Finding The Right Way - A New Approach For Route Selection Procedures? Finding The Right Way - A New Approach For Route Selection Procedures?

Available online at www.sciencedirect.
com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Available online
Transportation at www.sciencedirect.com
Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 2809–2823
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
World Conference on Transport Research - WCTR 2016 Shanghai. 10-15 July 2016
World Conference on Transport Research - WCTR 2016 Shanghai. 10-15 July 2016
Finding the
Finding the right
right way
way -- aa new
new approach
approach for
for route
route selection
selection
procedures?
procedures?
Stephan Tischler*
Stephan Tischler*
Unit for Intelligent Transport Systems, University of Innsbruck, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria
Unit for Intelligent Transport Systems, University of Innsbruck, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria
Abstract
Abstract
All over the world, governments, transporters, and operators are seeking available places and corridors to invest in the improvement
All over the world,
of transport governments,
infrastructure such astransporters,
new tracks forandrailways,
operatorsnew
are roads,
seekingand
available places
highways. Dueand
to corridors to invest
various reasons in theongoing
- from improvement
urban
of transport
sprawl, risinginfrastructure
awareness such
amongas society
new tracks for possible
about railways,social
new roads, and highways. impacts
and environmental Due to various
to last reasons
but not -least
fromincreasing
ongoing urban
cost
sprawl,
pressure,rising awareness
it is more among
and more society
difficult about
to find possible
suitable social
routes for and
new environmental impacts to
transport infrastructure. last but
Serious not least and
discussions increasing cost
even public
pressure,
resistanceitisisforcing
more and more difficultand
decision-makers to find suitabletoroutes
politicians think for newnew
about transport infrastructure.
approaches Serious
for realizing discussions
transport and even
infrastructure public
projects,
resistance
taking intoisconsideration
forcing decision-makers and politicians
aspects of sustainability andtopublic
think about new approaches
consultation for realizing
without losing track oftransport
the costs.infrastructure
The objective projects,
of this
taking
article into
is toconsideration
demonstrate aspects of sustainability
a recently and public consultation
developed comprehensive without
approach for route losing track
selection of the costs.
procedures, The objective
combining of this
elements of
article is to demonstrate a recently developed comprehensive approach for route
traditional cost-benefit analysis, multi-criteria analysis, and integrating public consultation.selection procedures, combining elements of
traditional cost-benefit analysis, multi-criteria analysis, and integrating public consultation.
© 2017
© 2017 The Authors.
Authors. Published
Published by Elsevier
Elsevier B.V.
B.V.
© 2017 The
The Authors.
Peer-review Published by
under responsibility
responsibilityby
of Elsevier
WORLDB.V. CONFERENCE ON
ON TRANSPORT
TRANSPORT RESEARCH
RESEARCH SOCIETY.
SOCIETY.
Peer-review under of WORLD CONFERENCE
Peer-review under responsibility of WORLD CONFERENCE ON TRANSPORT RESEARCH SOCIETY.
Keywords: route selection; public consultation; environmental and social impact assessment; cost-benefit analysis
Keywords: route selection; public consultation; environmental and social impact assessment; cost-benefit analysis
1. Introduction
1. Introduction
There are several reasons for building new transport infrastructure such as new high-speed railway lines, highways
There areMost
or airports. several reasons
of them are for building
based on thenew transport
continuous infrastructure
growth such as new
of the population and high-speed railway
economy which lines, highways
stimulates demand
or airports. Most of them are based on the continuous growth of the population and economy which stimulates
for new investments in transport systems to convey people, goods, and data. However, limited public financial demand
for new investments in transport systems to convey people, goods, and data. However, limited public financial
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +43-512-507-62404; fax: +43-512-507-6901.

