daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Highways & Autobahns

Highways & Autobahns All about automobility



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old February 8th, 2012, 04:51 PM   #6641
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,613
Likes (Received): 19405

Yeah, funny story, I've read a cow belches 475 liters of methane per day. This is similar to 1760 kilos of CO2, but the greenhouse effect of methane is twenty times that of CO2, so the equivalent is 35200 kg of CO2 per day, or 12.8 million kilos of CO2 in a year. That's 5000 times of what my car emits in a year driving 20000 kilometers... So instead of driving a Prius, we should stop eating meat.
ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old February 8th, 2012, 04:58 PM   #6642
g.spinoza
Lord Kelvin
 
g.spinoza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Torino
Posts: 9,507
Likes (Received): 2112

I don't get it. You converted 475 liters of methane in 1760 kilos of CO2 and then again into 35200 kilos of methane ?!?
g.spinoza no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 8th, 2012, 05:07 PM   #6643
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,613
Likes (Received): 19405

A cow belches 475 liters of methane a day. To convert liters to kilos CO2, you need to multiply it by 3.7, so I've read. As methane has twenty times the greenhouse effect of CO2, you need to multiply that by 20 to get the CO2 equivalent. Then multiply it by 365 days and compare your car's CO2 emission (mine is 130 grams per km).
ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old February 8th, 2012, 05:18 PM   #6644
g.spinoza
Lord Kelvin
 
g.spinoza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Torino
Posts: 9,507
Likes (Received): 2112

There still something wrong. You cannot convert litres of methane into kilos of CO2 and then again multiply by 20, because that's the methane-co2 conversion factor and you already converted it into co2.
Why not converting a litre of methane directly into kilos of methane and then apply the factor 20 with respect to CO2?

A litre of methane weighs .4 kilos at STP. So 475 litres = 190 kg. Then you multiply by 20 and get 3800 kg of CO2 equivalent. That's more like it, the figure you proposed was unearthly.

EDIT: I found where you were wrong. 3.7 is the conversion between the weight of carbon in gasoline and co2... methane has nothing to do with it.

Last edited by g.spinoza; February 8th, 2012 at 05:25 PM.
g.spinoza no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 8th, 2012, 05:44 PM   #6645
Slagathor
Gay love is love too
 
Slagathor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: The Hague
Posts: 8,464
Likes (Received): 6164

The point is that our government is a fine collection of dimly lit cowards
Slagathor no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 8th, 2012, 07:08 PM   #6646
Surel
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,702
Likes (Received): 2155

Well the carbon emmissions and greenhouse gas panic is in my eyes following completaly different intentions then playing the god, trying to engineer the nature.

If you know that the fossile fules are going to be depleted sooner or later, however they are getting rapidly scarce, and the remaining stocks are not in your possession, you play agenda of alternative resources. You keep the real motive behind this change quiet and come with substitute theme - greenhouse effect.

No sensible person would recomend alternative fuels instead of the fossile fuesl, if the only intention was reducing the greenhouse gases emissions... all the alternative (carbon based) fuels are more greenhouse gas intensive then their petrol alternatives. Thus this cant be the real motive.

The real motive is that our petrol based (carbon) economy has to switch into other source based economy (e.g. hydrogen based). The transition may be really drastic if you dont have alternatives ready to support this transition. Changing the economy from petrol based into another is not just question of switching the engines in the cars... First of all, when oil is scarce, you need the energy to be able to build another sources of energy.
Surel no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 8th, 2012, 07:14 PM   #6647
Junk
That's me!
 
Junk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The Hague - Rotterdam Metropolitan area
Posts: 346
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by italystf View Post
But probably Italy is the only (European) country to have them on motorways.
A6a and A6b South of Paris in France.
__________________
DenHaag Centreoftheuniverse
Junk no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 9th, 2012, 03:14 PM   #6648
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,613
Likes (Received): 19405

A10 Amsterdam widening

Out of nowhere, after years of dormancy, the A10-south project is suddenly revived with an agreement about the project by the ministry of Infrastructure and Environment and the city of Amsterdam.

The A10 on the south side of Amsterdam will be put underground, and widened from 6 to 12 lanes. The widening will be combined with real estate development and expansion of rail services from 12 to 24 trains per hour.

