New Vestfjarðavegur in Reykhólahreppur

Transcription

1 REPORT New Vestfjarðavegur in Reykhólahreppur CLIENT Reykhólahreppur SUBJECT DATE / REVISION: 29. June 2018 / 01 DOCUMENT CODE: RIVEG-RAP-01

2 Denne rapporten er utarbeidet av Multiconsult i egen regi eller på oppdrag fra kunde. Kundens rettigheter til rapporten er regulert i oppdragsavtalen. Hvis kunden i samsvar med oppdragsavtalen gir tredjepart tilgang til rapporten, har ikke tredjepart andre eller større rettigheter enn det han kan utlede fra kunden. Multiconsult har intet ansvar dersom rapporten eller deler av denne brukes til andre formål, på annen måte eller av andre enn det Multiconsult skriftlig har avtalt eller samtykket til. Deler av rapportens innhold er i tillegg beskyttet av opphavsrett. Kopiering, distribusjon, endring, bearbeidelse eller annen bruk av rapporten kan ikke skje uten avtale med Multiconsult eller eventuell annen opphavsrettshaver RIVEG-RAP / 01 Side 2 av 33

3 REPORT PROJECT New Vestfjarðavegur in Reykhólahreppur DOCUMENT CODE RIVeg-NOT-001 SUBJECT RESERVATION Limited CLIENT Reykhólahreppur PROJECT MANAGER Lars Peder Larsgård CONTACT PERSON Halldóra Heggviðsdóttir PRODUCED BY Lars Peder Larsgård RESPONSIBLE UNIT Samferdsel OL-Veg SAMMENDRAG Multiconsult Norge AS has made a study on alternatives for a new Vestfjarðavegur in Reykhólahreppur on behalf of Reykhólahreppur. The study includes improvement of existing alternatives and new alternatives. This independent review is intended as a means of reaching consensus on the alternative that will be ultimately selected. The alternative D2 has got a new line with a shorter tunnel and max. slope 7%. This reduces the total cost because of the shorter tunnel. The other existing alternatives have minor modifications, but the crossing of three fjords has a negative impact on the landscape and ecologi of the fjords, as well as the impact on the Teigsskógur woodland in alternative T-H. Alternative T-H has the lowest construction cost and has been chosen by the Icelandic Road and Coastal Administration (IRCA). An alternative R, which follows the existing Reykhólavegur, is an interesting alternative because of construction cost and relatively minor impact on the ecology of the fjords. It could also be an advantage for the development of Reykhólar. Alternative R is also crossing Þorskafjörður, but in a location where the fjord has a deeper section, allowing sufficient water exchange and that allows a shorter bridge than in the originally proposed alternative A1. Hydrological studies have been done by Multiconsult Norge AS to determine the necessary length of the bridge. The preliminary conclusion is that alternative R through Reykhólar could be a very reasonable compromise for a new Vestfjarðavegur For presentation L. P. Larsgård S. J. Sigurðurson L. P. Larsgård For comments L. P. Larsgård S. J. Sigurðurson REV. DATE DESCRIPTION PRODUCED CONTROLLED APPROVED MULTICONSULT Nedre Skøyen vei 2 Postboks 265 Skøyen, 0213 Oslo Tlf NO MVA

4 CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENT 1 Introduction Planning premises Planning context Road planning specifications Description of alternatives with comments Alternative 0 Existing road as it is today Alternative D2 Northern line with tunnel Alternative T-H Northern side of Þorskafjörður Alternative I Southern side of Þorskafjörður Alternative R Connecting to Reykhólar Comparison of alternatives Road system in Reykhólahreppur Crossing of fjords hydrological review Ecological impact Teigsskógur Land use Travelling distance and travelling time Existing road and road conditions Bridge construction Maintenance of the road system Impact of a new road to Reykhólar Construction costs Summary and conclusions Appendix Overview alternatives Alternative 0 Alternative D2 Alternative T-H Alternative I Alternative R Existing road as it is today Northern line with tunnel Northern side of Þorskafjörður Southern side of Þorskafjörður Continuing from Reykhólar RIVEG-RAP / 01 Side 4 av 33

