Assessment of transport infrastructure plans : a strategic approach integrating efficiency, cohesion and environmental aspects

Texto completo

(1)UNIVERSIDAD POLITÉCNICA DE MADRID ESCUELA TÉCNICA SUPERIOR DE INGENIEROS DE CAMINOS, CANALES Y PUERTOS. ASSESSMENT OF TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE PLANS: A STRATEGIC APPROACH INTEGRATING EFFICIENCY, COHESION AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS. DOCTORAL THESIS. Elena López Suárez Ingeniero de Caminos, Canales y Puertos. Madrid, 2007.

(2)

(3) DEPARTAMENTO DE INGENIERÍA CIVIL: TRANSPORTES. Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros de Caminos, Canales y Puertos. ASSESSMENT OF TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE PLANS: A STRATEGIC APPROACH INTEGRATING EFFICIENCY, COHESION AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS. DOCTORAL THESIS. Elena López Suárez Ingeniero de Caminos, Canales y Puertos. Director: Andrés Monzón de Cáceres Dr. Ingeniero de Caminos, Canales y Puertos. Madrid, 2007.

(4)

(5) Tribunal nombrado por el Mgfco. y Excmo. Sr. Rector de la Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, el día ___ de _______________ de 2007.. Presidente: _____________________________________________ Vocal:. _____________________________________________. Vocal:. _____________________________________________. Vocal:. _____________________________________________. Secretario: _____________________________________________. Realizado el acto de defensa y lectura de la Tesis el día ___ de _______________ de 2007 en la E.T.S. de Ingenieros de Caminos, Canales y Puertos de la U.P.M.. Calificación: ______________________________. EL PRESIDENTE. LOS VOCALES. EL SECRETARIO.

(6)

(7) A mis padres, Micaela y Sebastián, mis raíces, mis maestros. ‘El hombre, en su centro, es siempre potencialmente un hombre docto, un sabio y un maestro’ KALFRIED DÜRCKHEIM.

(8)

(9) ABSTRACT. During the last few decades there has been a shift in transport planning objectives from economic efficiency towards strategic policy goals, such as cohesion or environmental issues, intimately linked with the ‘sustainable transport’ paradigm. However, the treatment of these strategic aspects is uneven and scarce among assessment methodologies. The development of harmonized methodologies for the strategic assessment of large scale transport infrastructure investments, such as transport infrastructure Plans, is therefore a current challenge for the research community.. This doctoral thesis addresses this challenge by presenting a methodology for the assessment. of. transport. infrastructure. Plans.. The. proposed. methodology. constitutes a strategic approach, based on the utilisation of spatial impact analysis tools supported by a Geographical Information System (GIS). The assessment criteria, based on the ‘sustainable transport’ paradigm, are structured into efficiency, cohesion and environmental criteria. The procedure selected for the integration of the assessment criteria results follows a multicriteria analysis approach.. The suggested methodology defines a comprehensive technical procedure for the assessment of strategic effects of transport infrastructure Plans, which is believed to constitute a useful, transparent and flexible planning tool both for planners and decision-makers.. The validity of the methodology is tested with its application to a case study: the Spanish Strategic Transport and Infrastructure Plan 2005-2020 (PEIT)..

(10) RESUMEN. En las últimas décadas se viene produciendo un cambio en los objetivos que dirigen las labores de planificación de infraestructuras de transporte, desde la eficiencia económica hacia objetivos de carácter más estratégico, como la cohesión o los aspectos medioambientales. Sin embargo, no existe un consenso sobre la forma en que se deben incluir estos aspectos estratégicos en las metodologías de evaluación oficiales, sobre todo en las que se refieren a inversiones a gran escala, como es el caso de los Planes de infraestructura de transporte.. Esta tesis doctoral avanza en esta línea de investigación mediante la propuesta de una metodología para la evaluación de Planes de infraestructura de transporte. La metodología sigue un enfoque estratégico, basado en la utilización de herramientas de análisis territorial aplicadas sobre un soporte SIG (Sistema de Información Geográfica). Los objetivos de evaluación, basados en el paradigma del ‘transporte sostenible’, se han estructurado en torno a criterios de eficiencia, cohesión y medioambientales. Para su integración se ha seleccionado un método de evaluación multicriterio.. La metodología propuesta define un procedimiento de evaluación que constituye una herramienta útil en las labores de planificación de infraestructuras, permitiendo la interacción entre planificadores como para decisores, así como un instrumento de apoyo para la comunicación de resultados a la opinión pública, gracias a la cuidada representación gráfica de resultados.. La validez de la metodología ha sido comprobada mediante su aplicación a un caso de estudio: el Plan Estratégico de Infraestructuras y Transporte 2005-2020 (PEIT) español..

(11) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. I would like to start by thanking Andrés Monzón, my thesis supervisor, for the valuable and constant support he has given me these past four years. His confidence in my work during difficult times has been very important help for me to finish the thesis and my studies.. From the Transport Department and from TRANSyT-UPM I would like to thank the teaching staff, especially Rafael Izquierdo, Aniceto Zaragoza, Oscar Martínez, José Manuel Vassallo and the Transport Department Director, Miguel Ángel del Val. They have all encouraged me and shared their experience with me from the first day at the University. I also want to thank Javier Gutiérrez Puebla, from UCM, for his wise comments and suggestions, which have served me as an invaluable guide during the development of the research work. I also would like to thank Lawrence Baron for his meticulous work in editing my thesis without loosing his enthusiasm and smile.. My colleagues at TRANSyT-UPM have been there when I needed them, day after day. Firstly, I want to thank Emilio Ortega and Belén Martín for their help in the preparation of the maps and Santiago Mancebo for his wise comments. I also want to specially thank Paula Vieira, Rocío Cascajo, Esther Madrigal, Mª Eugenia López, Ana María Pardeiro, Paul Pffafenbichler, Daniel de la Hoz and Carmen Pérez. Thank you for all the help you have given me.. Many other people have given me their support during my weak moments; I am very lucky to have been able to depend on them during all this time. Thanks are due to Manuel, Concha. Fernando, Cristina, Pepe, Pilar, Jose, Miren, Marta, Marieta, Sara, Patricia, and many others: thank you for the right words and the good gestures.. Finally, a big GRACIAS to my family. To my grandparents, Rosa and Eugenio, who have given me serenity when I needed it most. To my brother Chano, thanks for your advice, mi niño! And of course, to my parents, Micaela and Sebastián, for teaching me how to get the best of myself. Thank you for showing me so much love. For being there. Always..

