lami feasibility report 2013

Queens Road (Lami Town) Feasibility Report

Prepared for Fiji Roads Authority

August 2013


Status: Final August 2013 Project number: 83500285 Lami Feasibility Report - 130828

This document has been prepared for the benefit of Fiji Roads Authority. No liability is accepted by this company or any employee or sub-consultant of this company with respect to its use by any other person.

This disclaimer shall apply notwithstanding that the report may be made available to other persons for an application for permission or approval to fulfil a legal requirement.

QUALITY STATEMENT

PREPARED BY

……………………………….......... 28/08/13 Kirsty Rowan

CHECKED BY

………………………………............... ……/……/……

REVIEWED BY

………………………………............... 28/08/13 Paul Kane

APPROVED FOR ISSUE BY

………………………………............... ……/……/…… Paul Kane

SUVA Level 2 Kadavu House, 414 Victoria Parade, Suva , Fiji GPO Box 119, Suva TEL +6793100616, FAX +6793100614

REVISION SCHEDULE

Rev No

Date Description Signature or Typed Name (documentation on file).

Prepared by Checked by Reviewed by Approved by

A 28/06/13 First Draft K.Rowan P.Kane P.Kane

B 28/08/13 Final K.Rowan P.Kane P.Kane



Executive Summary

Introduction

Lami Town (Lami) is an urban area on the outskirts of Suva approximately 6 km west of the Suva CBD. Queens Road is the only route between Suva and Lami and is also part of the highway connecting Suva and Nadi.

In 2001, the Transportation Study of the Greater Suva Urban Area1 proposed a 2.6 km long bypass of

Queens Road to the north of Lami (Lami Bypass) and prioritised it as a long-term project with a timeframe to 2030 and beyond depending on funding availability. The bypass aim was to improve efficiency for vehicles entering and leaving Suva via Queens Road, and provide relief to the Lami town centre and surrounding residential areas.

The Fiji Roads Authority commissioned MWH to undertake a feasibility study to assess the viability of the Lami Bypass, and if shown to be viable to prepare a specimen design of the bypass to enable subsequent detailed investigation and design.

To evaluate the bypass viability, the study objective is to identify the preferred long-term solution to resolve issues along Queens Road through Lami. Figure 1 shows the study location.

Figure 1: Study Location

The Issues

Queens Road comprises a narrow two-lane road with numerous unsignalised T-intersections. When crashes or vehicle breakdowns occur they can cause significant traffic delays, with impacts to route security on a major highway in Fiji.

1 GHD 2001, Transportation Study of the Greater Suva Urban Area, Final Study Report for the Government of Fiji

Ministry of Works and Energy

Study area

Queens Road

Proposed Lami Bypass



Traffic turning right into numerous side roads along Queens Road obstructs through traffic because there are no right-turn bays. This issue will be mitigated by introducing right-turn bays later in 2013 to the Queens Road intersections with Lami Street, Vetaia Street and Nasevou Street. These streets provide the main access to the Lami Town catchment.

Based on an average 2% traffic growth rate in Lami, the following future congestion issues will arise:

Traffic demand on Queens Road east of Lami Street will be near or exceed capacity in the peak periods in 2033.

Intersection congestion will be experienced by 2023 for vehicles turning from Lami Street, Vetaia Street and Nasevou Street.

There have been 154 crashes along Queens Road in the previous ten years, but there is insufficient crash information to be able to identify locations with specific safety issues. However, the high intensity of activity along Queens Road with property access, parking, bus stops and intersection turning movements in a narrow corridor all contribute to safety issues.

The extent of surrounding intensive industrial, commercial and residential land use in Lami could be a constraint to either constructing the proposed Lami Bypass or significantly widening Queens Road. Steep topography in Lami north of Queens Road poses additional issues to constructing the proposed bypass.

The Options

Table 1 identifies options and assesses their effectiveness in resolving the identified issues.

Table 1: Option Assessment

Option Description Assessment Outcome

Base Case

Right-turn bays at Lami Street, Vetaia & Nasevou Streets

Reduces immediate traffic congestion by introducing right-turn bays to separate turning and through traffic.

Introduce as an effective short-term solution.

Option A Intersection signalisation at Lami & Nasevou Streets

Significantly reduces medium-term intersection congestion but does not solve the route security issues.

Combine Option A and Option B as an effective medium-term solution. A combined solution could be an ultimate solution or an effective stage of Option C.

Option B Widening Queens Road for shoulders

Solves or significantly reduces route security issues but does not solve medium-term traffic congestion.

Option C Widening Queens Road to four lanes

Solves the issues of route security and traffic congestion, and potentially safety if well implemented. Would have significant costs and impacts.

A potential long-term solution as part of a consistent four-lane route strategy between Suva and Lami.

Option D Lami Bypass comprising a new 2.8 km road

Solves the issues of route security and traffic congestion, and potentially safety if well implemented. Costs more than Option C and carries more risks and impacts. Furthermore it cannot be effectively staged.

Discard from further assessment.

Options C and D would both be long-term solutions to resolve route congestion. Although the analysis in this study suggests that route congestion would be significant east of Lami Street by 2033, this was based on assuming a 2% annual traffic growth over the next 20 years, without any support from historical traffic volumes. There is a risk that differences to the forecasting assumptions will affect the analysis, which can be mitigated by undertaking regular future traffic counts through Lami to monitor growth trends.

However, Option C is favoured over Option D as a long-term solution should actual traffic growth support the desire for implementation. To maximise the benefits of congestion relief, Option C should only be implemented as part of a consistent four-lane route strategy between Suva and Lami.



In summary, the Lami Bypass is not a viable long-term solution to solving issues through Lami. Should the need or desire arise, and preferred long-term solution would be to widen Queens Road.

The preferred options, Option A and Option B, have an order of magnitude cost of $1.6 million and $3.8 million respectively. Economic analysis for Option A was not undertaken because the nature of the analysis means that comparing the average delays at the intersections is significantly different to the route analyses undertaken for Options B, C and D. Option B has an internal rate of return of 12% and a benefit-cost ratio of 1.2.

Recommendations

The Fiji Roads Authority should:

1. Discard the Lami Bypass from future investigation. 2. Implement right-turn bays at Lami Street, Vetaia Street and Nasevou Street as part of pavement

rehabilitation later in 2013 and monitor their effectiveness. 3. Introduce annual or biannual traffic counts through Lami to identify actual growth trends and allow

for more rigorous traffic forecasting, enabling optimisation of introducing a combined Option A and B, comprising intersection signalisation and shoulder widening of Queens Road.

4. Implement a combined Option A and B as an effective medium-term solution using the traffic count data to determine optimised timing for incorporating in the capital program. This study suggests timing should be around 2020.

5. Retain Option C, comprising a four lane Queens Road, as a long-term solution, but undertake a route strategy between Suva and Lami to ensure consistent and coordinated initiatives along the full route. Upon completing the route strategy identify the corridor footprint for introducing Option C in the long-term. This study suggests timing would be after 2030.


Status: Final August 2013 Project No.: 83500285 Page 4 Our ref: Lami Feasibility Report - 130828

Fiji Roads Authority


CONTENTS

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... i

1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 5

1.1 Background .................................................................................................................................... 5

1.2 Study Location ............................................................................................................................... 5

1.3 Study Tasks ................................................................................................................................... 6

2 Context Setting ................................................................................................................................... 7

2.1 Physical Characteristics ................................................................................................................ 7

2.2 Identified Constraints ..................................................................................................................... 8

2.3 Traffic Characteristics .................................................................................................................... 9

2.4 Crash Assessment ....................................................................................................................... 14

2.5 Summary of the Issues ................................................................................................................ 16

3 Option Identification and Development ............................................................................................. 17

3.1 The Options ................................................................................................................................. 17

3.2 Base Case ................................................................................................................................... 17

3.3 Option A - Intersection Signalisation and Flaring ........................................................................ 18

3.4 Option B - Widening for Shoulders and Right-Turn Bays ............................................................ 18

3.5 Option C - Widening to Four Lanes ............................................................................................. 19

3.6 Option D - Lami Bypass ............................................................................................................... 19

3.7 Option E – Local Network Extensions ......................................................................................... 20

3.8 Option Costs ................................................................................................................................ 20

4 Option Assessment .......................................................................................................................... 22

4.1 Multi-Criteria Assessment ............................................................................................................ 22

4.3 Economic Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 27

4.4 Option Assessment Outcomes .................................................................................................... 29

5 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................... 30

5.1 The Issues ................................................................................................................................... 30

5.2 Options ........................................................................................................................................ 30

6 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................ 31

APPENDICES

Appendix A Travel Time Survey Results

Appendix B Base Case Drawings

Appendix C Lami Bypass Concept Plan

Appendix D Economic Analysis



1 Introduction

1.1 Background

Lami Town (Lami) is an urban area on the outskirts of Suva approximately 6 km west of the Suva CBD. Queens Road is the only route between Suva and Lami and is also part of the highway connecting Suva and Nadi.

In 2001, the Transportation Study of the Greater Suva Urban Area2 proposed a 2.6 km long bypass of

Queens Road to the north of Lami (Lami Bypass) and prioritised it as a long-term project with a timeframe to 2030 and beyond depending on funding availability. The bypass aim was to improve efficiency for vehicles entering and leaving Suva via Queens Road, and provide relief to the Lami town centre and surrounding residential areas.

The Fiji Roads Authority commissioned MWH to undertake a feasibility study to assess the viability of the Lami Bypass, and if shown to be viable to prepare a specimen design of the bypass to enable subsequent detailed investigation and design.

To evaluate the bypass viability, the study objective is to identify the preferred long-term solution to resolve issues along Queens Road through Lami.

1.2 Study Location

Figure 1-1 shows the study area, including the location of Queens Road and the proposed Lami Bypass alignment. Queens Road through the core part of Lami is known as Marine Drive, but for clarity Queens Road has been used to refer to the entire length of Queens Road and Marine Drive in this study.

