[ad_1]
noFor those wondering about the significance of investing in the Länsirada (formerly Tunni) train to Turku, I can tell you that the government has also included another project in the priority investment list, the cost-benefit analysis of which is even more questionable.
This is a project called Paraistenväylä, which will shorten the journey from Turku to Parais by building about three kilometers of new road and a new bridge over Kuusistonsalmi. The new bridge is about two kilometers away from the current Kuusistonsalmi bridge, which was renewed this year (costing about 7.5 million euros).
The cost estimate for the Paraistenväylä project is 114 million euros and the project is justified by the significant reduction in travel time. The time savings in the project card updated in the summer are “up to 5 minutes”, but in the previous report it was 2 minutes and 50 seconds. It is difficult to assess why the time savings of up to 5 minutes are now possible, because the links to these reports on the project page do not work.
In the current economic climate where everything is being cut and saved, this seems totally incomprehensible.
Save time also Investments in traffic safety are justified and it is mentioned that many accidents have occurred.
However, the project website shows that most accidents occur on the Parainen side of Paraistentien, not on the road section targeted by the project. In addition, traffic safety on the existing road has also been improved with the construction of the new bridge that has just been completed.
Justify the investment Reductions in CO2 emissions are also proposed. The links to the emissions calculations and environmental impact statements on the project page do not work, making it difficult to assess the basis for the calculations.
However, given that the construction of new bridges and roads will generate significant emissions and that transport is rapidly electrifying, it could be argued that the 2018 calculations may be overly optimistic.
If Paraistenväylän If the project goes ahead, it would bisect a beautiful agricultural and forested area on Kuusisto Island, which has important natural and recreational uses, including popular ski lodges and walking and mountain biking trails. This issue has not been raised publicly or in project communications, but is important to the many people in the area who are used to being outside.
On the positive side, it seems The most significant practical benefit of the €114 million project appears to be a 2 minute 50 second reduction in travel time to Paris, home to 15,000 residents.
In the current economic climate where everything is being cut and saved, this seems totally incomprehensible.
Riku Matira
Karina
[ad_2]
Source link