* Corresponding
Email address: author. Tel.: +43-512-507-62404; fax: +43-512-507-6901.
stephan.tischler@uibk.ac.at
Email address: stephan.tischler@uibk.ac.at
2214-241X © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
2214-241X
Peer-review©under
2017responsibility
The Authors.of Published
WORLDbyCONFERENCE
Elsevier B.V. ON TRANSPORT RESEARCH SOCIETY.
2352-1465 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.247
2810 Stephan Tischler / Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 2809–2823
resources force officials as well as infrastructure operators worldwide to justify such public investments in more detail
before starting their implementation:
• Increased efficiency and effectiveness of transportation due to lower operating costs, reduced travel times,
higher capacities, higher revenues
• Increased awareness of environmental and social impacts which forces operators as well as governments
to reduce the negative impacts of existing as well as new transport infrastructure
• Investment programs to boost national economies
• Reducing dependencies, e.g. dependence on oil if building new railway lines
However, decisions in the transport sector are rarely made by a single person or entity such as transport
infrastructure operators or government officials without consulting other parties. Even if responsibility for a final route
decision does ultimately rest with a railway, highway or airport authority, the decision will generally be the product
of interaction between the preferences of the operator and politics (Roy, 1996). During the last 10-15 years, changes
in the appraisal methods for transport investment required adaptions to the criteria traditionally included in the standard
cost-benefit analysis (CBA) (Sayers et. al., 2003). Nowadays, decisions can only be made if they are based on a well-
grounded set of arguments, elaborated by support techniques which must include multiple criteria.
This article is, however, not about the question of whether a transport project should be realized or not. It is assumed
that the general decision for realizing a project has already been made so the focus is on the next step: to define the
transport project in more detail – the engineering part. Such planning processes of new transport infrastructure are now
becoming increasingly complex due to a large number of environmental laws and regulations, social responsibility,
public awareness, and economic constraints. Additionally, they are always related to various contradictory interests as
well. Taking all these aspects and divergent interests into consideration, it seems almost impossible to find a suitable
solution which might be acceptable to all parties and stakeholders involved. The key to a way out is the right mixture
between a method which allows the integration of all the aspects mentioned without anticipating the results and, on
the other hand, public involvement in the decision-making process.
Project modifications due to public resistance or requirements by authorities in late planning stages are often
difficult, require financial resources and can be a huge setback for the whole project. Wherever possible, investors
will do their best to avoid them. Hence, they seek a decision process which guarantees to find options with maximum
benefit and minimum financial input and risks.
Starting with a critical review of traditional decision support methods in transport planning, this paper describes a
newly developed approach combining elements from CBAs and multi-criteria decision analysis for a comprehensive
assessment of technical, economic, social as well as ecological impacts within transport projects. The theoretical
description will be proven by experiences recently made in several high-speed railway projects and a case study
previously conducted for a cross-border, high-capacity railway project between Austria and Germany.
2. Traditional approaches for route selection procedures
Methodologies for the evaluation and appraisal of transport infrastructure projects have always incorporated
political and social values; hence, it might be justified to call them a reflection of the current influential political and
social environment.
For a long period of time, economic analysis techniques have been the state-of-the-art methodology used by many
transport and engineering companies in the private and public sector for the evaluation and appraisal of alternatives in
route selection procedures. The most common methodology applied so far to the evaluation of transport systems has
been the conventional ‘pure monetary’ Economic Analysis Technique (EAT). Classified into a class of single-
objective models, it evaluates particular alternatives (alignments) on the basis of ‘revenues’ and ‘costs’. Traditionally,
Stephan Tischler / Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 2809–2823 2811
Stephan Tischler/ Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 3
these decision support techniques have lacked the capability to take into account the physical constraints placed on the
decision by the geographic characteristics of the study area (Jankowski, 1992).
Regarding route selection procedures in Western countries, transport infrastructure operators and approving
authorities have developed their own conventional approaches for route selection procedures based on national
standards, well established internal processes or just common practice. Most of these approaches are variations of
CBAs (e.g. Barfod et. al., 2011; Hayashi et. al., 2000), primarily considering monetary factors such as saving time,
safety, operational, and investment costs, etc. For the treatment of regional development and environmental factors,
informal procedures such as an informal comprehensive evaluation are used in order to incorporate the results of the
CBA (Hayashi et. al., 2000, p. 87).
The huge progress in digitalization and networking together with the development of Geographic Information
Systems (GIS) triggered the increased use of GIS-based methods for transport infrastructure development projects.
This development is ongoing. Even today, procedures are still being refined and improved as more and more
environmental, social, topographic, geological, etc. data become available. However, there are and will still be natural
limits of GIS-based methods: They are not suitable for mapping all aspects related to impacts of new transport
infrastructure; for example, aspects of landscape and aesthetics, impacts on local communities, risks, etc. still require
input by human experts.
However, in the last two decades substantial changes concerning legal requirements as well as increasing public
awareness of social and environmental impacts of transport infrastructure projects have created new requirements of
appraisal methods for transport projects (Vickerman, 2000, p.7). Actually, the critical review of traditional approaches
in Western European countries has been driven by three main forces:
• Longer time period for project development: The preparation of detailed project documents, complex approval
procedures, longsome negotiations with land owners, etc. are just a few reasons for increasing periods between
the first project ideas and the commencement of construction. Often, the results of route selection procedures run
out of date over the years while new requirements by authorities have to be considered. However, conventional
approaches are not flexible enough to include them in their methods.
• Sustainability: Traditional approaches such as cost-benefit analysis are mainly focused on monetary and technical
factors. The increasing demand for considering aspects of sustainability when developing new transport
infrastructure projects requires the incorporation of social, ecological, and economic aspects in the process.
• Public participation: Conventional approaches tend to reflect technocratic rather than democratic values. Such
practice is no longer accepted in more and more countries of the world by the people affected. There is a strong
