The environmental assessment of transport infrastructure and policy

The environmental assessment of transport infrastructure and policy J. H. Farrington Depurtment

of Grogruphy.

University

qf Aberdeen,

High Street, Aberdeen,

AR9 2UF

A. A. Ryder RSK Environment

Ltd., 237 Chester Road,

H&by,

Cheshire.

WA6 OAD

The gcncral framework for the application of cnvironmcntal asscssmcnt (EA) to transport infrastructure dcvclopmcnt in Great Britain is described; the proccdurcs relating to roads and pipelines arc rcvicwcd as cxamplcs in grcatcr detail, and the cffcctivcncss of EA at project lcvcl is considcrcd. The application of EA to policy formulation at the strategic Icvcl. as well as to individual projects. is discussed. Shortcomings of project-lcvcl EA relating to road planning arc idcntificd. The dcvclopmcnt of strategic cnvironmcntal asscssmcnt is supported as a mcnns of strcngthcning policy-making proccsscs. Keywords:

Environment,

infrastructure,

At a time when government is placing increasing emphasis on infrastructure development as a means of alleviating economic decline, and environmental awareness is increasing, the assessment of environmental implications arising from new transport developments assumes an even higher priority. In Great Britain the opportunity to assess the impacts of individual transport projects is afforded through environmental assessment (EA), a process which has legislative effect in the European Community (EC) by virtue of EC Directive 85/337 (Council of the European Communities. 1985). Since its introduction in the USA in 1969, the concepts and philosophy of environmental assessment have matured. The fundamental characteristics of the change are a move towards flexibility, in content, applicability and methods. In its formative years, environmental assessment in the USA was required to be comprehensive and to follow prescribed routes, and it resulted in voluminous documents. Such a rigid framework delayed decision making and hindered the acceptance of cnvironmental assessment as a regulatory requirement in Europe. It is now recognized that environmental assessment is not only a study or a statement; it is a process which includes the provision of information, consultation with authorities and the public concerned, and the making of a decision. Environmental assessment provides ‘an orderly process for gathering and evaluating information and opinions about the likely environmental consequences of proposed projects, to assist in decision-making’ (Fairclough 19% p. 7). IO2

policy

In this article we consider first how environmental assessment has been applied to transport projects in Great Britain since the application of EC Directive 85/337 in July 1988. In the next section the statutory framework is described and in the following section two modes are discussed in more detail to demonstrate the procedures through which environmental assessment is applied to major transport projects. By way of discussion in the final section consideration is given to the effectiveness of environmental assessment at project level, and to the need to apply environmental assessment principles not only to individual projects but also to policy making, in the form of strategic environmental assessment (SEA).

The statutory framework Environmental assessment of new transport infrastructure in Great Britain is carried out under the EC Directive of 1985 (Council of the European Communities, 1YXS) which came into effect in July 1988 through the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988, and Scottish equivalents (DoE IYYla. p. I). Department of the Environment (DOE) Circulars and guidelines set out advice for developers and planning authorities on the implementation of the regulations (DoE Circular IX-%; Welsh Office Circular 23/M; SDD Circular 13/8X: DoE, IWla). The EC Directive identifies two types of projects. distinguishing between those for which EA is required in every case (Annex 1). and those where EA is required only if the project is considered likely IO

OY66 69 ~23/Y3/020102-I7

@ IYY3 Butterworth-Heincnl~~~~~l

L>td

Environmentul

ussessment

have significant environmental effects (Annex 2). British EA Planning Regulations incorporate this distinction, identifying Schedule I and 2 projects (DOE 199la, App. I). In relation to new transport infrastructure, Schedule I projects (EA required in every case) include the following: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

motorways and express roads; lines for long-distance railway traffic: airports with runway length of 2100 m or more; trading ports; inland waterways, and inland waterway ports handling vessels of over 1350 tonnes.

Schedule 2 projects (EA required if project judged likely to have significant environmental effects) following transport infrastructure include the developments:

(1) construction (4

of roads, harbours and airfields (projects not listed in Annex 1); tramways, elevated and underground railways, suspended lines or similar lines of a particular type, used exclusively or mainly for passenger transport; oil and gas pipeline installations.

of transport

infrastructure:

J. H. Furrington

und A. A. Ryder

Act of Parliament, with procedures requiring promoters to consult affected local communities, and objections to schemes being considered by Select Committees. In 1990 the Government proposed new arrangements which would make railway construction subject to Ministerial rather than Parliamentary with promoters required to consult approval, interested parties before applying for an order, and provision for public inquiries into objections. The EC Directive would apply to projects dealt with in this way. In the meantime, EA is required ‘in appropriate cases’ where the private Bill procedure is used (Secretary of State for the Environment et al, 1990, p. 90). This is the situation applying to the High Speed Rail Link to the Channel Tunnel, which is being subjected to comprehensive assessment of environmental impact (see, for example, British Railways Board, 1991, Ch. 10). Oil and gas pipelines

The implementation of the Directive in Great Britain is complicated by the separation of responsibility for the approval of some types of project, which may be summarized as follows.

These are approved by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and EA is required for the construction or diversion of a pipeline 10 miles or more in length, where the Secretary of State takes the view that the project would be likely to have significant environmental effects. The environmental assessment requirements for pipelines are contained in the Electricity and Pipeline Works (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations (1990).

Roads

Harbours

Motorways and other trunk roads are approved by the Secretary of State for Transport, for Scotland or for Wales, in England, Scotland and Wales respectively, rather than through the planning system. The requirements for environmental assessment of such schemes are set out in The Highways (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations (1988). An EA is required for the preferred route when draft orders are published, normally after public consultation. This applies to all new motorways, and to other roads when they are over 10 km long, or, if they are longer than I km, where they pass through or within 100 m of a ‘sensitive area’, defined as: a national park; a site of special scientific interest (SSSI); a conservation area; a national nature reserve; or an urban area (where 1500 or more dwellings lie within 100 m of the centre line of the proposed road) (DOE 1991a, p. 16). EA is also required for other road improvements likely to have a significant effect on the environment. The declared effect of these provisions is that ‘virtually all road schemes have to be assessed in accordance with the Directive’ (Department of Transport [DTp], I992a, p. 42). Roads developed by local authorities and private developers are dealt with through planning procedures.

