beneficiaries": "Citizens / service users",
      "source": "other-pdfs/atap-f3-options-assessment.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/atap-f3-options-assessment.pdf)",
      "implementation": [
        "Pick one high-volume process or document family.",
        "Name an owner and baseline current volume, time, cost, and satisfaction.",
        "Run a 4-8 week pilot with clear before/after metrics.",
        "Publish lessons and decide whether to scale."
      ],
      "risks": [
        "Privacy and data quality",
        "Change fatigue",
        "Unclear accountability",
        "Digital exclusion",
        "Low public trust if feedback is not acted on"
      ]
    },
    {
      "entity_id": "B-004055",
      "entity_name": "Australian Transport Assessment and Planning Steering Committee",
      "folder_name": "Australian-Transport-Assessment-and-Planning-Steering-Committee",
      "category": "Citizen Services",
      "scale": "large",
      "title": "Single front door for life-event based services",
      "idea": "Bundle services around life events so citizens can complete related steps across agencies in one journey.",
      "quote": "[Page 10]\nF3 Options generation & assessment\n2.1.4 Service options\n• Increased services – through new routes, more frequent services and longer operating hours\n• Improved integration between modes – such as better coordinated timetables and interchange\narrangements\n• Other options designed to improve services – such as priority measures for public transport\nand improved information for customers.",
      "impact": "Very High",
      "effort": "High",
      "proof": "Evidence-backed",
      "beneficiaries": "Citizens / service users",
      "source": "other-pdfs/atap-f3-options-assessment.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/atap-f3-options-assessment.pdf)",
      "implementation": [
        "Create a senior responsible owner and cross-functional delivery team.",
        "Map legislation, data, privacy, procurement, cyber, and workforce constraints.",
        "Co-design with users and frontline staff before technology selection.",
        "Stage delivery through pilots, benefits tracking, and public reporting."
      ],
      "risks": [
        "Privacy and data quality",
        "Change fatigue",
        "Unclear accountability",
        "Digital exclusion",
        "Low public trust if feedback is not acted on"
      ]
    },
    {
      "entity_id": "B-004055",
      "entity_name": "Australian Transport Assessment and Planning Steering Committee",
      "folder_name": "Australian-Transport-Assessment-and-Planning-Steering-Committee",
      "category": "Risk & Assurance",
      "scale": "small",
      "title": "Recommendation tracker for audits, reviews, and inquiries",
      "idea": "Publish a single internal tracker for audit/review recommendations, owners, due dates, and implementation evidence.",
      "quote": "Where the related action is\nnot dependent on the appraisal process, the Base Case should include an assumption about whether or\nnot a related action proceeds and the issue should be fully addressed in the risk assessment.",
      "impact": "High",
      "effort": "Low",
      "proof": "Evidence-backed",
      "beneficiaries": "Executives / assurance teams",
      "source": "other-pdfs/atap-f3-options-assessment.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/atap-f3-options-assessment.pdf)",
      "implementation": [
        "Pick one high-volume process or document family.",
        "Name an owner and baseline current volume, time, cost, and satisfaction.",
        "Run a 4-8 week pilot with clear before/after metrics.",
        "Publish lessons and decide whether to scale."
      ],
      "risks": [
        "Privacy and data quality",
        "Change fatigue",
        "Unclear accountability",
        "Regulatory capture",
        "Over-automation of judgement"
      ]
    },
    {
      "entity_id": "B-004055",
      "entity_name": "Australian Transport Assessment and Planning Steering Committee",
      "folder_name": "Australian-Transport-Assessment-and-Planning-Steering-Committee",
      "category": "Risk & Assurance",
      "scale": "large",
      "title": "Integrated assurance and lessons-learned system",
      "idea": "Create an assurance system that connects audit findings, risk registers, delivery reviews, and investment decisions.",
      "quote": "Where the related action is\nnot dependent on the appraisal process, the Base Case should include an assumption about whether or\nnot a related action proceeds and the issue should be fully addressed in the risk assessment.",
      "impact": "Very High",
      "effort": "High",
      "proof": "Evidence-backed",
      "beneficiaries": "Executives / assurance teams",
      "source": "other-pdfs/atap-f3-options-assessment.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/atap-f3-options-assessment.pdf)",
      "implementation": [
        "Create a senior responsible owner and cross-functional delivery team.",
        "Map legislation, data, privacy, procurement, cyber, and workforce constraints.",
        "Co-design with users and frontline staff before technology selection.",
        "Stage delivery through pilots, benefits tracking, and public reporting."
      ],
      "risks": [
        "Privacy and data quality",
        "Change fatigue",
        "Unclear accountability",
        "Regulatory capture",
        "Over-automation of judgement"
      ]
    },
    {
      "entity_id": "B-004055",
      "entity_name": "Australian Transport Assessment and Planning Steering Committee",
      "folder_name": "Australian-Transport-Assessment-and-Planning-Steering-Committee",
      "category": "Procurement & Delivery",
      "scale": "small",
      "title": "Procurement lessons library for repeat purchases",
      "idea": "Capture reusable procurement clauses, market lessons, supplier performance notes, and common evaluation criteria.",
      "quote": "The Bureau\nof Infrastructure Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE) has undertaken economic\nassessment of networks using an optimal timing criterion to identify potential investment needs\nwhere there is no budget constraint (see section 1.4 in ATC (2006) and Harvey (1995)).",
      "impact": "High",
      "effort": "Low",
      "proof": "Evidence-backed",
      "beneficiaries": "Delivery teams / suppliers",
      "source": "other-pdfs/f01-policy-choices-and-system-planning.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f01-policy-choices-and-system-planning.pdf)",
      "implementation": [
        "Pick one high-volume process or document family.",
        "Name an owner and baseline current volume, time, cost, and satisfaction.",
        "Run a 4-8 week pilot with clear before/after metrics.",
        "Publish lessons and decide whether to scale."