demand by the public to be informed and even involved in the development process.
As outlined in an article by Beukers et. al., even a report of the European Conference of Ministers of Transport
(ECMT, 2004) addresses several process-related problems of CBA. Therein, it is observed that planning actors blame
a lack of transparency, being used too late in the planning process and being used as a final assessment without the
possibility of improving the underlying plan or vision (Beukers et. al., 2012, p.69). Barfod claims that appraisal
methodologies have to provide a coherent, well-structured, flexible, straight-forward evaluation method (Barfod et.
al., 2011) in order to deal with the latest developments. That being said, it might be understandable that such
specifications and requirements can hardly be fulfilled by just relying on the traditional method of a CBA or simply
combining it with elements of a multidisciplinary approach.
3. Comprehensive Planning Approach
Before describing the approach in more detail, the term “comprehensive” has to be clarified in regard to route
selection procedures for transport infrastructure projects. In the previous chapter, it was argued that the technical
framework and expertise of traditional approaches such as CBA or GIS-based methods are limited though recent
developments require a more and more cross-linked practice. Hence, a comprehensive planning approach has to
integrate all relevant aspects and viewpoints, cost-benefit observations as well as requirements of sustainability
strategies, public consultation, and GIS-based analysis of the planning area. Indeed, this is a balancing act, as a simple
combination of all these different procedures is not possible. So, there are special requirements and rules which have
to be followed when leaving the convenient path of widely used methods. Although the comprehensive planning
approach integrates elements of traditional approaches (especially multidisciplinary methods), its concept is based on
the following principles:
• Increased consideration and integration of “soft effects”
• Carving out uncertainties in the decision-making process
• Narrowing the gap between planners, transport infrastructure operators, and economists
However, each project is different and imbedded in a specific spatial surrounding. That being said, it is evident that
there cannot be a standard method for evaluating each project in the same way. The comprehensive planning approach
has to be understood as a guideline which needs to be adopted in every project where it is used.
Finally, it must be mentioned that this article may just provide a short overview of objectives, elements, and
planning sequences featured in the comprehensive planning approach.
3.1. Case study
The project considered concerns the northern access of the high capacity railway line between Austria and Germany
to the new Brenner Base tunnel; at 66 km, one of the longest railway tunnels currently built in the world. The proposed
railway line will have to provide additional capacity for increased railway traffic once the tunnel between Austria and
Italy is in operation (DB Netz AG, 2016).
Stephan Tischler/
Stephan Transportation
Tischler Research
/ Transportation Procedia
Research 00 (2017)
Procedia 000–000
25 (2017) 2809–2823 5
2813
Fig. 1: Trans-European Corridor Palermo – Helsinki of high capacity and high speed railway line with marked
project area (red line) between Innsbruck and Munich (source: BBT SE, http://www.bbt-
se.com/typo3temp/pics/Achse_Helsinki-Valletta_03_ab84a086a2.jpg, accessed 2.2.2016
The project area is currently affected by negative impacts due to a huge amount of transit traffic between Germany
and Italy. Due to the topographic situation in the Alps, emissions caused by heavy goods vehicles on the highway
impact the environmental situation in the main valleys. Hence, there is a strong demand by local communities and
regional governments to relocate freight traffic from road to rail.
At the beginning of 2015, the Federal Railways of Germany and Austria commissioned a team of external experts
to structure the planning process and develop a methodology suitable for locating the new railway tracks in the
transnational planning area and considering public participation as well as compatibility with two different national
legal frameworks. The specification given was to set up the entire methodology for the route selection before the
alignment design starts. Hence, all elements, criteria, etc. had to be based on assumptions and derived – if available –
from experiences.
3.2. Objectives and basic principles
A comprehensive planning approach with public consultation requires a common understanding of overall
objectives:
• Acceptability
It is an essential claim of the comprehensive planning approach to provide a serious and acceptable foundation for
all affected participants and target groups of large transport infrastructure projects. That being said, it must be
mentioned that it cannot be a realistic and achievable objective to transform every opponent of a project into a
proponent. Moreover, all negative as well as positive aspects of such large scale projects have to be elaborated in
detail on environmental, social, and financial issues at various levels of involvement so that the final decision can be
accepted, even by opponents.
• Confirmability
To reach a high level of acceptability in a decision-making process, it is inevitably important – both for local people
as well as transport infrastructure operators – to provide a maximum of credibility. Confirmability inherently includes
the attributes of comprehensibility and credibility.
• Transparency
Acceptance and confirmability cannot be granted without transparency. Each decision and every single argument
in the route selection process has to be made transparent for the interested public. There is no reason to hide
information.
To achieve these objectives, the approach developed for the cross-border, high-capacity railway project consists of
the following basic principles:
• Step-by-Step Approach
Early project stages especially require the design and engineering to focus on those aspects which are of significant
relevance for the route design and selection. A step-by-step approach creates the ability to intensify and deepen the
technical design gradually. At the same time, the spatial boundaries of the planning area can be narrowed. To do so, it
is necessary to have a flexible method structure to enhance elements of the method in the planning process according
to the scope of work.
• Equalization of technical and environmental criteria
The whole planning process is conducted in a permanent interplay between the technical as well as ecological,
social, and, last but not least, economic aspects. Decision-making processes are carried out in an interdisciplinary
manner, based on the underlying mapping of impacts, separated in special fields and disciplines, and in consideration
of comprehensive effects.
• Comprehensive and balanced consideration of impact factors
For all essential decision processes within the framework of a systematic route selection procedure, impact factors
are verified if they are crucial or not (screening and scoping). It has to be carefully observed that within the process
of assessment of different alignments those factors are considered in a balanced manner.
3.3. Process of design and selection of route alternatives
The basic principles and components of a comprehensive approach mentioned are applied at all stages of project
development, starting with the spatial analysis of the planning area, continuing with the design of alignments,
elaboration and evaluation, and, last but not least, the final selection process. Below, the stepwise procedure will be
explained, exemplarily illustrated by a route development and selection process between points A and B in a fictitious
planning area.
3.3.1. Step 1 – spatial analysis