Decisions on whether EA is needed for harbour developments are made by the relevant Minister, who may be the Secretary of State for Transport, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, or The Secretary of State for Scotland or Wales. The envirdnmental assessment requirements are containedin the Harbour Works (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations (1988).

(3)

Railways

Construction

of new railways is authorized

by private

General

Projects approved by a Private or Hybrid Act of Parliament do not, in the terms of the EC Directive, require EA, but the Government view is that EA should be required for such projects where they would otherwise have been in that category. In addition to the EA requirements for transport projects specifically, many other projects defined by the regulations as requiring EA, such as oil refineries, power stations and steel works, may well involve the construction of temporary or permanent transport infrastructure. Assessment of their impacts should be included in the EA of the overall project. Clearly the determination of the significance of the environmental effects of a project is a key stage in the process for Schedule 2 projects, as well as being a fundamental function of the EA itself. Because ‘circumstances are bound to vary greatly from case to case’, the DOE guidelines do not put 103

Environmentul

ussessment

of trurzsport infrastructure:

J. H. Farrington

forward either precise or general definitions of ‘significance’, but suggest three main criteria, depending on whether the project is: (i) of more than local importance, mainly in terms of physical scale: (ii) located in a particularly sensitive area such as an SSSI or national park; (iii) likely to give rise to particularly complex or adverse effects. (DOE, 1991a, p. 5) An additional difficulty arises where the application of EA to a project is discretionary, as with the Schedule 2 list. The determination of the necessity for EA is a judgement, made before a full EA is carried out, of the likely impacts of a project. The accuracy of this judgement is therefore a potentially challengeable part of the process, though this may bc apparent only after the project has been completed. The Directive (Article 5, 2) requires that a developer provides the following information:

(1) a (2) (3) (4)

description of the project comprising information on the site, design and size of the project; a description of the measures envisaged in order to avoid, reduce and, if possible, remedy significant adverse effects; the data required to identify and assess the main effects which the project is likely to have on the environment; a non-technical summary of the information mentioned in indents I to 3.

A full list of possible information requirements is set out in Annex III of the Directive (Council of the European Communities. 1985). Under the system applied in Britain to meet the requirements of the EC Directive, the Environmental Statements resulting from the carrying out of environmental assessment on projects are available, once submitted, for public consultation, and are also sent to statutory consultees (in many cases similar procedures were already followed, formally or informally, as part of the process of major project planning). In order to disseminate information on cases where EA is involved, the DoE monitors EA cases, and sends information to the Journal c~f Plunning and Environment Law for regular publication (Wood and Jones, 1991, p. 2).

Mode examples:

roads

and pipelines

To illustrate the procedures followed in applying environmental assessment to major transport infrastructure projects in the UK, the examples of roads and pipelines will be considered. Road.s

The planning and construction of a road scheme in Britain follows a lengthy series of stages as illustrated 104

und A. A. Ryder

in Figure 1. On average it takes I.? years for a scheme to progress through these stages. Environmental assessment at various levels of depth and scope enters into the procedures at a number of points (see Figure I). Initial Route and Scheme Identification Studies (Stage 2) will usually include a broad consideration of environmental issues, identifying potential cnvironmcntal problems rather than making a detailed appraisal. The Technical Appraisal Report (Stage 8) will present together all the effects of the schcmc, including the prcdictcd environmental impacts identified earlier. Options arc then prcscntcd for public consultation (Stage Y). A criticism of this process is that, where a series 01 individual schemes has been generated by the earlier stages. EAs arc not made at the aggregate level, even though the schemes together may amount to a major route improvement (DTp, lYY2n, p. 20). The overall environmental implications at a route level will not, therefore. be assessed. The Secretary of State then announces the Preferred Route (Stage I I) and proceeds to the issue of Draft Statutory Orders setting out the line of the proposed road, changes in access to or across the road, and compulsory purchase orders for the land required (Stages 17 and 21). A formal Environmental Statement will normally be published with the Orders and considered at a Public Inquiry (Stages IY and 22). Subject to final decision on the Inquiry’s findings, construction work will then begin, with monitoring of any environmental protection mcasurcs required. The EA incorporated in the procedures outlined above should be carried out in accordance with the advice in the DTp’s Munrd of environmental uppraisal (MEA) (lY83), issued as a ‘handbook of information’. This includes the use of ‘The Framework’, which presents in tabular form the invironmental and economic effects of a scheme, intended to facilitate the appraisal of a combination of quantified and unquantified effects produced by alternative methods. Issues arising from the procedures outlined above are taken up in the final section, but brief consideration of an example here will illustrate how difficult& may arise. Planning permission for the M.? extension project in Hampshire was sought bcforc the EC Directive came into force (July 1988), but was granted afterwards. At Twyford Down (Plates l-3) the route crossed two sites of special scientific interest (SSSI) the chalk downland itself, and water meadows at the foot of the hill. The area is designated as one of outstanding natural beauty. The impact of the project on these features could have been rcduccd by tunnelling, but at greater cost. The project attracted considerable protest and controversy, together with others current at the time. and m September IYYl the Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) registered a complaint to the then European Environment Commissioner, Carlo Ripa di Meana. against the then UK Transport

+

(27) Start Contract <-

necessary )

Statement if

Line Order

Framework, Colour coding if npv-ve

Public Czsultation

(3) -N

(19) (20) (26 Review Tenders
Public Inquiry?~Decision

COBA Reviewed Framework

Final Detailed Design

-

COBA/LMVR Reviewed

(II) of Preferred Route I

I

i

Inqujf?

(22) 7 Public +

(23) Inquiry Decision

(24) Works Commitment Approval 4 Economic Review

(21) Publish Draft compulsory Purchase Orders and side road orders (if not published with line orders)

\ r

(12) Review Surveys and Consultations Traffic, Economic and Environmental Assessments Updated Preliminary Designs

Announcement

Initial Surveys and consultations (including Landscape Advisory Committee) TrafBc, Economic and Environmental J Assessments. Identification of possible routes.

(5)

A gent Authority, Co&%ing Engineer Appointed

(25) Invite Tenders <-

Final& Pre!r!nary Report -> LMVRJCQBA reassessed if necessary

Local M~Z)Validation
~ProgrammeEntry

Ide2ihtion?)