Figure 1-1: Project Location

2 GHD 2001, Transportation Study of the Greater Suva Urban Area, Final Study Report for the Government of Fiji

Ministry of Works and Energy

Study area

Queens Road

Proposed Lami Bypass



1.3 Study Tasks

The study tasks included:

Identifying the existing situation from a review of existing data, a site visit, and travel time surveys along Queens Road

Confirming committed works along Queens Road associated with a road rehabilitation program

Undertaking traffic forecasts

Identifying issues along Queens Road including traffic capacity, safety and resilience

Identifying options to resolve the issues including the Lami Bypass

Assessing options through a multi-criteria assessment and economic analysis

Recommending a preferred long-term solution.

The study excludes assessment of Queens Road between Lami and Suva.



2 Context Setting

2.1 Physical Characteristics

Figure 2-1 shows Queens Road and the local street network in Lami.

Figure 2-1: Lami Street Network

Queens Road between Lami Village Road and Kelekana Road has a two-lane cross-section without shoulders. The road passes through an urban area with a 50 km/h speed limit, extensive direct property access, and indented bus bays.

The route has numerous priority-controlled intersections without right or left-turn bays from Queens Road. Lami Street provides the only access to a light industrial area east of Lami Town, bounded by Lami Street, Wailada Road and Lesi Street.

Vetaia Street, Nasevou Street, and Solomoni Street are closely spaced intersections along Queens Road, providing access to the Lami town centre and extensive residential areas. The town centre comprises commercial and retail land uses, including a supermarket, post office and council offices.

Turning vehicles from Queens Road into side streets disrupt traffic flow and create safety issues, particularly at Lami Street, Vetaia Street, Nasevou Street, and Solomoni Street. The local street network in Lami depends on access through these routes.

Crashes or vehicles breakdown create significant traffic delays because of the narrow road cross-section with limited areas, such as indented bus bays, for vehicles to pass.

Outside the Lami town centre and light industrial area, the Lami urban area comprises residential use including:

Qauya Village along Nasevou Street, Solomoni Street, Naimawi Street, Nakula Street and Nakoba Street

Residential areas along Qeleya Road, Vatuvia Road and Raghunath Singh Drive, and west of Lami Town

Suvavou Village east of Lami, which also includes the Harbour Point Shopping Centre

Matata Settlement to the north, Wainidinu and Vugalei Settlements to the east, and Kalekana Settlement to the west.

As part of major pavement rehabilitation of Queens Road between Suva and Lami, right -turn pockets will be constructed on Queens Road at the Lami Street, Vetaia Street and Nasevou Street intersections. The right-turn pockets will provide space for right-turning vehicles from Queens Road to reduce disruption to through traffic.

La

mi

Vil

lag

e R

d Queens

Road

Residential Area

Light Industrial

Area

Town Centre

Suvavou Village



2.2 Identified Constraints

The following constraints may impact on implementing options:

Large drainage systems on either side of the Queens Road carriageway

Steep topography on the northern side of Queens Road near Suvavou Village and Nasevou Street through Quaya Village

A creek east of the light industrial area and Wailada Road

Lami River west of Wailada Road, east of Lami Street, and east of Nasevou Street near the proposed bypass route

An established residential area in Qauya Village throughout the Nakula Street, Nasevou Street and Nakoba Street network

Two two-lane bridges on either side of Lami Town.

Figure 2-2 shows the locations of these constraints.

Figure 2-2: Identified Constraints

Residential

Area Light Industrial

Area Bridge-two-way, two lane

Closely spaced intersections

LEGEND



2.3 Traffic Characteristics

2.3.1 Existing Traffic Volumes

Table 2-1 shows estimated 2013 daily traffic volumes along Queens Road, and surveyed morning and afternoon peak hour volumes. These volumes are based on 12-hour movement counts undertaken in January 2013 at the Lami Street, Vetaia Street and Nasevou Street intersections with Queens Road.

Table 2-1: Existing Traffic Volumes along Queens Road

Location Estimated

Daily Volume

Heavy Vehicle

Proportion

Morning Peak Afternoon Peak

Ebd Wbd Ebd Wbd

West of Nasevou Street 9,800 11.3% 360 300 300 470

East of Nasevou Street 10,400 11.3% 450 280 380 430

West of Lami Street 11,700 11.4% 560 380 380 460

East of Lami Street 15,500 11.4% 670 565 510 600

A factor of 1.4 was used to extrapolate from 12-hour to daily counts, based on the Transportation Study of the Greater Suva Urban Area. Morning and afternoon peak volumes are in vehicles per hour.

2.3.2 Historical Growth Trends

Figure 2-3 shows historical 12-hour traffic volumes on Queens Road at Lami Street between 2003 and 2009. A linear regression analysis shows a decline in traffic volumes, but there is poor correlation between annual traffic volumes.

Figure 2-3: Historical Traffic Volumes on Queens Road at Lami Street

Figure 2-4 shows historical 12-hour traffic volumes on Queens Road at Nasevou Street between 2003 and 2009. A linear regression analysis shows a decline in traffic volumes, but there is almost no correlation between annual traffic volumes.

y = -46.25x + 10318R² = 0.0736

9500

9700

9900

10100

10300

10500

10700

10900

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

12 H

our V

olum

e

Traffic Growth Analysis Marine Drive at Lami Street



Figure 2-4: Historical Traffic Volumes on Queens Road at Nasevou Street

In the absence of meaningful calculated historical traffic growth, a linear growth rate of 2% per annum relative to 2013 traffic volumes has been adopted to predict future year traffic volumes. A 2% growth rate provides conservative estimates for future traffic volumes.

2.3.3 Forecast Traffic Volumes

Table 2-2 identifies 2023 and 2033 daily and peak hour traffic volumes along Queens Road, based on applying a 2% growth rate.

Table 2-2: Forecast Traffic Volumes along Queens Road

Location

Daily Volume Morning Peak Afternoon Peak

2023 2033 2023 2033 2023 2033

Ebd Wbd Ebd Wbd Ebd Wbd Ebd Wbd

West of Nasevou St 11,700 13,700 430 340 500 400 370 560 430 660

East of Nasevou St 12,700 15,500 540 340 630 400 460 510 530 600

West of Lami St 14,000 16,300 670 460 790 530 450 550 620 650

East of Lami St 18,700 22,100 800 680 940 790 610 720 710 840

2.3.4 Travel Times

Travel times along Queens Road between Kalekana Road and Lami Village Road were measured on 16 and 17 April 2013, between 7:30 and 8:00am and between 5:00 and 5:30pm. Table 2-3 records average speeds with complete travel time results in Appendix A. The results east and west of the town centre in Table 2-3 are averages across the surveyed locations.

y = -49.107x + 8116.6R² = 0.0427

7000

7200

7400

7600

7800

8000

8200

8400

8600

8800

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

12 H

our V

olum

eTraffic Growth Analysis Marine Drive at Nasevou Street



Table 2-3: Travel Time Summary

Location Direction Average Speed (km/h)


East of Town Centre Ebd 44.2 41.4

Wbd 45.1 41.1

Between Nasevou Street and Vetaia Street Ebd 42.5 34.9

Wbd 28.7 33.6

West of Town Centre Ebd 41.5 37.7

Wbd 39.3 34.4

The lowest speeds were experienced west of the Lami town centre. Eastbound and westbound speed differentials were recorded as right-turning traffic obstructed through traffic along Queens Road.

2.3.5 Link Performance

The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 evaluates link performance on urban arterial roads by classifying them into four design categories. The manual categorises Queens Road as an Urban Street Class IV because:

The road is an undivided two-way arterial

Driveways and access points occur along the route at a high density

The road has a speed limit within the range of 40 to 55 km/h

Lami Town has high levels of pedestrian activity.

Table 2-4 defines level of service categories for Urban Street Class IV according to the average speed. A level of service describes the operational conditions within a traffic stream to indicate the extent of congestion on a road.

Table 2-4: Link Level of Service Categories

Level of Service Average Travel Speed (km/h)

A Greater than 41

B 32–41

C 23–32

D 18–23

E 14–18

F Less than 14

Table 2-5 shows resultant levels of service for Queens Road based on the average speeds measured during the travel time surveys.

Table 2-5: Level of Service based on Average Travel Speed

Location Direction Morning Peak Afternoon Peak

East of Town Centre Ebd A A

Wbd A A

Town Centre Ebd A B

Wbd C B



Location Direction Morning Peak Afternoon Peak

West of Town Centre Ebd A B

Wbd A B

All links operate at level of service (LOS) A or B, except for the link through the town centre in the westbound direction during the morning peak which has level of service LOS C.

The HCM does not provide easy guidance on assessing future year levels of service for urban arterial roads as it would require calculating future year average speeds. Instead future link performance has been assessed by calculating mid-block volume to capacity ratios (VCRs) which measures how much of the road capacity is taken up by traffic volumes. A VCR near or exceeding 1.0 indicates that the road is highly congested.

Table 2-6 shows calculated 2013, 2023 and 2033 VCRs for Queens Road based on a desirable capacity of 900 veh/h for each lane in accordance with Austroads Guide to Traffic Management, Part 3 Section 5.2. The selected desirable capacity is based on:

Queens Road being an urban road with interrupted flows

The intersections being unflared

The traffic flows being interrupted by turning traffic at minor intersections.

Table 2-6: Queens Road Future Link Performance (Volume to Capacity Ratios)

Location

2013 2023 2033

AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak

Ebd Wbd Ebd Wbd Ebd Wbd Ebd Wbd Ebd Wbd Ebd Wbd

West of Nasevou Street 0.40 0.32 0.34 0.52 0.48 0.38 0.41 0.63 0.56 0.44 0.47 0.73

East of Nasevou Street 0.50 0.32 0.42 0.47 0.60 0.38 0.51 0.57 0.70 0.44 0.59 0.66

West of Vetaia Street 0.50 0.29 0.40 0.34 0.60 0.35 0.47 0.41 0.70 0.41 0.55 0.48

East of Vetaia Street 0.46 0.33 0.35 0.44 0.56 0.39 0.42 0.52 0.65 0.46 0.49 0.61

West of Lami Street 0.62 0.42 0.41 0.56 0.75 0.51 0.50 0.61 0.87 0.59 0.58 0.72

East of Lami Street 0.74 0.63 0.51 0.67 0.89 0.75 0.67 0.80 1.04 0.88 0.79 0.93

A VCR of less than 0.7 indicates that the road has a reasonable level of service. Table 2-6 shows that:

In 2013 the only section with a VCR exceeding 0.7 is east of Lami Street in the morning peak.

