Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Assignment 3:
Opportunity framing
2. Please provide 3 different options for the project, and describe the
benefits and potential risks of either of these options?
Additional bridge -One of the cheaper options to build. -Scope changes due to changes in the
-Good accessibility for emergency type of maritime traffic.
services. -Delays and traffic being affected by
-High capacity/cost ratio. weather conditions.
-High traffic capacity. -Traffic exceeds the designed limit in
the future.
-Environmental stakeholders causing
problems due to additional pollution.
Ferry -Fast construction. -Shutting down of service due to
-Easy expansion possibilities. weather conditions.
-Environmentally friendly. -Incapable of managing vastly increased
-Cheap procurement traffic.
-Mechanical or people influenced
failure due to faulty equipment.
-Service to be badly influenced due to
maritime traffic.
-Expensive constant operating cost
3. Which option has your preference? Please elaborate for this option
on how the project costs will be covered in the long run.
Selection.
The choice of crossing type is influenced by the objectives that need to be reached. The most
important objective is to prevent economic consequences and ideally allow for growth, while
finishing the project before the year 2019. Secondary objectives are keeping the costs low and
keeping the environmental impact on the area minimal. Table 2 shows the factor scores for
distinguishing criteria.
With economic incentive being the primary factor, the advantages we are looking for allow for the
greatest amount of economic movement and growth without having the crossing become
overburdened for a second time. That would just move the problem to the future. This would have
us design the crossing to be operational for the greatest amount of time. When just looking at
economic aspects a tunnel, as well as an additional bridge show the greatest amount of advantages
due to their high traffic capacity. Lastly while a ferry may be a good short term solution to reduce the
traffic load on the existing crossing, for long term economic stability and the capacity to consistently
carry greater amounts of traffic it is not the ideal solution.
The main difference between the tunnel and bridge lie with other factors. A tunnel allows for a
smoother design process due to not being dependent on the soil it is built upon and an almost
unlimited maximum carrying weight due to the road area being supported by solid ground. A new
bridge causes a lot more environmental pollution, carries a lot more safety risks, is highly dependent
on weather conditions, and is designed dependent on and disrupts the maritime traffic during both
operating and construction. Furthermore the new bridge is more prone to future failure due to again
being overburdened by increased traffic. However, compared to a tunnel a bridge is faster to build
and is a lot cheaper when looking at the cost to traffic ratio. Here the ferry is the cheapest to procure
and has the most limited environmental impact, however due to it not satisfying the main
requirement properly it is no longer an option.
The final choice has been chosen as a tunnel. The tunnel allows for the most economic stability, while
at the same time it does not disturb the environment or maritime traffic in a great way. The higher
costs for realizing a tunnel can be earned back by it being designed with the future in mind, thereby
saving money on eventual other infrastructural that would otherwise have to take place. In timing it
is determined that more than ten years, a timeframe from 2005 to 2019, is more than enough to
realize a tunnel 2.7 kilometers in length.
Toll: Toll can be asked for using the tunnel. This would allow for payback of initial investment
in the case that the original bridge is completely closed off or just for industrial traffic.
Levying toll however is very unpopular and bears the risk that traffic will take different routes
to their destinations.
Shares: The costs for the tunnel can be mitigated by increasing the contribution made by the
local population by allowing them a voice of input for a price. Allowing the local businesses
and population to buy shares can however complicate the designing process due to
increased shareholder demands.
Additional Taxes: This ties into cost covering for the government. The local population can
indirectly be levied additional taxes to cover the costs. Additional taxes will not be a popular
option and is liable to see increased friction being generated from the local people.
Governmental: The tunnel being completely funded by the local or overseeing government.
This allows for the greatest amount of control over the project, but will put considerable
strain on the local authorities when they are the only ones to foot the bill.
To best cover the massive costs for a tunnel we would apply for full governmental coverage and
slightly increase the road tax for the duration of the project. While this would increase adversity from
the population it is only a very small contribution per person and temporary. This way control of the
project will remain with the government and prevent scope creep or change.