Scheme Identification Initial studies

(Route

1 Stages in the evolution of trunk road schcmcs SOUR-~:Dcpartmcnt of Transport ( IWa. p, 115)

Figure

(lo) Approval of Scheme for Works Programme

w

(3) Open Road 4#-

(IS) Order Publication Report

Appraisal Report

TZL~-N

I

-

rI,

Framework (’ colour coding if npv-ve

The!&d ->

Environmental

assessment

of transport

infrastruciuw:

J. H. Farrington

and A. A

K,wkr

Plate 1 The Twyford

Down

trees on skyline)

made through St Catherine’s Hill in order to cxtcnd the M3 south of Winchester;

to be

is visible at bottom Sourer: Southern

site in Hampshire.

England.

in 198X. showing the approximutc

lint

of the cutting

(right

of

the congcstcd A33

left

Newspapers

PLC

Secretary Malcolm Rifkind, concerning the implcmentation of the EC Directive with respect to road proposals. In October 1991 the European Environment Commissioner demanded that work on this scheme (and several other projects including the East London River Crossing and the Ml 1 link at Leytonstone, east London) be stopped pending the result of legal action by the Commission against the Government over the alleged failure to carry out EAs as required by the Directive. The CPRE complaint concerned:

Discussion returns to the CPRE points of complaint in the concluding section. However, in July 19Y2 the new European Environment Commissioner, Karcl van Miert, dropped the cases against the UK on most of the projects, including Twyford Down. It was suggcstcd that the decision was primarily political, linked to the post-Maastricht policy of reduced EC interference in the affairs of member states, and to the UK’s period of European Presidency (Guardian and Financial Times. l/2 August 1992).

(1) ‘The inadequacy and limitations of the “Framework” approach . .‘. (2) ‘The inadequate definition of “project” . .‘, (3) ‘Failure to require information on forecasting methods. . . to enable the approach to assessing magnitude and significance of potential cnvironmental effects to be transparent’. (CPRE, IYYI)

Pipelines

106

The requirements of Directive 85/337/EEC, as they apply to oil and gas pipelines, were first set out in Statutory Instrument IYXY No 167. entitled ‘The Electricity and Pipeline Works (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations IOXY’, which took effect on 0 February I%-%. T’hc subsequent

Environmental

Plate 2 View

in the opposite

direction

(to

assessment

of transport

infrastructure:

J. H. Farrington

and A. A. Ryder

SW) from Plate 1, showing A33 and disused railway bridge across the River

ltchcn So~rr~e: Southern

Electricity

Act

Newspapers

1989

led

PLC

to

the

replacement

of

SI

by ‘The Electricity and Pipeline Works (Assessment of Environmental Effect) Regulation 1990; SI 1990 No 442’. These new regulations came into force on 31 March 1990 and made drafting amendments, by adding detail on matters pertaining to consultation and provision of information and service of notices. The Regulations specify the procedure that will be adopted when considering the need for an environmental assessment to accompany an application for Pipeline Construction Authorisation (PCA). The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will decide whether a particular project is likely to have a significant effect on the environment. If (s)he decides this is so he/she will then require that an environmental assessment should be carried out and an Environmental Statement produced. The Regulations contain details of the procedure to be followed by an applicant making a written request 1989 No

167

to the Secretary of State for an opinion as to the necessity for an Environmental Statement. In making that request the following information is required:

(‘1 (2)

a plan sufficient to identify the land which is the subject of the proposed application; and a brief description of the nature and purpose of the proposed development and of its potential effects on the environment.

The Secretary of State may request further information from the applicant. When sufficient information has been provided. the Secretary of State consults with the relevant local planning authority. This consultation would, however. not be carried out if the views of those authorities had already been conveyed to the Secretary of State by the applicant. If the views of the local planning authority arc required by the Secretary of State, then they must be submitted within three weeks of the date of consultation. The Secretary of State will then express an 107

Plate 3 Protesters

at the Twyford

Sortrcr: Southern Ncwpapers

Down

Site in lYY2: could rcviscd EA

as to the need for an Environmental Statement. Where an application is made for Pipeline Construction Authorisation which is not accompanied by an Environmental Statement, the Secretary of State will determine whether or not one is required. Normally it is required, and the Secretary of State will notify the applicant of this. In addition, (s)he will give notice to the applicant that the applicant is allowed to proceed. The applicant is required to inform the Secretary of State within three weeks if he/she proposes to provide an Environmental Statement. If this is not done, the authorization shall be deemed to be refused at the end of the three-week period. A prospective applicant may give notice in writing to the Secretary of State that he/she intends to submit an Environmental Statement with the application for Pipeline Construction Authorisation. The notice must include information on the location of opinion

108

proccdurcs

qz~sc their concern?

PLC

the proposed pipeline, its nature and purpose and the main environmental consequences which will be addressed in the Environmental Statement. A pipe!ine promotor will need to consult with the planning authority and other councils and statutory bodies in order to be able to prepare an Environmental Statement. Where such a notice is received, the Secretary of State will write to the organizations concerned informing them that they have an obligation to supply any information which either they or the pipeline promoter consider to be relevant. When an application is made which is accompanied by an Environmental Statement. and the application is allowed to proceed, the applicant is required to include in public advertisement notices served under paragraph 3 of schedule I to the Act: (1) a description of the application and a statement that it is accompanied by an Environmental Statement; and

Environmental

assessment

of transport

infraswucture:

J. H. Farrington

and A. A. Ryder

should also provide these bodies with a copy of the application for Pipeline Construction Authorisation and maps showing the route, and should inform them that they may make representation to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The applicant must provide the Secretary of State with the names of the bodies served with an Environmental Statement and the date on which it was served. The Secretary of State shall not make a decision on the application before the expiry of 14 days from the last date on which a copy of the Environmental Statement was served. In contrast to the Departments of Environment

(2) details

of where copies of the Environmental Statement can be obtained in the locality and, where a charge is made, what the charge will be.

