CITY OF CAPE TOWN
RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE FORESHORE FREEWAY SCHEME
(Draft 3: 14 June 2001)
1. INTRODUCTION
A point has been reached where the phased completion of the Foreshore Freeways can
no longer be delayed. Recent investigations have indicated that the Inner City’s
present road network will simply not be able to support the land use developments
and re-vitalisation initiatives, which are planned for the Foreshore and Waterfront
areas.
For the first time in many years, there is broad consensus that the completion (or
partial completion) of the Foreshore Freeways must be included in a comprehensive
package of priority projects for the improvement of access to, and within, the CBD.
Feedback from the Convention Centre planning process indicated that the completion
of the elevated freeway should run in parallel with the construction of the CTICC, in
order to avoid technical difficulties, future disruptions and abortive work.
The purpose of this report is to re-assess the elevated freeway scheme, as originally
designed, and to put forward some recommendations for an appropriate
implementation programme.
2. BACKGROUND
Cape Town’s Inner City transport problems were highlighted, in February 2000, with
the approval of a CMC report on the transport requirements for the proposed
International Convention Centre (Report No. 120/99/2000). One of the issues, which
received particular attention, was the future completion of the Foreshore Freeway, and
the former CMC endorsed a recommendation that:
The planning of the phased completion of the Foreshore Freeways, should be
undertaken as an integral part of the Convention Centre project planning.
Subsequently, at a meeting with the Provincial MEC for Transport on 2000-03-09, it
was agreed that the City of Cape Town would convene a meeting with PAWC and
CMC officials to initiate a comprehensive investigation into the transport problems
surrounding new developments in and around the Foreshore Area. After extensive
deliberations, and consultation with the Convention Centre Design Team, these
officials decided to put forward a collective viewpoint on the relevant (Inner City)
transport issues and the actions necessary to accelerate decision making and
implementation. This report concluded that:
1. The Convention Centre forms part of a broader development initiative for the
CBD and Inner City. Collectively, these developments will generate a significant
demand for additional transport infrastructure and services.
1
2. A number of critical transportation planning issues need to be resolved as a
matter of urgency, in order not to delay the implementation of the Convention
Centre. Proposals for the completion of this work need to be endorsed.
3. The authorities will be obliged to commit additional funds for the phased
implementation of the necessary transport infrastructure to support the
Convention Centre and the future development of the Inner City. The exact
nature, cost and timing of these investments are still to be determined, but it is
expected to include:
 Local road improvements around the Convention Centre
 Parking and pedestrian facilities
 On-site public transport ranking and holding facilities
 Improved inner city public transport
 The phased completion of the Foreshore Freeway
 Investments on the main metropolitan road access corridors into the Inner
City
 Rail investments
These views were largely confirmed by the findings of the February, 2001 Transport
Impact Assessment for the CTICC, which came out in strong support for the urgent
completion of the Foreshore Freeway (particularly the internal viaduct and linking
ramps towards Sea Point). This report also highlighted the need to proceed with plans
to relieve the current bottlenecks at Koeberg and Marine Drive interchanges, and
some form of grade separation of the through movements at the Oswald Pirow/ Table
Bay Boulevard intersection.
Failure to implement these infrastructure proposals will result in a significant increase
in traffic congestion, over an extended peak period of up to three hours during the
morning and afternoon commuter times. Such a scenario will however become
counter-productive, and could in fact jeopardise the whole Inner City re-vitalisation
programme, including the efficient operation of the Convention Centre.
The transport authorities are therefore in general agreement that approval for the
CTICC Transport Impact Assessment should be subject to an obligation by the
participating authorities to commit the necessary funds for the phased completion of
the Foreshore Freeway within the next few years. Certain elements of this work
should in fact be accelerated to coincide with the building programme of the CTICC.
Until a final decision is taken with regard to the form, function and extent of the
future freeway completion, no permission will be granted for any projects that may
jeopardise the original scheme. Any development proposals, which may lead to the
alienation or use of land between the elevated freeway structures, will require the
approval of all the relevant transport authorities.
