Khaled - 2003 - Environmental Assesment of Roads Alignments Based on Milticriteria Scoping

7/21/2019 Khaled - 2003 - Environmental Assesment of Roads Alignments Based on Milticriteria Scoping

1/9

This article was downloaded by: [Stony Brook University]On: 01 November 2014, At: 02:50Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Impact Assessment and Project AppraisalPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tiap20

Environmental assessment of road alignments based

on multicriteria scoping: a case study of CairoAin

Sukhna freewayKhaled A. Abbas

a

aDepartment of Urban and Regional Planning , College of Architecture and Planning,

King Faisal University , PO Box 2397, Dammam , 31451 , Saudi Arabia E-mail:

Published online: 20 Feb 2012.

To cite this article:Khaled A. Abbas (2003) Environmental assessment of road alignments based on multicriteriascoping: a case study of CairoAin Sukhna freeway, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 21:4, 323-330, DOI:

10.3152/147154603781766194

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/147154603781766194

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of

the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shallnot be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

Thisarticle may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.3152/147154603781766194http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.3152/147154603781766194http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.3152/147154603781766194http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.3152/147154603781766194http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tiap20


2/9

Impact Assessment and Project AppraisalDecember 2003 1461-5517/03/040323-8 US$08.00 IAIA 2003 323

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, volume 21, number 4, December 2003, pages 323330, Beech Tree Publishing, 10 Watford Close, Guildford, Surrey GU1 2EP, UK

Professional practice

Environmental assessment of road alignments

based on multicriteria scoping: a case study of

CairoAin Sukhna freeway

Khaled A Abbas

Thisresearchdevelopsamulticriteriascopingframeworkbywhichalternativeroadalignmentscanbeassessed, usingthe CairoAin Sukhna

freewayinEgyptasanexample.Fouralternativealignments wereassessed using 60comparative

criteria covering technical, accessibility, eco-nomicandfinancialmatters,development,safetyandsecurity,severance,socialconsiderations,aswellasnaturalandman-madeenvironmentalas-

pects.Baseline information wascollectedfrommaps,sitevisitsandconsultantsreports.Acom-

parativeanalysisranksthealternativealignments

basedontheirpotentialimpacts.Weightings,giv-inghigherweightstoenvironmentalaspects,are

appliedtotherankings,andthebestalternativeis

identified. Themulticriteriascopingframeworkprovedasufficienttoolforassessingalternativeroadalignmentsandforselectingthemost envi-

ronmentallypreferable one.

Keywords: environmental assessment; road alignments;

Egypt; mulitcriteria scoping

Dr Khaled A Abbas is a Professor of Transport and Planning,Egypt National Institute of Transport, PO Box 34, Abbassia,

Cairo, Egypt. He is currently on sabbatical leave at the Depart-

ment of Urban and Regional Planning, College of Architectureand Planning, King Faisal University, PO Box 2397, Dammam31451, Saudi Arabia; E-mail: [email protected].

T IS IMPORTANT for the economic and socialdevelopment of societies to guarantee the effi-cient, effective and safe movement of people and

goods through space and time dimensions. Transportmobility and accessibility are necessities for pro-moting sustainable growth. However, there are sev-eral deleterious outcomes resulting from theconstruction and operation of transport systems,namely congestion, increase in vehicle operatingcosts, energy consumption, and other environmentaleffects including traffic accidents.

It is widely acknowledged that transport systemshaveharmfulimpactsonthelocal,regional,nationalandglobalenvironments.These range from localairandnoisepollutiontoharmingthegloballife-supportsystems, consumption of non-renewable resources,endangering living conditions, deteriorating humanhealth and causing safety problems. This entails

planning,evaluation,design,construction,operationandmaintenanceoftransportationinfrastructuretak-ingintoconsiderationexpectedenvironmentalissues.

This paper relates to developing a multicriteriascoping framework through which alternative roadalignments can be assessed. The research demon-strates applicability of this process as a basis for se-lection of an environmentally preferable alignmentfor the CairoAin Sukhna freeway in Egypt. This isbased on comparing and assessing four alternativealignments using 60 comparative criteria, which areselected to cover technical, accessibility, economic

and financial, development, safety and security, sev-erance and social considerations as well as naturaland man-made environmental aspects.

I


3/9

EA of road alignments

324 Impact Assessment and Project AppraisalDecember 2003

The research relies on available baseline informa-tion collected from maps, site visits and consultantsreports. A comparative analysis is used to rank thealternative alignments based on their potential im-pacts. This is followed by points weighting givinghigher weights to environmental aspects. Suchweightings are applied to the rankings and the bestalternative is identified based mainly on its high

scoring with regard to environmental friendliness aswell as to other considered aspects.