A comprehensive analysis of the planning area is undertaken at the beginning of the route engineering. Although
this has always been a common routine in such planning processes, it has to be acknowledged that any route design or
mapping of already existing route alternatives from previous considerations have to be eliminated and avoided. Today,
analysis of the environmental, spatial, social, and geological conditions are preferably conducted by using a geographic
information system as already published in various publications and in some sources called “land suitability mapping”
(Malczewski, 2004). This first step – often called “constraint mapping” – has the objective of obtaining essential
information about discontinuities in the planning area for the later development of potential routes. On the one hand,
zones are identified which must not or should not be touched by any route. Such areas could be religious places (e.g.
cemeteries), ecologically sensitive habitats, unfavourable soil conditions, cultural facilities, etc.). On the other hand,
areas which offer favourable conditions for alignments (e.g. advantageous geological conditions, land development,
etc.) have to be located.
Fig. 2: Step 1 – spatial analysis of the planning area
The results are combined in thematic maps and presented to local representatives. This gives the editors and
engineers the chance to identify gaps at an early stage and correct them with additional data. Finally, maps show
suitable and inappropriate places in the planning so that the design of possible alignments can be considered in the
next step.
After finalizing the analysis of the project area, the engineers can start to design the route. The necessary basic
principles for the design are as follows:
• Technical requirements such as minimum curve radius, maximum gradients, location of linkages with other
transport lines, stops and interchanges, operational requirements, etc.
• Spatial requirements such as ecologically sensitive areas, protected areas, settlement, and development areas, etc.
• Financial feasibility
• Known and manageable risks
Alignments which conflict with one or more of these principles are rejected. To avoid any discussions in later
planning stages, it is recommended to document the elimination of any alignments and especially proposed route
alternatives in a consistent manner, as this might be of substantial importance.
planning area
A B
Fig. 3: Step 2 - design of route alternatives
3.3.2. Step 3 – evaluation and appraisal

