Graphical information
1st Option
2nd Option
2a. Option
3rd Option
Key Numeric Parameters
Real Estate
Costs
Comparison of the Route Options
Summary of the Ratings of the Environmental Impact Factors
The 3rd and 4th Segments of the Riga Northern Transport Corridor (hereinafter - RNTC) start at the junction of state road A10 (Riga - Ventspils) and RNTC at Priedaine, and end at 1449 meters West of the Daugavgrīvas Street (the starting point of the 2nd Segment). The border for the 3rd and 4th Segments is the administrative border of the Riga City and the Jurmala City or the Babite County (depending on the option chosen).
Public hearings on draft Environmental Impact Assessment were held between May 7th and June 7th, 2010. There were three technical options offered for public hearings, with additional solution for 2nd Option in the territory of Riga.
1st Option
Route starts by moving west along the current state road A10 (Riga - Jurmala Highway) up to the junction with the state road A5 (Salaspils - Babīte, Riga Bypass). The 1st Option does not envisage changes of the existing road up to the A5/A10 road junction. It is though planned to rebuild the current junction of state roads A5/A10. At the A5/A10 road junction the route turns in Babite direction and, crossing the Riga - Tukums railway line over a bridge, continues along the current state road A5 until it turns towards Babite. Here is planned multilevel interchange of the new route with the A5 state road.
Next, the RNTC route continues within the area of the Babite County along the newly built route going to Saulisciems. For 2.1 km the route partly runs along the current bed of the Hapaka ditch, which is placed in a new bed to the right of the route. The route is located in a short distance from the current and prospective development sites of Liepezers and Bisulejas villages.
In the City of Riga the route goes along the current route of the Ratsupite Street, dividing the Kleistu neighborhood into two parts. In the area of Riga the route is located within the allocated red-line limits. A multi-level road junction is planned at the intersection of the current Ratsupites and Kleistu Streets. Further east the two level crossing is planned for the route across the Railway Line Zasulauks – Bolderaja; about 500 m further east, in the Ratsupe garden area, the 3rd Segment ends, and the RNTC 2nd Segment begins.
A map can be viewed here
The Pros and Cons of the 1st Option
Pros |
Cons
|
- the most economically advantageous
- the most favorable solution from the standpoint of the conservation of natural environment
- compliance with all plants of involved municipalities
- the use of the existing traffic infrastructure corridor
|
- a relatively greater negative impact of the planned road on nearby residents, offices and development sites during the construction period, and operational, as well
- more residential buildings to be pulled down compared to the 2a Option
- requirements to rearrange the hydrological and drainage systems
- more technologically complicated construction sites due to the geological and hydrological conditions of the area
- the residential territories and real estate are divided more than in the 2a Option
|
2nd Option
At the beginning the route is moving West along the current Freeway A10 (Riga - Jurmala Highway) up to the junction with the Freeway A5 (Salaspils - Babīte, Riga Belt Freeway). The 1st Option does not foresee changes before the Freeway A5/A10 road junction, while the current Freeway A5/A10 road junction is planned to be rebuilt. At the Freeway A5/A10 road junction the route turns in Babite’s direction and, moving over the Riga - Tukums Railway Line, continues along the current Freeway A5 until it turns towards Babite. The road junction of the new route with the A5 Freeway is planned here.
Next the RNTC route continues within the territory of the Babite County area along the newly built route towards Saulishciems direction. Here, the route is placed between the mud fields of the "Daugavgriva" water purification plant and Hapaka ditch. Further East, in order to move the route as much as possible away from the current and prospective development sites, it is moving through the natural areas of the City of Jurmala (mainly, forest areas). At the route stage to the Viki Inn/Vīķu krogs the 2nd and 2a Options are exactly the same.
In the City of Riga the route is located within the allocated for it red-line limits - it crosses the Spilve polder meadows North of Kleisti. The RNTC is connected with the Kleistu Street through a multi-level road junction. Further East, the two-level crossing is planned for the route across the Railway Line Zasulauks – Bolderaja; about 500 m further East, in the Ratsupe garden area, the 3rd Segment ends, and the RNTC 2nd Segment begins.
A map can be viewed here
2nd Option - the Pros and Cons
Pros |
Cons
|
- a relatively lesser impact on the planned Freeway neighborhood residents, offices and development sites
- a relatively small number of alienable property
|
- the most unfavorable solution from the standpoint of the natural environment conservation
- the relatively high construction costs
- more residential buildings to be pulled down compared to the 2a Option
- some technologically complicated construction sites due to the geological and hydrological conditions of the area
- the necessity to rebuild the Spilve polder pumping station, which requires additional investment
- crosses the Latvian Liberation War battle site at the Viki Inn/Vīķu krogs building (if this option is selected, the route will be moved away from the memorial site, within the design project parameters)
|
2a Option
The routes of the 2nd and 2a Options fully overlap until the Viki Inn/Vīķu krogs, then the positions and the solutions differ, where the route in the 2a Option is shifted as far as possible away from both, the current and prospective development sites, as well as from areas with complex geological and hydrological conditions. East of the Viki Inn/Vīķu krogs the route diverts to the south, bypassing the current development site in Kleisti through the forest. The Ratsupites Street scientific institutes and the rest of the development site is located to the north of the route, where the garage cooperative is in the south. The RNTC is connected with the Kleistu Street through a multi-level road junction. Further east, the two-level crossing is planned for the route across the railway line Zasulauks – Bolderaja; about 500 m further east, in the Ratsupe garden area, the 3rd Segment ends, and the RNTC 2nd Segment begins.
