SkyscraperCity Forum banner

PROJECT l Eastern Bypass | Harbour Tunnel

41K views 143 replies 46 participants last post by  Peter999 
#1 ·


The Harbour Tunnel
Sund & Bælt Partner has for Realdania, Copenhagen and Copenhagen Harbour conducted preliminary investigations of an harbour tunnel in Copenhagen.

The initial studies dealing with the possibility of combining a pacification of the City with the construction of a road link between North Harbour and Amager highway, east of downtown Copenhagen. In most of the line connection will be placed in tunnels under the Copenhagen harbor. The total length of the tunnels will be approx. 12 km.

The aim of the port tunnel is also to ensure access to development areas northeast and southeast of Copenhagen without burdening the existing road network further while reducing through traffic in downtown Copenhagen, which today passes Langebro and Knippelsbro.
Havnetunnel København


 
See less See more
2
#2 ·
Hope you guys thinks a thread about this subject has some relevance, even it's so far are on the theoritical plan.

Berlingske has an article in the daily one, about the pension company Sampension are willing to invest up to 10 billions dkr. in a Harbour tunnel, that has been discussed for many years.
The coorporation between a private and a public partnership (OPP) are something that will be more common the years ahead, especially in the bigger infrastructurel projects while the state having less money.
 
#9 ·
To round off the discussion for the time being, I believe the name "Havnetunnelen" has been replaced by "Østlige omfartsvej"

The reason being that the state contributes to bypasses (omfartsveje) while the harbour tunnel is a Copenhagen thing, which they will have to pay for themselves. :eek:hno:
 
#11 ·
Looks like Københavns Kommune has accepted the solution

http://politiken.dk/indland/ECE1803...til-transportministeriets-havnetunnel-planer/

Most of the route seems to be on Amager? Why did they choose to abandon the initial plan of a REAL havnetunnel? As far as I've understood it is a much more expensive solution to build it under ground than under the harbour so why did they change it?

EDIT: just read the explanation about the havnetunel vs. østlige omfartsvej. so in order to share the costs with the state they have decided to go for a much more expensive solution?
 
#13 ·
I believe there were also 2 big problems with the REAL submerged harbour tunnel which resulted in the politicians deciding in favour of the East Amager solution.

1, There was not enough space between the supports of the 2 older bridges, Knippelsbro and Langebro.

2. the complex road spirals suggested to get traffic up to f.ex. H.C.Andersens Boulevard looked like something from Chicago and visually would never be accepted in the harbour area of the centre of Copenhagen.
 
#15 ·
I finally found the time to dig into some of the planning about the Havnetunnel/Østre Omfartsvej. Maybe I read the wrong newspapers but so far I haven't found any mention of the actual proposed route through the city :)

So here goes, from the Ministry of Transportation ( link):

The majority in the city council has indicated that they prefer proposal B4 from Hans Knudsens Plads to Nordhavn, Margretheholm, under Kløvermarken, Amagerbro, Ørestad Nord, Amager Fælled and finally the existing highway at Vejlands Allé.

I can't find any proper mention of whether they are heading for the fully drilled tunnel or a tunnel where some parts of the tunnel are cut-and-cover.

"Hovedalternativ 1, linjeføring B4, boret tunnel under Amagerbro" seems to be the best possible solution

The route:



The modelled changes to traffic congestion show a clear relief in traffic in the city centre where polution is above acceptable levels a couple of places:


And here is a drawing indicating the limited "damage" to the Amager Fælled park area (tunnel is underground):



Now, let's see if the green parties wake up and agree to move some traffic out of the city center and into the tunnel. This is a tunnel that seems to reduce congestion drastically AND improves the route across the city for those of us living on Amager. I don't even have a car but can vividly imagine the relief a tunnel must be to those people living in the metro-free middle of Amager, Tårnby and Dragør and working in Lyngby, Ballerup, Bagsværd - all places drastically underserved by public transportation.

:righton:
 
#17 ·
It looks to me like they're focusing on getting heavy vehicles hidden away. Perhaps because this is the kind of traffic you can't move to public transport no matter how hard you try.

Regarding the connection to Ørestad Boulevard, it's probably not possible to have a connection so close to Artillerivej. Although why they picked Artillerivej over Ørestads Boulevard boggles the mind.
 
#18 · (Edited)
A few quick remarks from that document.

A submerged tunnel under Knippelsbro is almost impossible because of a safety distance to the metro tunnel on around 11,5 metres that would make the sailing lane through Knippelsbro only 2 metres deep and that is of course hopeless.

They could also split up the tunnel just before the bridge to avoid the sailing lane but then they would have to reconstruct the pillars supporting the bridge and good look with closing Knippelsbro for several months. :-D

Another solution was to build a drilled tunnel but that tunnel would be located so deep underground that no exit ramps would be possible in the inner city.

The price tag of the preferred tunnel under Amagerbro is with a 50% buffer so the real price is around 18-19 billion DKK.
 