3. THE PRESENT SCHEME
The history of the Foreshore Freeway dates back to the early sixties when the Shand
Report proposed an elevated freeway structure along the Foreshore, as part of a ring
road concept for the CBD. Further investigations led to the evaluation of eight
2
different schemes, and the adoption of a 1968 report prepared by VKE Engineers,
entitled:

Report on the Preliminary Planning of Culemborg Viaduct, Table Bay and
Buitengracht Freeways
The preferred option, Scheme 3B, consisted of 3-lane outer viaducts (as presently
constructed) and dual 4-lane inner viaducts with ultimate freeway connections to Sea
Point and up along Buitengracht (Figure 1). The criteria used in this assessment
included weave elimination, future capacity needs, lane balance and route continuity.
Figure 1: Foreshore Freeway – Scheme 3B (ultimate)
2
4
2
3
2
4
3
3
2
3
NOTES:
2
2
2
2
1. LANE CONFIGURATION
SHOWN IN CIRCLES
2. STAGE 1
STAGE 2
Future (1991) traffic forecasts were based on 1956 origin-destination surveys, and
incorporated a city development strategy which was strongly focused towards
intensified development and movement along the Buitengracht corridor. The planning
also allowed for large-scale parking provision along this route (at that point in time,
the Waterfront development was an unknown).
Following from the above, the first phases of the elevated Foreshore Freeways were
designed and constructed during the early and mid seventies, and included the
following contracts:
Contract 1:
Contract 2:
Contract 3:
Contract 4:
Contract 5:
Hertzog Boulevard ramps
Western Boulevard
Outer elevated viaducts between Oswald Pirow and Buitengracht
Coen Steytler Avenue Parking Garage
Culemborg Viaduct
3
Implementation of the central viaducts and the ramp connections from the parking
garage to the Western Boulevard (Contracts 6 and 7) were however delayed due to a
lack of funds and limited justification in terms of the traffic demand at that time. Both
contracts were fully designed and the construction drawings were completed in 1978.
Planning also proceeded on Contract 8, the connections with Buitengracht. This
resulted in the production of two reports:

Report on the Buitengracht Traffic Study – VKE, Aug 1978

Addendum to Report on the Buitengracht Traffic study – VKE, November 1978
Both studies recommended an elevated grade separated scheme as far as Riebeeck
Square. As in all previous reports, the assumptions were heavily biased towards
intensified development and parking demand along this corridor. A lack of funds and
environmental concerns however played a major role in discouraging any further
progress and final decisions on this part of the freeway scheme. Large tracts of land
were however acquired in the event that the scheme may still be implemented one
day.
During 1983 the City of Cape Town appointed consultants to review the CBD road
system, including the Foreshore Freeway and its future Buitengracht connections. For
the first time the City provided significantly revised land-use and parking projections,
with one of the scenarios being a Foreshore-biased growth pattern (but excluding the
V&A development). Conservation policies precluded full development along the
Buitengracht corridor, and hence the number of trips which could be generated from
this area. The following report was produced:

Central City Traffic Study – Foreshore Freeway Consultants, April 1984
The main findings of this report were that:



The elevated freeway along the Buitengracht need not be constructed, and the land
may be released for development in keeping with the character of the immediate
environment;
There was no immediate need for the construction of the central viaducts of the
Foreshore Freeway;
The ramps linking Western Boulevard with the Foreshore Freeway should be
constructed as an interim measure.
Although the recommendations were not acceptable to the Provincial Roads Engineer
at the time, it does appear that subsequent planning for the Olympic Bid Estimates
(during 1996) convinced the authorities to accept a reduced Buitengracht Scheme,
terminating just east of Riebeeck Street.
4
4. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
4.1. Traffic Growth
Traffic volumes on the Foreshore Freeway have grown steadily over the past twenty
years, up to a point where both the N1 and Eastern Boulevard approach road systems
have effectively reached their upstream capacity limits. In both instances, this
capacity is in the order of 6 500 vehicles per hour, as governed by their present 3-lane
cross-sections (see Figure 2).
Figure 2: N1 / Eastern Boulevard Peak Hour Traffic Growth (am inbound)
8000
7000
6000
Veh/hr
5000
4000
3000
N1
Eastern Boulevard
2000
Capacity
1000
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985
1984
1983
1982
1981
1980
0
YEAR
Figure 3: N1 / Eastern Boulevard 12-Hour Traffic Growth (inbound)
60000
12hr Traffic Volume
50000
40000
30000
N1
20000
Eastern Boulevard
10000
2000
1998
1996
1994
1992
1990
1988
1986
1984
1982
1980
0
YEAR
By comparison, the 12hr traffic growth on both routes was in order of 60% for the 20year period between 1980 and 2000 (see Figure 3). If the same unconstrained growth
could have applied to the peak hour traffic demand, then the N1 would presently have
5
carried about 8000 veh/hr and the Eastern Boulevard approximately 7200 veh/hr into
the CBD during the morning peak period. For the purposes of this report, the term
unconstrained refers to the latent peak hour traffic demand that could have used the
Foreshore Freeway if it was not for the capacity constraints on the present approaches
into the City.