(12) AGRADECIMIENTOS. En primer lugar, quiero agradecer a mi Director de tesis, Andrés Monzón, el respaldo decidido y constante que me ha ofrecido durante estos años. Su apuesta por mi trabajo en los momentos difíciles ha sido muy importante para que haya podido terminar esta tesis.. Quiero expresar también mi agradecimiento al Departamento de Transportes y a TRANSyT-UPM, en particular a Rafael Izquierdo, Aniceto Zaragoza, Oscar Martínez y José Manuel Vassallo, y al Director del Departamento, Miguel Ángel del Val. Todos ellos me han infundo ánimos y me han aconsejado desde el primer día, desde la serenidad de su experiencia. Quiero agradecer también a Javier Gutiérrez Puebla sus siempre acertados comentarios y sugerencias, que me han servido de inestimable guía durante el desarrollo de la investigación. Debo agradecer también a Lawrence Baron el haberse encargado de la minuciosa tarea de edición del inglés del texto, sin perder nunca el entusiasmo ni la sonrisa.. Mis compañeros de TRANSyT-UPM son los que me han acompañado en el día a día. En primer lugar quiero agradecer a Emilio Ortega y a Belén Martín su gran ayuda en la elaboración de los mapas y a Santiago Mancebo sus certeros comentarios. Quiero dar las gracias de forma especial a Paula Vieira, Rocío Cascajo, Esther Madrigal, Mª Eugenia López, Ana María Pardeiro, Paul Pffafenbichler, Daniel de la Hoz y Carmen Pérez. Compañeros, gracias a todos por el enorme cariño que me han demostrado en este tiempo.. He tenido la suerte de contar con gente que me ha dado aliento cuando me fallaban las fuerzas. Gracias a Manuel y a Concha, maestros en el camino. Fernando, Cristina, Pepe, Pilar, Jose, Miren, Marta, Marieta, Sara, Patricia, y tantos otros: gracias por ayudarme con la palabra y el gesto apropiados en cada momento.. Por último, un GRACIAS a mi familia. A mis abuelos Rosa y Eugenio, que me han dado serenidad cuando más la he necesitado. A mi hermano Chano: gracias por tus consejos, mi niño!. Y por supuesto, a mis padres, Micaela y Sebastián, por enseñarme a dar lo mejor de mí misma. Gracias por demostrarme tanto amor. Por estar ahí. Siempre..

(13) TABLE OF CONTENTS. TABLE OF CONTENTS. DEDICATION……………………………………………………………………………………….i ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………………………...iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS………………………………………………………………………….v CONTENTS……………………………………………………………………………………….vii LIST OF TABLES..……………………………………………………………………………….x LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………………………xi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS…………………………………………………………………..xv. CONTENTS. 1.. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 1 1.1. Problem statement ................................................................... 1. 1.2. Objectives ................................................................................. 3. 1.3. Research methodology.............................................................. 3. 1.4. Structure of the thesis .............................................................. 5. 2.. A CHANGING PLANNING FRAMEWORK...................................... 7 2.1. Introduction.............................................................................. 7. 2.2. Structuring the planning process .............................................. 9. 2.2.1. Sources of conflicts in objective setting........................................... 9. 2.2.2. A guiding principle: the sustainable development approach ............... 9. 2.2.3. EU policy objectives ....................................................................13. 2.3. The evaluation approach......................................................... 16. 2.3.1. Introduction ...............................................................................16. 2.3.2. Outline of an evaluation process ...................................................17. 2.3.3. Current state of the practice in Europe ..........................................22. 2.4. The role of evaluation in decision-making............................... 30. 2.5. Conclusions............................................................................. 33. 3.. SPATIAL IMPACT ANALYSIS TOOLS ........................................ 35 3.1 3.1.1. Spatial impacts at the Plan level ............................................. 35 Theoretical foundations of spatial impact analysis ...........................35 -vii-.

(14) TABLE OF CONTENTS. 3.1.2. Impact analysis at the Plan level................................................... 36. 3.1.3. The treatment of wider policy impacts at the Plan level.................... 38. 3.2. The potential of accessibility analysis..................................... 43. 3.2.1. The concept of accessibility .......................................................... 43. 3.2.2. The measurement of accessibility ................................................. 45. 3.2.3. Applications in transport planning ................................................. 53. 3.3. Spatial impact and GIS ........................................................... 61. 3.3.1. GIS background.......................................................................... 61. 3.3.2. Applications of GIS in transport planning ....................................... 63. 3.4 4.. Conclusions ............................................................................ 66 METHODOLOGY FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE PLANS ....................................................... 69. 4.1. Structure of the methodology ................................................. 69. 4.2. Definition of the assessment framework ................................ 71. 4.2.1. Assessment time horizon ............................................................. 71. 4.2.2. Delimitation of the study area ...................................................... 72. 4.3. Definition of assessment criteria ............................................ 72. 4.3.1. Efficiency ................................................................................... 73. 4.3.2. Cohesion ................................................................................... 73. 4.3.3. Environmental sustainability......................................................... 74. 4.4. Definition of performance indicators ...................................... 75. 4.4.1. Efficiency ................................................................................... 76. 4.4.2. Cohesion ................................................................................... 78. 4.4.3. Environmental sustainability......................................................... 81. 4.5. Integration ............................................................................. 84. 4.5.1. Outline of the proposed approach ................................................. 84. 4.5.2. Weight estimation....................................................................... 85. 4.5.3. Utility functions .......................................................................... 86. 4.6. Sensitivity analysis ................................................................. 86. 4.6.1. Weight sensitivity ....................................................................... 87. 4.6.2. Attribute value sensitivity ............................................................ 87. 5.. CASE STUDY DESCRIPTION..................................................... 87 5.1. Introduction ........................................................................... 87. 5.2. Case study characterization .................................................... 88. 5.2.1. The surface transport infrastructure networks ................................ 89. 5.2.2. The socio-economic system.......................................................... 90. 5.2.3. Current challenges of the Spanish transport system ........................ 95. -viii-.

(15) TABLE OF CONTENTS. 5.2.4. The Strategic Infrastructure and Transport Plan 2005-2020 (PEIT) ..................................................................................... 100. 5.3 5.3.1. Assessment time horizon and delimitation of the study area........... 101. 5.3.2. Definition of alternatives ............................................................ 101. 5.3.3. Generation of the GIS database .................................................. 104. 6.. ASSESSMENT RESULTS.......................................................... 111 6.1. Efficiency .............................................................................. 111. 6.1.1. Network efficiency (NE) ............................................................. 111. 6.1.2. Cross-border integration (CB)..................................................... 121. 6.2. Cohesion ............................................................................... 129. 6.2.1. Regional cohesion (RC).............................................................. 129. 6.2.2. Social cohesion (SC) ................................................................. 140. 6.3. Environmental sustainability ................................................ 149. 6.3.1. Global warming (GW) ................................................................ 149. 6.3.2. Habitat fragmentation (HF) ........................................................ 153. 6.4. Discussion on performance indicator results ........................ 156. 6.4.1. Road mode .............................................................................. 156. 6.4.2. Rail mode ................................................................................ 158. 6.5. Integration of results............................................................ 159. 6.5.1. Description of the simplified integration procedure ........................ 159. 6.5.2. Road mode .............................................................................. 160. 6.5.3. Rail mode ................................................................................ 162. 6.5.4. Sensitivity analysis.................................................................... 164. 7.. CONCLUSIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH ... 169 7.1. 8.. The assessment framework .................................................. 101. Conclusions........................................................................... 169. 7.1.1. Literature review ...................................................................... 169. 7.1.2. Methodological approach............................................................ 170. 7.1.3. Case study application ............................................................... 171. 7.1.4. Recommendations from a transport planning perspective............... 173. 7.2. Contributions ........................................................................ 175. 7.3. Recommendations for future research .................................. 176 REFERENCES ......................................................................... 179. APPENDICES: APPENDIX A: DEFINITION OF CRITERIA WEIGHTS…………………………..............……205 APPENDIX B: CASE STUDY APPLICATION OF THE ACCESSIBILITY MODEL…………209. -ix-.