Once the route design is complete, the remaining and generally “feasible” route alternatives have to be evaluated.
This is done by using a predefined multidisciplinary set of criteria (“appraisal summary table”). For each criterion,
experts have to evaluate the achievement of its objective by assessing or measuring the impacts with special indicators.
Although the appropriate approaches are more or less defined by the criteria and their indicators, there can generally
be a distinction between qualitative and quantitative evaluation methods:
• Qualitative methods are used where impacts are not (justifiably) measurable on a quantity basis. Typically, the
disturbance of the landscape is an example for using qualitative methods to describe the impacts of new or
expanded transport infrastructure on a natural landscape.
• Quantitative methods is a collective term used for any impacts which can be measured by calculation methods,
e.g. noise dispersion, travel time, land consumption, etc.
Stephan
Stephan Tischler
Tischler/ / Transportation
Transportation Research
Research Procedia
Procedia 25 (2017)
00 (2017) 2809–2823
000–000 28179
Fig. 4: Step 3 - evaluation of feasible alignments
All generated data and assessment methods have to be carefully documented and illustrated in a way which allows
interested parties to verify the evaluation process.
3.3.3. Step 4 – recommendation

The final step in the route selection process described is the elaboration of the recommendation. Consciously, the
Fig. 5: Recommendation on final route
term “decision” is avoided at this point because it is necessary to distinguish between the different responsibilities in
the planning process: Usually, the design and selection of routes is carried out by experts (specialized companies and
consultants), assigned by authorities or infrastructure operators such as highway authorities, railway companies, etc.
They can prepare the foundation for decision making and finally compile the results together with the public parties
and representatives to a recommendation involved. Nevertheless, the decision has to be made by the bodies responsible
such as transport infrastructure operators. It is important to communicate this differentiation right from the beginning
to define the different roles, limits of control, and responsibilities in an open planning process with public consultation.
3.4. Public involvement
The role of the public in the development of large transport infrastructure projects has been subject to various
scientific studies and articles, and therefore not examined in detail in this document (e.g. Booth et. al., 2001). Public
participation in the planning process of major transport projects is – especially in Western countries – not a “nice-to-
have” feature voluntarily offered by decision-makers, but rather an obligatory element defined in legal requirements
or multilateral agreements such as the Aarhus Convention (Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation
in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters).
Nevertheless, it has to be mentioned that project developers still often associate the concerned public with the term
“NIMBY” (“Not in my backyard”). In general, the term NIMBY might be problematic as it is often used by proponents
of a project as a means to discredit all forms of opposition to a project. Local people are characterized as worried,
irrational, ignorant of scientific and technical facts, and selfishly unwilling to support projects that benefit broader
society. However, studies have shown that individuals living closer to proposed new infrastructure actually tend to
have more positive attitudes towards infrastructure projects in comparison with those living further away (Braunholtz,
2003; Warren et al, 2005). This conclusion can be confirmed by experiences from recently conducted projects.
Although the methodic structure described seems to provide a clear path through the route design and selection
procedure, the situation soon gets more complex when it comes to including the concerned public in the planning
process. Even there, it is essential to specify the roles and different levels of participation right from the beginning to
fulfil the expectations of the public as well as interested parties and make sure that discussions remain under control.
Large transport infrastructure projects are always associated with various contradictory interests:
• Transporters and infrastructure owners demand that the new track has to be cost-efficient by fulfilling the
technical requirements with a minimum of investment costs
• Local residents and environmental activists demand a livable environment
• Land owners and developers seek new business opportunities
Especially in countries within the European Union, it is more or less common practice to involve interested groups
in the decision making related to the development, and implementation of large transport infrastructure projects. In
general, these may be infrastructure operators, (semi-)public, and private investors, policy makers at local (regional),
national (country), and international (European) level, members of local communities, and sometimes even passengers
(Janic, 2003).
The ideal case is that the development and selection of different alternatives for a transport infrastructure are carried
out in a complementary interplay between the technical project team and stakeholders. The following figure provides
an example of such a process:
PROJECTTEAM COMMITTEES
identification and compilation of adjustment and definition of set of

1 Method
criteria criteria
requirements for route design

spatial / environmental requests / needs
2 Route design
alignment, review of proposed route adjustment, additional proposals for
alternatives alignments, pre-selection
3 Evaluation evaluation of alignments
consolidation of evaluation results and