5 1 Introduction 1 Introduction Reykhólahreppur has engaged Multiconsult Norge AS to make a review of the proposed road alternatives for Vestfjarðavegur and suggest improvements or entirely new alternatives. The work is mainly to look at the plan as road planners and then compare the alternatives. The work has been carried out by civil engineer Lars Peder Larsgård and civil engineer Sigurður Jens Sigurðsson, road planners, with the assistance of hydraulic expert Geir Helge Kiplesund and construction expert Lars Ingar Toverud. M.Sc. Halldóra Hreggviðsdóttir from Alta Consulting has been the main contact person in this project on behalf of Reykhólahreppur as well as mayor Ingibjörg Birna Erlingsdóttir. The study included a trip to Iceland in May 2018, meetings with representatives of Reykhólahreppur and the Icelandic Road and Coastal Administration (IRCA) and we have received documents, drawings and digital data from Alta and the IRCA RIVEG-RAP / 01 Side 5 av 33

6 2 Planning premises 2 Planning premises 2.1 Planning context Figure Overview of the studied alternatives in the Environmental Impact Assessment The IRCA has been studying several alternatives for building a new part of Vestfjarðavegur between Bjarkalundur and Skálanes in Reykhólahreppur. The new road will be a significant contribution to get a better road connection to the north-western part of Iceland. The IRCA has chosen the alternative called T-H which has the shortest distance and is the lowest cost alternative. This alternative has significant environmental impacts, especially where the road crosses fjords and the Teigsskógur woodland, that makes it difficult to get an acceptance for this alternative in the municipality of Reykhólar. This independent review is intended as a means of reaching consensus on the alternative that will be ultimately selected. In the previous planning process by the IRCA, the outer boundaries were at Bjarkarlundur in the east and at Skálanes in the west, a total of 41.6 km of the current Vestfjarðavegur. After having gone through the material at hand, we feel the boundary should be extended in both ends. We propose a 45 km long stretch, allowing the road system of the entire municipality to be viewed as a whole. This is due to the impact and consequences the project will have on the local community RIVEG-RAP / 01 Side 6 av 33

7 2 Planning premises In the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), five alternatives were assessed, three lowland alternatives with bridge crossing (A1, I and T-H) and two tunnel alternatives with shorter bridge crossings (D2 and H1). The focus of this review will be on one tunnel alternative (D2) and three lowland alternatives (T-H, I and R). R is a new alternative. The alternative A1 and H are alternatives that are somewhat in between other alternatives and in addition more expensive and they are not considered as having certain advantages at this stage. 2.2 Road planning specifications All road infrastructure projects in Iceland have to comply with the Icelandic road standards (Veghönnunarreglur) but the question was raised whether the Norwegian road standards could be used to get a more favorable design when it comes to land use. After reviewing the Icelandic standards it is apparent that they are more lenient towards land use than the Norwegian ones even when looking at the standards for rebuilding existing roads (a standard that does not exist in Iceland). In this review, only Icelandic standards will be used where they exist. Norwegian tunnel standards apply for tunnels built in Iceland. Design prerequisites Vestfjarðavegur as a whole is classified as a part of the primary national road system and as such goes into road class C8 in the Icelandic road standard. The roads design speed will be 90km/h. In 2015 the annual average daily traffic (aadt) was 130 vehicles, summer-aadt 270 vehicles and winter aadt 40 vehicles. The main purpose of a new Vestfjarðavegur is to improve transport in the Vestfjords by securing reliable and safe infrastructure and shortening transport routes and maintenance costs. The new road is to be paved and designed in accordance with winter conditions. Design Standards Based on the Icelandic road standards the design criteria for a new Vestfjarðavegur is as listed: Design standards Road class C8 AADT Design speed 90km/h Crosssection 8m Shoulder 0.5m Lane 3.5m Max length straight line Lmax 1800m Min length straight line Lmin 540m Min horisontal radius Rmin 336m Min clothoid length Amin 145m Max vertical slope Smax 7 % Min vertical radius (crest) Hmax 4500 Min vertical radius (sag) Hmin 2100 Max cross slope Qmax 7 % Max absolute slope Pmax 9.50 % RIVEG-RAP / 01 Side 7 av 33