In considering the Environmental Statement, the Secretary of State may require the applicant to provide further information. The procedure for obtaining Pipeline Construction Authorisation (PCA) is summarized in Figure 2. The regulations require that, when an Environmental Statement is submitted to the Secretary of State, copies should also be sent to the bodies with whom the applicant has consulted. The applicant I

CONSULTATION

I

Without ES. *

SUBMIT APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION AUTHORISATION

I

I

SECRETARY OF STATE DECISION ON REQUIREMENT FOR E.S. * _

With ES. * PHASE 1 DETERMINATION

PERMISSION TO PROCEED

PERMISSION REFUSED

I

PUBLIC ADVERTISEMENT

NO OBJECTION

OBJJZtiION

NOT WITHDRAW

WI-IF x4w

I INQUIRY / HEARING

SECRETARY OF STATE DECISION

* Environmental Statement Figure 2 Proccdurc for obtaining construction Journal

of Transport Geography 199.3 Volume I Number 2

authorization

(pipeline)

109

and Transport the Department for Trade and Industry (DTI) have adopted ;Lvery proactive role in Environmental Asscssmcnt. They have recently issued guidelines for ‘The Environmental Assessment of Cross Country Pipelines’. These guidelines not only interpret the regulations but go further. advising on the content of the Environmental Statement and good practice in cnvironmcntal assessment. On the issue of need for an Environmental Statcmcnt the DTI make their position clear: ‘It must be cmphasiscd that, in all but the most exceptional of circumstances. an Environmental Assessment will be required .’ (DTT, 1992, p. 7). An interesting dilemma for pipeline promoters is the level of information to be included with an Environmental Statement. The Statement submitted with an application for a PCA applies to a route which may deviate by as much as 200 m from the line identified on a map. It is not rcasonablc, or practical, to expect a pipeline promoter to submit detailed environmental data about a 400 m wide corridor at such an early stage in a project’s life cycle. The DTI take a very pragmatic approach to this problem and encourage pipeline promoters to view the production of the Environmental Statement as just one stage in the environmental assessment process. The DTI states in its guidelines that: In reviewing of Trade

an Environmental

and Industry

consultation

undertaken

cnvironmcntal pipeline. particular,

the

&scribing Due

of the

with

information

the environmental

consideration

consulted

will

organisations.

route

thcsc

affcctcd in

to

of

by the in

section

programme.

the

comments

ot

lYY2. p. 35)

and

Figure 3 The North Wcarn

The submission

of the Environmental

draw the Environmental be

a need

detailed

for

further

site work

Assessment

Statement

to 21close. Thcrc

information-gathering

to bc undcrtakcn

Another suggestion

encouraging to pipeline

Pipclinc

will

and (DTI,

step taken

by the DTI

promoters

that

they

Ethylcnc

will not for

lYY2,

p. 36)

is the

circulate

a draft of their Environmental Statements to the relevant third parties prior to submitting for formal application. The DTI make this suggestion in the belief that it will help avoid delays at a later stage (DTI, lY92, p. 7). An example of a large pipeline project which has followed these procedures is shown in Figure 3 and Plates 4-7. The North Western Ethylcnc Pipeline was built in 1991-92 to convey ethylene from Fife to Shell Chemical’s facilities in Cheshire. as an alternative to the pre-existing arrangement of hiring capacity in pipelines owned by ICI and BP Chemicals. It is the longest commercial pipeline to be built in the UK (406 km) and traverses a wide variety of

110

CENTRAL FIELDS

the

and.

the

management

bc given (DTI.

process.

Guidelines

containcd

FAR NORTH LIQUIDS AND ASSOCIATED GAS SYSTEM ( FLAGS )

the Department to the extent

in the asscssmcnt

sensitivity

compliance

Statcmcnt.

will have regard

P THE BRENT COMPLEX

environments including upland moor. lowland heath. pasture. arable land and various amenity areas. ‘l’hc Environmental Stntemcnt for this project was the first to bc produced under the Electricity and Pipeline Works (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations. 1989. In Shell projccta EA is applied from the earliest stage in project dcvclopment (in this case, late 1987) and continua through the stages of feasibility. design, construction, commissioning, operation and ultimately decomr-nissioning. The process builds a database of environmental information. increasing the degree of detail at each is stage as the route and design of the pipclinc refined. After environmental rcvicw of the conccpt studies of alternative modes of transporting cthylcnc, and 01’ the environmental legislative controls that would affect the project 1 a 2 km wide corridor avoiding population centrcs was subjcctcd to cnvironmcntal

Environmmtal

Plate 4 Shell Chemicals’

a.we.s.smct~t of transport

North Wcstcrn

through the Scottish Southern out’ and wcldcd working

before

Uplands.

being buried.

infrastrrccture:

Ethylcnc

Pipclinc

J. H. Furrington

und A. A. Ryder

being constructed

The 10 inch diamctcr pipe is ‘strung Topsoil

stacked

to the right of the

width will bc rcinstatcd

Solcrc~c:A. A. Ryder

Plate 5 The pipeline

being lowered

into a trench cut through the River Lune

in Cumbria Source: A. A. Ryder

study and screened for features that could bear upon route considerations. At this stage existing linear routes, including other modes as well as pipelines, were identified, on the basis that envir&mental impact is normally minimized by adjacent routeing. Once the main features affecting the route were identified, EA.was used to analyse in detail possible impacts and, in conjunction with engineering studies, to narrow the zone width to 500 m. Detailed

Surveys and Impact and Appraisal Reports on the following specific topics allowed the corridor to be narrowed to a normal working width of 20 m: Baseline

(‘1 land cover and land forms; soils and geology; i:i landscape; (4) ecology; (5) agriculture; 111

Environmental

assessment of transport infrastructure: J. H. Farrington and A. A. Ryder

Plate 6 A ‘special crossing’ whcrc a peat arca is being traversed by a narrow working width, rcduccd from the normal 20 m to minimize impact. Topsoil stripping is restricted to the width of the pipctrack only; a sand/subsoil road is constructed directly onto the flailed vcgctation Source: A. A. Ryder

Plate 7 An cxamplc of ‘narrow working’ through ancient woodland Only two trees required felling (both sycamores) SOWW: A. A. Ryder

after

rcinstatcmcnt.