The A10 will feature 2+4+4+2 lanes, 2x4 through lanes and 2x2 lanes for local traffic, all underground. The project cost € 1.4 billion, out of which the national government pays € 979 million and the city of Amsterdam € 201 million. The urban region pays € 103 million and € 75 million comes from the North Holland province. That's € 280 million per kilometer.

Amsterdam is and will be the site of mega projects. Already in progress is the € 2 billion second Coen Tunnel + A5 skyway, and commencing this year is the € 4.5 billion Schiphol - Amsterdam - Almere upgrade. The Badhoevedorp realignment of A9 is expected to start in 2013, while the A10-south project will commence in 2015.

render:


project area:


current situation:

Last edited by ChrisZwolle; February 9th, 2012 at 03:25 PM.
ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old February 9th, 2012, 03:33 PM   #6649
snowdog
Speed freak
 
snowdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Capelle ad ijssel
Posts: 969
Likes (Received): 92

Imho unneccesarily expensive.
Wouldn't it be cheaper to simply expand the motorway above ground ?
snowdog no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 9th, 2012, 03:40 PM   #6650
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,613
Likes (Received): 19405

It's considerably cheaper than the north-south subway, especially compared to the amount of people who will use the facility. The A10-zuid + rail expansion project cost € 1.4 billion, but close to 400.000 people will use it everyday, compared to € 3+ billion for the subway and a usage of 150.000 people.

I don't think the project would've been possible without bringing one of the modalities underground, you can't expand the railway station + rail facilities and double the number of lanes on A10 at the same time within the existing right-of-way. And they're not going to tear down those skyscrapers.
ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old February 9th, 2012, 04:15 PM   #6651
temlin
Registered User
 
temlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Arnhem
Posts: 1,880
Likes (Received): 247

They rail track will stay at ground level? Because originaly the road and the rail should go underground:

temlin no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 9th, 2012, 04:18 PM   #6652
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,613
Likes (Received): 19405

Yep, the old plan had more real estate development to support the expensive investment, which is unlikely now (vacancy rate is already quite high in the area). The original plan was estimated at € 2.1 billion (but was likely much more expensive, as underestimates were quite common a few years ago).

Also note that the A10 setup is different now, the original plan called for 4x3 lanes, the current plan calls for 2+4+4+2 lanes.
ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old February 9th, 2012, 04:32 PM   #6653
darko06
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 774
Likes (Received): 149

You folks in the Netherlands have really interesting architecture.
darko06 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 9th, 2012, 08:41 PM   #6654
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,613
Likes (Received): 19405

Utrecht ringroad widening

In funneling down options for the € 1.2 billion Utrecht ring road widening, some more details became available. The biggest news was that the N230 widening has been downscaled from 6 to 4 lanes, with a speed limit of 80 instead of 100 km/h. It will be grade-separated. Although it will conform to congestion norms, the 70.000 - 80.000 vehicles per day leave very little room for traffic growth.

Also some more details became available about the A27 widening, which is technically very complex. The A27 is below grade, and there is a foil underneath the roadway that prevents groundwater from flooding the motorway. It is not possible to puncture or expand this soil, which eliminates the possibility of new bridges, which then leads to problems with railway bridges, the bridgehead will be replaced by a 5.5 m wide pylon with a two-lane carriageway around it. The A27 can be widened from 2x4 to 2x7 lanes that way, in a 2+5+5+2 setup.

Map of the proposed changes:


Construction will commence in 2016, first on N230 and A27, and between 2020 and 2023 along A12, where the parallel lanes will be widened to 3 lanes each way (12 lanes total).
ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2012, 12:35 AM   #6655
Des
Traveller
 
Des's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: MUC
Posts: 2,438
Likes (Received): 806

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
Yep, the old plan had more real estate development to support the expensive investment, which is unlikely now (vacancy rate is already quite high in the area). The original plan was estimated at € 2.1 billion (but was likely much more expensive, as underestimates were quite common a few years ago).