8 0 Compared to Norwegian standard we have a similar standard class H2 for traffic volume less than aadt 4000 and 80 km/h (Rmin 250 and Smax 6%). The design parameters are almost the same as for 90 km/h in Iceland. In Norway we do not have primary national roads with traffic volumes below aadt There is a standard class Hø2 (Rmin 200 and Smax 8%) that is used for traffic volumes less than aadt 1500, but this is a more narrow road where heavy vehicles are not given priority. It is important that the maximum slope will not exceed 7% (6 % in Norway) for a national primary road with a considerable amount of heavy vehicles. Except for the maximum slope we find the road standard used by IRCA as suitable. The width of the road over bridges is 9 m. The allowable speed in tunnels is set to 70 km/h and a total width of the tunnel 8,5 m. We find the road standard for bridges and tunnels suitable for this road RIVEG-RAP / 01 Side 8 av 33

9 3 Description of alternatives with comments. 3 Description of alternatives with comments. Alternatives studied in this report: 0 Existing road as it is today D2 T-H I R Northern line with tunnel Northern side of Þorskafjörður Southern side of Þorskafjörður Continuing from Reykholar Figure Alternatives in this report RIVEG-RAP / 01 Side 9 av 33

10 3 Description of alternatives with comments. 3.1 Alternative 0 Existing road as it is today Described in the EIA. Figure The climb over Ódrjúgsháls Figure Existing road to Reykhólar RIVEG-RAP / 01 Side 10 av 33

11 3 Description of alternatives with comments. Figure Existing road at Bjarkalundur RIVEG-RAP / 01 Side 11 av 33

12 3 Description of alternatives with comments. 3.2 Alternative D2 Northern line with tunnel The tunnel alternative drawn up by the IRCA was based on prerequisites such zoning criteria (land use for cottages), design criteria for tunnels (N500) and the experience from other tunnel projects in Iceland where tunnel portals should be placed as close to sea-level as possible. This resulted in an alternative that had greater slope than 7% and a tunnel as long as 4.5 km. The tunnel is an element with high construction cost as well as maintenance costs, so this is the most expensive alternative in the EIA. In our review, we have constructed a new line in accordance with the IRCA road standards and achieved an alignment that does not exceed 7% slope. The main difference is that the tunnel portals are placed at a higher altitude than in the IRCA alternative. In this way, the total tunnel length is reduced to approximately 2,9 km. To achieve the desired slope of max 7% in Djúpifjörður the crossing is placed inner in the fjord, this again reduces the length of the bridge for the crossing. The mountain crossing of Ódrjúgsháls exceeded the 7% slope in the IRCA alternative but by altering the route slightly it is possible to achieve the desired 7% slope. This again results in minor lengthening of mountain crossing, but results in a road that does not exceed the design standard and does not require a reduction in design speed. The design speed in tunnels is 70 km/h. Figure IRCA-line and a new tunnel line alt. D2, the original and a shorter tunnel RIVEG-RAP / 01 Side 12 av 33

13 3 Description of alternatives with comments. Figure New solution at Ódrjúgsháls. Fillings appear exaggerated RIVEG-RAP / 01 Side 13 av 33

14 3 Description of alternatives with comments. 3.3 Alternative T-H Northern side of Þorskafjörður Same alternative as described in the EIA. Figure The IRCA-line alt. T-H RIVEG-RAP / 01 Side 14 av 33

15 3 Description of alternatives with comments. 3.4 Alternative I Southern side of Þorskafjörður Same alternative as described in the EIA. Figure IRCA-line alt. I RIVEG-RAP / 01 Side 15 av 33