(16) TABLE OF CONTENTS. LIST OF TABLES. Table 2.1: Consideration of TEN-T territorial goals suggested in the UTS study ....26 Table 2.2: Accessibility categories (left) and evaluation matrix for distribution and development objectives (right) of the German procedure ............................29 Table 4.1: Assessment criteria .......................................................................73 Table 4.2: Assessment criteria and performance indicators ................................76 Table 4.3: Weighting factor matrix for the cohesion criterion .............................80 Table 4.4: Structural backwardness categories.................................................80 Table 4.5: Accessibility analysis categories ......................................................80 Table 4.6: Example of the computation of PARA values .....................................83 Table 4.7: Matrix for scenario building ............................................................88 Table 5.1: Spanish administrative divisions and their NUTS correspondence ........91 Table 6.1 Network efficiency in Spanish NUTS-3 capitals. Road mode................ 115 Table 6.2 Network efficiency in Spanish NUTS-3 capitals. Rail mode ................. 120 Table 6.3: Network efficiency in Portuguese district capitals. Road mode ........... 123 Table 6.4: Network efficiency in French department capitals. Road mode .......... 125 Table 6.5 Network efficiency in Portuguese district capitals. Rail mode .............. 127 Table 6.6: Network efficiency in French department capitals. Rail mode ............ 128 Table 6.7: Regional inequality indices. Road accessibility ................................. 133 Table 6.8: Regional cohesion performance indicator (RC). Road accessibility...... 134 Table 6.9: Regional inequality indices. Rail accessibility................................... 138 Table 6.10: Regional cohesion performance indicator (RC). Rail accessibility ...... 139 Table 6.11 Travel time savings and estimated induced traffic ........................... 151 Table 6.12: Forecasted induced traffic and corresponding increases in GHG emissions. Do-nothing vs. PEIT alternative. Road and rail modes ............... 152 Table 6.13 Summary of performance indicator values. Road mode ................... 157 Table 6.14 Summary of performance indicator values. Rail mode ..................... 158 Table 6.15: Definition of value functions. Road mode ...................................... 160 Table 6.16: Integration of results. A0 vs. APEIT. Road mode .............................. 162 Table 6.17: Definition of value functions. Rail mode ........................................ 163 Table 6.18: Integration of results. A0 vs. APEIT. Rail mode ................................ 163. -x-.

(17) TABLE OF CONTENTS. LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1: The planning process ..................................................................... 7 Figure 2.2: Trade-off approach to sustainable transport ....................................13 Figure 2.3: Outline structure of the German spatial impact assessment module....28 Figure 2.4: Considerations affecting the decision-making process .......................31 Figure 3.1: Simple representation of a spatial impact system .............................36 Figure 3.2: Suggested twin approach to transport appraisal ...............................39 Figure 3.3: Activity and impedance functions ...................................................46 Figure 3.4: Example of a travel cost indicator. Road accessibility 1992 ................48 Figure 3.5: Network efficiency. Road accessibility 2005 (left) and 2020 (right) .....49 Figure 3.6: Daily accessibility indicator. Daily accessibility by rail (1993) .............51 Figure 3.7: Outline of the SASI model .............................................................57 Figure 3.8: Changes in GDP per capita as a result of the planned TEN priority projects.................................................................................................58 Figure 3.9: Superposition of data layers in GIS for a transport study...................62 Figure 3.10: An integrated GIS approach to accessibility analysis. ......................65 Figure 4.1: Structure of the methodology ........................................................70 Figure 4.2: Comparison of alternatives ............................................................71 Figure 4.3: Performance indicators’ inputs .......................................................75 Figure 4.4. Scheme of the calculation of the PARA index....................................83 Figure 4.5: The integration procedure .............................................................85 Figure 5.1. Spanish road network (2005).........................................................89 Figure 5.2. Spanish rail network (2005)...........................................................90 Figure 5.3: Spanish NUTS divisions.................................................................91 Figure 5.4: Population density ........................................................................92 Figure 5.5: Study area system of cities ...........................................................93 Figure 5.6: Growth in GDP per head in Spain, Spanish NUTS-2 regions and EU15 in terms of EU25 average (PPS) 1995-2003...................................................94 Figure 5.7: Trends in GDP per head in Spanish NUTS-2 regions, EU15 and EU25 in terms of Spain’ average, 1995-2003 .........................................................95 Figure 5.8: Accessibility by road (2005) ..........................................................96 Figure 5.9: Accessibility by rail (2005) ............................................................97 Figure 5.10: Trends in mobility, GDP and emissions in Spain, 1990-2003 ............99 Figure 5.11: Delimitation of the study area ....................................................102 Figure 5.12: Road network of the PEIT alternative (APEIT).................................103 -xi-.

(18) TABLE OF CONTENTS. Figure 5.13: Rail network of the PEIT alternative (APEIT) .................................. 103 Figure 5.14: Sites of Community importance (SCIs) ....................................... 107 Figure 5.15: Special Protection Areas (SPAs) ................................................. 108 Figure 5.16: Spanish habitats map ............................................................... 109 Figure 6.1: Network efficiency. Alternative A0. Road mode............................... 112 Figure 6.2: Network efficiency. Alternative APEIT. Road mode ............................ 114 Figure 6.3: Network efficiency. Relative differences Alternative A0 vs. APEIT. Road mode .................................................................................................. 114 Figure 6.4: Network accessibility. Alternative A0. Rail mode ............................. 117 Figure 6.5: Network accessibility. Alternative APEIT. Rail mode .......................... 119 Figure 6.6: Network accessibility. Relative differences Alternative A0 vs. APEIT. Rail mode .................................................................................................. 119 Figure 6.7: Network efficiency in Portugal. Relative differences Alternative A0 vs. APEIT. Road mode .................................................................................. 122 Figure 6.8: Network efficiency in Southern France. Relative differences Alternative A0 vs. APEIT. Road mode ......................................................................... 124 Figure 6.9: Network efficiency in Portugal. Relative differences Alternative A0 vs. APEIT. Rail mode .................................................................................... 126 Figure 6.10: Network efficiency in Southern France. Relative differences Alternative A0 vs. APEIT. Rail mode........................................................................... 128 Figure 6.11: Potential accessibility. Alternative A0. Road mode ......................... 131 Figure 6.12: Box-plot of potential accessibility values in the do-nothing alternative. NUTS-2 aggregation. Road mode............................................................ 131 Figure 6.13: Potential accessibility. Alternative APEIT. Road mode ...................... 132 Figure 6.14: Changes in potential accessibility. Alternative APEIT vs. A0. Road mode .......................................................................................................... 133 Figure 6.15: Relative change in road accessibility inequality indices .................. 134 Figure 6.16: Potential accessibility. Alternative A0. Rail mode ........................... 136 Figure 6.17: Box-plot of potential accessibility values in the do-nothing alternative. NUTS-2 aggregation. Rail mode ............................................................. 136 Figure 6.18: Potential accessibility. Alternative APEIT. Rail mode ........................ 137 Figure 6.19: Changes in potential accessibility. Alternative APEIT vs. A0. Road mode .......................................................................................................... 138 Figure 6.20: Regional cohesion indices. Rail mode .......................................... 139 Figure 6.21: NUTS-5 unemployment rates ..................................................... 140 Figure 6.22: Standardized absolute change of NUTS-5 regions in the potential accessibility indicator. Road mode .......................................................... 142. -xii-.

