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 September 23rd, 2011, 08:52 PM   #1381
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,534
Likes (Received): 21241

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coccodrillo View Post
Unlike what it was said until now (also on newspapers), the idea of a second Gotthard tunnel isn't completely ruled out. A decision about what to do with the refurbishment of the existing tunnel will be taken next year, and the second tunnel option will be evaluated with the others. However, in the final situation (after the refurbishment of the first), the second tunnel would have only one standard lane, so to have still one lane per direction.
A similar project is being considered for the Fréjus tunnel. Obviously, even if stupidly restrained to 1-lane per directions it is much safer to have 2 bores than one, as it avoids frontal collisions, allow easier escape and emergency rescue in case of fires and allow maintenance to be carried without sending traffic over the Passo San Gottardo. It allows far more operational flexibility. Fortunately, the San Gottardo massif is relatively easy to be dug considering the auxiliary tunnels and accesses already built there from the current bore. I think they could finish all the job, groundbreaking to opening for traffic, in less than 4 years.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old September 24th, 2011, 03:37 PM   #1382
Coccodrillo
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 7,200
Likes (Received): 767

The second Gotthard tunnel would be built with two standard lanes without hard shoulder, so as to replace the existing one during refurbishment, but later one lane would be closed.

A 17 km tunnel cannot be built in 4 years: it could never be opened before 2022, considering 5 years of discussions and 7 of construction.
__________________
1.6.2016: Basistunnel!

für Güter die Bahn ~ pour vos marchandises le rail ~ chi dice merci dice ferrovia
Coccodrillo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 24th, 2011, 05:56 PM   #1383
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,604
Likes (Received): 19391

I don't think the Swiss tunnel construction speed is the fastest possible, if they would create additional funding motorway construction speed in Switzerland can be sped up significantly. The Chinese 18 kilometers, twin-tube Zhongnanshan Tunnel was constructed in 5 years.
ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old September 26th, 2011, 04:48 PM   #1384
Norge78
Registered User
 
Norge78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 471
Likes (Received): 388

The Gotthard tunnel is pure perfection.
Norge78 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 28th, 2011, 02:05 AM   #1385
Fargo Wolf
Resident Smartass.
 
Fargo Wolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Port Kepler, Galilei Continent, Chakona
Posts: 685
Likes (Received): 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coccodrillo View Post
The second Gotthard tunnel would be built with two standard lanes without hard shoulder, so as to replace the existing one during refurbishment, but later one lane would be closed.
This. There are already two tubes there. One contains the highway/motorway, while the second serves as the service tunnel. It wouldn't take much to convert the service tunnel to highway/motorway standards. There are several advantages to doing so. Closing one tube, in order to carry out works in the other, is but one example. The same applies to a major incident. On holiday weekends, as well as other heavy traffic periods, one tube could be one way, while the other has a contra flow in place. I think it would actually COMPLIMENT the proposed shuttle service for commercial vehicles.
__________________
Resident Rouge/Assasin who is a flag wolfess on the side and would love to live in the Netherlands.
Fargo Wolf no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 28th, 2011, 11:11 PM   #1386
Coccodrillo
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 7,200
Likes (Received): 767

Enlarging the existing tunnel has been considered impossible, because it is full of cables and pipes that would need to be moved to the existing tube during works (and moved back during the refurbishment). In addition they want to keep an emergency access to the existing tube still possible and always free. A new TBM wouldn't cost much more than enlarging the pilot-service tunnel as initially planned.
__________________
1.6.2016: Basistunnel!

für Güter die Bahn ~ pour vos marchandises le rail ~ chi dice merci dice ferrovia
Coccodrillo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 30th, 2011, 01:20 AM   #1387
Coccodrillo
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 7,200
Likes (Received): 767

Public inauguration for the A16: http://www.tsr.ch/video/info/journal...ce-samedi.html
__________________
1.6.2016: Basistunnel!

für Güter die Bahn ~ pour vos marchandises le rail ~ chi dice merci dice ferrovia
Coccodrillo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 4th, 2011, 09:27 PM   #1388
Coccodrillo
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 7,200
Likes (Received): 767

Some ideas are being discussed for the Lugano-Bissone-Mendrisio A2 section (the one with the ugly noise barriers I have posted some time ago). It now has 65.000 vehicles per day on two lanes per direction.