Alternative alignments for the freeway

Several studies are required for road projects. Thefirst is the assessment of alternative alignments.This is to judge the environmental feasibility of al-ternative alignments with reference to their effectson components of the physical, biological, ecologi-cal, cultural, social, and man-made environments.Such a study is based on conventional alignmentanalysis procedure as well as on an environmentalimpact assessment (EIA), and a final selection ismade of a preferred corridor.

The second study required for road projectsis that concerned with examining geometric andstructural standards. An EIA would judge the en-vironmental feasibility of such standards. Finally, afully-fledged EIA ought to be carried out to assessthe environmental feasibility of the various phasesinvolved in transport infrastructure projects. Theseinclude pre-construction (mobilisation), construc-tion, operation and maintenance phases. The main

environmental effects, and their relative intensities,that could be considered for such phases are shownin Table 1.

Recently reviewed research shows that multicri-teria analysis can be used to evaluate route align-ments, (Sadek et al, 1999; Li et al, 1999) and tocompare road improvement projects (Frohwein et al,1999). It has also been used in combination withcostbenefit analysis to come up with an overall as-sessment of the impacts of transport initiatives overdifferent geographical regions and time periods(Tsamboulas and Mikroudis, 2000). This paper

suggests a multicriteria scoping framework bywhich an environmental assessment of alternative

alignments for roads can be conducted. The ap-proach, depicted in Figure 1, consists of six mainsteps. These are applied to assessing alternativealignments of the CairoAin Sukhna freeway. Thesteps are:

Step 1: Deciding on alternative alignments AinSukhna is an existing resort on the Red Sea towards

the east of Cairo, the capital of Egypt. It is charac-terised by a number of existing and planned touristand industrial developments. The Egyptian Ministryof Transport stipulated that the existing CairoAinSukhna road could not be assimilated into a freewayand that a completely new alignment should be es-tablished.

In this context, the Ministry of Transport via theGeneral Authority for Roads, Bridges and LandTransport, sought proposals in 1998 in open compe-tition from qualified bidders for a new freeway (ap-proximately 115 km). The CairoAin Sukhnafreeway was selected in accordance with the currentpolicy of the Government of Egypt to promotebuild, own, operate and transfer (BOOT) roadprojects.

The importance of this road lies in the following:

The new Cairo City, currently under develop-ment, is located on the Cairo ring road and is veryaccessible to the starting point of the intendedCairoAin Sukhna freeway. This city is meant toact as a main pole for attracting population andrelieving pressure from the capital.

A new city named Al-Amal City is also planned

for development at the Cairo end of the intendedfreeway, about 30 km from the Cairo ring road.

The Suez new industrial area is currently de-veloping at the other end of the intended freewaytowards Ain Sukhna. This is meant to act as anexporting pole for Egyptian products.

Four major alternative alignments were consideredfor the new CairoAin Sukhna freeway (see Figure2). All considered options start from the same pointfrom the Cairo end. Three of these run to the northof the existing road and the fourth runs to the south.

Each ends at a different point in relation to the newSuez industrial area.

Table 1. Potential intensit y of environmental effects due to road projects

Main phases Environmental effects

Air pollut ion Soundpollution

Waterpollution

Solid waste Vibration Visualintrusion

Trafficaccidents

Mobilisation High High Low Low High None Low

Construction High Very high High High Very high None Low

Operation Very high High High Very high High High High

Maintenance High Very high High High Very high High High


4/9


Impact Assessment and Project AppraisalDecember 2003 325

Step 2: Deciding on a set of generic aspects Eightgeneric aspects were selected as constituting themain ingredients for ensuring the sustainability ofthe considered alignments. These included technical,accessibility, economic and financial, development,

safety and security, severance and social, as well asnatural and man-made environmental aspects. Thesewere used to describe the alternative alignments. Itis worth noting that the biological aspect was not in-cluded because of a lack of relevant baseline data.

Step 3: Selection of comparative criteria Morethan 60 comparative criteriawere selected in an ef-fort to detail the eight considered aspects describingalternative alignments (see Table 2).

Step 4: Collection of data to establish a baseline

Data and information that were considered neces-sary for comprehensively assessing the possibleimpacts of alternative alignments were collected bymeans of site visits accompanied by thoroughinspection of maps. Baseline information included:

start and end points of considered alignments topographical information drainage and geology committed and planned development major utilities land use and availability.

Figure 3 shows details of existing natural and man-made environments in the vicinity of the consideredalternative alignments.