(19) TABLE OF CONTENTS. Figure 6.23: Standardized relative change of NUTS-5 regions in the potential accessibility indicator. Road mode ..........................................................142 Figure 6.24: Accessibility categories. Road mode ............................................143 Figure 6.25: Structural backwardness categories ............................................144 Figure 6.26: Regional weighting factor. Road mode.........................................144 Figure 6.27: Standardized absolute change of NUTS-5 regions in the potential accessibility indicator. Rail mode ............................................................146 Figure 6.28: Standardized relative change of NUTS-5 regions in the potential accessibility indicator. Rail mode ............................................................147 Figure 6.29: Accessibility deficiency categories. Rail mode ...............................148 Figure 6.30: Regional weighting factor. Rail mode ..........................................148 Figure 6.31: % change in the PARA index in SCIs. Road mode .........................154 Figure 6.32: % change in the PARA index in SPAs. Road mode.........................154 Figure 6.33: % change in the PARA index in SCIs. Rail mode ...........................155 Figure 6.34: % change in the PARA index in SPAs. Rail mode...........................156 Figure 6.35: Value function for the network efficiency criterion. Road mode .......161 Figure 6.36: Criterion weight sensitivity: efficiency criterion.............................164 Figure 6.37: Criterion weight sensitivity: cohesion criterion .............................165 Figure 6.38: Criterion weight sensitivity: environmental criterion......................165 Figure 6.39: Attribute value sensitivity. Road mode ........................................167. -xiii-.

(20) TABLE OF CONTENTS. -xiv-.

(21) LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS. AST. Appraisal Summary Table. CBA. Cost-benefit analysis. CTP. Common Transport Policy. DM. Decision maker. DSS. Decision support system. EC. European Commission. ECMT. European Conference of Ministers of Transport. ERDF. European Regional Development Fund. ESD. Environmentally Sustainable Development. ESDP. European Spatial Development Perspective. ESPON. European Spatial Observatory Network. EU. European Union. FP. Framework Programme. GDP. Gross Domestic Product. GHG. Greenhouse Gas. GIS. Geographical Information System. HCR. High Capacity Road. HSR. High Speed Rail. LUTI. Land use and transport interaction. MCA. Multicriteria analysis. MMSS. Member States. NATA. New Approach to Appraisal. OJEU. Official Journal of the European Union. PEIT. Plan Estratégico de Infraestructuras y Transporte. PPS. Purchase Power Standard. RTD. Research and Technological Development. SACTRA. Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment. SCI. Site of Community Importance. SPA. Special Protection Area. TEN-T. Trans- European Transport Networks. TERM. Transport and Environment Reporting Mechanisms. -xv-.

(22) TABLE OF CONTENTS. -xvi-.

(23) Chapter 1 – INTRODUCTION. 1. INTRODUCTION. 1.1. Problem statement. The planning process of a transport infrastructure Plan entails a high degree of complexity. Although during the past few decades there were important advances in the development of assessment methodologies at the Plan level, today there are still many issues for which a consensus has not been reached in the transport research community. There are a number of reasons why the development of assessment methodologies at the Plan level is still an area where research efforts are needed. First, the inclusion of the sustainable development approach (Serageldin, 1996) in transport planning processes caused a shift in transport planning objectives towards strategic policy goals, such as network efficiency, cohesion or environmental issues. This structure of strategic objectives is intimately linked with the increased inclusion of transport sustainability issues (Greene and Wegener, 1997) into the planning framework. This objective shift has been translated into policy documents by a wide variety of institutions (OECD, 1998; ECMT, 2004; EC, 2004; EC, 1999). Furthermore, it is necessary to broaden the assessment objectives to include the above strategic impacts at the Plan level, given that the scope of the projects might result in impacts elsewhere, either in another transportation field, or in other sectors such as land use, energy or the environment. Thus, national governments are increasingly demanding the inclusion of strategic aspects in assessment methodologies (Bristow and Nellthorp, 2000). However, both the definitions and the subsequent assessment of these strategic impacts are uneven and scarce among official methodologies (Grant-Muller et al., 2001). Second, the increased importance given to consensus building, transparency and communicative issues of the planning approach (Voogd and Woltjer, 1999) calls for an adaptation of ‘black-box’ methodologies resulting in a single score for each alternative, into ‘easy-to-interpret’ ones, providing relevant information on different strategic policy aspects. It is increasingly acknowledged that the. -1-.

(24) Assessment of Transport Infrastructure Plans: a strategic approach. objectives of transportation policy cannot be transformed into one or two performance criteria, but rather that there are different and competing objectives. Indeed,. decision-makers. (DMs). are. increasingly. requiring. the. assessment. methodology to include relevant information which they can easily interpret, with an enhanced graphical presentation of results, so they can make consistent decisions on their part. Finally, the high relevance of the political component inherent in the assessment of transport Plans, means that the roles to be played by the technical and the political assessment are not clear. This issue is reinforced by the frequent presence of objective setting conflicts between the different administrative levels (local, regional, national and European) involved in the planning process at the Plan level (May et al., 2003; Beinat, 1998). Decision-making today is no longer seen as an intellectual process, but as a socio-political and organizational process, where the interest has shifted from the quality of the decision towards the quality of decision-making (Voogd, 1997). In this context, the technical assessment enables ranking the alternatives in terms of a set of criteria and priorities, thus making the political decision-making stage feasible, but in no case replacing the DMs responsibility. The above reasons have created a need to develop a suitable methodological basis that explicitly relates transportation policies to strategic impacts by taking into account a wide variety of strategic aspects in a flexible and transparent way. Increased computer capacity and the recent development of assessment tools, such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS) has enabled the upsurge of important methodological advances in this direction (Fotheringham and Wegener, 2000). Hence, assessment methodologies are seen as a form of decision support to DMs, keeping in mind that the technical assessment is important, but finally it is a political decision ultimately derived from the consideration of a wider set of factors than the criteria of efficiency of the transport system or the consideration of environmental impacts (ME&P et al., 2001). In this context, further research efforts to develop consistent methodologies capable of assessing the strategic impacts mentioned above in a flexible and transparent. manner. are. needed.. This. thesis,. ‘Assessment. of. transport. infrastructure Plans: a strategic approach integrating efficiency, cohesion and environmental aspects’ is a step forward in this research line, with a proposed assessment methodology and its subsequent validation in a case study.. -2-.

(25) Chapter 1 – INTRODUCTION. 1.2. Objectives. The overall objective of this thesis is ‘to develop a methodology capable of complementing traditional assessment methodologies of transport infrastructure Plans, from a strategic approach, integrating efficiency, cohesion and environmental aspects’. The achievement of this overall objective can be split into the following main objectives: . To define the set of strategic criteria, namely efficiency, cohesion and environmental sustainability, that should be evaluated in the assessment of transport infrastructure Plans,. . to develop a methodology, based on the use of spatial impact analysis tools, capable of measuring the achievement of each of the criteria above,. . to integrate the results obtained in each assessment criterion in order to provide an overall vision of the global performance of each alternative,. . to investigate the influence of the different variables present in the methodology on the final assessment results,. . to provide DMs with policy recommendations on the basis of the contribution of each alternative to the achievement of the assessment criteria,. . to develop a useful, transparent and flexible transport planning tool, whose results can be easy to explain to the public.. 1.3. Research methodology. In order to achieve the above objectives, the research work has been structured into the following stages: . Investigation of recent changes and the current situation of the transport planning framework at the Plan level, in order to determine which are the main strategic policy goals that any assessment methodology should handle.. . Review the current state-of-the-art assessment methodologies at strategic levels, in order to detect possible incoherencies and methodological gaps.. . Analysis of the potential of spatial impact analysis tools, in particular GIS, for the development of assessment methodologies and as a support system in the planning process.. . Justification of the usefulness of accessibility indicators as a planning tool capable of assessing strategic aspects, such as network efficiency or cohesion impacts.. -3-.