16 3 Description of alternatives with comments. 3.5 Alternative R Connecting to Reykhólar The new R alternative is a crossing in the western part of Þorskafjörður. It differs from alternative A1 (EIA) in the way that the main road (Vestfjarðavegur) will be routed through Reykhólar via the existing Reykhólavegur. A great deal of the existing Reykhólavegur is in relatively good condition and can carry traffic at 90 km/h. This means that the total amount of new road is relatively low. The road in this alternative R consists of following sections: 1. New road from Skalanes to bridge across Þorskafjörður includid filling into the sea. 2. Bridge across Þorskafjörður. 3. New road from the bridge across Þorskafjörður, included filling into the sea, to Hamaarland. 4. Upgrading of existing road from Hamarland to Reykhólar. 5. Existing road from Reykhólar to Hyrningsstaðir. 6. Local upgrade from Hyrningsstaðir to Skaldstadir. The exact position of the bridge and the fillings into the sea could be adjusted when more detailed maps are present. The section 3 are shown across cultivated farmland before the existing road at Hamarland. It is possible to design the road to avoid almost all cultivated farmland. In section 3 the new road follows the existing road and the cultivated farmland will not be affected. To achieve the most reduction in distance some local upgrades are proposed between Hyrningsstaðir and Skáldstaðir. It is at this section that the design speed for the existing road is not obtained, and the allowable speed is 70 km/t. Cultivated farmland in this area will almost not be affected. Figure New line alt. R RIVEG-RAP / 01 Side 16 av 33

17 3 Description of alternatives with comments. Another upgrade is proposed in the eastern approach to Ódrjúgsháls. This upgrade is meant to increase the standard of the local road network and as such establish a safe connection between Djúpidalur and Gufudalur. Figure A new 800 m bridge across Þorskafjörður. Skálanes in the background Figure A new 800 m bridge across Þorskafjörður. Reykjanes in the background RIVEG-RAP / 01 Side 17 av 33

18 4 Comparison of alternatives 4 Comparison of alternatives 4.1 Road system in Reykhólahreppur The IRCA has studied the new road from Skálanes to Bjarkalundur, and in the EIA the road system in Reykhólahreppur has not been analyzed as infrastructure for the local community. Envisioning a new road in this sparsely populated area and with the low traffic volume, the impact on the whole municipality should be considered. We believe that a new Vestfjarðavegur continuing from the existing road to Reykhólar could have several advantages, both for Vestfjarðavegur as a national main road and for Reykhólar as a service center in Reykhólahreppur. The alternative I has a secondary road from Laugaland to Reykjanes that gives an opportunity to drive via Reykhólar. This is an extra road in this alternative, and it gives better access to petrol stations and other services in Reykhólar for the traffic on Vestfjarðavegur. A new alternative R will reduce the length of new roads and make Reykhólar a central point and give easier access for all inhabitants in Reykhólahreppur. If we are looking at the distance for inhabitants to go in the direction of Reykjavík, a few inhabitants will benefit from alternative D2, T-H and I, but this seems to be of secondary importance. 4.2 Crossing of fjords hydrological review Earlier studies Previously, several reports on flow conditions around the proposed new bridges were prepared by the Icelandic consultancy Vatnaskil. We have looked at the documents 16.04, 17.21, and 18.05, all are in Icelandic language so our review of the documents is rather superficial as we have not had full translations available. The report being the main report and the subsequent reports appear to be supplementary reports. These reports show expected changes in flow conditions for the various project alternatives showing changes in flow velocities, flow patterns and sediment transport. Due to constraints in time and resources we have only done a superficial review of the previous studies performed, also they are not directly related to the project alternative now being considered. However, our impression from looking through the reports is that it appears that the studies have been done using appropriate tools and methodology. The reports seem rather brief on technical modelling details but that may also be because we may not have had all detailed technical reports available to us. The tool used is Delft3D which is a widely used and accepted modelling tool for such studies. We could not review the work in detail but the results appear reasonable and in line with what we have calculated using a less detailed approach. Available data From the previous reports tidal data were retrieved (by digitizing the graphs) so that this study should be comparable with the earlier studies of the other bridge alternatives. These tidal variations for the period 26/ :00 to 1/ :00 were used as the boundary condition for numerical modelling both by Vatnaskil and Multiconsult. There is also a short report documenting the collection of these tidal data for three points in the project area named Þorskafjörður Sjávarfallamælingar for a period from September 2007 to November 2007, tabulated data were not available however so we used graphs from the Vatnaskil reports to extract the time series RIVEG-RAP / 01 Side 18 av 33