While further capacity improvements on the N1 may well be feasible, it is from an
environmental point of view doubtful whether the Eastern Boulevard could be
improved to accommodate more traffic than its present (3-lane) 6 500 veh/hr capacity
limit. For the purposes of evaluating the Foreshore Freeways, it can therefore be
assumed that the present unconstrained traffic demand on the N1 would be in the
order of 8000 veh/hr. For the Eastern Boulevard it is assumed that present and future
traffic demand will be restricted to 6500 veh/hr.
These figures have been confirmed independently by Frieslaar and Jones, using a
more sophisticated analysis for determining the traffic impact of the CTICC and other
adjacent developments along the Foreshore. This methodology is explained in a paper
entitled: Innovation Techniques used in the Traffic Impact Assessments of
Developments in Congested Networks.
4.2. Present Traffic Demand
Despite large daily fluctuations in traffic flow on the Foreshore Freeway, the most
recent counts indicate that the present viaduct carries up to 5 000 veh/hr westbound
during morning peak periods. At the eastern end, the incoming traffic is roughly
divided in a 63:37 split between the N1 and Eastern Boulevard respectively. At the
other end, recent surveys indicate a 24:25:23:28 split between the traffic destined for
the Western Boulevard, Coen Steytler Avenue (eastbound), Dock Road and
Buitengracht respectively.
Present traffic demand, both constrained and unconstrained (in brackets), are
summarised graphically in Figure 4. This clearly demonstrates the large latent
demand for capacity improvements along the N1 corridor and its potential
implications for the Foreshore Freeway. In fact, the present outer viaduct (3 lanes)
and N1 approach ramps (2 lanes) will barely cope with the anticipated unconstrained
traffic volumes.
Figure 4: Foreshore Freeway Traffic Demand – 2001 am peak hour (bracketed
figures indicate unconstrained demand)
5000
(6200)
Western
Boulevard
Dock
Rd
3150
(4000)
Foreshore Freeway
Coen Steytler
(eastbound)
Herzog
Boulevard
N1
1850
(2200)
Eastern Boulevard
Strand
Buitengracht
6300
(6500)
6
6300
(8000)
Due to the given capacity constraints along the Eastern Boulevard, it is assumed that
traffic volumes along this route will not change significantly, or have a major impact
on the future traffic growth projections for the Foreshore Freeway.
4.3. Summary of Demand Forecasts
The present demand patterns, as shown in Figure 4, provide a valuable basis for
assessing the Foreshore Freeway Scheme, particularly in terms of its original planning
objectives more than 30 years ago. For this reason, a broad range of traffic data and
projections from previous studies are summarised in Tables 1 and 2 for west and
eastbound directions respectively. Compared with the present situation, these figures
highlight a number of key assumptions, which governed previous investigations and
their design proposals, for example:

Earlier studies tended to overemphasise the traffic demand along the Buitengracht
corridor, both in absolute and relative terms. Current figures indicate a 28%
demand for this movement, compared with a 45% assumption in the first
Buitengracht Traffic Study.

Until the mid-1980s, none of the studies were able to anticipate the V & A
Waterfront development, and the establishment of a Waterfront – Foreshore –
Culemborg development axis.

The earlier Freeway and Buitengracht studies were generally over-optimistic
about the growth potential of the CBD and its attractiveness as a car-commuting
destination.

The 1984 Central City Traffic Study underestimated vehicular growth on the
assumption that the present traffic constraints will encourage the use of public
transport. All other studies have confirmed that the present 3-lane cross section of
the outer viaducts would not have sufficient capacity to accommodate traffic
growth beyond 2000.
These observations clearly highlight the need for re-assessing the original scheme,
and in particular, the need for the Buitengracht Freeway connection. Provided that the
Buitengracht corridor remains a low bulk conservation area, there can be little
justification for this costly and environmentally intrusive scheme, if one considers that
the future Western Boulevard freeway connections will significantly reduce traffic
flow along this route.
