While this investment proposal is similar to those made by our transport sector partners, it is a fictitious example. To get the best understanding of how we might apply the IAF, please also read the IAF. You may also find it helpful to refer to the results alignment criteria in the IAF which you will find on our website’s Planning and Investment Knowledge Base page.
An unsealed road provides access between forestry areas and a major regional port. There are around 60 loaded logging trucks using the road each day, and the road connects to forestry areas that are expected to be harvested continuously for at least the next 30 years.
People living in properties next to the road are exposed to dust which the trucks raise. The issue has attracted a lot of publicity both locally and nationally, and addressing it is a high priority for the local council.
There are a number of properties within 80 meters of the road. Analysis has been carried out using the appropriate methodology. The results sit at the lower end of levels of dust exposure that would warrant treatment, and confirmed that an intervention needs to be investigated.
A number of options have already been looked into, including chemical treatment and sealing. It’s thought that sealing would be the most appropriate option, with an indicative benefit-cost ratio of between 3 and 5, although this will require further development of the business case to confirm.
Initially, we decide that this proposal aligns with our policy and is eligible for consideration under either the local road improvements or the regional improvements activity classes.
The issue of concern is the impact of dust on public health. This is supported by the evidence which shows that the levels of dust exposure for people in houses close to the road exceed the health threshold.
This issue is best assessed under the environment priority in the Government Policy Statement on land transport (GPS) within the regional, local road and state highway improvements results alignment criteria.
Then, we would look at the very high results alignment criteria. In this case, no very high criteria are defined for the environment priority.
Next, looking at the high criteria, we can conclude that addressing this issue does not enable significant reductions in harm to the environment and people. This is because the dust levels created were at the lower end of exposure.
Looking at the medium criteria, we consider that this provides the best fit in that it enables reductions in harm to the environment and people. As such, this proposal receives a medium results alignment rating.
We then consider cost–benefit appraisal and find there is an indicative benefit–cost ratio which we consider robust enough to use at this stage for inclusion in the NLTP. The benefit–cost ratio is between 3 and 5, which gives a medium cost-benefit appraisal rating.
Overall, the proposal has a medium–medium, or MM, assessment profile, which has a priority order of 5 in the prioritisation table in the IAF.
If this project does get into the NLTP following moderation, it will require further development of options and supporting evidence in order to get funding approval.
We hope you found this information useful and please remember to take a look at our other examples of how we apply the IAF.
If you have any questions on this information, or want to understand more about what we can invest in and how we can support your work, please contact your investment advisor, or Director Regional Relationships, or email us at firstname.lastname@example.org