Discussion

Despite the fact that Cost Path to bridge site 2 and the construction of a pontoon bridge is the cheapest, other factors should be looked at as well if a decision were to be made. For example Cost Path: 1 has a friction cost of 2252 while Cost Path: 2’s friction cost is 4331. This is a difference of about 2000 and when looking at the land use map it is clear that Cost Path 2 costs more because it goes through residential and a resource protection areas. In order to clear these areas to extend Highway 33 people will have to be displaced which could add additional costs. Cost Path 2 does not go through residential areas but runs along the railway which is why the cost is so much lower.

A cost that I was unable to include within the analysis was the construction of a road on the other side of the bridge going toward West Kelowna. I was unable to find land use data for the area where the road would have been placed.

Another area for more study would be that of how much it would in fact cost to build a suspension or bascule bridge over a pontoon bridge. The suspension and bascule bridge I used for information are both located on the north coast of BC. Construction criteria is most likely different in this region because there is the threat of earthquakes which are not as big of a concern for Kelowna because the city is located in the interior of the province. Due to the threat of earthquakes bridges on the coast have to be built to withstand such phenomena. This could incur further construction costs that would not be applied to bridge construction in the Okanagan. There is the possibility that a suspension or bascule bridge would be cheaper to construct than a pontoon bridge; however there is such a large gap between costs that this is probably unlikely.

Sources of Error

A major source of error associated with this project are the assignment of friction values. The assignment of friction values was entirely subjective. In order to assign values I read through the descriptions of each type of land use and the future development criteria associated with each and assigned values based on my own opinion. If this matter were to be brought up with the city planners there may be a more scientific way of determining how much friction should be associated with each land type.

If I were to repeat this process I would assign the railway a greater friction value. Both Cost Paths seem very low and unrealistic because they lie directly on top of the railway which most likely needs to be preserved for shipping goods in and out of the city.

Another source of error comes from the assumption that the cost of the current bridge could be directly compared with the construction of a second bridge north of Kelowna. This part of the lake because it is wider could be deeper and thus it is conceivable that the cost of construction per meter could be greater in this portion of the lake.

Final Thoughts

The construction of a second bridge would be beneficial to the city of Kelowna through lowering the amount of traffic congestion within the city. As has been discussed there is still a great deal to consider before this type of large scale project can be developed. This project merely outlines the basic aspects that will affect this type of development and future city growth and the city’s citizens need taken into account as well.