Step 5: Describing characteristics of alignmentsThis step aimed to describe characteristics of alter-native alignments. This involved examining all dataand information collected to provide baseline data.Alternative alignments were judged in accordance

with the 60 comparative criteria (see Table 2). Cellsof the table were completed to reflect the judgementof alternatives in relation to each other.

Step 6: Multicriteria scoping of options For eachof the considered criteria, comparative scoping wasconducted to rank the alternative alignments hori-zontally based on their specific potential impacts(see Table 2). Rank 1 represents the best alternativein relative terms, while rank 4 represents the worst.This was followed by vertical scoping of all criteriarepresenting a specific aspect. Overall judgements

of alternative alignments with respect to each of theeight generic aspects were decided based on the ac-cumulation of individual ranks given to the criteriadescribing that aspect.

Step 7: Weighting emphasising the environmentThe eight aspects were given different weightingpoints. It has to be noted that environmental and so-cial aspects were intentionally given higher weightsto bias them in relation to the other aspects, whichare mainly economically related (see Table 3). Eco-nomically related aspects are assessed using costbenefit analysis, which attaches monetary values to

perceived costs and benefits. Costbenefit analysisis limited when it comes to attaching monetaryvalues to social and environmental aspects. In this

Step (4)Collection of data and information to establish

a baseline context

Step (5)Describing characteristics of alternative

alignments in accordance with comparativecriteria

Step (6)Multicriteria scoping of road alignment

options

Step (7)Weighting of aspects with emphasis on

environmental perspectives

Step (8)Ranking of alternative alignments in accordance

with weighted ranks and selection of bestalternative

Step (1)Deciding onalternative

alingments forconsidered road (i.e.in case of Cairo-AinSukhna Freeway,

four alignments areconsidered)

Step (2)Deciding on set ofgeneric aspects

used for describingalternativealignments

- Technical aspects- Accessibility aspects- Economic aspects- Development aspects- Safety and security

aspects- Severance and socialaspects

- Natural environmentalaspects

- Man madeenvironment aspects

Step (3)Selection of

comparative criteriadetailing considered

aspects

Figure 1. Multicrit eria scoping framework for assessing alternative road alignments


5/9



context, the proposed multicriteria scoping approachis meant to act as a support to costbenefit analysis.Still, with the benefit of hindsight, it might havebeen better to elicit such weightings from expertsand decision-makers involved in this project using aDelphi approach.

Step 8:Ranking in accordance with weighted ranksWeightingswereappliedtotherankingsgiven.Basedon weighted ranks, a new rank order for the consid-eredalignmentswasobtained.Thebestalternative,intermsofthechosenweights,couldthenbeidentified.

Thiswouldbethealternativethatscoredhighinmostof the aspects and particularly the environment-ally related ones. It canbe seen from Table 3 that

alternative 4 achieved thehighest weighted score of82.5.Thiscanbeconsidered,fromanenvironmentalperspective, as the best alignment in relative terms.

It is obvious that two of the three alignments tothe north of the existing road scored higher than thealignment considered to the south of it. It is alsoclear that the alignment that swept far to the northinto desolate territory, where it is difficult and costlyto provide infrastructure, had no advantage overroutes closer to the existing road. The sweep to thenorth increased the overall length of the road, thusincreasing construction and user costs. Drainage

provision is also expected to increase as the align-ment moved further north.

The available land in the new Suez industrial area

Figure 2. Four alternative alignments cons idered for Cairo Ain-Sukhna FreewaySource: Adapted from UGHD (1999)

Figure 3. Natural and man made environments in vi cinity o f Cairo Ain-Sukhna freeway alternative alignmentsSource: Adapted from UGHD (1999)


6/9


7/9



Table 2(continued)

Comparative criteria Alternative (1)mostly far north of

existing road endingtowards edge of newSuez industrial zone

Alternat ive (2)north of existing roadand penetrating newSuez industrial zone

Alternative (3)south of existing

road

Alternat ive (4)in proximity to existingroad, ending towards

edge of new Suezindustrial zone

Housing development towards startof road

High potential (1) High potential (1) High potential (1) High potential (1)

Housing development towards endof road

High potential (1) Potential (3) Potential (3) High potential (1)

Housing development along route Low potential (3) Potential (1) Low potential (3) Potential (1)Tourism development at start &

along roadLow potential Low potential Low potential Low potential

Tourism development towards endof road

High potential (1) Low potential (4) High potential (1) High potential (1)

Commercial/recreationaldevelopment towards start of road

High potential (1) High potential (1) High potential (1) High potential (1)