By 2023 east of Lami Street remains the most critical section, although the VCR is significantly less than 1.0

By 2033 there is major traffic congestion east of Lami Street, and increasing congestion in other segments of Queens Road. This indicates the potential congestion issues between Lami and Suva which is outside the scope of this study.

This assessment is based on assumed sustained annual traffic growth of 2% between 2013 and 2033. Changes to this assumption will affect the analysis.



2.3.6 Intersection Performance

Table 2-7 defines intersection levels of service calculated by SIDRA.

Table 2-7: Intersection Level of Service Categories

Level of Service Average Delay (s)

Unsignalised Intersections Signalised Intersections

A Less than 10 Less than 10

B 10 to 15 10 to 20

C 15 to 25 20 to 35

D 25 to 35 35 to 55

E 35 to 50 55 to 80

F Greater than 50 Greater than 80

Table 2-8, Table 2-9 and Table 2-10 show turning movement levels of service for the Vetaia Street, Nasevou Street and Lami Street intersections with Queens Road analysed using SIDRA. All intersections include right-turn bays from Queens Road programmed for implementation at all intersections later in 2013.

Table 2-8: Nasevou Street / Queens Road Intersection Performance

Location

2013 2023 2033


L T R L T R L T R L T R L T R L T R

North (Nasevou Street) C C C C E E F F F F F F

East (to Nauva) A B A A A B A B A B A B

West (to Suva) A A A A A A A A A A A A

Table 2-9: Vetaia Street / Queens Road Intersection Performance

Location

2013 2023 2033



North (Vetaia Street) C C C C E E E E F F F F

East (to Nauva) A B A B A B A B A B A B


Table 2-10: Lami Street / Queens Road Intersection Performance

Location

2013 2023 2033



North (Lami Street) C C C C F F F F F F F F

East (to Nauva) A B A B A D A B A F A C




In 2013 with the right-turn bays on Queens Road, there are no capacity issues for the intersections. By 2023 there are significant issues for left and right turning traffic from the side streets, particularly Lami Street and Nasevou Street where the delays result in high congested conditions (level of service F). By 2033 all side streets at all intersections exhibit highly congested conditions in both peak periods, along with the morning peak period right turn into Lami Street.

This assessment is based on assumed sustained annual traffic growth of 2% between 2013 and 2033. Changes to this assumption will affect the analysis.

2.4 Crash Assessment

2.4.1 Crash History

Table 2-11 shows the crash history along Queens Road over a ten-year period from from January 2003 to December 2012.

Table 2-11: Total Crashes by Severity

Year Total Crashes Damage Only Not-Hospitalised Hospitalised Fatal

2003 11 10 0 1 0

2004 14 12 1 1 0

2005 16 14 1 1 0

2006 15 11 3 1 0

2007 21 13 6 2 0

2008 16 12 2 1 1

2009 17 13 3 1 0

2010 14 13 0 1 0

2011 15 13 1 1 0

2012 15 10 4 1 0

TOTAL 154 121 21 11 1

There have been 154 recorded crashes and 33 recorded injury crashes over ten years, equating to an injury crash rate of 30.8 crashes per 100 million vehicle kilometres travelled. Details of individual crashes could not be obtained therefore an assessment of the types of crashes could not been undertaken.

The bulk of crashes were damage only, with only one fatality, 11 crashes requiring hospitalisation and 21 crashes requiring medical treatment.



2.4.2 Crash Locations

Figure 2-5 and Figure 2-6 show crash data screen shots showing the locations of recorded crashes over the ten-year period.

Figure 2-5: Fatal and Hospitalised Crashes 2003 to 2012

Figure 2-6: Non-Hospitalised and Damage Only Crashes 2003 to 2012

Without details of crash types, it is difficult to identify locations with specific safety issues, particularly the crashes are randomly spread along Queens Road. However, the non-hospitalised and damage only crash diagram shows a greater intensity of crashes in the sections of Queens Road with higher traffic volumes.

This is reasonable to expect with the high intensity of activity associated with property access, parking, bus stops, and intersection turning movements within a narrow corridor.

LEGEND

Fatal

Hospitalised

LEGEND

Non-hospitalised

Damage Only



2.5 Summary of the Issues

The key issues along Queens Road are:

Route security

Travel time and congestion

Safety.

Queens Road is the only route between Suva and Nadi and comprises a narrow two lane road with numerous unsignalised T-intersections. When crashes or vehicle breakdowns occur they can cause significant traffic delays, with impacts on route security on a major highway in Fiji .

Traffic turning right into the numerous side roads along Queens Road obstructs through traffic because there are no right-turn bays. This issue will be mitigated with the introduction of right-turn bays to the Queens Road intersections with Lami Street, Vetaia Street and Nasevou Street later in 2013.

However, based on an average 2% traffic growth rate in Lami, the following future congestion issues will arise:

Peak period traffic demand on Queens Road east of Lami Street will be near or exceed capacity by 2033.



The extent of surrounding intensive industrial, commercial and residential land use in Lami could be a constraint to either constructing the proposed Lami Bypass or significantly widening Queens Road. Steep topography in Town north of Queens Road poses additional issues to constructing the proposed bypass.



3 Option Identification and Development

3.1 The Options

To resolve the identified issues and assess the viability of the Lami Bypass the following options were identified:

Base Case comprising committed works only

Option A – Intersection signalisation and flaring

Option B – Widening Queens Road for shoulders and right-turn bays

Option C – Widening Queens Road to four lanes

Option D – Lami Bypass

Option E – Local network extensions.

Figure 3-1 shows the locations for Options A to D.

Figure 3-1: Lami Options

3.2 Base Case

The Base Case comprises the following works committed for 2013:

A consistent cross-section comprising two 3.3 m wide traffic lanes

Right-turn bays comprising 3 m wide pockets and widening works at the Nasevou Street, Vetaia Street and Lami Street intersections with Queens Road

A new 26 m long westbound bus bay between Solomoni Street and Nasevou Street to replace an existing bus bay opposite Nasevou Street

A new 1.89 m wide footpath with kerb and channel near Lami Street on the southern side of Queens Road extending 100 m east of the intersection



Modifications to the exit from Harbour Point Shopping Centre to separate left and right turning traffic, which will alleviate existing safety issues for left-turning traffic leaving the shopping centre.

Appendix B shows details of the Base Case works. All proposed works will be within the existing road reserve boundary.

3.3 Option A - Intersection Signalisation and Flaring

Option A comprises:

Signalisation of the Nasevou Street / Queens Road and Lami Street / Queens Road intersections

Flaring of the Lami Street / Queens Road intersection akin to the arrangement shown Figure 3-2.

Figure 3-2: Flared Intersection at Lami Street/Queens Road

The proposed intersection layout for Lami Street aims to accommodate the operational issues anticipated from 2023. SIDRA analysis shows that under 2033 forecast volumes the proposed arrangement provides an average level of service C for all vehicles.

The two-lane bridge approximately 130 m east of the intersection is a constra int. The intersection upgrade will need to carefully consider appropriate lane lengths and tapers on the eastbound departure side, to drop back to a single lane before the bridge. SIDRA analysis for the proposed arrangement showed that predicted queue lengths on the east approach do not spill back onto the bridge.

Signalisation of the Nasevou Street / Queens Road intersection would be consistent with signalisation of the Lami Street / Queens Road intersection, but no changes to the intersection geometry are proposed.

3.4 Option B - Widening for Shoulders and Right-Turn Bays

Option B widens Queens Road to provide 1 to 2 m shoulders, which will provide route security, and increase manoeuvring and recovery space. However, as Queens Road east of Lami including Suvavou Village does not have shoulders, route security would only be provided through Lami itself.

Although right-turn bays are programmed at the Lami Street, Vetaia and Nasevou Street intersections, other minor side roads do not have right-turn bays. Right-turning traffic to these streets creates obstructions for through traffic along Queens Road. Option B includes additional right-turn bays on Queens Road at the following locations:

Solomoni Street

Naimawi Street



Raghunath Singh Drive

Vatuvia Road

Qeleya Road

Naqumu Point Road.

Implementing right-turn bays into residential side streets requires a review of bus stop locations to rationalise the number of bus stops along the route. At present there are bus stops at every intersection along Queens Road.

3.5 Option C - Widening to Four Lanes

Option C widens Queens Road to four lanes, which will provide route security and additional capacity along the route.

However widening Queens Road to provide a consistent four lane cross-section between Lami and Suva should be part of a route strategy developed for Queens Road, including the need for bridge widening or new bridges.

The forecast mid-block volumes west of Lami do not warrant a four lane cross-section. The four lanes would need to end just west of Lami itself. The most appropriate location would be near Solomoni Street as areas further west are all residential.

3.6 Option D - Lami Bypass

Option D is the proposed 2.8 km long Lami Bypass.

The Transportation Study of the Greater Suva Area proposed a two-lane road with 3.5 m wide traffic lanes, 2.5 m wide shoulders, and a design speed of 80 km/h. Appendix C includes concept plans for the Lami Bypass extracted from the transportation study.

It is unclear if the design speed of 80 km/h means a posted speed limit of 70 km/h to be consistent with recognised geometric design principles, or a posted speed limit of 80 km/h to be consistent with the highway speed limit in Fiji. As the bypass route would travel through a residential and light industrial area a more realistic speed limit would be 50 or 60 km/h.