(26) Assessment of Transport Infrastructure Plans: a strategic approach. . Definition of a set of strategic criteria and subcriteria that should be included in the assessment of transport infrastructure Plans, and the corresponding procedure to assess each one of them.. . Development of a procedure, based on multicriteria analysis (MCA) capable of ranking a set of alternatives on the basis of their performance on the set of defined criteria.. . Test of the validity and consistency of the proposed approach through its application in a case study. The case study corresponds to the Spanish Strategic Transport and Infrastructure Plan 2005-2020 (PEIT), recently launched in Spain (Ministerio de Fomento, 2005).. . Drawing of conclusions on the validity of the methodology and identification of areas for future research.. An important part of the research work developed in this thesis is based on the findings of different research projects which were developed during the period the research was carried out (2002-2007). In these projects different strategic impacts of large scale transport infrastructure investments were assessed. These are listed below: . Assessment of territorial impacts of transport infrastructure investments. Application: analysis of the Spanish transport network. Research Project funded by the 2002 Ministry of Public Works Research Programme.. . Assessment of the effects of transport infrastructure Plans on mobility, the territory and the socio-economic system, in the context of the enlargement of the European Union. Research project funded by the 2004/2007 Ministry of. Science. and. Technology. Research,. Development. and. Innovation. Programme. . Indicators of impacts of transport infrastructure on social and territorial equity. Supported by the 2004 Transport research aids of the Ministry of Public Works Research Programme.. -4-.

(27) Chapter 1 – INTRODUCTION. 1.4. Structure of the thesis. In order to achieve the objectives defined in section 1.2., the thesis has been structured into eight Chapters and two Appendices: . Chapter 1 is this Introduction. It describes the research problem that the thesis is aimed at solving and the main objectives of the research.. . Chapter 2 analyses recent changes in the planning framework and reviews current research efforts and challenges in transport planning processes, with a focus on the Plan level.. . Chapter 3 includes a review of the main spatial impacts present at the Plan level, along with a description of recent methodological advances in spatial impact models and tools.. . On the basis of the findings of Chapters 2 and 3, Chapter 4 describes the proposed. assessment. methodology:. a. strategic. approach. integrating. efficiency, cohesion and environmental aspects. . Chapter 5 describes the assessment framework of the case study in which the methodology is tested.. . Chapter 6, includes the assessment results obtained from the application of the methodology to the case study.. . Chapter 7 summarizes the main conclusions and contributions to the literature of the thesis and identifies future research directions.. . Chapter 8 includes the Reference list.. Finally, two appendices are included. Appendix A contains the questionnaire distributed to relevant stakeholders in order to define criteria weights to be used for the integration stage of the MCA procedure and the resulting weights. Appendix B includes a description of the case study application of the accessibility model and a list with disaggregated accessibility values.. -5-.

(28) Assessment of Transport Infrastructure Plans: a strategic approach. -6-.

(29) Chapter 2 – A CHANGING PLANNING FRAMEWORK. 2. A CHANGING PLANNING FRAMEWORK. 2.1. Introduction. The transport system can be considered as a socio-cultural complex adaptive system (Buckley, 1967). In other words, a system in which the interchanges between their elements may result in significant changes in the nature of the elements themselves with important consequences for the system as a whole (Rehfeld, 1998). Besides this ‘internal’ complexity, the transport system is also influenced by contextual elements (Banister et al., 2000a), also referred to as development variables (Rehfeld, 1998), which are part of other interrelated systems, such as the environment or the economy. Consequently, transport planning processes are unavoidably complex. Although many approaches exist in the literature (for reviews on the topic see Meyer and Straszheim, 1971; Button, 1993; EC, 1996c; Nijkamp et al., 1990), there is no single best method to conduct a transport planning process. Figure 2.1 shows the approach suggested by Mackie and Nellthorp (2003), which was selected because of its flexibility to include a wide variety of approaches. It considers the transport planning process as a three-stage process: . Structuring the planning problem and objective setting,. . Evaluation of the effects of each alternative course of action,. . Decision-making on the basis of the evaluation results. Figure 2.1: The planning process STRUCTURING. EVALUATION. DECISION-MAKING. Source:Mackie and Nellthorp (2003). The process will normally entail iterative procedures (Bristow and Nellthorp, 2000; Meyer and Straszheim, 1971): the more complex the planning problem is, the more feedback loops the evaluation process will have (Nijkamp et al., 1990). Besides, the boundaries between the three stages are not always clear (Beuthe, 2002; Voogd, 1997).. -7-.

(30) Assessment of Transport Infrastructure Plans: a strategic approach. In general, a hierarchy of four different planning levels can be defined (EC, 1996c) in descending order of scope and complexity: policy, programme, plan and project levels. At the top of the hierarchy, the wide-ranging of the planning problems, along with their long-term effects necessitate the employment of sophisticated methods of project appraisal. Besides, they require the development of comprehensive techniques for decision-making (Button, 1993), which are increasingly demanding a more comprehensive consideration of uncertainty issues (Tsamboulas et al., 1998). At the top of the hierarchy, ideally a systems planning approach –capable of considering the independence of projects and the feedback of the. transport. system. on. other. interrelated. systems-. appears. to. be. the. recommended planning procedure (Meyer and Straszheim, 1971). Furthermore, the transport planning framework is constantly evolving. A growing interest in the structuring stage has been developing in recent years (Voogd, 1997), although evaluation is still a central part of the planning process. Finally, although the decision-making stage is aimed at providing relevant information to decision-makers, it is not a substitute for the political process, i.e. it does not take the decision. This is especially true at planning levels situated at the top of the hierarchy, where the political assessment is dominant and technical appraisal very limited (EC, 1996c). Besides, the planning process is increasingly required to be flexible and adaptive to a highly dynamic environment, in which the political relevance of issues, alternatives or impacts may exhibit sudden changes (Voogd, 1997). Consensus building, transparency and communicative issues are increasingly considered as added values (ICCR, 2002b), in a so called ‘communicative planning approach’ (Voogd and Woltjer, 1999). This has forced all stages of the planning process to be accessible and comprehensive in arenas such as public inquiries (Grant-Muller et al., 2001). This is now a quality requirement which has forced the ‘technical assessment’ to be combined with educational and consensus building tools, allowing a project to be subject to debate, consultation and participation, in a spirit of a more open public involvement in decision-making (Small, 1999). In this context, this Chapter reviews current research efforts and challenges in transport planning processes, with a focus on the Plan level. For clarity reasons, the Chapter has been structured following Figure 2.1 planning stages: structuring, evaluation and decision-making.. -8-.

