The formulation and evaluation of transport route planning alternatives: a spatial decision support system for the Via Baltica project, Poland S.S. Keshkamat a, * , J.M. Looijen b , M.H.P. Zuidgeest a a Department of Urban and Regional Planning and Geo-Information Management, International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC), P.O. Box 6, Hengelosestraat 99, Enschede, The Netherlands b Department of Natural Resources, International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC), P.O. Box 6, Hengelosestraat 99, Enschede, The Netherlands article info Keywords: Spatial multi-criteria assessment (SMCA) Linear infrastructure planning Impact assessment Via Baltica abstract Transport planning plays an undeniably key role in the economic growth of any region. However, when done heedlessly this planning can be detrimental to the biophysical and social environment of the region. In transport route planning generally one or a few alternative routes are proposed, usually representing the interest of the proponent. If required, an environmental impact assessment is carried out on these alternatives. Although, EIA and SEA are meant to be effective in taking informed decisions about the pro- posed route, these alternatives – the heart of impact assessment – are themselves devised in a subjective and non-spatial manner. Such an approach may easily overlook routes, which could otherwise have been more suitable. A plan- ning system that directly takes into account environmental and socio-economic considerations in select- ing alternative routes facilitates sustainable development. This paper presents a holistic and coherent spatial multi-criteria network analysis method for the generation of optimal routing alternatives under different policy visions, in a network of existing roads. The presented methodology was case-tested for the highly contested 340 km portion of the Via Baltica corridor in Poland, a part of the trans-European transport network (TEN-T) program. The methodology shows its ability to serve as a versatile effect-based decision support system for transport route planning at a strategically higher level of planning, particularly for (geographically) large-scale investment schemes. Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Regional economic development can be attributed to a large ex- tent to the provision of infrastructure in general and transport infrastructure in particular. As such, transport infrastructure can be instrumental to strengthening competitive positions of coun- tries and regions. This fact has led to an increasing pressure to con- struct, widen and further extend highway systems. However, ecological and social problems, associated with infrastructure and transport, have also generated a more critical attitude towards large transport infrastructure projects by non-governmental orga- nizations as well as the general public. These problems are gaining a more significant role in political decision making and voters’ interest. Probably one of the most prominent examples of such problems in recent years is the Via Baltica highway project in Poland. The highway project, which is commonly seen as being very important to the improvement of accessibility between EU’s Central European countries, was suspended in 2007 due to fear of irreversible ecolog- ical damage to important natural sites protected under European Union (EU) law. Even though several economically and environ- mentally more sound alternative routes existed, they had never been considered as acceptable alternatives by the decision makers according to the Committee on Petitions of the European Parlia- ment (2007) and several frontline environmental non-governmen- tal organizations (NGOs) such as BirdLife International (2007), CEE Bankwatch Network (2005) and OTOP (2007). A detailed chronol- ogy, with supporting documents, of the events that led to the halt of this project by the EU is described in Keshkamat (2007). In transport route planning generally one or a few alternative routes are proposed, often representing the interest of the propo- nent(s). If required, an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) or Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is carried out on these alternatives. Although, EIA and SEA are meant to be effective in taking informed decisions about the proposed intervention, these alternatives are themselves devised in a subjective and/or non-spatial manner (Steinemann, 2001). Such an approach may easily overlook route alternatives, which could be much more suit- able from environmental, social and economic points of view. Thus 0966-6923/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2008.04.010 * Corresponding author. E-mail address: Sukhad@ErasmusMundus-Alumni.EU (S.S. Keshkamat). Journal of Transport Geography 17 (2009) 54–64 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Transport Geography journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jtrangeo