During the morning commuter peaks, Buitengracht currently carries more than 2 800
veh/hr southbound between the Coen Steytler and Hans Strydom intersections. This is
approximately 1000 vehicles per hour more than would be necessary to cope with the
present unconstrained traffic demand, had the elevated Western Boulevard
connections been in place.
A number of recent traffic impact assessments have confirmed the pressing need for
the completion of the elevated connecting links with Western Boulevard, both from a
traffic demand and network connectivity point of view. Although present traffic
demand is slightly less than for the proposed Buitengracht connection, this traffic
7
pattern involves a number of increasingly problematic right turn movements at critical
intersections. It is therefore anticipated that the completed Western Boulevard ramps
will also attract right turning traffic, which presently uses Coen Steytler Avenue/
Dock Road and Somerset Street towards destinations in the Waterfront and Sea Point.
In view of the above, and in anticipation of further developments in the Green Point
area, it will be safe to assume that the Western Boulevard connection could attract up
to 30% of the total westbound morning peak hour traffic on the elevated freeway.
This equals about 1 900 veh/hr, if applied to the present unconstrained traffic
demand.
Unfortunately, the present traffic demand figures (constrained and unconstrained)
clearly indicate that additional capacity will be required on the elevated freeway
section, and that route pre-selection is an absolute necessity for the implementation of
the Western Boulevard links. This involves the completion of the inner viaducts, as
originally envisaged.
If however, the Buitengracht Freeway had to be deleted from the scheme, as
suggested, then the inner viaducts could be reduced in cross section from four to two
lanes per direction, which equals the terminating lane balance on the Western
Boulevard ramps. The cost savings between this proposal and the original viaduct
scheme could be between 30 and 50%.
4.4. Ultimate Traffic Profile
From a capacity perspective, the reduced scheme (minus the Buitengracht
connections) will still have considerable scope for the handling of future traffic
growth. Schematically, this is shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5: Foreshore Freeway - Ultimate (am) Peak Hour Traffic Profile (capacities
shown in brackets)
Western Boulevard
2550 (4200 – 2 lanes)
1800
5950 (6300 – 3 lanes)
4200
N1
750
1750
Coen Steytler – Buitengracht
Intersection
6000
2500
Eastern Boulevard
1900
In terms of this proposal, the Foreshore Freeway will have enough spare capacity to
accommodate a traffic growth scenario of 90% on the N1 corridor (from 3150 veh/hr
to 6000 veh/hr). This is 50% more than the current unconstrained traffic demand
along the N1, and should therefore provide adequate capacity for more than 15 years,
depending upon the future land use developments in and around the CBD.
Traffic growth on the Foreshore Freeway could however be retarded, by using the
reserve lane capacity on the N1 and N2 approaches (due to the reduced cross section
8
of the central viaduct) for direct access ramps into a parking garage under the elevated
freeway structures.
The ultimate lane capacities in Figure 5 also provide a clear illustration that the future
traffic demand of the CTICC and the other Foreshore developments can be met
without significant problems. Results of the CTICC Transport Impact Assessment are
listed in Table 1.
4.5. Weaving
The primary purpose of a freeway preselection scheme is to minimise or eliminate
weaving. For this reason, a weaving analysis of the original freeway alternatives
played a very important part in the decision to select Scheme 3B as the preferred
concept. This scheme had the lowest predicted weaving volumes, totalling 1455
vehicles per hour on the Inner Viaduct.
However, in terms of current demand patterns, this scheme would have been at a
distinct disadvantage, due to the wrong assumptions about the proportional split
between the Buitengracht and Western Boulevard traffic. In other words, the highest
demand pattern (and the one with the highest growth potential), which is the
movement from the N1 to the Western Boulevard, is forced to weave across the
Eastern Boulevard – Buitengracht traffic. Previously it was thought that this situation
would be reversed.
In terms of the reduced scheme, the weaving problem shifts from the inner to the
existing outer viaducts, due to the merging of traffic from the Eastern Boulevard and
N1 in order to reach the appropriate left- and right-turn lanes at the Coen Steytler
intersection. Presently the Foreshore Freeway copes with weaving volumes of about
1 137, as shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6: Weaving Profile on Outer Viaduct – Present Traffic (am peak hour)
Dock Rd
1100
Buitengracht
2700
1200
407
1850
444
1443
693
2394
756
Eastern
Boulevard
N1
3150
Coen Steytler
After the completion of the Internal Viaduct and its links with Sea Point, the total
weave volume on the Outer Viaducts will reduce, to some extent, as a result of a shift
in Waterfront traffic from Dock Road to the Western Boulevard. Overall, the weave
situation will however benefit significantly from the large reduction in traffic on the
through-movement along Buitengracht (from 2 700 to 1 430 veh/hr).