The features of the road travelling east to west are:

New single lane roundabout between Queens Road and the bypass road at Suvavou

New 40 m long bridge west of Suvavou Village

Left-in/left-out intersection with Wailada Road

Alignment along Wailada Road (west) to Toti Place

Termination of Lasi Road by creating a cul-de-sac

Seagull intersection with Latui Road and Wailada Road

New 40 m long bridge west of Toti Place

New 30 m long bridge east of Nasevou Street

Termination of Nasevou Street south of Lami Bypass by creating a cul-de-sac

Alignment along Nasevou Street up to a cul-de-sac near Matata Settlement

Cutting south of Kalekana settlement

New single lane roundabout between Queens Road and the Lami Bypass near Kalekana Road.

Potential issues associated with the Lami Bypass include:

Existing significant heavy vehicle volumes in the light industrial area, with heavy vehicles parking on both sides of Wailada Road, Lami Street, Lesi Street and Toti Street

Direct property access along the bypass route requiring careful management

Nasevou Street being a residential street. Using this street as part of the bypass alignment would have significant social impacts throughout Qauiya Village, an established residential area with development activity occurring.

Significant land acquisition and relocations.



3.7 Option E – Local Network Extensions

Option E comprises a second bridge across the Lami River and connections to the local street network , including extending Wailada Road and Nukuwatu Street. Figure 3-3 illustrates this concept.

Figure 3-3: Second Bridge and Local Street Network Changes

Extending the local street network has merit, but the existing network has many cul-de-sacs which limits the benefits of this option. Option E does not negate the need for route security along Queens Road and the intersection upgrades to cope with the predicted traffic volumes. Therefore Option E has not been considered further for the purpose of this study.

3.8 Option Costs

Table 3-1 summarises the project costs for each option.

Table 3-1: Option Costs

Item Base Case Option A Option B Option C Option D

Civil works $591,000 $1,600,000 $2,800,000 $2,700,000 $14,400,000

Bridges - - - - $13,600,000

Preliminary Costs $591,000 $1,600,000 $3,800,000 $4,500,000 $28,000,000

The following assumptions were made in determining the option costs:

The estimates exclude allowances for land acquisition costs or maintenance and rehabilitation

All options include nominal amounts for site establishment, traffic management, stakeholder liaison and engineering set out.

The Base Case assumes two 3.3 m lanes and 3 m right-turn pockets at the Nasevou Street, Vetaia Street and Lami Street intersections.

Option A includes an allowance for signalisation and civil works at the Nasevou Street and Lami Street intersections.

Option B assumes two 3.3 m lanes, 3 m right-turn pockets at six intersections, and widening for 1 m shoulders.



Option C assumes a four lane cross-section between Solomoni Street and the bridge east of Lami Street as well as shoulder widening with right-turn lanes between Solomoni Street and Naqumu Point Road. The four lane cross-section assumes four 3.3 m lanes and 1 m shoulders.

Option D assumes two 3.5 m lanes and 2.5 m shoulders, in line with the concept plan developed for the Transportation Study of the Greater Suva Urban Area. To reduce capital and maintenance costs a more practical shoulder width would be 0.5 m.



4 Option Assessment

4.1 Multi-Criteria Assessment

Table 4-1 outlines the assessment criteria and ratings describing how the option will be measured.

Table 4-1: Assessment Criteria

Criteria Description High Rating Low Rating

Objective and policy alignment

The ability of the project or option to meet project objectives and be compatible with the policy framework

Strong alignment Weak or no alignment

Problem solving The ability of the project or option to resolve the identified project problem

Strong resolution Poor or no resolution

Benefits The expected benefits generated by the project or option. Includes tangible (travel times, vehicle operating costs, crash savings) and intangible

High benefits No benefits or dis-benefits

Costs The expected cost to deliver the project or option (capex and opex)

Low costs or cost savings

High costs

Staging potential The ability of the project or option to be staged, i.e. built in sections over time

Easily staged with benefits provided by each stage

Can’t be staged

Construction and planning risks

The ease of planning, designing, and constructing the project or option

Simple and low risk construction; simple or no planning approvals

Complex construction including many risks and uncertainties; complex and difficult planning approvals

Community and stakeholder acceptability

The degree of community and stakeholder support (local community, wider community, political, organisations)

Likely to be well supported

Likely to be strongly opposed

Social and economic outcomes

The wider social and economic outcomes generated by the project (excluding direct transport user benefits), e.g. supports land use development etc.

Positive social and economic outcomes, e.g. employment, land use development opportunities, accessibility

Poor social and economic outcomes

Environmental Outcomes

The environmental outcomes generated by the project

Positive environmental outcomes or negligible impacts

Poor environmental outcomes

Options were scored using the following ratings:

5 - Very favourable outcome / high benefits

4 - Good outcome / some benefits

3 - Average outcome / moderate benefits by no differentiators over other options

2 - Poor outcome / low benefits

1 - Very unfavourable outcome / no or very low benefits

Table 4-3 overleaf contains the multi-criteria assessment with Table 4-2 summarising the option scores.



Table 4-2: Option Multi-Criteria Assessment Score Summary

Criteria Base Case Option A Option B Option C Option D

Problem solving 1 1 5 5 5

Benefits 3 4 4 5 5

Costs 5 5 2 2 1

Staging potential 5 5 5 4 1

Constructability & planning risks 5 5 5 2 1

Community & stakeholder acceptability

5 5 5 2 1

Social & economic outcomes 3 3 4 5 5

Environmental outcomes 3 3 3 1 1

Total 30 31 33 27 21

The Base Case with introducing right-turn bays on Queens Road provides a favourable short to medium-term outcome, but does not solve the issue of route security during crashes or vehicle breakdowns.

Option A (Intersection Signalisation and Flaring) provides a favourable long-term outcome by managing congestion associated with the major intersection in Lami Town. However, like the Base Case it does not solve the issue of route security.

Option B (Widening for Shoulders and Right Turn Bays) achieves the highest raw score in the multi-criteria assessment. It is likely to resolve the issue of route security or reduce the impact of delays during crashes and vehicle breakdowns. However it doesn’t resolve the issue of future inters ection congestion.

Option C (Widening to Four Lanes) has merit because it provides route security through additional capacity. It also provides a long-term term solution of managing long-term route congestion. However, it carries significant costs, risks and potential acceptability issues. Importantly, the effectiveness of Option C would be affected if the two two-lane bridges at each end of Lami Town were not widened to four lanes. Furthermore, it is likely that the full capacity benefits would only be realised by widening the entire length of Queens Road between Lami and Suva to four lanes as part of a consistent route strategy.

Option D (Lami Bypass) solves route security issues and has potential wider economic benefits by potentially opening up land for development. Like Option C it also provides a long-term solution of managing route congestion through Lami, although the full benefits would only be realised by widening the entire length of Queens Road between Lami and Suva. However, it has a very high cost, has major property impacts, carries significant risks, and cannot be effectively staged.


Status: Final August 2013

Project No.: 83500285 Page 24 Our ref: Lami Feasibility Report - 130828

Table 4-3: Option Multi-Criteria Assessment


Objective and Policy Alignment

Not assessed due to the absence of a defined policy framework.

Problem Solving

Does not negate the need for route security along Queens Road.

Does not negate the need for route security along Queens Road.

Provides some additional route security.

Provides route security along Queens Road in the form of additional capacity.

Provides a route alternative separate from Queens Road.

Benefits Reduced travel times through Lami Town for through traffic.

Journey times remain the same in other sections of the route.

Intersection operation issues under forecast traffic volumes.

Provides additional intersection capacity. Required to solve capacity issues in the next 10-12 years.

Conflicts between local traffic and through traffic managed.

Will reduce crash rate – high crash prevalence at side-street intersections through Lami Town

Provides a recovery area for broken down vehicles or accidents and space for through traffic to pass obstructions.

Improved journey time reliability and reduced vehicle operating costs through increased capacity.

Reduced crash rates, but conflicts between side street traffic and through traffic require appropriate management.

Bridge pinch points remain, restricting the cross-section to two lanes at each end.

To provide the full benefits the entire corridor into Suva needs to be four lanes.

Improved journey time reliability and vehicle operating costs by increasing capacity and providing route alternatives.

Option will alleviate any safety deficiencies and reduce crash rates.

Costs Lowest cost. Low cost. Medium cost. High cost. Increased maintenance costs to be expected from greater road surface area.

Very high cost.

Obtaining funding could be difficult given funding constraints and competing priorities.

Increased maintenance costs due to greater road surface area.





Staging Potential

Doesn’t need to be staged. Enables widening works to be easily staged. Intersections can be signalised / flared over time.

Implementation can easily be staged in sections.

Can be staged in sections. Difficult to stage without bypass traffic being forced onto local street network.

Construction and Planning Risks

Very low risk. Low risk. Services need to be identified.

Easy implementation and fairly low risk construction,

Mostly contained within existing road reserve. Some risks associated with widening in sections with narrow road reserve (east of Lami Street).

Not contained within the existing road reserve.

Risks associated with significant widening of the corridor including services, land acquisition and flood mitigation.

High risk – conceptual option.

Risks associated with terrain, locations of utilities and extent of earthworks.

Potential for geotechnical and hydrology issues.

Community and Stakeholder Acceptability

Likely to be supported, no additional footprint.

Likely to be supported, limited additional footprint.

Likely to be supported, some additional footprint but mostly contained within road reserve.

Option will impact adjacent land uses.

Implementation may require property resumptions.

May be supported, but needs to be tested.

Impacts on amenity with wider road reserve.

Needs to be tested with community. Potential for community opposition.

Option impacts adjacent land uses primarily through direct property resumptions and indirectly through local street treatments (cul-de-sacs).

Implementing requires significant property resumptions ranging from partial to full property resumptions.

Potentially poor amenity outcomes.





Social and Economic Outcomes

Small, localised changes - not likely to have significant wider social and economic outcomes.

Not likely to have significant wider social and economic outcomes.

Improved route security provides wider social and economic outcomes particularly for inter-regional traffic, including freight.

Improved route security provides wider social and economic outcomes particularly for inter-regional traffic, including freight.

Provides wider social and economic benefits.

Opens up land to the north of Lami Town for development, potential for additional employment opportunities – broad economic benefits.