#19 ·
The price tag of the preferred tunnel under Amagerbro is with a 50% buffer so the real price is around 18-19 billion DKK.
That is not correct. The 50 % added is not just for uncertainties, it is also because not everything is taken into account in the cost estimate. You might actually call it 50 % of additionally costs. This is standard in Danish cost estimates for infrastructure constructions in fase 1. In fase 2 you add 10 % to the cost estimate.
 
#20 ·
There is no time scale or financial proposal for this project except for the first stage (Nordhavnsvej/UC) and perhaps the second to the development area in Nordhavn.

One very important thing in the decision that has been taken on where the "Eastern By-pass" should go, is the fact that it also decides all the places where it isn´t going to go.

There were quite a few proposals and variants of these proposals but now these uncertainties about whether you are going to be neighbour to the road, or if you can develop your building site, is over.
This results in planning blight and often means areas of the city look like bomb sites for years and years.
As regards the construction method there are quite a few areas which could be cut and cover or even open cuttings but that can be decided at a later stage.
 
#22 ·
Quote from the city's homepage:

"Copenhagen Carbon Neutral 2025

Copenhagen will become the first carbon neutral capital by 2025.

Extensive retrofitting of buildings, reorganisation of the energy supply and change in transport habits are some of many initiatives the City of Copenhagen will implement in order to become carbon neutral by 2025.
 
#23 ·
Borgmester: Havnetunnel vil drøne ind i fredet område
Amager Bladet | 20.11.2012 | Side 18 | 550 ord | Artikel-id: e385aece | Original artikel
HASTVÆRK. Købenavns teknik-og miljøborgmester Ayfer Baykal ( SF) mener, at overborgmester Frank Jensen gambler med Amagers grønne image, når en kommende havnetunnel skal drøne igennem et fredet område på Amager Fælled.

af JAN JEPPESEN jje@b-l.dk

HELE ØEN: Den københavnske overborgmester Frank Jensen ( S) kommer næppe på julekort med byens teknik-og miljøborgmester Ayfer Baykal ( SF). Hun er vred over, at Frank Jensen er » parat til at ofre Amager Fælled for at få mere plads til bilerne « . Ayfer Baykal uddyber kritikken i en pressemeddelelse, efter torsdagens beslutning i borgerrepræsentationen om at udskyde om linjeføringen for at få mere tid til at sætte sig ind i forslaget.
» Frank Jensen har forsøgt at sælge forslaget om en havnetunnel som en østlig omfartsvej.
Han har argumenteret for, at havnetunnellen vil være til gavn for byen og miljøet. Men han har holdt konsekvenserne skjult. Nu står det klart, at han er parat til at ofre Amager Fælled. Det er helt uacceptabelt for SF, og vi har ikke brug for en tænkepause. Forslaget skal helt af bordet, « siger Ayfer Baykal.
Som omtalt i Amager Bladet har Økonimiudvalget i Københavns Kommune givet grønt lys til Transportministeriets linjeføring, men ifølge Ayfer Baykal fik politikerne præsenteret et kort, som var svært at tyde.
Det fik Ayfer Baykal til at stille en byge af spørgsmål om havnetunnelens placering, konsekvenser og fravalgte alternativer.
Men først dagen før, at borgerrepræsentationen skulle behandle sagen om havnetunnellen, fik de adgang til alle oplysninger om den valgte linjeføring.

Konsekvenser for Amager
» Jeg er stærkt utilfreds med, at vi er blevet bedt om at tage stilling til så vigtig sag på så tyndt et grundlag. Jeg har haft mine bange anelser om, at noget var galt, og derfor har jeg gjort meget for at få sagen bedre oplyst.
Nu er mine bange anelser desværre blevet bekræftet. Og jeg står uforstående overfor, at man overhovedet kan overveje at gøre det her mod København og københavnerne, « siger Ayfer Baykal, der også er kritisk over » den manglende fokus på konsekvenserne for biltrafikken på Amager « : » Det skabte en voldsom ballade hos de borgerlige partier i borgerrepræsentationen, da jeg fik penge til at renovere Amagerbrogade. Dengang bekymrede de sig meget for den stigning i trafikken, der ville komme nogle steder. Men de samme partier er parate til at lade trafikken stige massivt på flere gader som Artillerivej og Amager Strandvej, « siger Ayfer Baykal, og opfordrer Frank Jensen til helt at skrotte planerne om en havnetunnel.