(31) Chapter 2 – A CHANGING PLANNING FRAMEWORK. 2.2. Structuring the planning process. 2.2.1 Sources of conflicts in objective setting The definition of objectives may raise conflicts both at a ‘vertical’ level, i.e. between the different stakeholders involved, and at a ‘horizontal’ level, i.e., between the different systems interrelated with the transport system (Bröcker et al., 2004). First, at a ‘vertical level’, the increased promotion of the public consultation stage. has. allowed. for. the. involvement. of. individuals. (experts,. political. entrepreneurs) or specific organizations (ad hoc structures, citizen organizations), which have different priorities. This demands a more transparent and open procedure for the definition of planning objectives (Voogd and Woltjer, 1999). Furthermore, there is a risk of disagreement, lack of congruence and different preference strength between DMs of the different territorial levels of competencies involved, which may achieve the degree of political concerns (Tsamboulas et al., 1998; Beinat, 1998; Ollivier-Trigalo, 2001; ICCR, 2002b). Furthermore, any transport policy involves significant spillovers (Pereira and Roca-Sagales, 2003) and creates further risks of overlapping benefits and double counting at different stages of the appraisal process (Grant-Muller et al., 2001), which require a certain degree of ‘multi-level’ coordination (Bröcker et al., 2004). In this sense, the transport planning process of the trans-European transport networks (TEN-T) (EC, 2004c) constitutes a successful example of integrating conflicting European, national, regional and even local objectives (Turró, 1999; Button, 1993; Chatelus and Ulied, 1996). Second, the existing interactions between transport and other interrelated policies, such as spatial development, economic or energy policies, which will be analyzed in Section 2.2.3.2, also calls for a ‘horizontal’ integration of possibly conflicting objectives. An integrated framework combining all these conflicting objectives is therefore needed. In this context, the emergence of the sustainable development concept and its subsequent application in transport planning processes has provided a reference framework to join and integrate interests from different approaches, as Section 2.2.2 will detail. 2.2.2 A guiding principle: the sustainable development approach. 2.2.2.1. Sustainable development and transport planning. The concept of sustainable development (Brundtland Commission, 1987) emerged in. the. 1980s. in. the. environmental. field,. -9-. and. was. originally. named. as.

(32) Assessment of Transport Infrastructure Plans: a strategic approach. “Environmentally Sustainable Development” (ESD). It was approached by a triangular framework (Serageldin, 1996), representing three dimensions: economic, social, and environmental. It was in the 1990s when the concept of sustainable development was introduced as an overall goal for the transport sector. Since then, the terms used to refer to the three general sustainability objectives were adapted to suit the specific characteristics of the transport problem under consideration. Nowadays the term ‘sustainable transport’ is a generally accepted principle in transport planning processes (see e.g. Greene and Wegener, 1997; Nijkamp, 1994; Button and Verhoef, 1998; Feitelson, 2002; Lauridsen, 2003; OECD, 1998). However, finding targets for these three general objectives is a complex task, as it requires finding widely accepted statements and terms of reference from both scientific and official policy documents which might offer a basis for target definition (Banister et al., 2000b; Button and Verhoef, 1998). A discussion on how this issue is dealt with in each of the three sustainability objectives is included in subsections 2.2.2.2 to 2.2.2.4. 2.2.2.2. The economic objective. The economic dimension is an area where descriptions of objectives differ markedly: the economic objective may be also named with other terms, mainly ‘efficiency’ (Turró, 1999; Bröcker et al., 2004; Button and Verhoef, 1998), ‘competitiveness’ (Chatelus and Ulied, 1996; EC, 2004a), or ‘growth’ (Serageldin, 1996; Feitelson, 2002). The assumption is that infrastructure network weaknesses limit the realization of the economic growth development potential (Frybourg and Nijkamp, 1998). Under this assumption, the target is to maximise transport efficiency, a general term which includes objectives such as an improved performance and development of each mode and their integration into a coherent transport system, socio-economic feasibility, or improved comfort and level of service (Giorgi and Pohoryles, 1999). Therefore, this objective refers to the contribution of a transport initiative to increase the overall productivity of economic activities, in terms of increasing opportunities for new relations and bridging existing bottlenecks (Chatelus and Ulied, 1996). Therefore, this objective is intimately linked with the impact of transportation costs in economic performance (SACTRA, 1999). The economic objective lies behind the assumption that ‘missing links’ and lack of infrastructure provision may mean a significant reduction in the potential productivity of a region or nation. Following this rationale, investments in transport infrastructure in backward regions help to ensure relatively equal competitive - 10 -.

(33) Chapter 2 – A CHANGING PLANNING FRAMEWORK. advantages for all regions (Rietveld and Nijkamp, 1993; Capello and Rietveld, 1998) and therefore they have been included in national and supranational plans in Europe. This is a controversial issue, good transport facilities, -although important-, are not sufficient to ensure economic growth by themselves1. 2.2.2.3. The social objective. In recent years there has been an evolution of concerns and objectives of transportation policy from efficiency to social objectives (Tsamboulas et al., 1998). However, this is an underdeveloped field both in policy and scientific analysis (Grant-Muller et al., 2001), where it is frequent to find many approaches included under this heading (EC, 2004a), mostly dependant on the assessment level. At the project level, the social dimension generally refers to objectives such as accident reduction, noise abatement, or local emissions reduction (Bristow and Nellthorp, 2000; Mackie and Nellthorp, 2003). This approach is rather limited at the level of transport policies/plans, where the treatment of the social dimension increasingly requires an analysis under the ‘cohesion’ objective (EC, 2004a; EC, 1998). In broad terms, improved cohesion means a reduction of economic disparities (Bröcker et al., 2004) or differences of economic and social welfare (Hey et al., 2002) between regions or groups. In spatial policy terms, the objective is to avoid territorial imbalances (EC, 1999), by making both sector policies which have a spatial impact and regional policy more coherent. The concern is also to improve ‘territorial integration’ and encourage cooperation between regions or countries (Banister et al., 1999). However, not even in official European Community documentation is there a precise description of what is behind cohesion (INRETS, 2005;. Bröcker. et. al.,. 2004;. INRETS,. 2005;. EC,. 1998).. Even. the. term. ‘convergence’, which aims at the gradual reduction of regional differences, gives little help (EC, 2004a). This vagueness in the definition of the term frequently gives rise to methodological problems in the evaluation stage. 2.2.2.4. The environmental objective. In the past few decades there has been an increased concern for assessing the environmental effects of transport and developing mechanisms to report their evolution, such as the periodic ‘Transport and Environment Reporting Mechanisms’. 1. The existence and measurement of the contribution of transport to economic growth is a controversial. issue widely discussed in the literature (see e.g. Button, 1993; Oosterhaven and Knaap, 2003; Banister and Berechman, 2003; Banister and Berechman, 2001; Vickerman et al., 1999). This issue is further dealt with in Section 3.1.3.2.. - 11 -.