9
In terms of the ultimate demand (Figure 7), the total weave volume is expected to
increase to about 1 940, which is nearly 33% higher than originally predicted for
Scheme 3B, but still lower than any of the other scheme alternatives in the original
freeway investigation. It should be noted however that a similar traffic demand profile
would have generated a total weave volume of 2 362 vehicles in Scheme 3B.
Figure 7: Weaving Profile on Outer Viaduct – Ultimate Demand with Completion of
Inner Viaduct to Western Boulevard (am peak hour)
Dock Rd
1822
Buitengracht
1900
2228
535
1750
655
1215
1287
2627
1573
Eastern
Boulevard
N1
4200
Coen Steytler
4.6. Intersection Analyses
One possible area for concern is the future operation of the Buitengracht/ Coen
Steytler intersection, which will ultimately come under severe pressure. This problem
will mainly be as a result of heavy traffic flow on Coen Steytler/ Dock Road, and not
so much from the through traffic along Buitengracht.
At this stage it appears that the afternoon peak period right turns from the direction of
the CTICC onto the freeway could become problematic. This was confirmed by a
Traffic Assessment of the Foreshore Freeway (HHO, 1 June 2001) which found that
the outbound Buitengracht ramp will be required to cope with medium-term
unconstrained traffic flows.
Further investigations are necessary, but the solution could also lie with the
introduction of variable message signs (advanced redirecting of traffic), and the
construction of parking structures under the freeway, to divert Convention and other
Foreshore traffic away from the most critical intersections.
10
3
1
4
Western
Boulevard
5
Foreshore Freeway
N1
2
6
N2
Buitengracht
Table 1: Foreshore Freeway – Observed and Predicted Peak Hour Traffic Flows (am westbound)
Source
Planning
of
Culemborg
Viaduct, Table Bay and
Buitengracht Freeways (1968)
Buitengracht Traffic Study
(1978)
Addendum to Buitengracht
Traffic Study (1978)
Central City Traffic Study
(1984)
Highway Capacity Study
(1991)
CTICC Transport Impact
Assessment (2001)
CTICC Transport Impact
Assessment (2001)
Present Demand
(constrained)
Present Demand
(unconstrained)
Ultimate Flow Profile
Target Year
1991
1
4709
(63)
2
2708
(37)
3*
7417
(100)
4
1533
(21)
5
2670
(36)
6
3214
(43)
2000
8233
(75)
5303
(67)
2589
(59)
2517
(61)
4792
(64)
4792
(69)
3150
(63)
4000
(63)
6000
(71)
2811
(25)
2591
(33)
1805
(41)
1576
(39)
2753
(36)
2190
(31)
1850
(37)
2200
(37)
2500
(29)
11044
(100)
7894
(100)
4394
(100)
4093
(100)
7545
(100)
6982
(100)
5000
(100)
6200
(100)
8500
(100)
785
(7)
2503
(32)
1018
(23)
683
(17)
2000
(27)
1856
(27)
1155
(24)
1426
(24)
2550
(30)
5343
(48)
2739
(35)
N/a
4916
(45)
2652
(33)
N/a
1868
(46)
3401
(45)
3137
(45)
2415
(48)
2976
(48)
4050
(48)
1542
(37)
2144
(28)
1989
(28)
1430
(28)
1798
(28)
1900
(22)
2000
2000
Observed
1990
Unconstrained
2010
Constrained
2010
Observed
2001
2001
2010
* Inner and outer viaduct figures combined, where applicable
11
9
7
10
Western
Boulevard
11
Foreshore Freeway
N1
8
12
N2
Buitengracht
Table 2: Foreshore Freeway – Observed and Predicted Peak Hour Traffic Flows (am eastbound)
Source
Planning
of
Culemborg
Viaduct, Table Bay and
Buitengracht Freeways (1968)
Buitengracht Traffic Study
(1978)
Addendum to Buitengracht
Traffic Study (1978)
Central City Traffic Study
(1984)
Highway Capacity Study
(1991)
CTICC Transport Impact
Assessment (2001)
CTICC Transport Impact
Assessment (2001)
Present Demand
(unconstrained)
Ultimate Flow Profile
Target Year
7
8
9
10
11
12
2000
1714
(66)
1240
(37)
1547
(68)
1473
(61)
2696
(60)
2696
(60)
1900
(63)
866
(34)
2128
(63)
723
(32)
759
(39)
1828
(40)
1828
(40)
1100
(37)
2581
(100)
3369
(100)
2270
(100)
2432
(100)
4524
(100)
4524
(100)
3000
(100)
1066
(41)
1596
(47)
1197
(53)
1271
(52)
2333
(52)
2333
(52)
1800
(60)
1255
(49)
1605
(48)
N/a
260
(10)
167
(5)
N/a
214
(9)
955
(21)
955
(21)
340
(11)
947
(39)
1236
(27)
1236
(27)
860
(29)
2000
2000
Observed
1990
Unconstrained
2010
Constrained
2010
Observed
2001
2010
* Inner and outer viaduct figures combined, where applicable