Commercial/recreationaldevelopment towards end of road

Potential (1) Low potential (4) Potential (1) Potential (1)

Commercial/recreationaldevelopment along road

Low potential Low potential Low potential Low potential

Mining development at start & end ofroad

Low potential Low potential Low potential Low potential

Mining development along road Potential (1) Potential (1) Potential (1) Potential (1)Overall ranking o f development

criteria

2 4 3 1

(5) Safety and securi ty aspectsTraffic safety based on directness

& desolation(1) (3) (1) (3)

Security North desolate territory(4)

Vicinity of existingCairoSukhna road (1)

South desolate territory(3)

Vicinity of existingCairoSukhna road (1)

Flash flood susceptible to flooding(3)

minimum susceptibility toflooding (1)

wadi plain & moresusceptible to flooding(4)

less susceptible toflooding (2)

Overall ranking o f safety &security criteria

3 1 3 2

(6) Severance & social aspectsDestruction/removal of man-made

cultureLimited Limited Limited Limited

Passing through/adjacent to ceme-

teries (near Cairo side)

Yes (4) Yes (4) Yes (4) Yes (4)

Human resettlement Minimum if any (1) Minimum if any (1) Minimum if any (1) Minimum if any (1)Split of communities Split of Al Amal City Split of Al Amal City Split of Al Amal City Split of Al Amal CityEmployment opportunities Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1)Overall ranking of severance &

social criteria1 1 1 1

(7) Natural environment aspectsPassage through wadis Passing many

catchment areas (3)Passing about 70catchment areas (1)

Passing many widecatchment areas (4)

Passing about 70catchment areas (1)

Sections build on unused land mostly (1) most (3) mostly (1) most (3)Sections build on existing road

tracksNA some link roads (1) NA some link roads (1)

Land take Minimum (1) Minimum (3) Minimum (1) Passage through ownedland (3)

Fuel energy consumption (based ondistance & terrain)

High travelled kilometresper journey (3)

More travelledkilometres per journey(2)

High travelled kilometresper journey (3)

115 travelled kilometresper journey (1)

Exhaust emissions during operation(air quality)

Longest road & moretravelled kilometres (3)

Longer travelledkilometres per journey(2)

Longest road and moretravelled kilometres (3)

Travelled kilometres perjourney 115 km (1)

Exhaust impact during operation Desolate area and endsnorth of Suez industrialarea (2)

Vicinity of existing roadending inside Suezindustrial zone (4)

Desolate area and endsnorth of Suez industrialarea (1)

Vicinity of existing roadending north of industrialzone (3)

Noise emissions during operation Longest road & moretravelled kilometres (3)

Longer road & travelledkilometres per journey(2)

Longest road and moretravelled kilometres (3)

Travelled kilometres perjourney 115 km (1)

Noise impact during operation Desolate area and endsnorth of Suez industrialarea (2)

Vicinity of existing road& ends inside Suezindustrial zone (4)

Desolate area and endsnorth of Suez industrialarea (1)

Vicinity of existing roadending north of industrialzone (3)

Visual intrusion for travellers onproposed & existing CairoAinSukhna roads

Minimum (1) Maximum due topenetration of Suezindustrial zone (4)

Minimum (1) Maximum (3)

(continued)


8/9


Impact Assessment and Project AppraisalDecember 2003 329

Table 2(continued)

Comparative criteria Alternative (1)mostly far north of

existing road endingtowards edge of newSuez industrial zone

Al ternative (2)north of existing roadand penetrating newSuez industrial zone

Alternat ive (3)south of existing

road

Alternat ive (4)in proximity to existingroad, ending towards

edge of new Suezindustrial zone

Visual intrusion for man madesettlements

Minimum (1) Maximum due topenetration of Suezindustrial zone (4)

Minimum (1) Maximum (3)

Water quality of wadis Affected by constructionof crossing structures (3)

Affected by constructionof crossing structures (1)



Soil contamination due to trafficemissions, spillage and erosion

Minimum (3) Minimum (2) Minimum (3) Minimum (1)

Overall ranking of crit eria relatedto natural environment

3 4 1 1

(8) Man-made environmental aspectsPassing adjacent to military sites Far (1) Yes (3) Far (1) Yes (3)Passing through/adjacent to

industrial areasNo (1) Yes (adjacent to three

cement companies) (3)No (1) Yes (adjacent to three

cement companies (3)Passing through/adjacent to

residential developmentsYes Al Amal City Yes Al Amal City Yes Al Amal City Yes Al Amal City

Passing through /adjacent toquarries

No (1) Yes (through) (4) No (1) Yes (adjacent) (3)