(34) Assessment of Transport Infrastructure Plans: a strategic approach. (TERM) Reports (EEA, 2006b). At the EU level, the transport sector is the primary driver of the growth in total energy consumption, which is likewise directly linked with total emissions (EEA, 2006a). Despite the important efforts devoted to environmental abatement policies, the high rate of increase in transport demand is outstripping the rate of improvement in environmental technology for transport (Stead, 2001). The result has been a significant increase in Green House Gas (GHG) emissions. from. transport,. which. threatens. European. progress. towards. its. international commitments, such as the Kyoto targets (UNFCCC, 1997) and the proposals by the EU Council for further emission reductions for developed countries beyond the Kyoto Protocol period (2008–2012) (EC, 2005b). Air pollution reduction is also on the EU agenda, although energy-related emissions from the transport sector have decreased steadily since 1990 (EEA, 2006b), largely due to the result of increasingly strict emission standards for the different transport modes and fuel switching. Nevertheless, further emission reductions are also required, as recognised in the proposed Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution (2005) (EC, 2005a), mainly because air quality in mega cities does not yet meet the limit values set by European regulation and still has a major negative impact on human health (EEA, 2006b). Finally, habitat fragmentation and the loss of biodiversity associated with new transport infrastructure are also concerns for transport policy at the strategic level (EEA, 2006b). 2.2.2.5. Trade-offs between objectives. Given this definition of the three SD objectives, it is inevitable that trade-offs appear between them (for discussions on this issue see Feitelson, 2002; Button and Verhoef, 1998). These trade-offs are represented in Figure 2.1. Of particular interest in the transport field is the conflict of efficiency (economic) vs. equity (social) objectives. If the only objective was the maximization of economic growth, the ‘most efficient’ policy would attempt to concentrate the economic activity in several strong regional centres and interconnect them with a high quality transport network (Gutiérrez, 2004). However, this policy would have a negative impact on equity, as it would lead to more polarized spatial development patterns (EC, 1999): richer regions would gain more and lagging regions would result in a comparative worse situation. As stated by Bröcker et al. (2004): ‘In practice considerable trade-offs may be necessary between, say, devising a transport policy to stimulate national growth and one designed to assist the development of specified backward regions (…)’. The design of transport strategies may need to be modified to ensure that both an - 12 -.

(35) Chapter 2 – A CHANGING PLANNING FRAMEWORK. acceptable degree of equity is retained among the different regions, while economic growth is maximised (Button, 1993). Furthermore, as transport infrastructure improvements are aimed at reducing travel costs, they may to a certain extent promote mobility and have a negative impact on environmental objectives. This raises conflicts between economic and environmental objectives (Bröcker et al., 2004), given the historic link between economic growth and traffic growth. Decoupling transport from economic growth -defined as maintaining levels of economic growth, but with lower levels of transport intensity– is therefore a key objective in transport strategy design (Banister et al., 2000a). Figure 2.2: Trade-off approach to sustainable transport. ECONOMIC •Competitiveness. SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT. t en nm ro vi En. Eq ui ty. . vs. vs .. y nc ie fic Ef. ef f ic ie nc y. •Investment costs. ENVIRONMENTAL. SOCIAL. •Global/Local emmissions. •Equity. Equity vs. Environment. •Territorial integration. •Habitat preservation. Source: Adapted from Feitelson (2002). 2.2.3 EU policy objectives. 2.2.3.1. Transport policy. Major transport and sector-related policy documents at an EU level respond to the general SD framework described in Section 2.2.2. In fact, the three main basic goals of the Common Transport Policy (CTP) are: competitiveness, cohesion and. - 13 -.

(36) Assessment of Transport Infrastructure Plans: a strategic approach. environment2. However, the structural changes that are taking place at present at the EU scale means that the current EU Transport Policy is in a ‘state of flux’ (Frybourg and Nijkamp, 1998). The 2006 mid term review of the 2001 White Paper (EC, 2001a) summarizes the main priorities of EU transport policy, namely ‘to help provide Europeans: with efficient, effective transportation systems that (EC, 2006a): . offer a high level of mobility to people and businesses throughout the EU (…),. . protect the environment, ensure energy security, promote minimum labour standards for the sector and protect the passenger and the citizen (…),. . innovate to support the first two aims of mobility and protection by increasing the efficiency and sustainability of the growing transport sector (…), and. . connect internationally, projecting the Union’s policies to reinforce sustainable mobility, protection and innovation, by participating in the international organisations’. In terms of transport infrastructure investments, the key transport policy. instruments are the TEN-T. The implementation of the TEN-T contributes to important objectives of the EU such as ‘the good functioning of the internal market and the strengthening of the economic and social cohesion’ (…) or ‘to ensure a sustainable mobility for people and goods, in the best social, environment and safety conditions, and to integrate all transport modes’ (EC, 1996a)3. Furthermore, the TEN-T are recognized as a key factor for the European integration process (Turró, 1999), which relies upon the development of an efficiently operating network connecting all nodes of the ‘European network economy’ (Frybourg and Nijkamp, 1998). 2.2.3.2. Non-transport Policy documents. Transport policy may result in synergies or conflicts between the policy goals of interrelated policy areas. This ‘horizontal’ policy interaction (Bröcker et al., 2004; EC, 1999) should be taken into account in the structuring stage of strategic transport planning problems. The following sections identify these policies.. 2.2.3.2.1. Regional policy. Structural policy provides support for transport in the MMSS through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund (OJEU, 2006). The. 2. The background context for the development of the EU CTP can be found in Banister et al. (2000a), pp. 58-60. 3. Amended by EC (2004b).. - 14 -.

(37) Chapter 2 – A CHANGING PLANNING FRAMEWORK. rationale behind this support is the assumption that certain transport infrastructure investments, mainly in lagging regions, are believed to contribute in a decisive way to the achievement of the goal of territorial and social cohesion. The performance of the EU in terms of cohesion over a period of three years is reported in the periodic EC Cohesion Reports (the last one (EC, 2004a) was published in 2004).. 2.2.3.2.2. Spatial development policy. Spatial development policy is also of increasing concern in EU regional policy, because of its intimate and complex relationship with transport infrastructure. In this respect, the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) (EC, 1999) constitutes the major attempt so far to provide a Community strategy on the spatial development of the EU, but it is in no sense a European Masterplan, which would give rise to competency issues (Faludi, 2002). The ESDP includes among its objectives to ‘strengthen a polycentric and more balanced system of metropolitan regions, city clusters and city networks through closer co-operation between structural policy and the policy on the TEN-T and improvement of the links between international/national and regional/local transport networks’ (EC, 1999). The ESDP proposes a movement from transport investments improving transport links between the periphery and the core –the tendency of structural policy- towards a new perspective for the peripheral areas through the creation of ‘several dynamic zones of global economic integration, well distributed throughout the EU territory and comprising a network of internationally accessible metropolitan regions and their linked hinterlands’ (EC, 1999).. 2.2.3.2.3. Energy policy. These concerns from the EU on energy and transport issues have been translated into energy policy documents. This is the case with the last EC’s Green Paper ‘A European Strategy for Sustainable, Competitive and Secure Energy’4 (EC, 2006b), and its predecessor (EC, 2000b). In summary, the main objective is that energy and transport contribute to sustainable development: ‘making Europe both a homogenous area of economic development and an area where the environment in the broadest sense of the term is conserved’ (EC, 2004d).. 2.2.3.2.4. Environmental policy. Transport as a sector is the largest single contributor to a number of environmental problems, therefore a strong set of policy linkages occur between transport and. 4. COM (2006) 105 final.. - 15 -.

(38) Assessment of Transport Infrastructure Plans: a strategic approach. environmental policy (EEA, 2006b; OECD, 1998). The majority of them have already been mentioned in the preceding section on energy policy, as both sectoral policies are also strongly linked. The most important environment policy document at the EU level is the Sixth Environment Action Programme (Decision 1600/2002/EC, 22 July 2002), which provides a strategic framework for the Commission's environmental policy up to 2012. The programme identifies four environmental areas for priority actions: Climate Change; Nature and Biodiversity; Environment, Health, Quality of Life; and Natural Resources and Waste. In the context of transport planning at the EU level, the main policy document is the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive (OJEU, 2001). It is aimed. at. ensuring. that. environmental. consequences. of certain plans and. programmes are identified and assessed during their preparation and before their adoption.. 2.3. The evaluation approach. 2.3.1 Introduction It is beyond the scope of this thesis to conduct a review of the large number of evaluation techniques which have been developed since their emergence in the 1960s. Therefore, this Section 2.3 includes only an outline of the major approaches, along. with. an. extended. list. of. selected. references. containing. detailed. methodological issues. Furthermore, a review of recent research developments in the assessment field, along with an outline of the current state-of-the practice in official evaluation approaches for transport plans in selected MMSS is included. 2.3.1.1. Evaluation, appraisal, assessment: synonyms?. It is frequent to find the terms evaluation, appraisal and assessment used indistinctly in transport planning literature. However, although they refer to intimately linked concepts, they are not synonymous. In general terms, evaluation can be defined as ‘a process which seeks to determine as systematically and objectively as possible the relevance, efficiency and effect of an activity in terms of its objectives’ (Giorgi and Tandon, 2000b). Appraisal can be described as ‘a process of investigation and reasoning designed to assist DMs reach an informed and rational choice’ (Sudgen and Williams, 1978), or as the process whereby it is determined whether a project meets a set objectives and whether these objectives are met efficiently (Adler, 1987). Appraisal should comply with a set of requirements (EC, 1996c; Nijkamp et - 16 -.

(39) Chapter 2 – A CHANGING PLANNING FRAMEWORK. al., 1990) and in all cases it should be viewed as an aid rather than a replacement for the decision-making stage, which is often a political process. Furthermore, the terms appraisal and evaluation are often used to refer to two different forms of assessment, depending whether it is carried out before or after a project has been implemented (May et al., 2003). If before (ex ante), the assessment is an aid to decision-making, and then the term appraisal is more frequently used. The term evaluation is usually reserved for an ex post assessment after the project has been implemented, which is rather less frequent. However, this classification is not always followed in the transport planning literature, where it is common to find the term ‘evaluation’ referring to ex ante assessments (EC, 1996c). 2.3.2 Outline of an evaluation process The evaluation process of a transport Plan consists of a series of logically related modules. They are briefly described in sections 2.3.2.1 to 2.3.2.3. 2.3.2.1. Setting up the evaluation framework. Any evaluation necessarily starts with a set of preliminary tasks, including the selection of the limits of the study area and its zonification, the definition of the ‘reference’ and assessment alternatives, and the definition of the assessment time horizon. In strategic transport planning, this time horizon is usually long-term, giving rise to uncertainty issues which require the evaluation stage to analyse different possibilities of change of trends in economic, technological, environmental and social development (EC, 1996b), i.e. to define evaluation scenarios. Scenarios5 are ‘a kind of structures brainstorming technique, which may widen the perceptions of researchers as well as policy-makers regarding possible future opportunities (…) they are important tools for strategic policy analysis, especially in situations where policy makers have too much biased and unstructured information’ (Banister et al., 2000a). There are two main different scenario traditions, namely (Banister et al., 2000a): . explorative external scenarios, i.e. external scenarios in that they describe factors beyond the control of the transport sector, although they have a direct effect on the sector,. 5. A comprehensive review on scenario building techniques can be found in Rehfeld (1998), Banister et al.. (2000a) and Nijkamp et al. (1998).. - 17 -.

(40) Assessment of Transport Infrastructure Plans: a strategic approach. . backcasting scenarios, where the scenarios are designed as ‘images of the future’ that show desirable solutions to a major social problem (e.g. sustainable mobility). Then one tries to find a possible path between today and the images.. 2.3.2.2. Selecting the appraisal framework. 2.3.2.2.1. Classification of appraisal methodologies. Despite the large number of approaches currently available, there is still surprisingly little information regarding the specific features of the methods available and the precise conditions under which a method is chosen in practice (Nijkamp et al., 1990). Experience suggests that there is no single ‘best method’, but that the choice will depend on a set of factors, of which the evaluation level if of special importance (EC, 1996c). Nowadays one may distinguish at least four types of evaluation styles in the planning literature (Vreeker et al., 2002): . A monetary decision approach, based e.g. on cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness principles,. . A utility theory approach, based on prior ranking of the decision-maker’s preferences,. . A learning approach, based on a sequential (interactive or cyclical) articulation of the DM’s views,. . A collective decision approach, based on multi-person bargaining, negotiation or voting procedures. Depending on the style chosen, current public sector investment appraisal. can be reviewed under three broad frameworks (Bristow and Nellthorp, 2000): Cost-benefit. analysis. (CBA),. Multi-criteria. analysis. (MCA),. and. Descriptive. frameworks. These three frameworks will only be outlined in the following sections. A detailed description of the theory underlying these methods can be consulted in the many existing textbooks on the subject, several of which are referenced below.. 2.3.2.2.2. Cost-benefit analysis (CBA). The major upsurge in the development of appraisal techniques for transport projects came in the late 1960s and early 1970s6, and they were mainly based on CBA approaches.. 6. The European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) Round Tables of this period encouraged the. discussion and development of ideas related to appraisal. A series of Round Table Reports from those decades chart the practical development of CBA at that time (ECMT, 2005; ECMT, 2004).. - 18 -.

(41) Chapter 2 – A CHANGING PLANNING FRAMEWORK. In a CBA approach, both the potential costs and benefits of a particular project are estimated across a set of impacts and converted into monetary units by multiplying impact units by prices per unit. The final outcome of the appraisal is a single value, such as a discounted net present value or a cost-benefit ratio (for extensive reviews on CBA see Sudgen and Williams, 1978; Layard and Glaister, 1996; Boardman et al., 2001; Adler, 1987; de Rus et al., 2003). Although CBA may, in principle, be a sound evaluation method for decisions in the public sector, some authors claim that CBA has several limitations, which are believed to reduce the confidence felt in the strength of CBA calculations (Beuthe et al., 2000; Vreeker et al., 2002; Button, 1993). The most argued upon limitations of the CBA approaches are: . Their difficulty to arrive at monetary values for intangible effects such as ecological risks or the fulfilment of regional planning objectives (BMVBW, 2002).. . Their impossibility to take into account explicit interest conflicts and political priorities (Nijkamp et al., 1990; Voogd, 1997; Vreeker et al., 2002).. . Their inability to address distributive issues, given that the aggregation of all costs and benefits implicit in CBA raises the sensitive question of the distribution of outcomes across individuals (Beuthe et al., 2000; Nijkamp et al., 1990; Small, 1999). However, there is controversy in this subject. There is a substantial school of. thought that subscribes to the view that direct transport benefits measured by means of CBA do indeed capture all the benefits of schemes and to include anything else is to introduce double-counting (EC, 1996b).. 2.3.2.2.3. Multi-criteria analysis (MCA). In the 1970s MCA methods emerged as a result of the mentioned limitations of CBA. The emergence of environmental problems with many qualitative dimensions also gave MCA a particular stimulus. Its perceived ‘power of conviction’, easiness of interpretation and transparency, compared to CBA, contributed to increase the popularity of MCA (Voogd, 1997). MCA aims at taking into account the heterogeneous and conflicting dimensions of complex policy evaluations, offering an operational framework for a multidisciplinary approach to wide-ranging (physical) planning problems (Nijkamp et al., 1990). The method typically involves determining the extent to which alternative proposals achieve a pre-determined set of goals or objectives. Detailed descriptions of the theoretical foundations of the MCA method can be found in. - 19 -.