4 Recommendation weighted criteria
Fig. 6: Interplay between (technical) project team and stakeholders (organized in committees)
It is important to clarify the different roles right from the beginning of the project: The project team primarily
compiles the basic documents and drafts, which are presented to and discussed with the stakeholders. The mutually
agreed results are the basis for the next step. Additionally, it might be possible to involve stakeholders in the
compilation process as well (e.g. workshops, etc.). From experience, this level of involvement might be challenging
and associated with higher risks of failure, especially for large projects with numerous stakeholders.
Recently, several guidelines for public involvement have been published especially in European countries such as
Germany (BMVI, 2014). They offer very detailed information about the different levels of involvement (information
> consultation > cooperation), and how such a process can be structured. However, in practice, public consultation can
only be successful if the specific needs and concerns of the public and stakeholders involved are treated equally. Such
a process can never be carried out by using guidelines; these still require personal experience and knowledge in
handling such procedures.
In the case study presented, the public consultation process was initiated right from the beginning, and before the
railway engineering was initiated. Within the project area, all communities were requested to nominate a certain
number of delegates (mayors, NGOs, affected neighbours, environmentalists, local industrialists, etc.). Locally
grouped in committees, they frequently met each other together with representatives of the railway operators and
engineers to get informed about the latest project developments, discuss proposals made by engineers, and mutually
agree on analysing new alternatives, additional analysis, etc. The whole process is based on rules of internal procedures
set up at the beginning.
3.5. Elements of route selection procedure
3.5.1. Objectives (evaluation criteria)

The objectives and requirements of a transport infrastructure project such as “reduced travel time”, “fewer
environmental impacts”, and “increased accessibility” are represented by a set of criteria, grouped together in an
appraisal summary table. It is wise to have an internal structure by using different levels, especially when there are
more than 20 criteria, which is quite normal for bigger projects.
In the case study presented, the criteria were clustered according to three different thematic areas:
1. Transport and Engineering
2. Environment
3. Cost / Risks
The appraisal summary table includes three special fields (transport & engineering, environment, and cost & risks)
with 15 main criteria in total. Again, a main criterion may contain several sub-criteria – in this project, up to three.
Finally, each criterion has qualitative and / or quantitative measurable indicators (e.g. square meters of settlement area
experiencing a specific noise level, energy consumption, etc.). Regarding the railway project between Austria and
Germany, the mutually agreed appraisal summary table is shown below:
Table 1: Appraisal summary table (set of criteria)
Topic / Field Main criterion Sub-criterion

Transport and Engineering Railway infrastructure Alignment
Adaption of other infrastructure systems
Operation Capacity
Energy
Maintenance
Extraordinary Circumstances Disposability
Operation during Construction Phase
Construction Geology
Excavation
Construction time
Environment Health & well-being Noise
Vibration
Leisure
Spatial development
Land use Settlement areas
Commercial areas
Ecosystems Protected areas
Habitats
Water Groundwater
Surface water
Landscape
Agriculture & Forestry Farmland
Forest
Contaminated sites
Air & Climate Air quality
Microclimate
Cultural Assets
Cost & risks Costs Investment costs
Operational costs
Risks
3.5.2. Weighting
At the beginning, no weighting is implied between the main criteria and sub-criteria. Hence, the multidisciplinary
appraisal summary table is not able to generate a statement about the priorities and values of each aspect in the
decision-making process. Despite that fact, each participant of such a route selection process has his / her own personal
attitude and position which makes equivalence between the criteria impossible.
In order to include, and even indicate different values in the procedure of route selection, stakeholders may be
requested to weight the main criteria. Regarding the cross-border railway project presented, each member of the
committee was invited to weight the criteria. The procedure for this transport project was that the weighting was carried
out before the first alignments were designed so neither the engineers nor the railway operators nor the delegates knew
what consequences their weighting might have once combined with the results of the appraisal of the different
alternatives.
3.5.3. Assessment
The assessment of each criterion and alignment alternative as well as the collection of these results in the appraisal
summary table is carried out by experts and engineers. This step is performed at a professional level, using a
combination of different methods:
1. Mapping: For smaller projects with a reduced number of criteria, few alternatives for evaluation, and manageable
impacts, it might be sufficient if the evaluation results are illustrated and summarized in a clearly arranged way.
2. Scaling: Larger projects with numerous criteria may require a different mapping method by scaling the results.
This can be done, for example, by introducing a scale of 1 to 5 points. If an objective is fully achieved, the
alternative will get five points; if not, only one point. The advantage of scaling is a better comparability of the
results without studying the effects in detail. In addition, the points can be used for arithmetic analysis, and if the
criteria have been weighted it is anyhow necessary to standardize the results.
The process of scaling, in particular, requires a high level of accuracy and must be documented transparently to
ensure its confirmability. It is necessary to define the scale ranges in advance; otherwise, there might be accusations
that they have been defined in order to transform the evaluation results into the desired final structure.
3.5.4. Merging
Merging means combining the results of the appraisal in the appraisal summary table with the weighting. Although
this process is primarily an arithmetic task, the interpretation of the results requires high diligence. There are several
options for handling the results of the weighting process – they can be analysed clustered (e.g. average values of all
directly affected land owners, citizens’ initiative, local political parties, etc.) or separately. It might be helpful to
identify results which are significantly different from the others.
Whatever method is chosen for analysing the weighting results, a sensitive analysis has to be conducted to verify if
the final results – the rank order of the alternatives – change depending on the weightings. The ideal case would be if
the results are more or less stable and the best alternative remains on top independently of which weighting. If not –
and that may be the usual case – the argumentation has to be built on the assessment of the sensitivity analysis: What
are the crucial criteria and weightings, are there any additional aspects which have to be considered and may influence
the evaluation results in some criteria, etc. It is highly recommended to make sure that this final analysis step remains
comprehensible and is clearly documented.
4. Conclusion
The comprehensive planning approach described has already been successfully executed in several large railway
infrastructure projects within the last two decades. It should be noted that the method had been improved and adopted
by each project due to experiences made in the actual application of the approach.
Experience shows that in the case of large-scale transport infrastructure projects with such a lot of affected public
and private interests substantial decisions cannot be made if they are only based on technical and / or financial aspects
(Kohl, 2013). The participation of people directly and indirectly involved right from the beginning of the project
development is inevitable when the risk of resistance or serious delays due to various reasons has to be minimized.
Once a project milestone such as the commencement of the main construction works is achieved, fears and
consequential signalized reservation towards broader public involvement expressed by infrastructure operators can be
regarded as baseless.
The following conclusions emerge from numerous experiences during the last fifteen years. Indeed, transport
infrastructure projects are always linked to high impacts on spatial, financial, and environmental issues, but the
handling of and exposure to problems and conflicts which result from such huge interventions may be changed for
people significantly affected. Hence, the risks during project planning and authorization can be reduced while the
acceptance of the project by local communities, stakeholders, and politicians is raised.
Generally, it should be noted that a comprehensive planning approach for important transport infrastructure project
decisions such as new high speed railway lines or highways has been successfully implemented in various regions and
countries. Nevertheless, each project and its surrounding form an individual environment making it necessary to
scrutinize and adopt the approach described at the beginning of every project right from the start. To avoid problems
and conflicts, certain aspects have to be taken into consideration:
• Parties and people involved are treated equally