Passing adjacent to garbage areas No (1) Yes (3) No (1) Yes (3)

Passing adjacent/over pipelines No (Far) (1) No (far) (1) Yes (near) (4) No (far) (1)Passing under existing high voltageelectrical transmission lines

No (1) Yes (3) No (1) Yes (3)

Overall ranking of crit eria relatedto man-made environment

1 4 2 3

also influenced approach alignments to Ain Sukhna.Southern approaches to the region could not pene-trate industrial areas under development and had theadditional burden of being located in a wadi plainthat is susceptible to flooding. Northern alignmentsseemed more favourable generally in terms of pro-viding better opportunity to acquire suitable land for

more development projects close to existing devel-opment proposals.

Conclusions

This paper was mainly concerned with adapting theEIA process into a multicriteria scoping frameworkby which an environmental assessment of alterna-tive alignments for roads can be conducted. Theadapted approach consists of eight steps. These wereapplied to assess alternative alignments of theCairoAin Sukhna freeway in Egypt. This freeway

is meant to act as an alternative parallel to the exist-ing CairoAin Sukhna road connecting the capitalCairo, the new city of Cairo, and the planned AlAmal city to the new Suez industrial zone located atAin Sukhna on the Red Sea.

The approach started by deciding on four majoralternative alignments for the freeway. This was

followed by deciding on a set of generic aspects tobe used for describing these alignments. These in-cluded technical, accessibility, economic and finan-cial, development, safety and security, severanceand social, as well as natural and man-made envi-ronmental aspects. In the third step more than 60comparative criteria were selected in an effort todetail the eight aspects describing alternative align-ments. This was followed by collection of data andinformation that were considered necessary forcomprehensively assessing the possible impacts ofthe considered alternative alignments.

The fifth step was concerned with examining and

Table 3. Relative weightings for generic aspects characterising alternative alignments

Generic aspects Relativeweightings

Alternat ive(1)

Alternat ive(2)

Alternat ive(3)

Alternat ive(4)

Technical aspects 10 2 2 4 1Accessibility aspects 10 3 1 4 2Economic & financial aspects 10 3 2 3 1Development aspects 10 2 4 3 1Safety and security aspects 10 3 1 3 2Severance & social aspects 15 1 1 1 1Natural environment aspects 15 3 4 1 1

Man-made environment aspects 15 1 4 2 3Final score (weighted rankings) 100 67.5 60 61.25 82.5

Note: Rank 1 = 1, Rank 2 = 0.75, Rank 3 = 0.5, Rank 4 = 0.25


9/9



scrutinising all collected data and information andpresenting, in a tabular format, the judgement of al-ternatives in relation to each other. This was fol-lowed by a multicriteria scoping of road alignmentoptions, where for each of the considered criteria,comparative scoping was conducted to rank the al-ternative alignments based on their specific potentialimpacts. Overall ranks for each aspect were then

produced based on the accumulation of individualranks given to the criteria for that aspect.In step seven, weighting of aspects, with empha-

sis on environmental perspectives, was conducted.This was followed by applying the weightings to theoverall ranks and obtaining a weighted score foreach alternative alignment. Based on this approach,it was concluded that alternative alignment 4achieved the highest weighted score of. 86.25. Thiscan thus be considered as the best environmentalalignment for the freeway.

Finally, it can be concluded that the multicriteriascoping framework, suggested in this research,proved a sufficient tool for assessment of alternative

road alignments as well as a basis for making deci-sions pertaining to selecting the most environment-ally preferable alignment.

References

Frohwein, H I, G H Lambert G H, Y Y Haimes and L A Schiff(1999), Multicriteria framework to aid comparison of roadwayimprovement projects, Journal of Transportation Engineering,125(3), pages 224230.

Li, X, W Wang, F Li and X Deng (1999), GIS based map overlayfor comprehensive assessment of road environmental impact,Transportation Research, D 4, pages 147158.

Sadek, S, M Bedran and I Kaysi (1999), GIS platform formulticriteria evaluation of route alignments, Journal of Trans-portation Engineering, 125(2), pages 144151.

Tsamboulas, D, and G Mikroudis (2000), EFECT evaluationframework of environmental impacts and costs of transport ini-tiatives, Transportation Research, D 5, pages 283303.

UGHD, United Group for Highways Development (1999),Investment road concession contracts in Egypt, Report pre-pared by United Group for Highways Development and Dar Al

Handasah for General Authority for Roads, Bridges, EgyptMinistry of Transport.

Documents

Khaled - 2003 - Environmental Assesment of Roads Alignments Based on Milticriteria Scoping