||Throughout the last decade Copenhagen has witnessed resurging economic growth. As a consequence, the city has experienced considerable development in its constitution. As many of the earlier industrial buildings along the harbour have been demolished paving the way for city development. The charges have caused a novel traffic scene dominated by congestion during peak hours and an intensified level of the traffic in the inner city. Nothing point to this situation being alleviated any time soon if current measures are maintained. Accentuating the necessity of considering alternative actions to avoid a break down of the roads in inner Copenhagen.
Such a break sown can be alleviated in various ways. However, the focus of this report are three harbour tunnel alternatives along side or through the harbour of Copenhagen. The alternatives are evaluated individually and subsequently compared. Figure 1 illustrates the three alternatives. The alternatives differ in length and alignment, but have the same construction. The simulations are carried out for the year 2015, where Nordhavnen is partially developed.
Alternative 1 is composed of a parallel harbour tunnel and illustrated with blue in Figure 1. The harbour tunnel connects with Helsingørmotorvejen, Strandvejen, Strandpromenaden and Strandvænget. This section is called Nordhavnsvej and illustrated by light blue. Furthermore, the tunnel connects to Nordhavnen. Refshaleøen, Langebro on the Amager side, Kalvebod Brygge, Vejlands All’e and Amagermotorvejen. The simulations illuminate that the harbor tunnel eases the stress on the inner city as well as mitigates congestion. However, Alternative 1 is rather expensive to implement, and a cost-benefit analysis (BS) elucidates that the alternative is not socio-economically worthwhile. In order to investigate whether the alternative can be altered to make it remunerative, simulations for the alternative are carried out where Nordhavnsvej is prolonged and connect to Lygten, Tagensvej and Lersø Parkall’e. Illustrated by the dashed light blue line in Figure 1. The change does in fact improve the alternative, however not enough to make it worthwhile. Due to this improvement of the CBA result, the elongated Nordhavnsvej is applied to all of the alternatives.
Alternative 2 consists of a similar alignment as Alternative 1 regarding Nordhavnsvej. The alignment of Alternative 2 is maked by a dark green line in Figure 1 Additionally, Nordhavnen. The area south of Refshaleøen, Kløvermarksvej Prags Boulevard, proøvestensbroen and Amagermotorvejen are connected to. Amager Strandvej is reconstructed to consist of a Cut&Cover tunnel and consequently a new local read is laid between Øresundsvej and Svend Vonvedsvej. This alignment allows for an opportunity to develop a new local road is laid between Øresundsvej and Svend Vonvedsvej. This alignment allows for an opportunity to develop a new city development area east of Trekroner, consisting of 33300 jobs and 5600 accomodations. Alternative 2 eases the inner city aws well as decreasing congestion. Performing a CBA reveals that the alternative is not beneficent, however the deficit is not as large as that of Alternative 1. No further examinations of Alternative 2 are conducted as no apparent and logic changes appear relevant, and the alternative is deemed interesting in itself.
Alternative 3 consists of a similar alignment as Alternative 1 and 2 regarding Nordhavnsvej, yet with the exception that Ryvangs Allé is developed further and Nordhavnsvej lead through Strandpromenaden and Strandvænget. Figure 1 illustrates the alignment of Alternative 3. Nordhavnsvej is not connected to the harbour tunnel. The harbour tunnel is connected at kastellet and directly lead to Amager, allowing fot the implementqtion of the shortest extent of tunnel. The alignment is continued at Forelandet and across Kløvermarken. Further the Alignment connects to Amager Strandvej. The alignment is then continued through northern Amager by Store mølle Vej and Svinget resulting in a connection with Vermelandsgade, Amagerbrogade and Amager Boulevard. Lead west by Kløvermarken a connections to Vejlands Allé and Amagermotorvejen are achieved. Once again the alternative eases the inner city and decreases congestion. A CA demonstrates that this alternative too is not rewarding. Yet the alternative is better than Alternative 1. the opportunity to change northern Amager is examined, as the alignment goes through Vermelandsgade Ved Strandgraven. However, such alterations can not be recommended as CBA yied unfavourable result.
The final alignments are investigated and a sensitivity analysis conducted the sensitivity analysis illustrates that Alternative 2 may torn out socio-economically beneficial if the traffic growth is 3% per year from 2015 to 2030 and 2% per year from 2030 to 2045. By doing the CBA more accurately through simulations for year 2030, it is documentet that Alternative 2 is socio-economically beneficial.