The fourth link is a PDF with a drawing. Options are a widening of the existing infrastructure (the usual tunnel-bridge-tunnel complex, this would require the construction of new tunnels and bridges and the demolition of Bissone village), a new separate carriageway combining bridges and tunnels, a single tunnel under the lake (something around 6 or 7 km) or the status quo. In the drawing, green means status quo, orange widening, dots bridges and the dashed lines tunnels. Financing will be discussed in 2014, and maybe approved later.

http://www.astra.admin.ch/autobahnsc...x.html?lang=it

http://www.astra.admin.ch/autobahnsc...x.html?lang=it

http://www.cdt.ch/files/docs/cb9f535...6e0b7b9899.pdf

http://www.cdt.ch/files/docs/ede7b69...b4a297296c.pdf
__________________
1.6.2016: Basistunnel!

für Güter die Bahn ~ pour vos marchandises le rail ~ chi dice merci dice ferrovia
Coccodrillo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 5th, 2011, 05:00 PM   #1389
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,604
Likes (Received): 19391

I prefer alternative 1, widening of the existing infrastructure. This requires the demolition of 5 or 6 buildings in Bissone (not the entire village) and has less impact than building a new bridge across Lago di Lugano. A whole new tunnel underneath Lago di Lugano appears to be very expensive to me. I don't know the depth of the lake, but I suppose it's significant.



Once this project is completed, a 15 kilometer 2x2 bottleneck remains between Mendrisio and Como-Sud. That would require a lot of additional tunnels and viaducts, I think a whole new alignment that bypasses Chiasso and Como would be better. Something like this:
ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old October 6th, 2011, 01:22 AM   #1390
Coccodrillo
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 7,200
Likes (Received): 767

Quote:
I don't know the depth of the lake, but I suppose it's significant.
270 m for the deepest point, around 100-200 m on average. But near the existing bridge-dam the lake is shallow, around 10-30 m.

By the way, Bissone is already angry because of the noise barriers, proposing a widening on the surface would certainly not attract their support!

And any widening would clog up all roads around the motorway, I don't think that spending billions here would be worthwile (if the terrain was flat, maybe...).
__________________
1.6.2016: Basistunnel!

für Güter die Bahn ~ pour vos marchandises le rail ~ chi dice merci dice ferrovia
Coccodrillo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 6th, 2011, 10:07 PM   #1391
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,604
Likes (Received): 19391

This is an offset of 10 meters in Bissone, 7 meters for roadway space and 3 meters for a noise barrier, or even an entire cover across the motorway and railway. The main problem is not the demolishing of houses, but the street next to the motorway that leads to the exit Bissone. It could be possible to raise this street by 2 meters to let it run on top of the motorway, so it can stay in place.

ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old October 7th, 2011, 05:32 AM   #1392
Samply
Registered User
 
Samply's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Varese, Plymouth
Posts: 96
Likes (Received): 23

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle
I prefer alternative 1, widening of the existing infrastructure. This requires the demolition of 5 or 6 buildings in Bissone (not the entire village) and has less impact than building a new bridge across Lago di Lugano. A whole new tunnel underneath Lago di Lugano appears to be very expensive to me. I don't know the depth of the lake, but I suppose it's significant.

Once this project is completed, a 15 kilometer 2x2 bottleneck remains between Mendrisio and Como-Sud. That would require a lot of additional tunnels and viaducts, I think a whole new alignment that bypasses Chiasso and Como would be better. Something like this:
Whilst I believe your former suggestions regarding Bissone might be slightly unpopular with the locals, the latter would be really good, I don't expect it to happen but it does make a lot of sense
Samply no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 13th, 2011, 03:05 PM   #1393
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,604
Likes (Received): 19391

I've got another idea of the Gotthard Tunnel.

The main objects seems to be truck traffic through the Alps, which is now restricted by the tunnel ramp meters.

However, won't it be possible to build a second tube and still restrict truck traffic? This could work, because a passing ban in the tunnel won't increase truck throughput capacity. They can also keep the current ramp meters at the security check / buffer areas way before the tunnel. That way they can still control and limit the amount of trucks going through it, but you'll get rid of the incredible traffic congestion during almost every weekend. Not to mention the increased traffic safety.

Although I don't agree with the principle of forcing truck traffic off the roads onto trains, it's better to have a second tube while keeping the current status-quo for truck traffic.
ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old October 13th, 2011, 09:54 PM   #1394
Coccodrillo
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 7,200
Likes (Received): 767

The official target is the famous 650.000 trucks per year starting from 2019. Traffic rights would be sold with a system similar to airline tickets (the higher the demand, the higher the prices, and viceversa).