• Right from the beginning, methods and rules are to be communicated to all parties and people involved
• A clear schedule must be updated frequently
• Although very complex, the whole process and all decisions have to be kept transparent and comprehensible
• There must be an opportunity for people concerned to articulate their concerns and interests. Subsequently, how
these concerns and interests are being incorporated in the planning process and the project itself must be
revealed.
Despite successful implementation, it has to be acknowledged that even a carefully conducted route development
and selection process cannot prevent objections and resistance against transport infrastructure projects. However,
experience shows that especially the stakeholders involved, people affected as well as representatives, and decision-
makers have a better understanding of the project development process.
Finally, it must be acknowledged that even a comprehensive approach for the evaluation and appraisal of different
alternatives in route selection procedures cannot guarantee a successful and well-accepted result. Expectations that
multi-criteria analysis provides the "right answer" are wrong, as it only provides an aid to decision making (Belton
2002, p. 3). However, such a comprehensive approach requires persistence, patience, but also diligence, as well as
discipline from all participants involved. Rumours and criticism regarding transparency are at least reduced and the
risks of total project failure can be lowered significantly. Overall, a comprehensive planning approach with public
involvement offers the possibility of saving time, although the process itself might be more time consuming in the
early planning stages.
References
Barfod, Michael Bruhn; Salling, Kim Bang; Leleur, Steen (2011): Composite decision support by combining cost-benefit and multi-criteria
decision analysis. In: Decision Support Systems 51 (1), pp. 167–175. DOI: 10.1016/j.dss.2010.12.005.
Belton, Valerie; Stewart, Theodor J. (2002): Multiple criteria decision analysis. An integrated approach. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Beukers, Els; Bertolini, Luca; Te Brömmelstroet, Marco (2012): Why Cost Benefit Analysis is perceived as a problematic tool for assessment of
transport plans. A process perspective. In: Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 46 (1), pp. 68–78. DOI:
10.1016/j.tra.2011.09.004.
Bickerstaff, K. et. al. (2002): Transport planning and participation: the rhetoric and realities of public involvement. Journal of Transport
Geography 10 (2002) pp. 61–73. Elsevier Ltd.
Bisdorff, R., Dias, L, Meyer, P., Mousseau, V., Pirlot, M. (2015): Evaluation and Decision Models with Multiple Criteria. Springer. Heidelberg
BMVI (2014): Handbuch für eine gute Bürgerbeteiligung. Planung von Großvorhaben im Verkehrssektor, Berlin
Booth, C., Richardson, T. (2001): Placing the public in integrated transport planning. Transport Policy 8, pp. 141 – 149. Elsevier Ltd.
Braunholtz, S. (2003) Public Attitudes to Windfarms: A Survey of Local Residents in Scotland. Scottish Executive Social Research/MORI
Scotland.
DB Netz AG (2016): Brenner Nordzulauf, available: http://www.brennernordzulauf.eu/, accessed: 2.2.2016
ECMT, E.C.o.M.o.T., 2004. Assessment & Decision Making for Sustainable Transport
Jankowski, P., Richard, L. (1992): Integration of GIS-Based Suitability Analysis and Multicriteria Evaluation in a Spatial Decision Support
System for Route Selection. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 1994, Vol. 21, pp. 323 – 340, Sage Journals, London
Kohl, Bernhard (2013): Trassenauswahl im Spannungsfeld der Interessen. Festschrift der Technischen Universität Wien. Vienna.
Mackie, Peter; Preston, John (1998): Twenty-one sources of error and bias in transport project appraisal. In: Transport Policy 5 (1), pp. 1–7. DOI:
10.1016/S0967-070X(98)00004-3.
Malczewski, J. (2004): GIS-based land-use suitability analysis: a critical overview. Progress in Planning, Vol. 62, Issue 1, pp. 3–65, Elsevier Ltd.
doi:10.1016/j.progress.2003.09.002
Milan, J. (2003): Multicriteria Evaluation of High-speed Rail, Transrapid Maglev and Air Passenger Transport in Europe, Transportation
Planning and Technology, 26 (6), pp. 491-512
Owens, Susan; Rayner, Tim; Bina, Olivia (2004): New agendas for appraisal. Reflections on theory, practice, and research. In: Environ. Plann. A
36 (11), pp. 1943–1959. DOI: 10.1068/a36281.
Prest, A. R., Turvey, R. (1965): Cost-Benefit Analysis: A Survey. The Economic Journal, Vol. 75, No. 300 (Dec. 1965), pp. 683 – 735, Wiley on
behalf of the Royal Economic Society. London
Roy, B. (1996): Multicriteria Methodology for Decision Aiding. Springer Science and Business Media Dordrecht.
Saat, M., Serrano, J. (2012): Multicriteria high-speed rail route selection: application to Malaysias’s high-speed rail corridor prioritization.
Transport Planning and Technology, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 200 – 213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03081060.2014.997446
Vickerman, R. (2000): Evaluation methodologies for transport projects in the United Kingdom. In: Transport Policy 7 (1), pp. 7–16. DOI:
10.1016/S0967-070X(00)00009-3.
Warren, C.R., Lumsden, C., O’Dowd, S. and Birnie, R.V. (2005) ‘Green on Green’: Public Perceptions Wind Power in Scotland and Ireland.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 48, pp. 853-875.