Traffic volumes through Lami Town would reduce, improving amenity.

Environmental Outcomes

Negligible impacts, no additional footprint.

Negligible impacts with localised additional footprint at Lami Street intersection.

Negligible impacts as widening will occur in an urban area.

Widening of corridor in urban area. May impact the waterway which also may impact fauna movement. Flood mitigation required.

Construction of new road through undeveloped areas. Negative environmental impacts. Impacts on waterway with new bridge construction and potential for fauna impacts.

SCORE TOTAL

30 31 33 27 21



4.3 Economic Analysis

4.3.1 Analysis Approach

A rigorous economic analysis is difficult to undertake within the scope of this study because of the absence of well-defined values of times, vehicle operating costs, and crash costs. An indicative analysis has been undertaken using economics prepared for the Nadi and Suva Four Lane Projects

3, and

derivation of values of time for the Third Road Upgrading Project4 in 1996.

Refer to Appendix D for the economic analysis worksheets.

4.3.2 Benefit Values

The economic analysis uses the following unit benefit values:

Average value of time of $8.69 per hour

Average vehicle operating cost of $0.78 per kilometer.

Key assumptions and derivations behind these values are as follows:

The vehicle operating cost comprises the fuel cost and non-fuel variable cost, extracted from the Nadi and Suva Four Lane economics

Values of time are based on occupancies and proportions of work trips developed for the Third Road Upgrading Project, but using an average wage rate of $6 per hour akin to the Nadi to Suva Four Lane economics

The traffic composition for the Suva Four Lane project is similar to that on Queens Road in Lami

Shadow costs have been determined based on factors used in the Nadi and Suva Four Lane economics.

There are insufficient details to calculate meaningful unit crash or accident costs. Prox ies could be developed by benchmarking against severity costs in Australia and New Zealand, but this would require assessment outside the scope of this project.

4.3.3 Maintenance Costs

The Nadi to Suva Four Lane Projects outline typical maintenance costs which vary based on the location. In the absence of better data, the following has been used in the analysis following major construction:

Annual maintenance of $15,000/km between 2014 and 2017

Pre-rehabilitation maintenance of $50,000/km in 2028

A pavement rehabilitation of $850,000/km in 2029

Annual maintenance of $15,000/km from 2030.

Due to major rehabilitation programmed for Queens Road in 2013, the Base Case will have the same maintenance regime.

4.3.4 Lami Bypass Traffic Volumes

Table 4-4 outlines the scenario developed to estimate traffic volumes on the Lami Bypass and on Queens Road with the bypass in place.

3 Johnson, Keith 2013, Widening to Four Lanes: Nadi and Suva, Project Economic Analysis – Draft Final Report

4 Roughton International 1996, Third Road Upgrading Project, Fiji – Final Report, Volume A Report



Table 4-4: Bypass Traffic Scenarios

Traffic Proportion Traffic Split

Proportion of traffic using the Lami Bypass 60%

Proportion of traffic using Queens Road 40%

Table 4-5 shows the predicted traffic volumes without any bypass in place and with a bypass in place under the scenario.

Table 4-5: Estimated 2013 Daily Traffic Volumes with and without Lami Bypass

Location Without Bypass With Bypass

On Lami Bypass - 8,500

Queens Road west of Nasevou Street 9,800 5,700

To estimate local traffic changes the following assumptions were made:

Nasevou Street – all traffic continues to use Queens Road

Vetaia Street – all traffic continues to use Queens Road

Lami Street - 40% of the traffic continues to use Queens Road and 60% uses the Lami Bypass and Wailada Road to access the eastern part of the industrial area. These proportions are based on the portions of developed land in the industrial area on either side of the bypass alignment.

4.3.5 Average Route Speeds

Table 4-6 lists average route speeds assumed in the economic analysis.

Table 4-6: Economic Analysis Average Route Speeds

Option Route Speeds

Base Case 40 km/h on Queens Road

Option B 50 km/h on Queens Road

Option C 60 km/h on Queens Road

Option D 60 km/h on the Lami Bypass and 45 km/h on Queens Road.

4.3.6 Economic Analysis Results

Table 4-7 summarises the economic analysis with details in Appendix D.

Table 4-7: Economic Analysis Results

Option NPV Benefits NPV Costs BCR EIRR

Option B $4,094,746 $3,353,828 1.2 12%

Option C $6,824,577 $3,990,192 1.7 16%

Option D $6,927,951 $23,664,539 0.3 -2%

Option A was not assessed as the nature of the analysis means that comparing average delays through SIDRA is significantly different to the route analyses undertaken for Options B, C and D.



4.4 Option Assessment Outcomes

Introducing the right turn bays as part of the Base Case provides an adequate short-term solution. Options A and B are medium-term solutions in solving intersection congestion and route security issues respectively. There would be significant benefits in combining them into a single medium-term solution. The combination of Options A and B also provide a staged solution to implementing Option C in the long term should the need arise.

Options C and D would both be long-term solutions to resolve route congestion. Although the analysis in this study suggests that route congestion would be significant east of Lami Street by 2033, this was based on assuming 2% annual traffic growth over the next 20 years, without any support from historical traffic volumes. There is a risk that differences to the forecasting assumptions will affect the analysis, which can be mitigated by undertaking regular future traffic counts through Lami to monitor growth trends.


Table 4-8 summarises the option assessment outcomes.

Table 4-8: Option Assessment Outcomes

Option Assessment Outcome

Base Case Reduces immediate traffic congestion by separating turning and through traffic.

Introduce as an effective short-term solution.

Option A Significantly reduces medium-term intersection congestion but does not solve the route security issues.

Combine Option A and Option B as an effective medium-term solution. A combined solution could be an ultimate solution or an effective stage of Option C.

Option B Solves or significantly reduces route security issues but does not solve medium-term traffic congestion.

Option C Solves the issues of route security and traffic congestion, and potentially safety if well implemented. Would have significant costs and impacts.

A potential long-term solution as part of a consistent four-lane route strategy between Suva and Lami.

Option D Solves the issues of route security and traffic congestion, and potentially safety if well implemented. Costs more than Option C and carries more risks and impacts. Furthermore it cannot be effectively staged.

Discard from further assessment.



5 Conclusions

5.1 The Issues

Queens Road is the only route between Suva and Nadi and comprises a narrow two-lane road with numerous unsignalised T-intersections. When crashes or vehicle breakdowns occur they can cause significant traffic delays, with impacts on route security on a major highway in Fiji.

Traffic turning right into numerous side roads along Queens Road obstructs through traffic because there are no right-turn bays. This issue will be mitigated through the introduction of right-turn bays to the Queens Road intersections with Lami Street, Vetaia Street and Nasevou Street later in 2013.

However, based on an average 2% traffic growth rate in Lami, the following future congestion issues will arise:

Traffic demand on Queens Road east of Lami Street will be near or exceeding capacity in the peak periods in 2033.



The extent of surrounding intensive industrial, commercial and residential land use in Lami could be a constraint to either constructing the proposed Lami Bypass or significantly widening Queens Road. Steep topography in Lami north of Queens Road poses additional issues to constructing the proposed bypass.

5.2 Options

To resolve the identified issues and assess the viability of the Lami Bypss the following options were identified:

Base Case comprising committed works only

Option A – Intersection signalisation and flaring

Option B – Widening Queens Road for shoulders and right-turn bays

Option C – Widening Queens Road to four lanes

Option D – Lami Bypass

Introducing right turn bays as part of the Base Case provides an adequate short-term solution. Options A and B are medium-term solutions in solving intersection congestion and route security issues respectively. There would be significant benefits in combining them a single medium-term solution. The combination of Options A and B also provide a staged solution to implementing Option C in the long term should the need arise.

Options C and D would both be long-term solutions to resolve route congestion. Although the analysis in this study suggests that route congestion would be significant east of Lami Street by 2033, this was based on assuming 2% annual traffic growth over the next 20 years, with any support from historical traffic volumes. There is a risk that differences to the forecasting assumptions will affect the analysis, which can be mitigated by undertaking regular future traffic counts through Lami to monitor growth trends.


In summary, the Lami Bypass is not a viable long-term solution to solving issues through Lami. Should the need or desire arise, and preferred long-term solution would be to widen Queens Road.



6 Recommendations The Fiji Roads Authority should:

1. Discard the Lami Bypass from future investigation. 2. Implement right-turn bays at Lami Street, Vetaia Street and Nasevou Street as part of pavement

rehabilitation later in 2013 and monitor their effectiveness. 3. Introduce annual or biannual traffic counts through Lami to identify actual growth trends and allow

for more rigorous traffic forecasting, enabling optimisation of introducing a combined Option A and B, comprising intersection signalisation and shoulder widening of Queens Road.

4. Implement a combined Option A and B as an effective medium-term solution using the traffic count data to determine optimised timing for incorporating in the capital program. This study suggests timing should be around 2020.

5. Retain Option C, comprising a four lane Queens Road, as a long-term solution, but undertake a route strategy between Suva and Lami to ensure consistent and coordinated initiatives along the full route. Upon completing the route strategy identify the corridor footprint for introducing Option C in the long-term. This study suggests timing would be after 2030.


