public sector communityactive travelmodal shiftsumptransport planning
Complete evaluation framework
What to assess and how to score it
Review the evidence signals before interviewing. Then use the anchored descriptions—not instinct alone—to choose the score that best matches each answer.
01
Evaluation factor
Outcomes that landed
30% weight
Ask which mobility schemes they took from concept to on-street delivery: low traffic neighbourhoods, bus priority corridors, bike share expansion, and the modal shift or km-cycled numbers after implementation.
Evidence to listen for
Names programmes or initiatives that were adopted, funded, or delivered
States their own role rather than the department's
Gives measured reach or impact
Distinguishes work that landed from work that stalled, and explains why
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No delivered work; describes intent and process only.
2
Needs Improvement
Involved in initiatives but cannot say what resulted or what they owned.
3
Satisfactory
Real delivery with adequate ownership; impact described loosely.
4
Very Good
Named outcomes with clear personal scope and some measures.
5
Excellent
Names delivered schemes with before and after counts, cordon data, or mode share percentages, and owns what underperformed.
02
Evaluation factor
Stakeholder facilitation
25% weight
Probe how they ran consultation with residents, ward councillors, bus operators, freight associations and disability access groups when removing parking or reallocating carriageway space.
Evidence to listen for
Brings a real contested case, not a philosophy of engagement
Names the competing interests and the resolution method
Uses concrete engagement formats and can point to input that changed a decision
Treats every group as legitimate
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Diplomacy-speak with no case attached, or contempt for one group.
2
Needs Improvement
Recalls conflict but no method; engagement is a box to check.
3
Satisfactory
Real case and workable approach; resolution thin on specifics.
4
Very Good
Names the tension and method; cites engagement that shaped the outcome.
5
Excellent
Describes hostile consultation sessions handled directly, objections logged and answered, and design changes that came from that input.
03
Evaluation factor
Regulatory and policy command
25% weight
Test command of SUMP guidance, national active travel design standards (LTN 1/20 or local equivalent), EIA requirements, Traffic Regulation Orders and clean air or low emission zone frameworks.
Evidence to listen for
Names the statutes, funding rules, and processes they have worked under
Explains how those requirements sequenced their work
Owns the compliance thinking rather than deferring it entirely
Knows where the discretion sits
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Outsources all regulatory thinking; cannot name a framework.
2
Needs Improvement
Generalities about compliance; no sequencing or named rules.
3
Satisfactory
Knows the main frameworks; sequencing described loosely.
4
Very Good
Names relevant frameworks and how they shaped a timeline.
5
Excellent
Cites the specific guidance and statutory order process they worked to, including where a scheme was legally challenged or amended.
04
Evaluation factor
Evidence and reporting
20% weight
Check how they build the evidence base: household travel surveys, ANPR and cordon counts, VISUM or Aimsun modelling, GTFS accessibility analysis, and cost benefit appraisal for funding bids.
Evidence to listen for
Uses data to choose between options, not to justify a decision already made
Names the sources and methods behind their numbers
Reports to funders, councils, or the public in terms those audiences can use
Tracks whether the intervention worked
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No use of evidence; decisions are assertion.
2
Needs Improvement
Cites data but cannot explain its source or limits.
3
Satisfactory
Uses evidence competently; evaluation after the fact is thin.
4
Very Good
Evidence drives choices and is reported clearly to lay audiences.
5
Excellent
Explains the model or dataset behind a recommendation, its limitations, and how monitoring reports were fed back to the funder.
Put this rubric to work
Score every candidate against the same standard
Add these weighted factors to Hirevire and let AI evaluate recorded answers against your rubric.