Ser frem til valgkampen
Heller ikke Enhedslisten er begejstret for risikoen for, at der bygges en havnetunnel.
» Ved at bygge en havnetunnel får man flere biler i byen.
Der har aldrig været en vej i verdenshistorien, som ikke har givet mere trafik « , forklarer Morten Kabell, der repræsenterer partiet i borgerrepræsentationen, til Politiken. dk I stedet efterlyser partiet en større satsning på at gøre Københavns cykeltrafik og kollektiv trafik mere attraktiv i stedet for at gøre det lettere og mere tillokkende at køre i bil gennem byen.
» Gør man det sværere at køre i bil, så tager man kun bilen, når det er allermest nødvendigt « , siger han.
Amager Fælled er fredet og beskyttet af den politiske aftale om Ørestadsbyggerierne, der tilsagde, at der efter inddragelsen af de grønne områder til Ørestaden skulle der ikke bygges mere.
» Der vil være en fredning, som jeg ikke ved, hvordan overborgmesteren vil komme ud over.
Hvis Frank Jensens plan er at ofre Københavns grønne områder for at føre en motorvej gennem byen, så vil jeg glæde mig til at møde ham til næste års kommunalvalg « , lyder reaktionen fra Morten Kabell til Politiken. dk.
 
#25 ·
#28 · (Edited)
Sounds fishy..

What are they really saying?

- That the pension funds can be lend to the state with a very low lending
rate?
- Or that these projects will use pension funds even, if the lending rate is not especially low?
Anyway, it doesn't sound right.


If you have your pensions funds in one of these companies,
then you want to maximize your profit.
I.e you don't want to give any favors to any of these projects.

If you are e.g. the state then you want to borrow money as cheaply as possible.
I.e. nothing special about the money you might get from
pension funds.

The way this story is presented all my alarm bells went of...

I hope nothing like this could go on Denmark...
But the way the story is presented here you might get the the impression that
this is all about Anders Eldrup and associates working on
some sort of kickback scheme....?
Where former subordinates of Eldrup in the copenhagen ministry
of finance accept a bad deal (for taxpayers)
from the pension funds, in order to (later on) obtain a
position in one of these companies that Anders Eldrup
represents.... with the pretext of creating jobs.
As noone would really believe that the taxpayers get an excellent
deal, while the pension funds loose money....

Or is there another and more acceptable way to read the story?
We hope so.

Sure:
It is to applauded if pensions funds can be put to good
use all over Denmark - kickback schemes are not to be applauded.
- The state should finance projects as cheaply as possible.
- Pension funds should be invested at market value in the interest
of future pensioners.

The copenhagen govt. might be to incompetent to expose/clarify any of this.
But I hope that the press will investigate this, and see
what is fair and square in all of this.
And then report back to the readers.

This article can't stand on its own.
At least, some readers might be confused on what is really the truth here.
 
#27 ·
I wonder what the pension funds are thinking. There's only two ways in which this project will be cheaper. One is that their project development skills are better and that they manage to build the tunnel at a lower cost. This seems unlikely considering they have never done this before and the Danish State has done quite a few large scale projects recently with some success. Though I will concede that this is by no means certain considering the many budget overruns. Maybe they really are better at this. Secondly these enormous investments depend on the cost of capital (financing cost). Obviously the Danish government can loan money at a lot lower cost than the pension funds conversely seek returns (they are really the same but seen from either lender or borrower). Today the government can loan at 1.79% for ten years and 30 years wouldn't be much more expensive, think an additional percentage point or so. Pension funds want higher returns than that even if they are inflation hedges (this is a real asset, you can hike rates as wages increase). Thirdly the risk of the project will presumably still reside with the tax payers. Otherwise the cost of capital goes up even more to account for an increase in risk.

On the revenue side you have the issue of substitution. Many users will not pay to use the tunnel and will instead 'pay' by being stuck in traffic going through the city. How are we going to make the traffic affordable and attractive going through the tunnel if it costs 27 billion DKK?

Don't get me wrong. I am cautiously in favor of a harbortunnel, and I recognize this is the expedient way of getting it done now that government is trying to avoid borrowing and risk (because of private debt). But I doubt society is getting a good deal here because of a desire for expediency, a lack of sufficient infrastructure funding and public inability to prioritize projects rationally based on the greatest good for the most people (think highways going to nowhere and endless turf wars among the too many public transit corporations decreasing its value).
 
#31 ·
Ayfer Baykal officially against the tunnel: http://politiken.dk/politik/ECE1891255/sf-borgmester-skaber-ny-strid-om-havnetunnel-i-koebenhavn/

Personally I agree. I fear the tunnel will produce much more car traffic in Copenhagen in general, which is not something we need, and I too fear that this would not be beneficial to society as a whole. With that in mind, 27 billion is a lot of money to spend on servicing cars instead of a new metro line or other desperately needed infrastructural projects.
 
#32 ·
I fear the tunnel will produce much more car traffic in Copenhagen in general.
I thought the tunnel project was about diverting traffic away from the inner city. Today we have the Ring 2 going through the old city over Kongens Nytorv. It would be really nice to see all that traffic moved away to a tunnel under the harbour.

If parking houses were added at strategic points along the new metro system, then we could see Copenhagen with a fully fledged working park and ride system, that would make public transport a superior alternative to the car inside the city.

The image below is from Boston's Big Dig. The old main road through the city has been transformed into a park. The Copenhagen Harbour Tunnel could perhaps help Copenhagen to become a greener city.

 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top