Finding The Right Way - A New Approach For Route Selection Procedures? Finding The Right Way - A New Approach For Route Selection Procedures?

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Finding The Right Way - A New Approach For Route Selection Procedures? Finding The Right Way - A New Approach For Route Selection Procedures?

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Finding The Right Way - A New Approach For Route Selection Procedures? Finding The Right Way - A New Approach For Route Selection Procedures?

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Available online at www.sciencedirect.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +43-512-507-62404; fax: +43-512-507-6901.

2352-1465 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

2. Traditional approaches for route selection procedures

3. Comprehensive Planning Approach

3.1. Case study

3.2. Objectives and basic principles

3.3. Process of design and selection of route alternatives

3.3.1. Step 1 – spatial analysis

Fig. 2: Step 1 – spatial analysis of the planning area

Fig. 3: Step 2 - design of route alternatives

3.3.2. Step 3 – evaluation and appraisal

Fig. 4: Step 3 - evaluation of feasible alignments

3.3.3. Step 4 – recommendation

Fig. 5: Recommendation on final route

3.4. Public involvement

identification and compilation of adjustment and definition of set of

requirements for route design

3 Evaluation evaluation of alignments

consolidation of evaluation results and

3.5. Elements of route selection procedure

3.5.1. Objectives (evaluation criteria)

Table 1: Appraisal summary table (set of criteria)

Topic / Field Main criterion Sub-criterion

• Parties and people involved are treated equally

You might also like