A map can be viewed here
2a Option – the Pros and Cons
Pros |
Cons
|
- designers give the highest rating among the compared route options
- the second most economically advantageous option (just a bit higher costs than for the 1st Option)
- the smallest number of alienable property
- the smallest number of residential buildings to be pulled down
- the best geological and hydrological conditions, which makes the construction technologically simpler
|
- the highest amount of forest to be cut down
- adjustments to be made for the Riga urban spatial planning, setting the required red-line corridors for the route
- crosses the Latvian Liberation War battle site at the Viki Inn/Vīķu krogs building (if this option is selected, the route will be moved away from the memorial site, within the design project parameters)
|
3rd Option
Initially, in the west, the route is being built as a straight continuation of freeway A10 from Ventspils direction going towards Riga. The route is running through the forest along the planned Priedaine cemetery, crossing the Railway Line Riga - Tukums at the overpass. Next, the route is running along the former Jurmala City municipal waste dumps "Priedaine" area, then across the former peat extraction fields of Sleperi marsh. At the mud fields of the water purification plant "Daugavgriva" the route is shifting to the left, eastward. It is also planned to build a connection with Riga Bypass (A5) – a multi-level road junction. There is not planned to rebuild the current state road A5/A10 road junction. Next, in the east, from the route connection with the A5, the positions and technical solutions suggested by the 3rd Option fully coincide with the 1st Option.
A map can be viewed here
3rd Option - the Pros and Cons
- the highest travel time savings and the shortest road for drivers
- compliance with all relevant municipal spatial plans involved
|
- all the above mentioned negative sides of the 1st Option
- the lowest rating of the compared route versions provided by designers
- the highest number of alienable property
- the economically least attractive, higher construction costs
- the greatest amount of required construction materials
- inadequate utilization of the passing permit point capacity of the current A10 road part from A5 to Priedaine (Jurmala highway)
|
Key numeric parameters
|
|
1st Option
|
2nd Option
|
2a Option
|
3rd Option
|
|
Road category
|
A1 category state road and B category street of the City of Riga
|
|
Functional goal of road
|
Improved links between foreign countries and the region of the Metropolitan Riga.
The shifting of the city and transit traffic flow to the network of arterial and main streets |
|
Total route length, in km
|
13.965
|
14.402
|
14.305
|
14.272
|
|
Total length of the newly built route stages, in km
|
10.256
|
10.693
|
10.596
|
14.272
|
|
Length of the local streets’ network, in km
|
12.68
|
7.87
|
8.66
|
15.66
|
|
Designed speed, in km/h
|
110
|
110
|
110
|
110
|
|
Radiuses of the route plan curves (min/max), m
|
600/15 000
|
600/3 000
|
600/2 550
|
600/15 000
|
|
Radiuses of the bent inwards curves lengthwise (min/max), m
|
9 000/600 000
|
9 000/180 000
|
9 000/180 000
|
9 000/600 000
|
|
Radiuses of the bent out-wards curves lengthwise (min/max), m
|
12 000/45 000
|
12 000/16 000
|
12 000/150 000
|
12 000/45 000
|
|
Highest longitudinal drop, %%
|
2.40
|
2.46
|
2.46
|
2.33
|
|
Designed number of road junctions
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
4
|
|
Required road structures (road junctions not included)
|
2 cross-over’s
|
2 cross-over’s and 3 bridges
|
2 cross-over’s
|
3 cross-over’s and 1 thoroughfare
|
|
Number of local road and street junctions (using parameters of the traffic construction objects)
|
6(4)
|
7(4)
|
8(4)
|
9(6)
|
|
Pedestrians and bicycles
|
Along the local streets and roads, along the pedestrian bridges
|
Along the local streets and roads, along the pedestrian and tunnels
|
Along the local streets and roads, along the pedestrian bridges
|
Along the local streets and roads, along the pedestrian bridges
|
|
Public transportation functioning
|
The slow ones along the local streets and roads, the fast ones – also along the main route, where stops are not planned on the main route
|
|
Provided access to all real estate objects
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
|
Whether there is a possibility of route construction in several phases
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Real Estate
|
|
1st Option |
2nd Option |
2a Option |
3rd Option |
|
Area of alienable land lots, in hectares
|
99.3
|
126.4
|
103.6
|
137.7
|
|
Area of alienable (deforested) forest lots, in hectares
|
20.2
|
40.6
|
49.1
|
48.8
|
|
Total number of alienable real estate, in sep. pc.
|
169
|
119
|
122
|
195
|
|
Number of alienable real estate from private and legal persons, in sep. pc.
|
108
|
69
|
81
|
112
|
|
Number of structures to be pulled down, in sep. pc.