Appendix A Travel Time Survey Results Survey Results

Level of Service Based on Average Speed

Link Distance

(km) Direction


Travel Time

Average Speed (km/h)

Travel Time


Kalekana Road to Naimawi Street

1.22 Ebd 01:39.0 44.4 01:38.3 44.7

Wbd 01:35.8 45.8 01:47.2 41.0

Naimawi Street to Solomoni Street

0.24 Ebd 00:19.1 45.2 00:20.5 42.1

Wbd 00:19.6 44.1 00:19.6 44.1

Solomoni Street to Nasevou Street

0.15 Ebd 00:12.5 42.9 00:14.4 37.5

Wbd 00:11.9 45.4 00:14.1 38.3

Nasevou Street to Vetaia Street

0.13 Ebd 00:12.9 42.5 00:12.9 34.9

Wbd 00:15.7 28.7 00:13.4 33.6

Vetaia Street to Lami Street

0.32 Ebd 00:26.2 45.0 00:30.3 38.0

Wbd 00:27.4 42.0 00:33.5 34.4

Lami Street to Lami Village Road

0.61 Ebd 00:55.0 37.9 00:58.9 37.3

Wbd 1:01.0 36.5 00:58.7 37.4

Link Direction



LOS Average Speed (km/h)

LOS

Kalekana Road to Naimawi Street

Ebd 44.36 A 44.68 A

Wbd 45.84 A 40.97 B

Naimawi Street to Solomoni Street

Ebd 45.24 A 42.14 A

Wbd 44.08 A 44.08 A

Solomoni Street to Nasevou Street

Ebd 42.86 A 37.50 B

Wbd 45.38 A 38.30 B

Nasevou Street to Vetaia Street

Ebd 42.45 A 34.88 B

Wbd 28.66 C 33.58 B

Vetaia Street to Lami Street

Ebd 45.00 A 38.02 B

Wbd 42.04 A 34.39 B

Lami Street to Lami Village Road

Ebd 37.86 B 37.29 B

Wbd 36.53 B 37.41 B


Appendix B Base Case Drawings


Appendix C Lami Bypass Concept Plan


Appendix D Economic Analysis

Qu

een

s R

oad

(L

am

i T

ow

n)

Main

ten

an

ce C

osts

in

2013

Se

cti

on

Ma

inte

na

nc

e T

yp

eU

nit

Co

st

($/k

m)

Le

ng

th

(km

)

Ma

inte

na

nc

e

Co

st

($)

Ma

inte

na

nc

e

Co

st

($)

Ba

se

Ca

se

Qu

ee

ns R

oa

dA

nn

ua

l1

5,0

00

2.7

40

,50

0Q

ue

en

s R

oa

dP

re-r

eh

ab

ma

int

50

,00

02

.71

35

,00

0Q

ue

en

s R

oa

dR

eh

ab

85

0,0

00

2.7

2,2

95

,00

0

Op

tio

n B

Qu

ee

ns R

oa

dA

nn

ua

l1

5,0

00

2.7

40

,50

0Q

ue

en

s R

oa

dP

re-r

eh

ab

ma

int

50

,00

02

.71

35

,00

0Q

ue

en

s R

oa

dR

eh

ab

85

0,0

00

2.7

2,2

95

,00

0

Op

tio

n C

Qu

ee

ns R

oa

dA

nn

ua

l1

5,0

00

2.7

40

,50

0Q

ue

en

s R

oa

dP

re-r

eh

ab

ma

int

50

,00

02

.71

35

,00

0Q

ue

en

s R

oa

dR

eh

ab

85

0,0

00

2.7

2,2

95

,00

0

Op

tio

n D

Qu

ee

ns R

oa

dA

nn

ua

l1

5,0

00

2.7

40

,50

0L

am

i Byp

ass

An

nu

al

15

,00

02

.84

2,0

00

82

,50

0Q

ue

en

s R

oa

dP

re-r

eh

ab

ma

int

50

,00

02

.71

35

,00

0L

am

i Byp

ass

Pre

-re

ha

b m

ain

t5

0,0

00

2.8

14

0,0

00

27

5,0

00

Qu

ee

ns R

oa

dR

eh

ab

85

0,0

00

2.7

2,2

95

,00

0L

am

i Byp

ass

Re

ha

b8

50

,00

02

.82

,38

0,0

00

4,6

75

,00

0

Lam

i Feasib

ility

Stu

dy

- E

conom

ics W

ork

sheets

Lam

i Main

t27/0

8/2

013

Qu

een

s R

oad

(L

am

i T

ow

n)

Tra

vel T

ime a

nd

Veh

icle

Op

era

tin

g C

osts

in

2013

Se

cti

on

Lo

ca

tio

nL

en

gth

(km

)

Sp

ee

d

(km

/h)

Tra

ve

l

Tim

e

(min

s)

AA

DT

(vp

d)

Un

it T

rave

l

Tim

e C

os

t

($/h

)

An

nu

al T

rave

l

Tim

e C

os

t

($/y

r)

Un

it V

eh

icle

Op

era

tin

g

Co

st

($/k

m)

An

nu

al V

eh

icle

Op

era

tin

g C

os

t

($/y

r)

Ba

se

Ca

se

Qu

ee

ns R

oa

dB

etw

ee

n b

ypa

ss e

nd

s2

.74

04

.19

,80

08

.69

2,0

98

,17

90

.78

7,5

33

,16

2L

am

i Byp

ass

Be

twe

en

byp

ass e

nd

s2

.86

02

.80

8.6

90

0.7

80

La

mi S

tre

et

Via

Qu

ee

ns R

oa

d1

.34

02

.04

,40

08

.69

45

3,5

75

0.7

81

,62

8,4

84

La

mi S

tre

et

Via

La

mi B

ypa

ss

0.8

60

0.8

08

.69

00

.78

02

,55

1,7

54

9,1

61

,64

6

Op

tio

n B

Qu

ee

ns R

oa

dB

etw

ee

n b

ypa

ss e

nd

s2

.75

03

.29

,80

08

.69

1,6

78

,54

30

.78

7,5

33

,16

2L

am

i Byp

ass

Be

twe

en

byp

ass e

nd

s2

.86

02

.80

8.6

90

0.7

80

La

mi S

tre

et

Via

Qu

ee

ns R

oa

d1

.35

01

.64

,40

08

.69

36

2,8

60

0.7

81

,62

8,4

84

La

mi S

tre

et

Via

La

mi B

ypa

ss

0.8

60

0.8

08

.69

00

.78

02

,04

1,4

03

9,1

61

,64

6

Op

tio

n C

Qu

ee

ns R

oa

dB

etw

ee

n b

ypa

ss e

nd

s2

.76

02

.79

,80

08

.69

1,3

98

,78

60

.78

7,5

33

,16

2L

am

i Byp

ass

Be

twe

en

byp

ass e

nd

s2

.86

02

.80

8.6

90

0.7

80

La

mi S

tre

et

Via

Qu

ee

ns R

oa

d1

.36

01

.34

,40

08

.69

30

2,3

83

0.7

81

,62

8,4

84

La

mi S

tre

et

Via

La

mi B

ypa

ss

0.8

60

0.8

08

.69

00

.78

01

,70

1,1

69

9,1

61

,64

6

Op

tio

n D

Qu

ee

ns R

oa

dB

etw

ee

n b

ypa

ss e

nd

s2

.74

53

.63

,90

08

.69

74

2,2

13

0.7

82

,99

7,8

91

La

mi B

ypa

ss

Be

twe

en

byp

ass e

nd

s2

.86

02

.85

,90

08

.69

87

3,3

16

0.7

84

,70

3,2

44

La

mi S

tre

et

Via

Qu

ee

ns R

oa

d1

.34

51

.71

,80

08

.69

16

4,9

36

0.7

86

66

,19

8L

am

i Str

ee

tV

ia L

am

i Byp

ass

0.8

60

0.8

2,6

00

8.6

91

09

,95

70

.78

59

2,1

76

1,8

90

,42

28

,95

9,5

09

Lam

i Feasib

ility

Stu

dy

- E

conom

ics W

ork

sheets

Lam

i TT

C &

VO

C27/0

8/2

013

Qu

een

s R

oad

(L

am

i) F

easib

ilty

Stu

dy -

Eco

no

mic

An

aly

sis

fo

r O

pti

on

B

Tim

e C

os

tsV

OC

Tim

e C

os

tsV

OC

Tim

e C

os

ts

VO

C

20

14

3,8

00

,00

0

4

0,5

00

-

3,7

59

,50

0

2

,55

1,7

54

9,1

61

,64

6

2

,04

1,4

03

9,1

61

,64

6

-

-

-

(3

,75

9,5

00

)

20

15

40

,50

0

-

(4

0,5

00

)

2

,60

2,7

89

9,3

44

,87

9

2

,08

2,2

31

9,3

44

,87

9

-

-

-

4

0,5

00

20

16

40

,50

0

-

(4

0,5

00

)

2

,65

3,8

24

9,5

28

,11

2

2

,12

3,0

59

9,5

28

,11

2

-

-

-

4

0,5

00

20

17

40

,50

0

4

0,5

00

-

2,7

04

,85

9

9

,71

1,3

45

2,1

63

,88

7

9

,71

1,3

45

54

0,9

72

-

5

40

,97

2

54

0,9

72

20

18

40

,50

0

4

0,5

00

-

2,7

55

,89

4

9

,89

4,5

78

2,2

04

,71

5

9

,89

4,5

78

55

1,1

79

-

5

51

,17

9

55

1,1

79

20

19

40

,50

0

4

0,5

00

-

2,8

06

,92

9

1

0,0

77

,81

1

2,2

45

,54

3

1

0,0

77

,81

1

56

1,3

86

-

5

61

,38

6

56

1,3

86

20

20

40

,50

0

4

0,5

00

-

2,8

57

,96

4

1

0,2

61

,04

4

2,2

86

,37

1

1

0,2

61

,04

4

57

1,5

93

-

5

71

,59

3

57

1,5

93

20

21

40

,50

0

4

0,5

00

-

2,9

09

,00

0

1

0,4

44

,27

6

2,3

27

,19

9

1

0,4

44

,27

6

58

1,8

00

-

5

81

,80

0

58

1,8

00

20

22

40

,50

0

4

0,5

00

-

2,9

60

,03

5

1

0,6

27

,50

9

2,3

68

,02

7

1

0,6

27

,50

9

59

2,0

07

-

5

92

,00

7

59

2,0

07

20

23

40

,50

0

4

0,5

00

-

3,0

11

,07

0

1

0,8

10

,74

2

2,4

08

,85

6

1

0,8

10

,74

2

60

2,2

14

-

6

02

,21

4

60

2,2

14

20

24

40

,50

0

4

0,5

00

-

3,0

62

,10

5

1

0,9

93

,97

5

2,4

49

,68

4

1

0,9

93

,97

5

61

2,4

21

-

6

12

,42

1

61

2,4

21

20

25

40

,50

0

4

0,5

00

-

3,1

13

,14

0

1

1,1

77

,20

8

2,4

90

,51

2

1

1,1

77

,20

8

62

2,6

28

-

6

22

,62

8

62

2,6

28

20

26

40

,50

0

4

0,5

00

-

3,1

64

,17

5

1

1,3

60

,44

1

2,5

31

,34

0

1

1,3

60

,44

1

63

2,8

35

-

6

32

,83

5

63

2,8

35

20

27

40

,50

0

4

0,5

00

-

3,2

15

,21

0

1

1,5

43

,67

4

2,5

72

,16

8

1

1,5

43

,67

4

64

3,0

42

-

6

43

,04

2

64

3,0

42

20

28

13

5,0

00

1

35

,00

0

-

3,2

66

,24

5

1

1,7

26

,90

7

2,6

12

,99

6

1

1,7

26

,90

7

65

3,2

49

-

6

53

,24

9

65

3,2

49

20

29

2,2

95

,00

0

2

,29

5,0

00

-

3,3

17

,28

0

1

1,9

10

,14

0

2,6

53

,82

4

1

1,9

10

,14

0

66

3,4

56

-

6

63

,45

6

66

3,4

56

20

30

40

,50

0

4

0,5

00

-

3,3

68

,31

5

1

2,0

93

,37

3

2,6

94

,65

2

1

2,0

93

,37

3

67

3,6

63

-

6

73

,66

3

67

3,6

63

20

31

40

,50

0

4

0,5

00

-

3,4

19

,35

0

1

2,2

76

,60

6

2,7

35

,48

0

1

2,2

76

,60

6

68

3,8

70

-

6

83

,87

0

68

3,8

70

20

32

40

,50

0

4

0,5

00

-

3,4

70

,38

5

1

2,4

59

,83

9

2,7

76

,30

8

1

2,4

59

,83

9

69

4,0

77

-

6

94

,07

7

69

4,0

77

20

33

40

,50

0

4

0,5

00

-

3,5

21

,42

1

1

2,6

43

,07

1

2,8

17

,13

6

1

2,6

43

,07

1

70

4,2

84

-

7

04

,28

4

70

4,2

84

20

34

40

,50

0

4

0,5

00

-

3,5

72

,45

6

1

2,8

26

,30

4

2,8

57

,96

4

1

2,8

26

,30

4

71

4,4

91

-

7

14

,49

1

71

4,4

91

20

35

40

,50

0

4

0,5

00

-

3,6

23

,49

1

1

3,0

09

,53

7

2,8

98

,79

2

1

3,0

09

,53

7

72

4,6

98

-

7

24

,69

8

72

4,6

98

20

36

40

,50

0

4

0,5

00

-

3,6

74

,52

6

1

3,1

92

,77

0

2,9

39

,62

0

1

3,1

92

,77

0

73

4,9

05

-

7

34

,90

5

73

4,9

05

20

37

40

,50

0

4

0,5

00

-

3,7

25

,56

1

1

3,3

76

,00

3

2,9

80

,44

8

1

3,3

76

,00

3

74

5,1

12

-

7

45

,11

2

74

5,1

12

20

38

40

,50

0

4

0,5

00

-

3,7

76

,59

6

1

3,5

59

,23

6

3,0

21

,27

6

1

3,5

59

,23

6

75

5,3

19

-

7

55

,31

9

75

5,3

19

20

39

40

,50

0

4

0,5

00

-

3,8

27

,63

1

1

3,7

42

,46

9

3,0

62

,10

5

1

3,7

42

,46

9

76

5,5

27

-

7

65

,52

7

76

5,5

27

NP

V

$3

,35

3,8

28

4

,09

4,7

46

74

0,9

19

IRR

12

%

BC

R1

.2

An

nu

al tr

aff

ic g

row

th2

%

Dis

co

un

tng

fa

cto

r1

0%

Op

tio

nO

pti

on

Be

ne

fits

To

tal

Be

ne

fits

Be

ne

fits

-

Co

sts

Ye

ar

Ca

pit

al

Wo

rks

Ba

se

Ca

se

Ma

int

Op

tio

n

Ma

int

Ne

t O

pti

on

Co

sts

Ba

se

Ca

se

Lam

i F

ea

sib

ilit

y S

tud

y -

Eco

no

mic

s W

ork

she

ets

Lam

i O

pti

on

B2

7/0

8/2

01

3

Qu

een

s R

oad

(L

am

i) F

easib

ilty

Stu

dy -

Eco

no

mic

An

aly

sis

fo

r O

pti

on

C

Tim

e C

os

tsV

OC

Tim

e C

os

tsV

OC

Tim

e C

os

ts

VO

C

20

14

4,5

00

,00

0

4

0,5

00

-

4,4

59

,50

0

2

,55

1,7

54

9,1

61

,64

6

1

,70

1,1

69

9,1

61

,64

6

-

-

-

(4

,45

9,5

00

)

20

15

40

,50

0

-

(4

0,5

00

)

2

,60

2,7

89

9,3

44

,87

9

1

,73

5,1

92

9,3

44

,87

9

-

-

-

4

0,5

00

20

16

40

,50

0

-

(4

0,5

00

)