      ],
      "risks": [
        "Privacy and data quality",
        "Change fatigue",
        "Unclear accountability"
      ]
    },
    {
      "entity_id": "B-004055",
      "entity_name": "Australian Transport Assessment and Planning Steering Committee",
      "folder_name": "Australian-Transport-Assessment-and-Planning-Steering-Committee",
      "category": "Procurement & Delivery",
      "scale": "large",
      "title": "Portfolio delivery office for major investments",
      "idea": "Stand up a portfolio delivery office that tracks benefits, risks, dependencies, procurement, and delivery confidence.",
      "quote": "The Bureau\nof Infrastructure Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE) has undertaken economic\nassessment of networks using an optimal timing criterion to identify potential investment needs\nwhere there is no budget constraint (see section 1.4 in ATC (2006) and Harvey (1995)).",
      "impact": "Very High",
      "effort": "High",
      "proof": "Evidence-backed",
      "beneficiaries": "Delivery teams / suppliers",
      "source": "other-pdfs/f01-policy-choices-and-system-planning.pdf (https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f01-policy-choices-and-system-planning.pdf)",
      "implementation": [
        "Create a senior responsible owner and cross-functional delivery team.",
        "Map legislation, data, privacy, procurement, cyber, and workforce constraints.",
        "Co-design with users and frontline staff before technology selection.",
        "Stage delivery through pilots, benefits tracking, and public reporting."
      ],
      "risks": [
        "Privacy and data quality",
        "Change fatigue",
        "Unclear accountability"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "legislation_administered": [],
  "artifacts": [
    {
      "category": "other-pdfs",
      "year": null,
      "url": "https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f01-policy-choices-and-system-planning.pdf",
      "file": "other-pdfs/f01-policy-choices-and-system-planning.pdf",
      "bytes": 1365620,
      "link_text": "F0.1 Policy Choices and System Planning"
    },
    {
      "category": "other-pdfs",
      "year": null,
      "url": "https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/f02_integrated_transport_and_land_use_planning.pdf",
      "file": "other-pdfs/f02_integrated_transport_and_land_use_planning.pdf",
      "bytes": 2801641,
      "link_text": "F0.2 Integrated transport & land use planning"
    },
    {
      "category": "other-pdfs",
      "year": null,
      "url": "https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f1-goals-objectives-kpis-and-targets.pdf",
      "file": "other-pdfs/f1-goals-objectives-kpis-and-targets.pdf",
      "bytes": 935134,
      "link_text": "Step 1: Goals, objectives, targets and KPIs"
    },
    {
      "category": "other-pdfs",
      "year": null,
      "url": "https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf",
      "file": "other-pdfs/f2-problem-identification-and-assessment.pdf",
      "bytes": 1294725,
      "link_text": "Step 2: Problem identification, assessment and prioritisation"
    },
    {
      "category": "other-pdfs",
      "year": null,
      "url": "https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/atap-f3-options-assessment.pdf",
      "file": "other-pdfs/atap-f3-options-assessment.pdf",
      "bytes": 1646059,
      "link_text": "F3 Options generation and assessment"
    }
  ],
  "_meta": {
    "snapshot_built_at": "2026-05-13T11:02:42+00:00",
    "strategy_brief_meta": {
      "model": "nova-micro",
      "folder": "Australian-Transport-Assessment-and-Planning-Steering-Committee",
      "annual_report": {
        "file": null,
        "url": "",
        "year": null
      },
      "corporate_plan": {
        "file": "other-pdfs\\atap-f3-options-assessment.txt",
        "url": "https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/atap-f3-options-assessment.pdf",
        "year": null
      },
      "usage": {
        "input_tokens": 10475,
        "output_tokens": 566,
        "total_tokens": 11041,
        "model": "nova-micro"
      },
      "cost_usd": 0.00044586500000000004,
      "elapsed_seconds": 2.8,
      "generated_at": "2026-05-13T05:15:45+00:00"
    },
    "ideas_manifest": {
      "entity_id": "B-004055",
      "entity_name": "Australian Transport Assessment and Planning Steering Committee",
      "folder_name": "Australian-Transport-Assessment-and-Planning-Steering-Committee",
      "generated_at": "2026-05-09T23:05:18.705817+00:00",
      "idea_count": 12,
      "markdown": "ideas/Australian-Transport-Assessment-and-Planning-Steering-Committee_ideas.md",
      "jsonl": "ideas/ideas.jsonl",
      "inputs": [
        "Australian-Transport-Assessment-and-Planning-Steering-Committee_strategy-overview.md",
        "strategy-evidence.json",
        "global-intelligence/source-manifest.json"
      ]
    },
    "global_intel_meta": null
  }
}