Assessment of Transportation Indicators for Northern Canada

Assessment of transportation indicators

for northern Canada

Report presented to

Hugo Asselin, Ph.D.

June 2013

Table of contents

Introduction ...... 3 Defining the North ...... 5 Redefining the North...... 10 Transportation indicators for northern Canada ...... 11 Connectivity ...... 13 Further research needs ...... 14 References ...... 16 Appendix 1. Comparison of frameworks of transportation criteria...... 19

Introduction

The North has always been central to the territorial representations of Canadians (Lasserre 1997, Grace 2007). Canada is one of just a handful of countries bordered by the Arctic ocean. In recent years, the North has gained considerable political attention because of predictions that the northern passage might soon be open year-long (Lasserre 2007). In addition, the North is a considerable source of natural resources, including minerals, oil & gas, and wood, and the federal and provincial governments have published strategic northern development plans to seize the opportunity (Asselin 2011).

Northern development implies important challenges due to immensity, remoteness, and low population density, most of which resides in aboriginal communities. Furthermore, cold temperatures, strong winds, frequent fog, permafrost, variable tide amplitude and water depth, and timing of ice formation are major constraints in the North (Warnock Hersey International Limited, 1970). Climate change is already severely impacting northern regions (e.g., Payette et al. 2004), increasing uncertainty (Lévesque 2009).

Development necessitates transportation, and challenges are also important in this regard in the North (Slipchenko 1987), and thus particular transportation indicators are needed. However, the elaboration of a transportation plan for the Canadian North calls for a clear definition of what exactly is the North. Previous work has been done on defining the North and part of this work is relevant to transportation issues.

To fulfill its mandate in support of an efficient, safe, secure and environmentally responsible northern transportation system, Transport Canada has to address changing requirements with regards to northern transportation. Supporting sustainable socioeconomic development requires performance metrics that take into account the peculiarities of the northern context.

This report explores the available literature on transportation indicators in northern Canada. More specifically, the objectives of this literature review are to (1) provide a status update on existing definitions of the North; (2) identify the transportation indicators specific to Canada's North, if any; (3) address the concept of connectivity in the North; (4) advise on further research needed to improve the development of transportation indicators for northern Canada.

Defining the North

Before the seminal work of Louis-Edmond Hamelin (1976), little had been done to define the North in Canada, despite the fact that several research projects had been realized in northern regions. Hamelin coined the term "nordicity" and developed an index to measure it, based on 10 variables: latitude (°N); summer heath (# days warmer than 5.6 °C); annual cold (# degree-days below 0°C); types of ice (permafrost [continuous thick, continuous thin, discontinuous]; gelisol [during 9 months, 4 months, or less than 1 month]); total precipitations (mm); natural vegetation cover (desert, tundra, woodland, forest); accessibility by means other than air (no service, seasonal service, year-round service); air services (charter, regular); population (# permanent residents); and degree of economic activity (no production, hunting-gathering, small-scale agriculture, large enterprises, large-scale agriculture, multiservice regional center). For a specific location, each variable is given a value between 0 and 1001. The sum total of the values for all 10 variables (between 0 and 1000) indicates whether a location is in the Middle North (200- 499), Far North (500-799), or Extreme North (800-1000). The first version of Hamelin's framework also included a Near North, which was subsequently discarded.

Here are a few examples of locations with their respective nordicity index (as calculated by Hamelin (1976)): north pole (1000); Alert (878, Extreme North); Resolute (775, Far North); Inukjuak (545, Far North); Churchill (450, Middle North); Goose Bay (218, Middle North); Fort McMurray (192; Pre-North); Timmins (64, Pre-North).

Among the 10 variables composing Hamelin's nordicity index, only 2 are directly related to transportation issues. First, accessibility by means other than air. Locations that are never accessible by other means than air are given a value of 100 for that variable. Locations where accessibility by other means is possible for part of the year are given values between 40 and 80, whereas locations accessible all year by means other than air are given values between 0 and 20. The second variable directly related to transportation issues is the frequency of air services (once a day or more, twice a week, every week,

1 Details on the calculation of the nordicity index are provided in Hamelin (1976). 5

every two weeks, etc.). An important consideration is however missing from Hamelin's air transportation variables: regularity. Indeed, fog or other weather-related issues often prevent planes from landing or taking off, thus disrupting the transportation schedule (Fournier and Richard 1978). Hamelin's framework also does not take into account the presence (or absence) and the quality of infrastructure for marine resupply, as well as the frequency of marine resupply. Some variables in Hamelin's index are indirectly related to transportation issues. For example, variables measuring temperature, precipitations and ice have impacts on infrastructure costs and maintenance.

Hamelin's index includes two broad types of variables : environmental (6 variables) and socioeconomic (4 variables). The environmental variables depict (directly or indirectly) the harsh conditions prevailing in northern areas compared to the temperate locations typical of southern Canada: latitude, summer heath, annual cold, types of ice, total precipitations, and natural vegetation cover. It should be noted that several of these variables are strongly correlated. For example, temperature and precipitations both decrease with latitude. Ice conditions are correlated to temperature and precipitations. Vegetation cover is also determined to a large extent by climate variables. Not taking into account the strong correlation between the variables composing the index is equivalent to counting the same things more than once. As environmental variables are already more numerous in the index than socioeconomic variables (6 vs. 4), their weight in the final nordicity value is even more disproportionate.

The four socioeconomic variables are accessibility by means other than air, air services, population, and degree of economic activity. Although some of these variables are probably correlated, the correlation level is likely weaker than for environmental variables. Important socioeconomic variables are not included in the index, for example distance from the nearest major urban centre, land use by aboriginal communities, or availability of education and health services and infrastructure.

Following Hamelin's work, little has been done with regards to using multicriteria definitions of the North. Several organisms have opted to draw a line between South and North on the basis of a unique criterion. The two criteria used most often are geographic: latitude (e.g., Government of Canada [60 °N], National Energy Board [60 °N], Walter & Duncan Gordon Foundation [60 °N west of Hudson's Bay and 55 °N east of Hudson's Bay], Government of Quebec [49 °N]), and the southern limit of discontinuous permafrost (e.g., Northern Scientific Training Program, International Polar Year). Other organizations have rather chosen to draw the line based on socioeconomic variables (e.g., Conference Board of Canada, Council of the North of the Anglican Church).

Morissonneau (1978) reviewed historical changes to what was considered to be Northern Quebec, before focusing on the Abitibi-Témiscamingue administrative region, which he clearly identified as North, despite it not scoring high enough on Hamelin's scale to be part of the North. In fact, Abitibi-Témiscamingue was considered as part of the Near North in the first version of Hamelin's framework, but was later considered to have underwent "denordication" following the principle that, as indicator values change over time, the definition of North is dynamic instead of static.

Graham (1990) published a review of single-criterion and multicriteria indices of the North, in Canada and in Russia, focusing on the indices of Burns et al. (1975), Hamelin (1976), and Brunelle et al. (1989). Her work was mostly theoretical and aimed at academics active in northern studies. She found that most measures included a certain amount of subjectivity (including Hamelin's index), or were limited to inhabited locations (because socioeconomic indicators are not available for areas devoid of permanent residents).

McNiven and Puderer (2000) also compared Burns et al. (1975), Hamelin (1976) and Brunelle et al. (1989), and ended up suggesting their own index including 16 variables, with only 4 in common with Hamelin's index. Their objective was to develop a statistically-robust index to define the North, to be used in Statistics Canada. Among the novelties introduced by McNiven and Puderer (2000) were the inclusion of measures of

7 distance from urban centres, potential for agriculture, importance of aboriginal people, dependence on natural resources extraction, rurality, and cost of living. Their final zonation included 4 zones: South, Southern transition zone (more or less equivalent to Hamelin's Pre-North), Northern transition zone (southern half of Hamelin's Middle North), and North (northern half of Hamelin's Middle North and up). As for Hamelin's framework, the only variables directly linked to transportation issues are accessibility by road and by rail.

Petrov (2012) used the core-periphery-margin model to design a new northern index based on five socioeconomic variables: dominance (size and wealth of the economy), dependency, public subsidization, importance of the manufacturing or staples sector, and labour market conditions. His work was prompted by the renewed interest for the northern "resource frontier", as the number of projects aimed at natural resources exploitation has substantially increased in recent years, both in Canada and in Russia. Only one of the four variables he used was included in Hamelin's framework (importance of the manufacturing or staples sector), and none was included in McNiven and Puderer's framework. Notably, all of Petrov's criteria are social and none is directly linked to transportation issues.

Table 1. Comparison of northern indices. Factors Hamelin McNiven Petrov & Puderer Latitude x Precipitation x Summer heat x Annual cold x Growing degree-days (vegetation) x Heating degree-days (house heating) x Types of ice x Permafrost x Summer concentration of thermal efficiency index x Natural vegetation cover x x Agroclimatic Resource Index x Agriculture ecumene x Accessibility (road) x x Accessibility (rail) x Accessibility (air) x Distance to urban centre x Population x x Degree of economic activity x x Price index x OECD Rural North x Resource area and Native North x Revenue Canada Northern Zone Boundary x Revenue Canada Transition Zone Boundary x Dominance (linked with education) x Dependency (linked with income) x Public subsidization x Labour market condition (employment) x

Redefining the North

Among the currently available definitions of the North, those that are used most often are the single-criterion indices. Despite being over simplistic, they are easy to understand and to map, thus probably their popularity. Multicriteria definitions are mostly used by academics and researchers. Socioeconomic variables are still underrepresented (except in Petrov's index), resulting in locations that have a lot in common being designated as being North and South (e.g., Whitehorse is North, whereas Amos is South).

With regards to transportation, there is very little detail in the broad definitions of the North, except for accessibility. This is probably because most of the North is, still today, sparsely populated and mostly inaccessible, except by air or boat. Following Hamelin's (1976) work, regions that are at the southern margin of the North tend to be "denordicated" as soon as they attain a certain level of socioeconomic development. Nevertheless, some of the challenges related to transportation in the North will still prevail, even after population has reached a higher density and transportation infrastructures are more numerous (Mead 1985).

Whether a single-criterion or multicriteria index is used, it appears that the debate on the definition of the North is still open. Syntheses are published approximately every decade, sometimes accompanied by a new definition. The problem, however, is probably that of drawing a line. The transition from South to North would be better envisioned as gradual than abrupt. Decision-makers in governmental agencies would benefit from using a set of criteria and indicators that could be weighted differently depending on the question and context. For example, determining what is North and what is not will depend wheter the goal is to determine eligibility to the northern resident deduction (Canada Revenue Agency) or to allow budgets for road maintenance (Transport Canada). But as we shall see later, such a criteria and indicators framework is yet unavailable for northern Canada.

Transportation indicators for northern Canada

Transportation is a well-researched field of study. Handbooks are available and the annual number of publications related to this field of study has increased five-fold in the last 15 years. Geographical aspects of transportation are also well-studied (e.g., Hesse and Rodrigue 2004; Rodrigue et al. 2006), but northern settings have received far less attention. Numerous searches in the most frequently used scientific databases (Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar) yielded only a few relevant matches. Some reports focus on single types of transportation (e.g., roads [Yates 1973], air [Orange et al. 1985]), or on specific issues (e.g., environmental impacts [Gudmundsson 2006], climate change [Prowse et al. 2009; Picketts 2012]), but only a handful of complete sets of criteria and indicators are currently available (see below). It thus appears that the specific question of transportation indicators in northern areas has so far received little attention. Indicators undoubtedly exist for the two principal components of northern transportation (climate and remoteness/low-density) taken separately, but not integrated in a northern perspective.

Duhaime et al. (2004) presented an interesting decision-making tool for integrated planning of transportation networks in northern Quebec. To be used for monitoring, this framework could be completed by adding measurable indicators for each criterion, and by setting goals to achieve for each indicator. In the introduction to their report, they explain that they had to modify their initial objectives after discovering the shallowness of the literature on the subject. Their final tool contains the following seven criteria: mobility of persons, mobility of goods, efficiency of transportation systems, safety of transportation systems, economic development, social development, environmental protection. Each criterion is subdivided into sub-criteria (total: 27 sub-criteria). One or more indicators are associated to each sub-criterion (total: 81 indicators). Examples of indicators are: global annual transportation cost, cost of intraregional transportation, time for (duration of) intraregional transportation, cost of interregional transportation, time for (duration of) interregional transportation, cost of storage (when transportation duration is long), frequency of public transportation opportunities (bus, train, boat, air), choice

between transportation modes, availability of transportation (number of places), safety, reliability, state of infrastructures, access, equity, environmental conservation, possibility of medical evacuation, etc. The Duhaime et al. (2004) framework is the most comprehensive set of transportation indicators currently available for northern Canada. It could be completed using the other, less complete but complementary, frameworks available in the literature (Black 1997; Gilbert et al. 2002; Litman 2007; Lyk-Jensen 2007)2.

Fenno-scandinavian countries have developed tools for the assessment of transportation infrastructure. Lyk-Jensen (2007) presented a review of the evaluation methods in Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland. She presented 8 indicators of direct impacts, 9 indicators of environmental impacts, and 4 indicators of socioeconomic impacts. These are: (1) Direct impacts: construction costs, disruption costs, operation/maintenance costs, vehicle operating costs, time savings, safety, comfort/convenience, tax distortion; (2) Environmental impacts: noise, vibrations, air pollution (local/global), barrier effects, visual intrusion, loss of important sites, resource consumption, ground/water pollution; and (3) Socioeconomic impacts: land use, overriding impacts, international traffic (transboundary impacts), distributional effects.

Another framework was proposed for the North Sea region and focuses primarily on marine/sea transportation (Kristiansen et al. 2005). The concepts used in this report are multimodality, intermodality, transport chains, supply chain management, transport corridors, transport and logistics centres, passenger vs. freight, etc.

Sustainable transportation is gaining attention in the literature since the 1990s (Black 1997; Jeon and Amekudzi 2005; Sioui and Morency 2012). For example, Gilbert et al. (2002) suggested 14 sustainable transportation performance indicators. Litman (2007) also proposed a sustainable transportation framework with 40 indicators: 6 general (related to planning process and market efficiency), 10 economic, 11 social and 13 environmental.

2 See Appendix 1. 12

Connectivity

Regarding the specific issue of connectivity, most research has focused on North-South connectivity, sometimes through remoteness or accessibility (e.g., Orange et al. 1985; Ceppetelli 1987; Metrass-Mendes et al. 2011). North-North connectivity is nevertheless important to consider, especially as it could help reduce the negative impacts of fly- in/fly-out practices (Storey 2010) by giving Northerners access to working sites in other northern locations. Furthermore, the transportation strategies of the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and Northern Quebec all have goals to increase road connections between northern communities. Air travel is often the only transportation mode connecting northern communities, at prohibitive costs. Increasing North-North connectivity by further developing the road network would help strengthen the social network in the North and facilitate access to resources and land occupancy. New roads or railroads built to give access to natural resources extraction sites should also be designed to connect northern communities (Asselin 2011). Páez et al. (2012) published a review of the available accessibility indicators and Jones and Rosenberg (1992) insisted on the importance of evaluating transportation alternatives. However, little, if any work, has focused on North-North connectivity.

Another issue that has received little attention is that of the needs of aboriginal communities in terms of transportation infrastructure as well as the impacts of the transport network on these communities (e.g., Orange et al. 1985; Ceppetelli 1987; Kneeshaw et al. 2010). A participation index was elaborated by Kamruzzaman and Hine (2011, 2012) in order to better take into account the needs and views of disadvantaged rural populations. Furthermore, the notion of "quality of life", introduced by Carse (2010) into the transportation literature, could find interesting applications in northern Canada (pending appropriate modifications), an area characterized by populations whose socioeconomic and health metrics are consistently lower than for the southern Canadian population.

Further research needs

Based on the findings presented in this literature review, needs for further research can be identified. First and foremost, the definition of the North should be investigated in order to design a new index with improved statistical strength and local-regional relevance. This index should be dynamic, flexible and adaptive, so that determining if a location is or is not north would depend on the context, question, or objective. Having a clear and functional definition of the North is essential as a basis for the development of a complete framework of transportation criteria and indicators for northern Canada.

An updated version of the framework proposed by Duhaime et al. (2004) could be developed by conducting a pan-Canadian panel survey of experts to validate the criteria and to identify northern transportation indicators. Then, a dynamic, adaptive, electronic decision-making tool could be developed, integrating the updated northern transportation criteria and indicators framework and the new definition of the North.

Among the specific issues that will require particular attention are the integration of industrial and local needs in the design of the transportation network. Historically (and still currently), the development of northern Canada's transportation network has focused on providing industry with access to natural resources. This led to major infrastructures being developed, often with important public funding, without direct benefits to local populations. The transportation network should not only aim to exploit natural resources, but also to sustainably occupy the land. This calls for a better understanding of connectivity (both North-South and North-North), especially in a context where industries increasingly rely on fly-in/fly-out to bring workers to remote northern locations.

Sustainable transportation in the Canadian North will have to take into account the production of greenhouse gases. The enormous potential for clean energy development in northern Canada should be investigated, especially with regards to possibilities for reducing the ecological footprint of the transportation network. This will affect the choice

of favored transportation modes (e.g., boat, plane, train, road). Increased multi- and intermodality should also receive greater attention, especially as means to increase accessibility and reliability of the transportation offer. Finally, the needs and views of local populations, especially aboriginal people, have to be better integrated in the decision-making process regarding transportation.

References Asselin, H. 2011. Le Plan Nord: les autochtones laissés en plan. Recherches amérindiennes au Québec 41: 37-46.

Black, W. R. 1997. North American transportation: perspectives on research needs and sustainable transportation. Journal of Transport Geography 5: 12-19.

Brunelle, R., McGillivray, M. & Poole, E. P. 1989. The Report of the Task Force on Tax Benefits for Northern and Isolated Areas.

Burns, B. M., Richardson, F. A. & Hall, C. N. H. 1975. A nordicity index. Musk Ox 17: 41-43.

Carse, A. T. 2010. Development of an alternative transport appraisal technique: the transport quality of life model. Ph.D. thesis, University of Glasgow.

Ceppetelli, G. E. 1987. The effect of transportation policies on the socio-economic viability of remote northern Manitoba native communities. Unpublished M.Sc. thesis, University of Manitoba.

Duhaime, G., Baert, J. & Ampleman, L. 2004. Gestion intégrée des réseaux de transport dans le Nord-du-Québec. Groupe d'études inuit et circumpolaires, Université Laval, Québec.

Fournier, P.-A. & Richard, R. 1978. Transport aérien à Poste-de-la-baleine. Ministère des Transports du Québec, Division des études de transport, Service de l'analyse des systèmes.

Gilbert, R., Irwin, N., Hollingworth, B. & Blais, P. 2002. Sustainable transportation performance indicators (STPI). Unpublished project report.

Grace, S. E. 2007. Canada and the idea of North. McGill-Queen's University Press.

Graham, A. 1990. Indexing the Canadian North: broadening the definition. Northern Review 6: 21-37.

Gudmundsson, H. 2006. Indicators of environmental policy integration in Nordic transport policies. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen.

Hamelin, L.-E. 1976. Nordicité canadienne. Hurtubise HMH.

Hesse, M. & Rodrigue, J.-P. 2004. The transport geography of logistics and freight distribution. Journal of Transport Geography 12: 171-184.

Jeon, C. M. & Amekudzi, A. 2005. Addressing sustainability in transportation systems: Definitions, indicators, and metrics. Journal of Infrastructure Systems 31: 31-50.

Jones, J. & Rosenberg, M. W. 1992. Regional development, remote communities and alternative transportation services. Geografiska Annaler 74B: 189-198.

Kamruzzaman, Md. & Hine, J. 2011. Participation index: a measure to identify rural transport disadvantage? Journal of Transport Geography 19: 882-899.

Kamruzzaman, Md. & Hine, J. 2012. Analysis of rural activity spaces and transport disadvantage using a multi-method approach. Transport Policy 19: 105-120.

Kneeshaw, D.D., Larouche, M., Asselin, H. , Adam, M.-C., Saint-Arnaud, M. & Reyes, G. 2010. Road rash: Ecological and social impacts of road networks on First Nations. Pages 169-184, M.G. Stevenson et D.C. Natcher (eds.), Planning Co-existence: Aboriginal considerations and approaches in land use planning. Canadian Circumpolar Institute Press.

Kristiansen, J., Johannsen, H. H. W., Hansen, L. G. & Hansen, C. J. 2005. Sustainable transport research and development network in the North Sea region. SUTRANET.

Lasserre, F. 1997. Le mythe du Nord. Géographie et Cultures 21: 59-70.

Lasserre, F. 2007. La souveraineté canadienne dans le passage du Nord-Ouest. Options politiques 28: 34-41.

Lévesque, A. M. 2009. Salluit : Analyse et reconstitution d'événements climatiques significatifs pertinents à l'aménagement du territoire et à la sécurité publique. Mémoire de maîtrise en sciences géographiques, Université Laval, Québec.

Litman, T. 2007. Developing indicators for comprehensive and sustainable transport planning. Transportation Research Record 2017: 10-15.

Lyk-Jensen, S. 2007. Appraisal methods in the Nordic countries. Transport infrastructure assessment. Danish Transport Research Institute.

McNiven, C. & Puderer, H. 2000. Delineation of Canada's North: an examination of the North-South relationship in Canada. Statistics Canada, Geography Division.

Mead, W. R. 1985. Problems of Norden. Geographical Journal 151: 1-10.

Metrass-Mendes, A., de Neufville, R. & Costra, A. 2011. Air accessibility in northern Canada: prospects and lessons for remote communities. ERSA conference papers ersa11p1647, European Regional Science Association.

Morissonneau, C. 1978. La terre promise: le mythe du Nord québécois. Hurtubise HMH.

Orange, R. J., Bourret, J. L. & Chapman, D. H. 1985. Les services aériens des régions éloignées du Nord sont-ils adéquats? Rapport final du Comité des transports aériens de la Commission canadienne des transports.

Páez, A., Scott, D. M. & Morency, C. 2012. Measuring accessibility: positive and normative implementations of various accessibility indicators. Journal of Transport Geography 25: 141-153.

Payette, S., Delwaide, A., Caccianiga, M. & Beauchemin, M. 2004. Accelerated thawing of subarctic peatland permafrost over the last 50 years. Geophysical Research Letters 31: 1-4.

Petrov, A. N. 2012. Redrawing the margin: re-examining regional multichotomies and conditions of marginality in Canada, Russia and their northern frontiers. Regional Studies 46: 59-81.

Picketts, I. 2012. Implementing climate change adaptation in Prince George, BC. Volume 5: Transportation infrastructure. Natural Resources Canada, Regional Adaptation Collaboration Program.

Prowse, T. D., Furgal, C., Chouinard, R., Melling, H., Milburn, D. & Smith, S. L. 2009. Implications of climate change for economic development in northern Canada: Energy, resource, and transportation sectors. Ambio 38: 272-281.

Rodrigue, J.-P., Comtois, C. & Slack, B. 2006. The geography of transport systems. Routledge.

Sioui, L. & Morency, C. 2012. Où en sommes-nous dans la conception d'indicateurs de développement durable en transport? VertigO Hors-série 11: DOI : 10.4000/vertigo.11769.

Slipchenko, W. (ed.) 1987. Problems of the North: transportation. Circumpolar and Scientific Affairs Directorate, Canada.

Storey, K. 2010. Fly-in/Fly-out and Fly-over: mining and regional development in Western Australia. Australian Geographer 32 : 133-148.

Warnock Hersey International Limited. 1970. Arctic transportation study. Report prepared for Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, The Northern Economic Branch.

Yates, A. B. 1973. Northern road development in Canada. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.

Appendix 1. Comparison of frameworks of transportation criteria.

Criteria Subcriteria Indicators Duhaime Lyk-Jensen Black Gilbert Litman Mobility of persons Mobility of persons x cost within region x x time within region x x x cost between regions x x time between regions x x x frequency x x mode (choice) x x availability/accessibility x x x comfort x x safety x x x security x reliability x x congestion x x total motorized movement of persons x share of passenger transport not public x movement of light-duty passenger vehicles x quality of non automobile modes x quality of transport for disadvantaged people x overall satisfaction rating of transport system x distributional effects x Mobility of goods Mobility of goods x time x x x cost (transport) x cost (handling and stocking) x infrastructure quality x handling x total motorized movement of freight x mode (choice) x reliability x Efficiency of transport systems Efficiency of transport systems x time within region x x time between regions x x frequency x mode (choice) x x time to transport goods x x infrastructure quality x x medical evacuation x intermodalism x x length of paved roads x fuel availability x system valuation x construction costs x disruption costs x operation and maintenance costs x international traffic x Criteria Subcriteria Indicators Duhaime Lyk-Jensen Black Gilbert Litman Safety of transport systems During the implementation phase x safety of construction workers x safety of population x During the exploitation phase x safety of personnel x safety of users x injuries/fatalities from road transport x x Economic development Job market x Jobs within region x Jobs at provincial level x Formation within region x Household/individual econ. situation x Income x Cost of living x Annual cost of transportation x Index of relative household transport cost x Index of the relative cost of urban transit x Proportion of households with internet access x Change in property values x Tax distortion x Local/regional economic activities x Primary sector x Secondary sector x Tertiary sector x Provincial economic activities x Primary sector x Secondary sector x Tertiary sector x Social development Health x transport of perishable food x availability of traditional food x access to alcohol and drugs x dust x access to specialized health services x time to transport medical resources x cost of transporting medical resources x medical evacuation x Education x Access to post-secondary education x Cost of transporting educational resources x Time to transport educational resources x Criteria Subcriteria Indicators Duhaime Lyk-Jensen Black Gilbert Litman Social development (cont'd) Community relations x Access to neighbour cities or villages x Access to gaming, alcohol, and drugs x Equitable distribution of impacts x Quality of interactions between neighbors x Community livability rating x Traditional activities x Access to hunting/gathering territories x Integrity of territories x Integrity of wildlife and plant resources x Degree cultural resources are considered x Visual and sound environment x Landscape esthetics x x Noise x x x Vibrations x x Lodging x Cost of transportation for construction material x Citizens' participation x Integration of citizens in decision-making process x Environmental protection Water x Quality of surface water (rivers and lakes) x Quality of surface water (oceans) x Quality of underground water x Water pollution emissions x x Air x Overall air quality x x Greenhouse gas emissions x x Emissions of air pollutants from road transport x x x x Index of emissions intensity of the road vehicle fleet x Heat island effect x Soil x Integrity of permafrost x Soil quality x Soil pollution x Wildlife x Habitat quality x x Risks of collision x Barrier effects x Vegetation x Habitat quality x Vegetation cover x Criteria Subcriteria Indicators Duhaime Lyk-Jensen Black Gilbert Litman Environmental protection (cont'd) Land management x Integrated management x Sites of ecological interest x x x Sites of historical interest x x Rate of use of urban land x Land devoted to transport facilities x Land use x Overriding impacts x Landscape x Landscape quality x Resource sustainability x Natural resources x Resources consumption x Energy efficiency x Energy consumption x x Fossil fuel consumption x Index of energy intensity of the road vehicle fleet x Use of renewable fuels x Waste management x Transportation cost for recyclable and dangerous waste x Safety of stocking and transporting dangerous waste x Environmental principles x Precautionary principle x Polluter-payer principle x