Also note that the A10 setup is different now, the original plan called for 4x3 lanes, the current plan calls for 2+4+4+2 lanes.
What I'm wondering is how the 2+4+4+2 setup will work. Both sides of the tunnel have big bottle neck in traffic flow. Traffic crossing lanes from local onramps to A10->A2 and A10->A4 cause traffic jams on a daily basis backing traffic up for kilometers. Just adding lanes will not make a huge difference in my opinion, only reconstruction of the KP Nieuwe Meer and KP Amstel could solve this.
__________________
Car News
Des no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2012, 12:39 AM   #6656
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,613
Likes (Received): 19405

Unfortunately the whole plan has a major design flaw, the parallel lanes will only have 1 through lane and 1 auxiliary lane between exits. I don't get why they are willing to spend € 1.4 billion on a plan like this. It's a freaking € 280 million per kilometer that will create a lot of problems. The Zuidas will become a huge railway yard which is suppose to be "international allure".
ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2012, 12:53 AM   #6657
Des
Traveller
 
Des's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: MUC
Posts: 2,438
Likes (Received): 806

To illustrate what I mean some traffic flows:

East-bound:

A10-West->Local exits
A10-West->A2
A10-West->A10-South
A4->A10 South
A4->A2
A4->Local exits
Local exits->A10 South
Local exits->A2

If there were no money or available space restrictions it would be nice to have the following solutions:

Fly-over for traffic from A10-West to lane for local exits VU and RAI so traffic from A4 can drive to A10 south without obstruction.
Fly-over for traffic from onramp RAI to A10-South so all transit and local traffic can flow to A2 without obstruction.

If this is not done I don't think the whole transit - local setup and capacity increase will make much difference because the bottle necks will still cause traffic jams.
__________________
Car News
Des no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2012, 12:55 AM   #6658
Des
Traveller
 
Des's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: MUC
Posts: 2,438
Likes (Received): 806

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
Unfortunately the whole plan has a major design flaw, the parallel lanes will only have 1 through lane and 1 auxiliary lane between exits. I don't get why they are willing to spend € 1.4 billion on a plan like this. It's a freaking € 280 million per kilometer that will create a lot of problems. The Zuidas will become a huge railway yard which is suppose to be "international allure".
That is a similar mistake to the Western part of the Eindhoven ring road that has only 2 transit lanes in each direction while 3 is necessary already.
__________________
Car News
Des no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2012, 01:16 AM   #6659
mappero
Co sie kryje za zakrętem?
 
mappero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: WRO origin, Benelux present
Posts: 2,809
Likes (Received): 520


Even worse is that they removed 1 lane from N2 (within Eindhoven west ring part). So now almost every morning lots of cars staying in traffic towards south on 2 lanes instead of 3 !!
It's waste of public money!
__________________
Observation & analysing is the key for the smart solutions - this is what I do!

Błędy na mapach w nawigacjach GPS i internecie

Been in: A, B, BIH, BR, C, CH, CZ, D, DK, E, F, FL, GB, GE, GBR, H, HR, I, L, LT, MC, MEX, MNE, N, NL, P, PL, RO, RD, RSM, S, SK, SLO, SRB, TR, UA, USA, V
Driven in: A, B, BIH, BR, CH, CZ, D, DK, E, F, FL, GB, GBR, H, HR, I, L, MC, MNE, N, NL, P, PL, RO, S, SLO, SK, SRB, TR, USA
mappero no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2012, 08:35 PM   #6660
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,613
Likes (Received): 19405

A10 tunnel not economically profitable

The Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis (CPB), an independent government agency, called the A10 tunnel unprofitable in a second opinion analysis. While the widening of A10 is economically profitable, doing it underground is not, mainly because the benefits were overstated, specifically the € 360 million value of the space freed up by the undergrond A10. The CPB puts the benefit at € 110 million, making the project economically unprofitable. It didn't go into specifics about the road configuration, which was critized yesterday.

The usefulness of the A10 widening was not questioned, especially the local-express setup was seen as useful, because it would decongest two motorway interchanges compared to a regular widening to 2x6 lanes.

The negative second opinion of the CPB does not mean the project is dead, but it may give way to second thoughts about the project. When the A10 will be put underground, it will be replaced by a massive rail yard, pretty much defeating its purpose of bringing A10 underground. The original plans called for an all-underground project, but were found far too expensive and financially risky as large amounts of real estate development are necessary to support that project, which is very unlikely today given the low demand and vacancy. The project area is surrounded with low-density sport facilities, which would be far cheaper to develop than on top of the infrastructure corridor, if demand really was to be high, which it is not.
ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
congestion, dutch, friesland, highways, motorways, netherlands

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 03:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium