Name of the case study
Description of context
Description of project - background
Description of project - objectives/aims
Description of project - time interval and stages
A. Four alternative transport policies were determined: 0+ = the current system including investments already accepted, 1 = the former 1998 plan emphasising infrastructure investments, 2 = an alternative based on traffic and mobility management, 3 = trying to minimise transport demand through land use planning.
B. The most important proposals for investments and actions (public transport projects, road projects and actions in traffic policy) were placed into the alternatives according to the impacts of the investment/action; the result was, that each policy alternative became a collection of concrete projects.
C. The criterias for the assessment were chosen (the full list is more detailed, these are the headlines only):
D. The alternatives were compared against these criterias using a weighted multi-criteria-analyses: the impacts of each policy alternative to every criteria was measured or estimated, and the impacts were placed into a scale from very clearly negative to very clearly positive. The criterias were not weighted numerically, but their different importance had probably influence on choosing the elements to the final plan (next step).The results are shown in the table below.
E. The final plan was then composed including the best elements of each alternative to the plan: so, none of the assessed alternatives was chosen or recommended as such.
F. Finally the final plan was "operationalised" listing the investments and actions following the choice of policy elements (and using the data of part B above), and creating a schedule for implementation of the investments and actions. An example of the policy measures and public transport projects included is shown in the table below.
Description of project - financing
Description of project - other sectors involved
What tools were used to assess sustainability?