Public

(6)

hydrology;

(7)

atmospheric

emissions,

construction

and opera-

consultation

(8)

noise

(9)

blasting

emissions.

construction

and vibration,

agricultural

impacts,

(I 1) socio-economic (12)

strategic

(13)

environmental

construction;

impacts,

economic risk

and operation;

construction: construction;

appraisal asscssmcnt.

of the project:

with

populations

planning

tion;

(IO)

the

integral

authorities part

Mitigation

of

and,

ing

impacts

operational While

the

measures

mented of

interested

along

the

and

statutory

process were

following

route from

then

(in

through

including

addition

bodies) the

was

early

designed

completion

continues

parties

stages.

and imple-

in 1992. the

to an

monitorpipeline’s

life. it is accepted

that

there

arc obvious

and

Environmental

assessment

significant differences between pipeline and road projects in terms of both their constructional and operational impacts, comparison suggests that there are features of the EA process in this pipeline example which raise questions about the effectiveness of EA in road projects, particularly in terms of (1) the phasing of EA in line with the EC Directive at an early stage and subsequently throughout the development process, including public information and consultation. and (2j the scope of the EA applied to the project. These and other points are taken up in the next section.

Discussion and conclusions It is clear from the examples in the preceding section that, while EA is now in general embedded in the development process for major transport infrastructure projects, the overall procedure for road projects has attracted criticism. This section discusses some of the issues arising, and broadens the consideration of the role of environmental assessment into the policy context. in Schedule 2 projects A weakness of the present procedures governing the application of EA referred to earlier, which is not restricted to transport projects, is the definition and recognition of ‘significant environmental impact’ where there is discretion in the requirement for EA (Schedule 2 projects). A report carried out for the DOE, on the operation of EA procedures for the first 1X months, sampled 24 local planning authorities and found that ‘a potentially large number of projects falling within the indicative criteria and thresholds is not being formally subjected to EA’ (Wood and Jones. 1991, p. 42). From this sample of planning authorities, the study examined 30 projects and found that EA ‘might have been appropriate’ in many of them, but ‘the need for EA had not been fully considered’. Of the British total of 153 Environmental Statements (ESs) submitted in the study period, 87”/,, dealt with Schedule 2 projects. Ten of the total dealt specifically with transport infrastructure, but many of the remainder involved projects which would include transport as a significant element (although not necessarily requiring large new infrastructure), such as mineral extraction, power stations and urban development. Wood and Jones recommended that more specific guidance should be given by the DOE, Scottish and Welsh Offices, on the definition of ‘significant environmental effects’ for Schedule 2 projects, including illustration by examples. They reported that, based on their survey of I2 local planning authorities, it seems that ‘many planning officers are unfamiliar with the UK EA Planning Regulations and are unclear as to their application’ (Wood and Jones 1991, p. 22). They also wanted to see planning Discretion

Journal

of Transport Geography 1993 Volume I Number 2

of transport infrastructure:

J. H. Farrington

and A. A. Ryder

authorities introduce an internal check to determine whether a project exceeds criteria and thresholds indicating that EA might be appropriate (1991, p. 43). Consultutiorz Another area of concern in the effective incorporation of environmental planning in project development and approval is the carrying out of consultation, both in terms of statutory consultees and the involvement of voluntary groups and the general public. Wood and Jones found that while ‘consultations have proved helpful in modifying planning proposals to make them environmentally more acceptable’, the frequent absence of discussions on draft ESs with statutory consultees and others detracted from the quality of the ESs. They recommended that procedures be amended to involve the public and voluntary groups more fully in the process, and to ensure that statutory consultees are fully consulted (1991, pp. 43-44). Public participation can be regarded as much more than a marginal aspect of EA: ‘Public participation should be an integral element of environmental assessment in general’ (Sheate, 1992, p. 173). General adequacy and effectiveness There appears to be a wide range in the quality of ESs. Wood and Jones (1991) judged the majority of the 24 ESs they reviewed to be inadequate, including the omission of basic information such as the size of the project. Lambert and Wood, also reporting on the early experience with the statutory EA process (July 1988 to July 1989), criticized the three ESs they examined as showing ‘poor’ consultation, ‘virtually non-existent’ scoping, ‘often unscientific’ impact analysis, and ‘disappointing’ mitigation suggestions (1990, p. 259). It should be noted, in respect of these and other comments cited above from the Wood and Jones and Lambert and Wood work, that the DOE guidelines were first published over a year after the Directive took effect in July 1988 and, as those authors point out, this was too late to be used by those concerned. Jones et al (1991) and Lee and Colley (1990) make observations about the quality of Environmental Statements. Whilst neither work goes so far as to state that quality is improving they do make some observations about length of statements. ‘The length of environmental statements varies considerably. During the first year of formal EA operation approximately one-third were less than 20 pages, one-third were 2&25 pages and 10% were over 150 pages in length. Since then, the average length has increased so that during 1989-90 the percentage of ESs of less than 20 pages fell to 15% and those over I50 pages increased to 15%. Though length, by itself, is not a good guide to quality those ESs which are either very short or very long probably deserve extra scrutiny’ (Jones et al, 1991, pp. 4748). 113

Environmental

assessment

of trunsport

infrmtructure:

J. H

A critical test of the effectiveness of the EA process is the degree to which it can be shown to have an effect on proposed developments, so that theenvironmentalimpactsarisingfrom thcirconstruction and operation arc mitigated in relation to the effects identified for the original proposal. Wood and Jones found evidence that the preparation of ESs is ‘altering the design of some planning projects to make them environmentally better’ (1991, p. 44). The adequacy of procedures for the assessment of the environmental consequences of road construction has been recently reviewed by the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment (SACTRA) (DTp, 1992a). This comprehensive discussion merits close consideration , since it raises several issues relating to existing procedures and also to underlying views on the role of EA. One of SACTRA‘s recommendations, dealing with the scope of EA. was an expansion of the checklist of topics for appraisal, to include as specific topics a further five sets of impacts which, although they would have appeared within the scope of impacts in the existing MEA list to varying degrees, merit explicit and full consideration in their own right. This represents a widening of the appraisal to take account of a wider range of direct effects (DTp, 1992a. p. 65). proposed checklist would then comprise:air pollution; water pollution;‘” ecological impact; visual impact; land-take;” effects on open space,” effects on agriculture; traffic noise; personal stress and other effects on individuals;” disruption due to construction; view from the road; community severance; other effects on communities; heritage and conservation areas; vibration. “’ “SACTRA