19 4 Comparison of alternatives Figure Tidal levels In addition to data found directly from the previous studies a number of data sets on elevation were received, whether these or other data sets were used by Vatnaskil is not known to us. For this initial study we have used the arcticdem digital elevation model for shorelines and terrain above sea level. We have received two separate data sets of water depths, one covering mainly the approaches to the fjords and ending in the area where the three fjords meet, the second covering in much more detail the proposed project alignments and supplementing with less detailed coverage in the fjords in general. The figure below shows the available data sets. These data were not entirely in agreement and since the more detailed data set covered the project area sufficiently we based our work on this data set combined with the land terrain model. The resulting DEM is shown in the figure below as well. There are some terracing issues with the interpolation of the DEM in the shallow areas with no depth gauging data but this does not significantly affect the results. There are also some anomalies in the data that do not look believable, like points with elevation 0 masl where aerial photos are not indicating any shallow water, we have corrected a few such points but there are still unresolved issues. These do not affect the conclusions at this stage and are therefore not pursued now RIVEG-RAP / 01 Side 19 av 33

20 4 Comparison of alternatives Figure Depth data sets Modelling approach In order to quickly evaluate a proposed new bridge alternative we set up a 2-dimensional hydrodynamic model of the project area. The model tool used is HEC-RAS developed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, version The model is generally set up with a 30 m grid, around the proposed bridge alignment a 5 m refinement is used. For this initial analysis, we have looked at an alignment straight across the fjord just outside the A1 alternative previously studied. Two different bridge openings were tested one of approximately 750 m, centered on the deepest part of the fjord and one with a 1000 m opening extending the opening over the shallower bottom to the south. The proposed alternative does include a number of pillars as well, these are however not modelled at this time, they will be widely spaced and will not significantly affect the flow conditions so this omission is considered justifiable at this study level. Results 2D simulations of the two tested bridge openings showed the impacts on flow conditions in the fjords due to the proposed bridges, the figures below show a snapshot of flow conditions near high tide when the flow into the fjord is at its highest. As can be seen from the figures the narrowing of the flow opening leads to a greater concentration of flow and increased velocities RIVEG-RAP / 01 Side 20 av 33

21 4 Comparison of alternatives Figure Snapshot at high rising tide with maximum flow into the fjord through the 1000 m bridge opening Figure Snapshot at high rising tide with maximum flow into the fjord through the 750 m bridge opening RIVEG-RAP / 01 Side 21 av 33

22 4 Comparison of alternatives The following figure shows the maximum calculated velocities along a profile covering the planned bridge openings. Figure Maximum velocities along the bridge opening What we can see here is that without the bridge, maximum flow velocities in this area are in the range of 1 to 1.5 m/s, with the higher velocities observed in the deepest part of the profile. The 750 meter bridge opening increases the general velocities to around 2 m/s with much higher velocities near the abutments of around 4-6 m/s. Similarly the 1000 meter bridge opening gives typical velocities around 1.7 to 1.8 m/s with peaks near the abutments of 4-5 m/s. This indicates that the flow conditions in most of the profile will not change significantly, but that in a zone some 30 to 50 meters from the abutments there will be significantly increased flow velocities and consequently increased erosion potential RIVEG-RAP / 01 Side 22 av 33

23 4 Comparison of alternatives Figure Velocity near the middle of the opening Figure Water surface variations in the inner part of Þorskafjörður RIVEG-RAP / 01 Side 23 av 33

