A SDSS for identifying sustainable optimal highway route alternatives.

1. A SDSS for identifying sustainable optimal highway route alternatives. Engr. SukhadKeshkamat, M.Sc. 25th May 2009. Presentation at the International Association of Impact Assessment – Annual Conference 2009. Session: State of the art in project planning and appraisal.

2. Human built interventions • Manufacturing • Service • Infrastructure • Point, or areal, infrastructure • Linear, or band, infrastructure Management and impact assessment of linear infrastructure projects requires highly specific know-how, skills and understanding on priority. HIGHWAYS

3. Positive & negative impacts, Random & predictable impacts, Local & widespread impacts, Temporary & permanent impacts Short-term & long-term impacts Intended & unintended impacts Bio-physical, Social and Economic Highways Direct Impacts Indirect Impacts Cumulative Impacts

4. Highways • Roads are one of the biggest man-made elements producing anthropogenic change in the natural environment. • Planning needs to take into account expected impacts. Spatially. • This is what led Ian McHarg to present the first “GIS” and spatial analysis. • But, progress towards this need is not substantial.

5. Planning Recon survey> Detailed survey> Technical design Local knowledge based Intuitive Time consuming Political & vested influence Cost weighted MCA Impact Assessment After routes designed Choosing alternative Mitigation-minded, not avoidance- or optimisation-minded Current practices

6. Current outcomes • Quick and supposedly effortless planning. • Lack of spatial optimisation. • Leads to alternatives which are often sub-optimal. • Not transparent. • Stakeholder participation occurs too late. • Stakeholder dissatisfaction runs high. • Environmental damages without commensurate returns. • Implementation difficulties and stakeholder conflict occur commonly… leading to delays & cost over-runs.

7. The need: Good quality alternatives for rational decision making. • The methodology: A spatial decisionsupport system for collaborative highway planning.

8. Main Aims A scientific methodology to formulate and assess effect based highway alignment alternatives. • Financial & engineering viability • Environmental regulations and concerns • Transport system efficiency • Safety • Socio-economic demands • Plans and policy Stakeholder involvement in the planning process. Decision Support tool for Strategic Environment Assessment (SEA) and Environmental Impact Assessment(EIA). Addressing the 3 pillars of Sustainability: legitimacy, validity, salience

9. Methodology

10. Example: Via Baltica Poland Budzisko EU Trans-Europeannetwork for transportation (TEN-T) programme

11. policy visions Spatial Multi-Criteria Evaluation Stakeholder Concerns Four Themes: • Transport Efficiency • Ecology • Social & Safety • Economic Costs & Benefits

12. Cumulative assessment: Suitability Map

13. Four Visions, four scenarios

14. NETWORK ANALYSIS Network Analysis Network of existing roads in the study area EU/EC condition - No new roads. Only upgrade from existing roads.

17. Optimal Routes for 4 Visions

18. Comparison with government route Ecology vision

19. Conclusions - 1 • The proposed method provides transparent and valid information for decision making and at the same time accommodating the stakeholder preferences. • Compared to visual, manual or technocratic techniques, this tool generates routes that optimise and reduce costs of the full route, not piecemeal. • Capable of dealing with social, economic, ecological and technicalpriorities and any other criteria. • Four policy visions, equal, social, economy and ecology, were considered in this analysis. However, the method is readily amenable to the use of other policy visions which can be derived from national policy documents and stakeholder perceptions.

20. Conclusions - 2 • The optimal routes generated for each policy vision prove that it is possible to create more • environment friendly, • socially acceptable and/or • cost effectivealternatives using this method. • These routes are optimised taking into account a wide range of environmental criteria, thus enhancing the positive effects of the project, while at the same time minimising the adverse biotic, abiotic and socio-economic impacts.

21. Some other criteria that can be included: • Biophysical characteristics such as slope regimes, solar aspect, wind direction, problem soils for construction, hydrology • Economic activity served (industrial estates, exclusive economic zones (EEZ), seaports, airports, tourism destinations, major cities etc) • Poverty distribution maps • Current agricultural areas and potential Agriculture areas • Population served • Ecologically Sensitive areas such as internationally protected areas (IUCN/UNESCO World Heritage sites), nationally protected areas and non-designated areas. • Construction aspects (bridges/tunnels, slope-regimes, slope-stability, engineering properties of the soil, urban resettlements, safety/mitigation measures, junctions, grade-separators, current status of road etc) • Traffic density: current and expected. • Permissible and/or optimal border crossings and mountain passes • Proximity to other modes of transport such as railways, inland navigation routes, seaports, airports. • Conflict zones or prohibited zones. • Ecological migratory corridor network • Socioeconomic characteristics such as traffic noise, air pollution, acidification etc • Avoidance of hazardous areas or areas prone to hazards such as landslides, floods, avalanches etc.

22. Proof of the pudding, is in its eating.