12
4.7.Counterflow (eastbound) traffic
Morning peak hour traffic from the CBD and the suburbs along the Atlantic Seaboard,
has been increasing consistently since the initial completion of the Foreshore
Freeway. Projections in Table 2 indicate that the traffic demand from these origins
could, in ten years time, reach similar levels as the present westbound traffic (5 000
veh/hr) on the existing elevated freeway. About half of this traffic (2 300 veh/hr) will
be coming from the Sea Point direction onto the future Inner Viaduct.
Although it is expected that the (am) eastbound traffic volume on the Inner Viaduct
will be greater than the (am) westbound flows, both will be well within the 4 200
vehicles per hour capacity limit of this facility.
Serious traffic problems can however be expected if the Inner Viaducts and the
connections with the Western Boulevard are not constructed in the immediate future.
4.8. Afternoon peak hour traffic (east and westbound)
Afternoon peak period traffic is normally less pronounced than in the mornings, and it
can therefore be assumed that a balanced road network will cope with the afternoon
demand, if it has sufficient capacity for the morning peak periods. This is generally
true for the Foreshore Freeway, except for the fact that the present up- and
downstream traffic constraints do have a major impact on the operation of this
facility.
In the afternoons, for example, the Foreshore Freeway is regularly flooded by backup
traffic, due to the bottlenecks at Koeberg Interchange and beyond. Eastbound capacity
improvements on the Foreshore Freeway will therefore necessitate additional road
capacity along the N1 corridor.
5. SCHEME PROPOSALS
In view of current traffic patterns and the most recent transport impact assessments for
the Foreshore area, it is proposed that the authorities formally adopt a revision of the
original Foreshore Freeway Scheme to be implemented as soon as possible. This
revised scheme, as shown in Figure 8, differs from the original concept in respect of
the following:





The southbound Buitengracht viaduct has been deleted in its entirety
The original northbound Buitengracht viaduct has been deleted and replaced by a
much reduced optional connection, from Riebeeck Street onwards
The inner viaducts have been reduced in width from four lanes per direction, to a
2-lane cross section westbound, and a 3-lane cross section eastbound
The section of the inner viaducts between Heerengracht and Oswald Pirow can be
supported by load bearing parking structures instead of the original prestressed
concrete design
Options exist for direct freeway access into the supporting parking structures
13
Compared with the original scheme, it can be demonstrated that this proposal offers a
far superior cost-benefit solution, with much improved environmental and urban
design concepts. The revised scheme is also more appropriate in terms of current
assessments of future travel demand.
Figure 8: Foreshore Freeway - Revised Scheme Proposal
2
3
3
2
2
3
2
4
3
2
3
NOTES:
2
2
1. LANE CONFIGURATION
SHOWN IN CIRCLES
2. STAGE 1
STAGE 2
3. ACCESS TO PARKING
GARAGE
Acceptance of the proposal to modify the Buitengracht connections should however
be subject to the following conditions:






Stringent limits on all future land use developments and parking provision along
the Buitengracht corridor
Improved links between De Waal/ Mill Street and Buitengracht to promote this as
an alternative CBD access and bypass route
Improved public transport into and within the Inner City to reduce future growth
in car commuting
An investigation to determine the feasibility of parking structures under the inner
viaducts with direct freeway access, to divert traffic from entering the CBD
Retaining the option to use the Coen Steytler parking garage entrance lanes as an
alternative access into the Canal Precinct
The introduction of variable message signs and real-time CCTV equipment on all
Inner City freeway approaches to monitor and regulate traffic flow and route
choice.