24 4 Comparison of alternatives Figure Detail of water surface variations in the inner part of Þorskafjörður As we can see from the above plot the proposed bridge alternative will not noticeably affect the tidal variations in the inner part of the fjord. Culmination levels are unchanged, in the rising period there is a slight delay in the timing of 3-4 minutes. Conclusion The analysis done in the EIA for the bridges proposed in alternative D2, T-H and I based on an average speed of 2 m/s through the openings, seems to be ok. The effect on the fjords will be significant in a distance from the crossings, but the ecological impact on the fjords is not answered in the hydrologic studies. The analyses in alternative A1 in the EIA is based on a level of -4 m across Þorskafjörður, and our model and other information proves that there is a channel about 500 m wide with depths around - 12 m. The total length of the bridges in alternative A1 has a length of 1360 m. In our model a bridge with a length of 1000 m gives an average speed of less than 2 m/s and a length of 750 m gives an average speed of slightly more than 2 m/s. In the proposed alternative R, a length of 800 m is chosen for the cost calculation. We assume that the effect of the crossing in Gufufjörður, Djúpifjörður and Þorskafjörður will not be significant in alternative R except near the crossing. 4.3 Ecological impact The impact on the ecology in the fjords has been studied in the EIA, and is not studied in this report. All alternatives for a new Vestfjarðavegur have to cross Þorskafjörður and each crossing will have an impact in the fjords. Alternative T-H and I will cross Þorskafjörður, Djúpifjörður and Gufufjörður, and the impact on the life in these fjords seems to be heavier than the crossings in alternative D2 and especially in alternative R RIVEG-RAP / 01 Side 24 av 33

25 4 Comparison of alternatives 4.4 Teigsskógur Only alternative T-H has an impact on the Teigsskógur woodland. We find it almost impossible to hide a new Vestfjarðavegur in this area, although the existing narrow road to Gröf is almost invisible in this forest. The new road will be wide with cut and fill and vegetation will have to be cut down in a distance from the road for safety reasons. In order to make the road as invisible as possible we propose that the slope of fillings and cut should be normal (1:2) and put the natural top vegetation back on the fillings. 4.5 Land use The new will affect mainly farmland in all alternatives. Most of the farms have sheep and the farmers are harvesting grass on the cultivated areas. Some of the farms are not in full production. The sheep are using the whole land, and they occasionally also are near to the road or even on the road. The new road will have much more traffic than today, but still tractors and other vehicles could use the road and the road could be crossed on certain places. A new road will have to be fenced at least along cultivated areas. On certain places, it should be considered to build crossings for cattle and small vehicles. This has to be looked more into in the detailed planning phase in order to reduce negative aspects of a new road. Alternative T-H and D2 have few conflicts with cultivated areas in use, but alternative I and especially alternative R have some conflicts. The alternative R is also the alternative where the length of new roads are shortest, because most of the new Vestfjarðavegur follows en exicting road. 4.6 Travelling distance and travelling time The table shows the distance from Skálanes to Skáldstaðir. The existing road is mainly gravel and you have to slow down when meeting a car. You also have to drive up and down between the fjords and that is difficult for heavy vehicles. The tunnel in alternative D2 reduces the speed and you still have some up and downs (max. 7 %). The difference in distance does not mean much difference in travelling time (2-3 min). Overview on the distance between Skálanes and Skáldstaðir Alternatives Distance (km) Tunnel (km) Tunnel speed Speed Travelling time (minutes) 0 45 x D2 25,9 2, TH 23,6 x I 23,7 x R 27,7 x Figure Travelling distance and travelling time The differences in distance and travelling time has no significant influence on total traffic cost with the traffic volume below aadt Longer travelling time and distance will increase the traffic cost for the traffic through Reykhólahreppur in alternative R, but considerable reduction in travelling time (more than 20 minutes) for traffic to the west from Reykhólar will at the same time contribute to a RIVEG-RAP / 01 Side 25 av 33

26 4 Comparison of alternatives reduction in total traffic cost. With bigger traffic volumes these differences would have to be considered in total cost analyses RIVEG-RAP / 01 Side 26 av 33

27 4 Comparison of alternatives 4.7 Existing road and road conditions We have results from the IRCA of deflectometer measurements of existing roads. The results for the road to Reykhólar and on Vestfjarðavegur at Bjarkalundur have been compared, and we cannot see any significant differences. Both roads seems to be in relatively fair condition, but Vestfjarðavegur has more traffic with heavy vehicles than the road to Reykhólar. If Vestfjarðavegur is going via Reykhólar, there will be more traffic on this road, and this may cause increased maintenance cost on this road with a new top layer required after a short time. However, we have no indication that the condition of the road is bad enough to call for a total rebuild. The method used in Norway is to calculate the Krummning factor, which then is used as an indicator of where the weakness lies K > 5 Weakness in the subbase or foundation 3 > K Weakness in the base or subbase K < 3 Weakness in pavement or base Krummning factor Reykhólavegur Krummning Reykholavegur Log. (Krummning Reykholavegur) Krummnings number Profil number Krummnings number Krumining factor Vestfjarðavegurardarvegur Kruminingfactor Vestfjardarvegur Log. (Kruminingfactor Vestfjardarvegur) Profil number Figure Result from deflektometer, road to Reykhólar and Vestfjarðavegur RIVEG-RAP / 01 Side 27 av 33

28 4 Comparison of alternatives 4.8 Bridge construction The bridges over fjords have different lengths and alternative D2, T-H and I have three bridges, one bridge for each crossing. The bottom level under bridges is either dug out or filled up to a suitable level for the construction of the bridge. The bridges only allow small boats to cross under the bridges, and considerations must be taken to the tide level. The bridges are made of reinforced concrete on the site. The span length of the bridges goes up to 52.5 m. The IRCA has a standard method for building such bridges, and with the level of the surface at -4 m, the length of the bridge is determined by the amount of water going in and out. The bridge across Þorskafjörður in alternative R is a larger bridge and with deeper fundament than the other bridges in this project. One example of a bridge, which might be suitable for the conditions on this site, is to build the bridge deck on the filling at one end and then systematically push the bridge deck element forward on to the pillars. Figure Example of a possible bridge construction method This method has proved to be very efficient when the circumstances make it possible. The bridge is actually produced on land and the production may be compared to production in a factory with a tent over the production site. Of course, the bridge can be produced based on other construction methods. The price pr. meter of the bridge in alternative R is calculated as equal as the other bridges. With span lengths similar to the other bridges the price pr. meter would be the same, and the deeper foundation should not affect the cost significantly. If the bridge in alternative R has to be longer than calculated or the ground conditions are more difficult than expected, the cost will increase. It is therefore necessary to do more survey to have a documentation of the ground level and ground conditions in a wider area for the bridge in alternative R RIVEG-RAP / 01 Side 28 av 33

29 4 Comparison of alternatives 4.9 Maintenance of the road system A new main road means that the older roads get another status and may therefore not have the same service frequency in winter time. The IRCA is responsible for all main roads such as Vestfjarðavegur and Reykhólavegur. For the other public roads in the municipality the maintenance cost is divided in two equal parts, and the IRCA pays 50 %. If we just look at the roads between Skálanes and Skáldstaðir, and the differences between alternatives, we can see the change in length of roads to maintain. The following table does not include all public roads in Reykhólahreppur. Table Public roads to maintain in Reykhólahreppur (km) In alternative D2, TH and I, Reykhólavegur still has to be maintained 100 % by the IRCA. In alternative R this road is included in Vestfjarðavegur and the IRCA will therefore have a reduced maintenance cost for their road system. In all alternatives we see a big change compared to the situation today. On the other hand we have an increase in roads with shared maintenance responsibility. Alternative D2 is near to the existing road and therefore it calls for minor changes in the road system. Alternative T-H and R is almost equal in shared maintenance Impact of a new road to Reykhólar The Reykhólar village is the center of Reykhólahreppur and its community activities. But both Reykhólar and Reykhólahreppur are very small when it comes to number of inhabitants and a little place like this will struggle to offer the same services as bigger places. On the other hand this place in fact has both a fairly good harbour and an airport. The road to Reykhólar is fairly good from Reykjavik, and not good at all to the west. A new Vestfjarðavegur that lies near to Reykhólar will be an advantage for all communication in the region. It will provide better access to and from western Iceland RIVEG-RAP / 01 Side 29 av 33