2

,65

3,8

24

9,5

28

,11

2

1

,76

9,2

16

9,5

28

,11

2

-

-

-

4

0,5

00

20

17

40

,50

0

4

0,5

00

-

2,7

04

,85

9

9

,71

1,3

45

1,8

03

,23

9

9

,71

1,3

45

90

1,6

20

-

9

01

,62

0

90

1,6

20

20

18

40

,50

0

4

0,5

00

-

2,7

55

,89

4

9

,89

4,5

78

1,8

37

,26

3

9

,89

4,5

78

91

8,6

32

-

9

18

,63

2

91

8,6

32

20

19

40

,50

0

4

0,5

00

-

2,8

06

,92

9

1

0,0

77

,81

1

1,8

71

,28

6

1

0,0

77

,81

1

93

5,6

44

-

9

35

,64

4

93

5,6

44

20

20

40

,50

0

4

0,5

00

-

2,8

57

,96

4

1

0,2

61

,04

4

1,9

05

,30

9

1

0,2

61

,04

4

95

2,6

55

-

9

52

,65

5

95

2,6

55

20

21

40

,50

0

4

0,5

00

-

2,9

09

,00

0

1

0,4

44

,27

6

1,9

39

,33

3

1

0,4

44

,27

6

96

9,6

67

-

9

69

,66

7

96

9,6

67

20

22

40

,50

0

4

0,5

00

-

2,9

60

,03

5

1

0,6

27

,50

9

1,9

73

,35

6

1

0,6

27

,50

9

98

6,6

79

-

9

86

,67

9

98

6,6

79

20

23

40

,50

0

4

0,5

00

-

3,0

11

,07

0

1

0,8

10

,74

2

2,0

07

,37

9

1

0,8

10

,74

2

1,0

03

,69

0

-

1

,00

3,6

90

1,0

03

,69

0

20

24

40

,50

0

4

0,5

00

-

3,0

62

,10

5

1

0,9

93

,97

5

2,0

41

,40

3

1

0,9

93

,97

5

1,0

20

,70

2

-

1

,02

0,7

02

1,0

20

,70

2

20

25

40

,50

0

4

0,5

00

-

3,1

13

,14

0

1

1,1

77

,20

8

2,0

75

,42

6

1

1,1

77

,20

8

1,0

37

,71

4

-

1

,03

7,7

14

1,0

37

,71

4

20

26

40

,50

0

4

0,5

00

-

3,1

64

,17

5

1

1,3

60

,44

1

2,1

09

,45

0

1

1,3

60

,44

1

1,0

54

,72

5

-

1

,05

4,7

25

1,0

54

,72

5

20

27

40

,50

0

4

0,5

00

-

3,2

15

,21

0

1

1,5

43

,67

4

2,1

43

,47

3

1

1,5

43

,67

4

1,0

71

,73

7

-

1

,07

1,7

37

1,0

71

,73

7

20

28

13

5,0

00

1

35

,00

0

-

3,2

66

,24

5

1

1,7

26

,90

7

2,1

77

,49

6

1

1,7

26

,90

7

1,0

88

,74

9

-

1

,08

8,7

49

1,0

88

,74

9

20

29

2,2

95

,00

0

2

,29

5,0

00

-

3,3

17

,28

0

1

1,9

10

,14

0

2,2

11

,52

0

1

1,9

10

,14

0

1,1

05

,76

1

-

1

,10

5,7

61

1,1

05

,76

1

20

30

40

,50

0

4

0,5

00

-

3,3

68

,31

5

1

2,0

93

,37

3

2,2

45

,54

3

1

2,0

93

,37

3

1,1

22

,77

2

-

1

,12

2,7

72

1,1

22

,77

2

20

31

40

,50

0

4

0,5

00

-

3,4

19

,35

0

1

2,2

76

,60

6

2,2

79

,56

6

1

2,2

76

,60

6

1,1

39

,78

4

-

1

,13

9,7

84

1,1

39

,78

4

20

32

40

,50

0

4

0,5

00

-

3,4

70

,38

5

1

2,4

59

,83

9

2,3

13

,59

0

1

2,4

59

,83

9

1,1

56

,79

6

-

1

,15

6,7

96

1,1

56

,79

6

20

33

40

,50

0

4

0,5

00

-

3,5

21

,42

1

1

2,6

43

,07

1

2,3

47

,61

3

1

2,6

43

,07

1

1,1

73

,80

7

-

1

,17

3,8

07

1,1

73

,80

7

20

34

40

,50

0

4

0,5

00

-

3,5

72

,45

6

1

2,8

26

,30

4

2,3

81

,63

7

1

2,8

26

,30

4

1,1

90

,81

9

-

1

,19

0,8

19

1,1

90

,81

9

20

35

40

,50

0

4

0,5

00

-

3,6

23

,49

1

1

3,0

09

,53

7

2,4

15

,66

0

1

3,0

09

,53

7

1,2

07

,83

1

-

1

,20

7,8

31

1,2

07

,83

1

20

36

40

,50

0

4

0,5

00

-

3,6

74

,52

6

1

3,1

92

,77

0

2,4

49

,68

3

1

3,1

92

,77

0

1,2

24

,84

2

-

1

,22

4,8

42

1,2

24

,84

2

20

37

40

,50

0

4

0,5

00

-

3,7

25

,56

1

1

3,3

76

,00

3

2,4

83

,70

7

1

3,3

76

,00

3

1,2

41

,85

4

-

1

,24

1,8

54

1,2

41

,85

4

20

38

40

,50

0

4

0,5

00

-

3,7

76

,59

6

1

3,5

59

,23

6

2,5

17

,73

0

1

3,5

59

,23

6

1,2

58

,86

6

-

1

,25

8,8

66

1,2

58

,86

6

20

39

40

,50

0

4

0,5

00

-

3,8

27

,63

1

1

3,7

42

,46

9

2,5

51

,75

4

1

3,7

42

,46

9

1,2

75

,87

8

-

1

,27

5,8

78

1,2

75

,87

8

NP

V

$3

,99

0,1

92

6

,82

4,5

77

2,8

34

,38

6

IRR

16

%

BC

R1

.7

An

nu

al tr

aff

ic g

row

th2

%

Dis

co

un

tng

fa

cto

r1

0%

Op

tio

nO

pti

on

Be

ne

fits

To

tal

Be

ne

fits

Be

ne

fits

-

Co

sts

Ye

ar

Ca

pit

al

Wo

rks

Ba

se

Ca

se

Ma

int

Op

tio

n

Ma

int

Ne

t O

pti

on

Co

sts

Ba

se

Ca

se

Lam

i F

ea

sib

ilit

y S

tud

y -

Eco

no

mic

s W

ork

she

ets

Lam

i O

pti

on

C2

7/0

8/2

01

3

Qu

een

s R

oad

(L

am

i) F

easib

ilty

Stu

dy -

Eco

no

mic

An

aly

sis

fo

r O

pti

on

D

Tim

e C

os

tsV

OC

Tim

e C

os

tsV

OC

Tim

e C

os

ts

VO

C

20

14

5,0

00

,00

0

4

0,5

00

-

4,9

59

,50

0

2

,55

1,7

54

9,1

61

,64

6

1

,89

0,4

22

8,9

59

,50

9

-

-

-

(4

,95

9,5

00

)

20

15

15

,00

0,0

00

4

0,5

00

-

14

,95

9,5

00

2

,60

2,7

89

9,3

44

,87

9

1

,92

8,2

30

9,1

38

,69

9

-

-

-

(1

4,9

59

,50

0)

20

16

8,0

00

,00

0

4

0,5

00

-

7,9

59

,50

0

2

,65

3,8

24

9,5

28

,11

2

1

,96

6,0

39

9,3

17

,88

9

-

-

-

(7

,95

9,5

00

)

20

17

40

,50

0

8

2,5

00

42

,00

0

2

,70

4,8

59

9,7

11

,34

5

2

,00

3,8

47

9,4

97

,08

0

7

01

,01

2

21

4,2

65

9

15

,27

7

87

3,2

77

20

18

40

,50

0

8

2,5

00

42

,00

0

2

,75

5,8

94

9,8

94

,57

8

2

,04

1,6

56

9,6

76

,27

0

7

14

,23

9

21

8,3

08

9

32

,54

7

89

0,5

47

20

19

40

,50

0

8

2,5

00

42

,00

0

2

,80

6,9

29

10

,07

7,8

11

2

,07

9,4

64

9,8

55

,46

0

7

27

,46

5

22

2,3

51

9

49

,81

6

90

7,8

16

20

20

40

,50

0

8

2,5

00

42

,00

0

2

,85

7,9

64

10

,26

1,0

44

2

,11

7,2

73

10

,03

4,6

50

7

40

,69

2

22

6,3

93

9

67

,08

5

92

5,0

85

20

21

40

,50

0

8

2,5

00

42

,00

0

2

,90

9,0

00

10

,44

4,2

76

2

,15

5,0

81

10

,21

3,8

40

7

53

,91

8

23

0,4

36

9

84

,35

5

94

2,3

55

20

22

40

,50

0

8

2,5

00

42

,00

0

2

,96

0,0

35

10

,62

7,5

09

2

,19

2,8

90

10

,39

3,0

30

7

67

,14

5

23

4,4

79

1

,00

1,6

24

95

9,6

24

20

23

40

,50

0

8

2,5

00

42

,00

0

3

,01

1,0

70

10

,81

0,7

42

2

,23

0,6

98

10

,57

2,2

21

7

80

,37

2

23

8,5

22

1

,01

8,8

93

97

6,8

93

20

24

40

,50

0

8

2,5

00

42

,00

0

3

,06

2,1

05

10

,99

3,9

75

2

,26

8,5

06

10

,75

1,4

11

7

93

,59

8

24

2,5

64

1

,03

6,1

63

99

4,1

63

20

25

40

,50

0

8

2,5

00

42

,00

0

3

,11

3,1

40

11

,17

7,2

08

2

,30

6,3

15

10

,93

0,6

01

8

06

,82

5

24

6,6

07

1

,05

3,4

32

1,0

11

,43

2

20

26

40

,50

0

8

2,5

00

42

,00

0

3

,16

4,1

75

11

,36

0,4

41

2

,34

4,1

23

11

,10

9,7

91

8

20

,05

2

25

0,6

50

1

,07

0,7

02

1,0

28

,70

2

20

27

40

,50

0

8

2,5

00

42

,00

0

3

,21

5,2

10

11

,54

3,6

74

2

,38

1,9

32

11

,28

8,9

81

8

33

,27

8

25

4,6

93

1

,08

7,9

71

1,0

45

,97

1

20

28

13

5,0

00

2

75

,00

0

14

0,0

00

3

,26

6,2

45

11

,72

6,9

07

2

,41

9,7

40

11

,46

8,1

72

8

46

,50

5

25

8,7

35

1

,10

5,2

40

96

5,2

40

20

29

2,2

95

,00

0

4

,67

5,0

00

2,3

80

,00

0

3

,31

7,2

80

11

,91

0,1

40

2

,45

7,5

49

11

,64

7,3

62

8

59

,73

2

26

2,7

78

1

,12

2,5

10

(1,2

57

,49

0)

20

30

40

,50

0

8

2,5

00

42

,00

0

3

,36

8,3

15

12

,09

3,3

73

2

,49

5,3

57

11

,82

6,5

52

8

72

,95

8

26

6,8

21

1

,13

9,7

79

1,0

97

,77

9

20

31

40

,50

0

8

2,5

00

42

,00

0

3

,41

9,3

50

12

,27

6,6

06

2

,53

3,1

65

12

,00

5,7

42

8

86

,18

5

27

0,8

64

1

,15

7,0

48

1,1

15

,04

8

20

32

40

,50

0

8

2,5

00

42

,00

0

3

,47

0,3

85

12

,45

9,8

39

2

,57

0,9

74

12

,18

4,9

32

8

99

,41

2

27

4,9

06

1

,17

4,3

18

1,1

32

,31

8

20

33

40

,50

0

8

2,5

00

42

,00

0

3

,52

1,4

21

12

,64

3,0

71

2

,60

8,7

82

12

,36

4,1

22

9

12

,63

8

27

8,9

49

1

,19

1,5

87

1,1

49

,58

7

20

34

40

,50

0

8

2,5

00

42

,00

0

3

,57

2,4

56

12

,82

6,3

04

2

,64

6,5

91

12

,54

3,3

13

9

25

,86

5

28

2,9

92

1

,20

8,8

57

1,1

66

,85

7

20

35

40

,50

0

8

2,5

00

42

,00

0

3

,62

3,4

91

13

,00

9,5

37

2

,68

4,3

99

12

,72

2,5

03

9

39

,09

1

28

7,0

35

1

,22

6,1

26

1,1

84

,12

6

20

36

40

,50

0

8

2,5

00

42

,00

0

3

,67

4,5

26

13

,19

2,7

70

2

,72

2,2

08

12

,90

1,6

93

9

52

,31

8

29

1,0

77

1

,24

3,3

95

1,2

01

,39

5

20

37

40

,50

0

8

2,5

00

42

,00

0

3

,72

5,5

61

13

,37

6,0

03

2

,76

0,0

16

13

,08

0,8

83

9

65

,54

5

29

5,1

20

1

,26

0,6

65

1,2

18

,66

5

20

38

40

,50

0

8

2,5

00

42

,00

0

3

,77

6,5

96

13

,55

9,2

36

2

,79

7,8

25

13

,26

0,0

73

9

78

,77

1

29

9,1

63

1

,27

7,9

34

1,2

35

,93

4

20

39

40

,50

0

8

2,5

00

42

,00

0

3

,82

7,6

31

13

,74

2,4

69

2

,83

5,6

33

13

,43

9,2

64

9

91

,99

8

30

3,2

06

1

,29

5,2

04

1,2

53

,20

4

NP

V

$2

3,6

64

,53

9

6,9

27

,95

1

(1

6,7

36

,58

8)

IRR

-2%

BC

R0

.3

An

nu

al tr

aff

ic g

row

th2

%

Dis

co

un

tng

fa

cto

r1

0%

Op

tio

nO

pti

on

Be

ne

fits

To

tal

Be

ne

fits

Be

ne

fits

-

Co

sts

Ye

ar

Ca

pit

al

Wo

rks

Ba

se

Ca

se

Ma

int

Op

tio

n

Ma

int

Ne

t O

pti

on

Co

sts

Ba

se

Ca

se

Lam

i F

ea

sib

ilit

y S

tud

y -

Eco

no

mic

s W

ork

she

ets

Lam

i O

pti

on

D2

7/0

8/2

01

3

lami feasibility report 2013

Documents

lami feasibility report

north of lami lami bypass

lami street

issues queens road

queens road intersections

long bypass of queens

lami town centre

feasibility study