The Case Study Omberg
Given the set of indicators agreed by ASSET, the most instrumental indicator to identify the Omberg mountain and Lake Tåkern area as a transport sensitive area is the “Sensitive ecosystems”. For this indicator, the number of Natura 2000 areas is the only criterion that has been useful. Other indicators of high relevance to this case study are “Cultural heritage”, “Touristic and recreational value” and “Connectivity index” since the area contains several sites designated by the government as being of national interest for the purposes of nature conservation, conservation of the cultural environment and outdoor recreation. These could be suggested as additional criteria for the first three of the four indicators mentioned above. As an integrated measure of these three indicators, the number of messages appearing in the letters-to-the editor column in newspapers could be suggested.
New road infrastructure is planned to be built in this area, with the aim to improve a stretch of a north-south trunk road in Sweden. It is expected that the hauliers’ choice will mainly be to pass east of Lake Vättern and continue to use national road 50 through the transport sensitive area Omberg/Tåkern even if existing alternative roads are improved or new stretches added. This will have severe impact on the natural, socio-cultural and recreational values as well as the landscape scenery. Hence, the encroachment effect of the new infrastructure and traffic volumes has become a main focus. To protect this area, several policy packages have been evaluated in cost benefit analyses. The policies assessed are infrastructure planning, upgrading either national road 50 or alternatively county road 32 which does not pass through the Omberg/Tåkern area. Supplementary policies to road 32 have been to use either a toll or a kilometre tax for redirecting HGVs. The CBAs indicate that all policy packages would be socio-economically profitable. The upgrading of road 50 is the most profitable alternative, if not taking into account the encroachment effect. Including the value of encroachment, the alternative of road 32 with a kilometre tax is the preferable choice. The main policy conclusion of this case study is that encroachment can be an important factor in a CBA. Pricing policies are more suitable when the aim is not to ban all non-local traffic but rather to decrease the traffic volumes in transport sensitive areas. The study also points to the importance of sensible infrastructure planning in transport sensitive areas.
Background
A major planning problem when designing a trunk-road system for Sweden in the 1990s was to find a path for the north–south long-distance goods transport in southern Sweden and to relieve the Stockholm area from this freight transport (Figure 1). During the planning of this new trunk road system, there was a prolonged open dispute as to which side of the 130-km long Lake Vättern this path should take. The eastern alternative was finally chosen. Nevertheless, the hauliers’ choice between the sides has still remained rather even; 60 per cent of the users choose the eastern alternative and 40 per cent the western. However, new road investments on the eastern alternative are expected to generate a higher share of traffic using the eastern alternative.
Given that the long-distances traffic will be using the eastern alternative, the problem of how to pass the very sensitive Lake Tåkern/Omberg area arises. The existing trunk road, national road 50, is a narrow road (some stretches are only 6-7 m wide) with numerous small built-up areas surrounding it and passing in the middle between Lake Tåkern and the Omberg mountain. As an alternative, improvement of the existing county road 32 has been discussed. This is a county road of significance. However, the alternative would be using road 32 and E4 instead of road 50 for the long-distance traffic, and this route is approximately 9 km longer (Figure 2).
The question of what road stretch to choose as the new trunk road has been discussed for decades. Several NGOs and other stakeholders have opposed against the first decision of improving road 50. They have in strategic ways highlighted the environmental and cultural values of this area, and have played an important role in influencing the public opinion and the decision makers. This has of course affected the decision as well as the path of the decision process. The analyses of the road projects were done all over again in the beginning of this decade following the appearance of new guidelines and regulations from the Swedish National Heritage Board and the Government. These are some of the reasons which have led to a re-valuation of the environmental and cultural aspects of the region (Storbjörk, 2001, Storbjörk, 2009-03-13). Finally, after decades of discussion, the alternative of upgrading road 32 has been chosen, leaving the existing national road 50 for further discussion on its status and function.
 |
|---|
Figure1. Major trunk-road alternatives discussed for long-distance heavy traffic in S Sweden. The Omberg/Takern area is situated immediately east of Lake Vättern (Roads 50, 32 and E4). |
 |
Figure 2. Map of the main roads in the study area |
Policy packages studied
The main focus of the case study is to protect the Transport Sensitive Area (TSA) from encroachment of new road infrastructure and the impact of traffic volumes, mainly heavy goods vehicles (HGV). In this case study we will assess five different policy packages (PP) for protecting this infrastructure TSA. The main policy measures assessed are infrastructure planning and price policies. More specifically:
PP1: Improvements of national road 50.
PP2: Improvements of county road 32; road 32 will become the new trunk road and road 50 degraded to a county road.
PP3: Improvements of county road 32, supplemented with a road toll at the national road 50.
PP4: Improvements of county road 32, supplemented with a differentiated kilometre tax at the national road 50.
PP5: A road toll only on national road 50.
Lessons learned
In this case study, some of the indicators agreed upon in the ASSET project are not suitable on a local level because the given criteria do not cover what is of relevance here. An instrument used in Sweden could be suggested as a supplementary indicator, namely areas of national interest for the purposes of nature conservation, conservation of the cultural environment or outdoor recreation. Also, national parks, nature reserves and cultural reserves and corresponding protection instruments could be included as criteria for the “Sensitive areas” indicator.
An additional threshold mirroring whether an area is a TSA (Transport Sensitive Area) or not could be the public opinion. This could be measured as the number of messages appearing in the letter-to-the-editor columns in newspapers or the number of messages received by the road authority that express viewpoints from property owners, NGOs and the public. Also formal complaints to the authorities (proponent, competent authority, and the like) could be an indicator.
The old road passes an area of high cultural, natural and touristic value. Due to the strategic location of the area it has not been seen feasible by politicians to redirect traffic from the area and reduce the encroachment from the road (as assumed in our PP5). Contrary, the increasing demand of transport and especially road freight transport demands an improvement of the old road. However, such an improvement will be accompanied by an unacceptable increase in the visual and physical intrusion. The politically accepted solution is to build a new road outside the core of the area. The new road will attract passenger cars but will hardly change the behaviour of HGV drivers as they have a higher rate of distance dependent cost in relation to time dependent cost compared to car drivers. To redirect also HGVs, it is necessary to implement some kind of demand management measure.
The study shows that the encroachment value is the crucial component which will explain the political decisions taken. In an area with low population density and low traffic volume, the encroachment of the infrastructure and the traffic will outweigh the other environmental effects (air pollution and CO2) with a factor of 100 in this specific case.
In line with other studies’ conclusion on the valuation of encroachment effects, also this report shows that encroachment can be an important factor in the CBA. It also indicates that the encroachment of infrastructure is valued higher than the one caused by traffic.
The possibility to include encroachment cost into a kilometre charge (or tax) system with a different charge for this area looks promising. However, this opportunity is limited by the current Eurovignette directive. Universally accepted indicators need to be accepted and implemented in a new directive to open the possibility for charging encroachment costs.The importance of sensible decision-making in the planning of new infrastructure, based on comprehensive studies and environmental assessments, in transport sensitive areas is an essential outcome of this case study.