30 4 Comparison of alternatives A new Vestfjarðavegur in this region will create more traffic in the region. How much the growth will be, is difficult to say, and the effect of a new road is not discussed here. With more traffic there will also be a demand for better service along this route. A place to stop and eat or stay, and to get petrol for your car is not easily available in this area. Access to Reykhólar may also be important to those who may need help in various situations. We do not think that a new road will bring supermarkets to this place in a near future, but it will certainly contribute to the growth of this place and make it more attractive. It is only the R- alternative that will have any considerable effect of the development in Reykhólar. The other alternatives along Þorskafjörður will not mean much to Reykhólar apart from genarally more traffic in the region. The distance from Reykhólar is too long in the other alternatives. The distance from the center of Reykholar to a new Vestfjarðavegur in alternative R is ideal in order to avoid the disadvantages that a new road also could bring with noise and other negative effects Construction costs Cost results are presented in the EIA and we have received mass calculations and unit prices from the IRCA. However, these costs are not itemized. We have therefore set up a new calculation model and have calibrated the resulting cost estimates against to the cost-levels given for alternatives T-H and I in the EIA. Table Cost calculation RIVEG-RAP / 01 Side 30 av 33

31 4 Comparison of alternatives Since the cost results are similar compared to the EIA, there are no adjustments up to the cost level in So the cost results can only be used to compare alternatives and do not represent current absolute values. The bottom line tells us that the cost of the D2 alternative is lower in our estimate (down from mill. kr. to 9422 mill. kr), because of reduced tunnel length. The T-H alternative has a minor increase in cost (from 6374 mill. kr to 6579 mill. kr.). The I- alternative is reduced (from mill. kr. To mill. kr.). At last, the cost for the new alternative R is 6890 mill. kr. The cost estimate for alternative R includes a new 3.6 km road in the eastern part where the speed limit is now 70 km/t, between Skáldstaðir and Hyrningsstaðir, and it includes local improvement on the road between Djúpifjörður and Gufufjörður (3 km). This part of the total cost is about 1000 mill. kr. and these parts of the road do not need to be built at the same time. Tabell Cost overview (mill. ISK) Overview of construction costs Alternatives Main road Tunnel (km) Bridges Other roads Total D T-H I R While absolute accuracy could be improved, we expect that relative costs should be reliable. Compared to Norwegian cost calculations, the cost of the tunnel is almost equal to what the IRCA has calculated, but we consider the IRCA cost estimate of bridges to be higher than we would expect and for the roads, the IRCA estimates appear to be lower than we would expect RIVEG-RAP / 01 Side 31 av 33

32 5 Summary and conclusions 5 Summary and conclusions From our point of view it is not obvious that alternative T-H is the best solution for a new road in Reykhólahreppur when taking into account other aspects than just getting a better Vestfjarðavegur. The alternative D2 is more expensive than T-H because of the tunnel and still lies at high elevation between Djúpifjörður and Gufufjörður. Alternative I avoids Teigsskógur woodland and it is more expensive than T-H, but apart from this it is similar to T-H. The only alternative that seems to compete with T-H in construction costs is alternative R, and the most obvious disadvantage compared to T-H is the travelling distance and travelling time, which however is only 2 minutes more for R than T-H, so this is not significant. There are more advantages to R compared with the other alternatives like an improved connection to Reykhólar, which will assist in strengthening the service sector there and service along Vestfjarðavegur and less impact on ecology and nature reserves than T-H. Our conclusion is that alternative R could be a very reasonable compromise RIVEG-RAP / 01 Side 32 av 33

33 6 Appendix 6 Appendix Overviw alternatives Alternative 0 Existing road as it is today Alternative D2 Northern line with tunnel Alternative T-H Northern side of Þorskafjörður Alternative I Alternative R Southern side of Þorskafjörður Continuing from Reykhólar RIVEG-RAP / 01 Side 33 av 33