The option of providing revenue generating parking structures below the future
freeways should receive serious consideration. Preliminary investigations have
confirmed that a 3-level parking structure, similar to the Coen Steytler garage, is
possible and that this could accommodate up to 2 400 parking bays. A scheme of this
nature could act as a replacement for the planned central viaducts as originally
envisaged. Another modification to the original scheme could be the introduction of
grade separation at the Table Bay Boulevard/ Oswald Pirow intersection.
From a traffic perspective, the westbound elevated links towards Sea Point are
considered to be prerequisites for further CBD development (including the V & A)
14
and for the successful operation of the Convention Centre. Currently, the Coen
Steytler/ Buitengracht intersection is already operating at over-saturated traffic flow
conditions.
6. COST ESTIMATES
The most recent cost estimates for the completion of the Foreshore Freeway were
obtained from VKE Consulting Engineers on 14 June 2001. These figures, as shown
in Table 3, were prepared for the revised Foreshore Freeway Scheme, with and
without the parking garage option.
Figure 9: Construction Elements for Costing Purposes
3
Western Boulevard
Coen Steytler
Parking Garage
Par
kin
g
4
1
CTICC
Ga
rag
eO
5
2
ptio
n
8
iro
w
F. M
ala
n
7
N1
Os
wa
ld P
D.
He
e re
ng
rac
ht
6
Eastern Boulevard
Table 3: Preliminary Cost Estimates for the Revised Foreshore Freeway Scheme
Element
No.
1
Section
Eastbound ramp from Sea Point
2
Westbound ramp to Sea Point
3
Central viaducts between Coen
Steytler parking garage and
Heerengracht, above CTICC Eastbound
Central viaducts between Coen
Steytler parking garage and
Heerengracht, above CTICC Westbound
Elevated viaduct between
Heerengracht and N1/ Eastern
Boulevard freeways - Eastbound
Elevated viaduct between
Heerengracht and N1/ Eastern
Boulevard freeways Westbound
4
5&7
6&8
Description
Length
2x3,7m lanes
2x2m shoulders
2x3,7m lanes
2x2m shoulders
272m
Cost Estimate
(R million)
23,0m
360m
31,0m
3x3,7m lanes
2x2m shoulders
334m
42,3m
2x3,7m lanes
2x2m shoulders
321m
30,2m
3x3,7m lanes
2x2m shoulders
846m
91,1m
2x3,7m lanes
2x2m shoulders
784m
65,1m
TOTAL (without parking garage)
15
R 282,7m
Construction elements 5 to 8 could be replaced by a three-level (2 500 bay) parking
garage with access ramps to the N1 and Eastern Boulevard Freeways. The cost of
such a structure will increase the overall cost of the freeway scheme by about R 170
million. In view of the longer-term need for additional parking along the Foreshore, it
is estimated that this revenue earning facility could become self-financing and an
ideal opportunity for a public/ private partnership arrangement.
If, for whatever reasons, the parking garage option does not prove to be viable, then
the scheme could be implemented in phases, with the following budgeting
requirements:
Table 4: Budgeting Proposals for implementing the Revised Foreshore Freeway
Scheme
Construction Element
3 & 4 - Central viaducts between
Coen Steytler parking garage and
Heerengracht, above CTICC
2 - Westbound ramp to Sea Point
6 & 8 - Elevated viaduct between
Heerengracht and N1/ Eastern
Boulevard freeways - Westbound
1 - Eastbound ramp to Sea Point
5 & 7 - Elevated viaduct between
Heerengracht and N1/ Eastern
Boulevard freeways - Eastbound
Project Management
City of Cape Town: TOTALS
PAWC: TOTALS
Financial Year
2002/03
2003/04
R 27,1m
2001/02
R 46,4m
R 1,6
2004+
R 29,4m
R 65,1m
R 1,5
R 21,5m
R 91,1m
R 0,5m
R 50,0m
R 0,8m
R 40,0m
R 38,8m
R 1,0m
R 30,0m
R 62,1m
R 0,7m
R23,5m
R 42,3m
It should be noted that the original Foreshore Freeway Scheme, with its four-lane
cross section, would have cost at least R90m more, excluding the cost of the
Buitengracht links which would have added an additional R 80 m.
Author: W. W. CROUS
16