1992 additions

as explicit

items

Such modifications. and others proposed by SACTRA relating to the scope and methodology of EA in road infrastructure development. would have the effect of tuning the methods by which EA is applied in order to achieve an increasingly rigorous and systematic appraisal of environmental impacts, and many have been accepted by the Department of Transport (DTp, 1992b) for inclusion in the new environmental assessment manual due to replace the MEA in 1993. However, critics such as the CPRE are not satisified that the indirect effects of projects are adequately assessed, and advocate coverage of a wider range of indirect effects including: development pressures resulting from the new road; generated traffic; energy implications; and alternative mode options (CPRE. 1991, p. 5). 114

Furrington

and A. A. Ryder

SACTRA was also charged with examining the feasibility and appropriateness of applying monetary values to the environmental impacts of road projects. Some items of cost-including construction, maintcnante, accidents, vehicle operating costs and travel time value - already appear in the appraisal process as variables in COBA (the DTp’s cost-benefit computer program), or related packages. ‘I‘hc arguments in favour of a greater use of monetary valuation of impacts include the expression of consequences in terms of a common unit of value. and the increased robustness of decision making that should result. On the other hand, there may be a tendency to give relatively greater emphasis in decision making to those impacts which arc assigned monetary values. Thus: thcrc arc over-riding valuations ma&;

advantages in applying rcliablc

to cnvironmcntal

but we also wish

responsibility

is

placed

cffccts whcrcvcr to cmphasisc

they can hc

that ;I particular

on those carrying out the appraisal

to cnsurc that no bias is introduced

bctwccn those cl’fccth

which arc valued and those which arc not. (DTp,

lYY2a.

p. 73).

Noise impacts are a strong candidate for monetary assessment, with a relatively long-standing practice of valuation, compensation and grant award for soundproofing for properties affected by road and airport noise; under the Land Compensation Act 1973, compensation is payable where the value of an interest in the land is depreciated by various physical factors including noise and vibration (Jones and Chapman, 1984, p. 291). However, while standards of measurement and criteria of disturbance arc quite well established, and continue to evolve, ‘there is enormous individual variability in the measured reactions at any one noise level’ (Nelson. 19X7, 3.10). This suggests that the allocation of monetary values in even a well-researched area such as noise impacts is far from straightforward. SACTRA’s view on road assessment overall was that while: thcrc

is a well-cstablishcd

the cnvironmcntal what

has not

examination

practice

lor evaluating

effects of a scheme in its local context occurred

to the same dcgrcc is an

of the cnvironmcntal

policy in aggrcgatc. (DTp,

conscqucnccs of roads

lYY2a. p. 51)

Furthermore: Altcrnativc investment. regulation

transport stratcgics. including proposnls for as well as changes in pricing, taxation and can only bc appraised against strategic cnviron-

mcnt objectives

and constraints.

(p. 53)

SACTRA did recognize that significant development ofgovernment thinking has taken place quite recently. They cited the omission from the 1987 White Paper on Roads Policy (DTp, 1987) of statements on issues as fundamental as the overall effects of vehicle and the depletion of non-renewable emissions

Environmental

assessment

natural resources, in contrast to the 1990 White Paper (DTp, 1990). This is considered to be a ‘considerable advance’, with much attention paid to the effects of the road programme on CO? emissions. the protection of the countryside, and traffic management schemes (DTp, 1992a, p. 52). However, the Government’s response to SACTRA recommendations fell well short of complete acceptance in some important respects. In particular, SACTRA interpreted the ‘wide terms’ of the EC Directive as inviting ‘an environmental appraisal in the fullest sense, which is not limited to local or even regional effects’ (DTp, 1992a, p. 42). They felt that the current practice for road schemes was producing mainly ‘surprisingly brief’ Environmental Statements which should be expressed in a ‘greatly expanded and unconstrained form’ (DTp, 1992a, pp. 5657). They identified the practice of including in the ES ‘The Framework’ derived from the MEA as ‘dividing and weakening the treatment of environmental effects’ by introducing data unconnected with the environment and by confining the presentation of environmental data within the Framework’s summary. The Government response differed in its view of the requirements of the EC Directive, and stated that ‘The Environmental Statements currently produced by the Department (of Transport) follow these requirements’. The Government rejected the recommendation that the inclusion of the Framework in ESs should be abandoned, though they agreed to include advice in the new environmental asessment manual on the preparation of ESs (DTp, 1992b. p. 13). Tn other words, a scheme-by-scheme approach is favoured rather than a move towards the overview use of EA which was advocated by SACTRA. The CPRE also consider the DTp definition of a road ‘project’ to be inadequate because it leads to this scheme-by-scheme approach and precludes full consideration of the impacts of an overall route. For example, in their Complaint to the EC, they said: The coast

Folkestone

including either

to Honiton

of England

16 separate

the total

examined concern

trunk

is split

into

route

more

along the south

than

30 sections.

bypass schemes, and at no point arc

direct

cffccts or the

strategically.

even though

along the entire

indirect thcrc

Kent, Sussex and

route through

Dorset. In our view the [EC] Dircctivc an assessment of the whole route,

effects

is widespread

is clear in requiring

not just separate

parts

of it. (CPRE. 1991, p. 4). (See also Figure 4.) The consequences of this approach can be seen in the case of the Winchester bypass (M3), where ‘the two parts of a road had already been constructed so that there were few choices available when the decision was made to connect them’ (Nature Conservancy Council, 1990, 5.5). Strategic environmental At present,

EA

offers

assessment only

Journal of Transport Geography

and policy making

limited

scope

for the

199.3 Volume I Number 2

of transport

infrustructure:

.I. H. Farrington

and A. A. Ryder

modification of transport’s overall effects on the environment. One obvious factor limiting the efficacy of EA in such a role is the basic point that only new infrastructure is covered by the EC Directive, whereas the vast bulk of transport effort is carried out by existing systems. In this sense the application of EA to new projects can only be of limited, though gradually increasing, significance in dealing with the overall environmental effect of transport. More fundamentally, Barde and Button (lY90, p. 17) express the view that ‘no significant reduction of the environmental damage caused by transport will be achieved without first correcting intcrvention failures (and) . environmental protection measures alone will not suffice’. ln this sense. EA procedures may be considered as ‘environmental protection measures’. though their spirit and purpose is intended ultimately to be more far-reaching. Barde and Button cite several ‘intervention failures’. as follows: (1) Inappropriate pricing policy failing to internalize environmental cost. thus leading to transport over-supply and demand. (2) Inappropriate taxation policy. (3) Poorly targeted subsidies leading to additional traffic. (4) Administrative division producing inconsistencies between transport and other policies. They conclude from this that ‘The indications seem to be that no significant reduction of environmental damage caused by transport will be achieved without first correcting these environmental failures’ (1990, p. 17). A particular difficulty relating to road dcvelopment in the UK is that proposals are generated, promoted and approved in a single government department, so that transparently objective EA, and weighing of alternative routes (at project level) and modes (at strategic policy level) is difficult to achieve compared with, for example, a pipeline proposal from the private sector. An optimistic interpretation of official pronouncements would pick up indications of a move towards at least the recognition of some of the above points at policy-making levels, both in Britain and in the EC as a whole. This involves both the expansion of EA into an examination of the environmental consequences of policies, as indicated by the SACTRA recommendations summarized above, and the use of EA as one of a number of measures aimed at the containment of transport’s environmental impact. The publication by the Department of the Environment of a guide for civil service administrators on the incorporation of environmental issues into policy analysis is a welcome step. It contains advice on the recognition of possible environmental impacts early in the policy development process, and on appropriate techniques for assessing the environmental conse115

-Improvement

P

(Schemes costing over f 1m.)

Bp - Bypass

Imp

Key

wluns

FOLKESTONE - HONITON ROUTE DEPT. OF TRANSPORT ROAD PROJECTS

Chaeouth

Ep

tfon Gatr-Roundhauw

ttt~p

Environmental

assessment of transport infrastructure: J. H. Farrington and A. A. Ryder

quences of policy in a wide range of fields including transport (DOE, 1991b). However, the full integration of environmental factors into economic policy has yet to be achieved: we are a long way from a coherent policy on transport planning. land USCand the cnvironmcnt. Tension between departments with differing objectives is inevitable. The present division of responsibilities between the Departments of Transport, the Environment, and the Treasury may hamper necessary change. (Truelove. 1992, p. 21) Truelove structure

(p. plan

22)

points

to

the

local

authority

as ‘the only explicit link between offers an transport and land use’, which therefore opportunity for ‘the reconciliation of transport and its environmental effects’. The contribution that land-use policies can make, by reducing demand for travel, is being recognized by planning authorities (for example, COSLA, 1992, p. 45) but many of the environmental impacts concerned can only be effectively addressed at national policy level, particularly where fiscal measures are involved. An encouraging recent development in the British context is the study being carried out by The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution on transport and the environment. This will look at the options for developing transport strategies which reconcile the need for movement with the environmental consequences, and will take into account the land-use-transport planning relationship. The scope for technological, regulatory, fiscal and other measures in developing medium to long-term sustainable transport policy is to be examined, and the institutional framework for transport policy is to be considered, among other factors. There are also moves at the supranational level to tackle the challenge of environmental impact in the transport context. The EC’s Green Paper on the impact of transport on the environment (Council of the European Communities, 1992a) recognizes that ‘the currently projected growth in the transport sector cannot continue unchecked if environmental protection is to be a serious objective of the EC’. The aim of EC policy in this field is to attain ‘sustainable mobility’ whereby transport will have to ‘meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (Council of the EC, l992b, p. 1). However. in the face of forecast increases in the EC, for the period 199&2010, of 42% in road freight transport, 33%, in rail freight, 45% in car numbers, and 74% in air transport, it is questionable whether the measures proposed are capable of doing more than, at best, keeping pace with traffic growth to prevent the immediate prospects from worsening. The measures proposed in the Green Paper are:

(1) introducing measures to encourage more environmentally friendly modes of transport;

(2) traffic management; (3) limiting demand (through fiscal measures and public awareness campaigns); (4) increasing public transport provision; (5) stricter planning controls and environmental assessment requirements; (6) additional risk prevention measures to ensure the safer carriage of dangerous goods. (Council of the EC, 1992b, p. 3) The quandary facing decision makers is illustrated by the conflicts within EC policy itself, because a prime objective of EC transport policy is that ‘fair competition rules should apply to all modes of transport’ (Council of the EC, 1991, p. 2). While proponents of parity for the treatment of road and rail investment argue that meeting this objective would favour the increased provision of rail infrastructure and investment at the expense of road, it is the same policy which logically leads to the deregulation of air transport and to the massive growth forecast mentioned above. Whitelegg (1988, p. 199) has highlighted a disturbing lack of cohesion between EC environmental policies and policies in cognate areas such as transport. It is difficult to see how ‘fair competition’, if strictly applied, could allow the full implementation of the above measures. In any case, ‘fair competition’ between and within modes, and between and within EC member states, is likely to prove an elusive goal. at least for the foreseable future. If ‘fair competition’ were to include a greater degree of internalization of external costs, including social and environmental costs, then the goal of reducing transport’s environmental impact may be more attainable, but some large-scale modal shifts, as well as reappraisals of economic and political thinking. will be necessary, as Whitelegg has pointed out (1988). Conclusion

Given the difficulties outlined above, it appears to be essential to develop the concept and application of Strategic Enviromental Assessment to identify and remedy problems such as intervention failures, the analysis of indirect as well as direct impacts, the effective phasing of EA at an earlier stage in project development, and the incorporation of environmental considerations into policy making. To achieve such ends, EA: needs to operate at all decision-making Icvcls. through a tiered structure. it’ it is to bc effective. Project lcvcl EA cannot achicvc environmentally sustainable transport politics; it often strains to accommodate those issues that arc properly the concern of higher level EAs, and therefore often fails to varying dcgrccs. (Shcatc. l9Y2. p. 170)

SEA could function as part of an objectives-led transport policy-making process (Sheatc, 1992). Objectives could include road accident or congestion 117

Etzvironmen~al

assessment

of tran.spor~ infrastructure:

J. H. Furringon

reduction. road-rail freight shift. reduced need to travel, and reduced CO? emissions. A range of options such as road or rail investment, land-use planning and fiscal measures would then be set up for the production of a range of scenarios consisting of a mix of options. These would be subjected to SEA, and the relative environmental impacts of different scenarios identified. Iteration, a key part of the SEA process. would follow until the ‘best environmental mix of options’ could be selected (Sheate, 1992, p. 171). Clearly the opcrationalization of SEA is not likely to be quick or easy in practical terms, but its implementation appears to be on the way: proposals to establish SEA in EC legislation arc under discussion (Sheate, 1992; Institution of Environmental Assessment. 1992). These are expected to require SEA of the transport plans, programmcs and policies of member states. Such a step, if combined with modifications to the scope and phasing of project-level and route-level EA, particularly for road proposals as discussed above. should go far in increasing the rigour of assessment of transport infrastructure, and in developing environmentally sustainable transport policy. The effectiveness of this process will inevitably be subject to political judgement in the tinal analysis.

References Bardc, J.P. and Button, K. (cds) (IYYO) Trunsport policy und the environment, London: Earthscan British Railways Board (19531) Rail Link project; comparison of routes, London: British Rail COSLA (Convention of Scottish Local Authorities) (1992) Annex IO report on Royal Commission study -- transportation and rhe environmenl, Edinburgh: C0SL.A Council of the European Communities (lY85) Council DirecGiar of27 June 198.5 on the a.s.se.ssmen~of Ihe effects of certuin public and private projects on the environmenr (851337iEEC). Brussels: EC Council of the European Communities (1YYl) Background report: trunspor~ in a fast changing Ewope. ISECiBlOi

!,I. Brussels: EC Council of the European Communities (lYY2a) The impact of lrunsport on the environmenl, Commission Green Paper, ISECiB12192, Brussels: EC Council ofthc European Communities (lYY2b) Background report on the Commission port on the environment,

Green

Puper;

impact

of warts-

Brussels: EC CPRE (Council for the Protection of Rural England) ( 199 1) A complaint to rhe European Commi.ssion: UK itnpleniet~ta~ioti of etivironmenrul ussessment for roads, London: CPRE Department of the Environment (1988) Environmental Axsessmenr. DoE Circular 15188. London: HMSO Dcpartmcnt of the Environment (1YY1a) Environmental as.sc.ssmenf: u guide to rhe procedures, London: HMSO Dcpartmcnt of the Environment (IYY I b) Po1ic.y appruisal and rhc>environment, London: HMSO Dcpartmcnt of Trade and Industry (lYY2) Guideiines for 1he ~ttvirontnenfal a.s.ses.sniet~tof cross coutiWy pipelines,

und A. A. Ryder

London: HMSO Department of Transport ( I983) Munnul of ctl~‘irotltnctltcr/ uppruisal. London: HMSO Department of Transport (lYX7) Policy for muds in Englund: IY87. White Paper Cm. 125, London: HMSO Dcpartmcnt of Transport ( IYYO) Trunk rouds. England. into the lY9O.s. London: HMSO Dcpartmcnt of Transport (lYY2a) As.w.ssing rhe cnr’irotlmenlul impact of road schemes. Report of Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment. London: HMSO Dcpartmcnt of Transport (IYY2b) The Go~~ert~tnet~/‘,s respon.se lo the SACTRA report: [*ondon: HMSO Electricity and Pipclinc Works (Asscssmcnt of Environmental Effects) Regulations (IYYO), Statutory Instrumcnt: 442. London: HMSO Fairclough. T. (lY86) ‘Objcctivcs and rcquircmcntz of the environment& asscssmcnt dircctivc’, paper prcscntcd at EEC Environmental Assessment Dircctivc: Towards Implcmcntation. London. January 1Y86 Financiul Times. 112.August IYY2. Harbour Works (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations (198X) Statutory Instrument: 1336. London: HMSO IIighwjays (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Rcguhtions (1988) Statutory Instrument: 1241, London: HMSO Institution of Environmental Asscssmcnt (lYY2) Envirotlmen& ussexsment report No 3, Horncastle. I,incs. IEA Jones. C.E.. I,ce N. and Wood C. (1YYl) UK cnvironmentul stutetnetits 1988-1990: an analysis, Occasional Paper No 2Y. Manchcstcr: University of Manchcstcr. EIA Ccntre Jones. D.M. and Chapman. A.J. (eds) (lYX4) Noise and sociery, Chichestcr: Wiley Lambcrt. A.J. and Wood, C.M. (IYYO) ‘UK implcmentation of the European Directive on EIA’. Town Planning Review, hO( I), pp. 247-262 Lee. N. and Collcy, R. (IYYO) Reviewing the quality o/’ environmmtal slatements. Occasional Paper No 24, Manchcstcr: University of Manchcstcr. EIA Ccntrc Nature Conservancy Council (IYYO) The trealmenf 01’ nutltre con.servarion in the uppruisal of trunk roud.s: .stdhmission to SACTRA. Peterborough: NCC Nelson. P.M. (cd) ( I YX7) Transportation noise wf&wlcc hook, 1,ondon: Buttcrworths Scottish Dckclopmcnt Dcpartmcnt ( IY8X) Et~r~irot~met~ral assessment: im~~l~~rnrn~u~ion of rhe E-C‘ Directiw; the Environmental As.se.ssment (Scotland) Regulations 1988.

Edinburgh: The Scottish Office Secretary of State for the Environment CI al (IYYO) Thi.s common inheritance. White Paper, Cm. 1200, Ixmdon: HMSO Sheatc. W.R.. (lYY2) ‘Strategic cnvironmcntal assessmcnt in the transport sector’, I’rojecr Appraisal. 7(3). pp. 17&173 (Guildford, Beech Tree) The Guardian, I August lYY2 Truclovc, P. (1992) Decision muking in transport plunning. Harlow: Longman Welsh Office (lY8X) Welsh Ojf I( c circldur 231X8. (‘ardiff: Welsh Office Wood, C. and Jones. C. (1991) Monitoring environmental us.sessmrnt and plunning, EIA Ccntrc, University of Manchcstcr, for DoE: HMSO Whitclcgg. J. (198X) Trutt.sl,ortpo/icv in the EEC’. I.ondon: Routlcdgc