|
10
|
11
|
5
|
10
|
|
Number of residential buildings to be pulled down, in sep. pc.
|
3
|
3
|
1
|
3
|
Costs
JSC “Celuprojekts”/AS Ceļuprojekts provided cost estimates in prices of 2009 * in million LVL, excluding VAT
|
|
1st Option |
2nd Option |
2a Option |
3rd Option |
|
Costs of project implementation**
|
132,247
|
144,235
|
135,356
|
158,762
|
|
Costs of obtaining real estate
|
2,99
|
2,13
|
1,36
|
3,16
|
|
Costs of freeway and bridge maintenance***
|
39,691
|
41,012
|
39,083
|
46,856
|
* - estimated construction costs are calculated according to 2009 prices in the Latvian market, however, there are included costs (e.g. overheads, profit) which were temporarily reduced by contractors due to the current economic situation;
** - the expenses related to the object construction, design, construction supervision, unforeseen construction work, and field supervision are added to the project realization costs
*** - the operating costs are given for the 27-year long time period – the period of economic calculations (2015-2041)
Comparison of the route options
The comparison of the route options from the standpoint of the traffic organization, compliance with the spatial plans, the impact on society, and the aspects of road construction was carried out by the research and conceptual design developer, JSC “Celuprojekts”/AS “Ceļuprojekts”. The comparison of the route options related to the environmental impact and quality, as well as aspects of biodiversity was carried out by the EIA report developer, “Eiroprojekts” Ltd./SIA “Eiroprojekts”. The applied evaluation criteria were chosen so that they would not duplicate one another. Each criterion was evaluated using the 5-point scale - from 1 to 5. The best rating was 5 points, the worst – 1 point. The final assessment of the options is based upon the total sum of all criteria, without giving precedence to any of them.
JSC ‘Celuprojekts’/AS “Ceļuprojekts” Rating
23 criteria were evaluated, later divided into three sections.
|
|
1st Option |
2nd Option |
2a Option |
3rd Option |
|
1.
|
Traffic organization and compliance with local municipal area plans
|
20
|
21
|
21
|
19
|
|
2.
|
Impact on society
|
37
|
39
|
40
|
28
|
|
3.
|
Construction
|
12
|
13
|
17
|
7
|
|
TOTAL
|
69
|
73
|
78
|
54
|
Eiroprojekts Ltd./SIA „Eiroprojekts” Rating
7 criteria were evaluated attributable to the effects on the environment.
Summary of the Ratings of the Environmental Impact Factors
Alternatīva: |
1
|
2
|
2a
|
3
|
|
Nr.
|
Factor
|
Points
|
|
1.
|
Noise
|
3
|
5
|
4
|
1
|
|
2.
|
Waters
|
2
|
4
|
5
|
1
|
|
3.
|
Biotopes
|
5
|
1
|
3
|
2
|
|
4.
|
Minerals
|
5
|
1
|
4
|
3
|
|
5.
|
Birds
|
5
|
1
|
3
|
2
|
|
6.
|
Bats
|
5
|
3
|
1
|
2
|
|
7.
|
Lands
|
5
|
2
|
2
|
1
|
|
TOTAL
|
30
|
17
|
22
|
12
|
According to the results, the 1st Option causes the least adverse impact on the environment, the 3rd Option - the greatest, but the adverse impact given in the 2nd Option is exactly midway between the impacts given in the 3rd (the worst) and 2a (middle) Options.
The first three factors (1 - 3) are characterized by transient and/or avoidable impacts, which rather reflect the higher complexity of the project development (and thus, the costs), than the residual impacts (if cost-saving arrangements would not convert the avoidable impacts to permanent ones). Excess noise thresholds can be avoided in all scenarios through application of the corresponding anti-noise measures; the drainage problems were ranked according to their complexity, and consequently, according to the level of risk during construction, however, they may be resolved in all versions, and also the required amount of minerals reflects the complexity of the construction phase, rather than the residual impacts.
On the other hand, the last four factors (4 - 7) are characterized by the lasting and unavoidable impacts: more or less valuable losses of the biotope area, permanent habitat loss and disturbance of remaining habitat for birds and bats, as well as forever occupied land itself, including the loss of forest land.
The 1st Option has already the highest total rating, and it also gives the highest proportions related to the last four factors (20). The 2nd and the 3rd Options have already the worst total rating, and they contain the lowest contribution to the last four factors, as well (8). The last four factors, as reflected in the 2a Options, make fewer low ratings (10), thus even more increasing its difference from the two worst ones.
Recommended route option
JSC “Celuprojekts/
AS “Ceļuprojekts” recommends 2a Option for the route as the main option. During the comparison it took the highest rating from the standpoint of the traffic organization, impact on society and the aspect of road construction, as well as the second best result regarding the impact on the environment. The 2a Option should be considered the best from the standpoint of the geological and hydrological conditions. The estimated costs given in the 2a Option are the second lowest ones, slightly higher than in the 1st Option, but the foreseen estimated impact for the local residents, the offices and developments around the planned road, compared to the 1st Option, is much lower.