If this target is reached a second tunnel may be proposed, but a referendum would be mandatory (as the ban is partially written in the costitution, that cannot be modified without referendum).

As some traffic is diverted to the Brenner and Mont Blanc, a second tunnel without truck limit would shift some 500.000 trucks to the Gotthard, which nobody want.
__________________
1.6.2016: Basistunnel!

für Güter die Bahn ~ pour vos marchandises le rail ~ chi dice merci dice ferrovia
Coccodrillo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 14th, 2011, 10:00 PM   #1395
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,534
Likes (Received): 21241

The problem is that the proposed system is not fair at all. For instance, companies in Ticino will be given "preferential" access to a number of permits if the price rises too much.

The ultimate solution is to stop bitching about noise and a bit of pollution (everyone must cope with that in a modern society), suck it up and build more Alpine tunnels, including one from Bern to Visp.

However, once the Swiss decided to hold Europe hostage with the "go send pollutants elsewhere" attitude, ramp meters for trucks would do the job.

You don't even need permits, you can just put electronic toll prices and adjust them such that the price, itself, regulates truck traffic.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 14th, 2011, 11:19 PM   #1396
Road_UK
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Mayrhofen AT, Sneek NL, Bromley UK
Posts: 5,855
Likes (Received): 1599

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
I've got another idea of the Gotthard Tunnel.

The main objects seems to be truck traffic through the Alps, which is now restricted by the tunnel ramp meters.

However, won't it be possible to build a second tube and still restrict truck traffic? This could work, because a passing ban in the tunnel won't increase truck throughput capacity. They can also keep the current ramp meters at the security check / buffer areas way before the tunnel. That way they can still control and limit the amount of trucks going through it, but you'll get rid of the incredible traffic congestion during almost every weekend. Not to mention the increased traffic safety.

Although I don't agree with the principle of forcing truck traffic off the roads onto trains, it's better to have a second tube while keeping the current status-quo for truck traffic.
I think this train traffic works really well. It does in Austria anyway. Don't forget that the busiest northern Europe- Italy link is via Brenner. Freight traffic on the A12 Inntal Autobahn is beyond all porportions. But it's reduced a lot by these HGV-trains running from Woergl to Trento. Trains run generally every 5 minutes, and reduces transit traffic through the Alps significantly. Benefits: better for the enviroment, less congestion and commuters to Innsbruck won't have a hard time getting to work.
Road_UK no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 15th, 2011, 02:04 AM   #1397
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,534
Likes (Received): 21241

The new Gotthard tunnel will not carry RO-RO trains.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 15th, 2011, 09:48 PM   #1398
bozata90
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sofia
Posts: 355
Likes (Received): 50

why?
bozata90 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 16th, 2011, 11:48 AM   #1399
Jeroen669
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 787
Likes (Received): 13

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coccodrillo View Post
As some traffic is diverted to the Brenner and Mont Blanc, a second tunnel without truck limit would shift some 500.000 trucks to the Gotthard, which nobody want.
Explain me the problem of this, since even a few thousand extra trucks a day (at most) still won't make the Gotthard route a huge truck corridor. You're partly just moving away your problems to other countries, Austria and France will be thankfull to you I suppose...

Btw, the current truck control centres are also causing (next to a lot of time loss) a lot of extra pollution:
Erstfeld (dir. south) -> some extra kms of driving, lots of stop-and-go, lots of stationary trucks (you're not going to turn off your engine for 2-3 minutes when you're fully loaded), not to mention all the extra pollution from building this HUGE concrete area
Biasca (dir. south) -> lots of stop-and-go, huge waiting area, etc.
Biasca (dir. north) -> lots of stop-and go, but this one is especially a pain in the ass since most trucks can't get to cruise speed anymore before beginning the climb here.

Maybe some nice things to reconsider...
Jeroen669 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 17th, 2011, 02:37 PM   #1400
Coccodrillo
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 7,200
Likes (Received): 767

The fact the Dutch A15 carries 20.000 trucks or so a day is not a reason to worsen situation elsewhere. And a lot of transalpine freight traffic is long distance, like The Netherlands-Italy, so some thousands of vehicles multiplied for a few thousands kilometres is not so negligible.

That's why there will be no RO-RO trains (or not too much of them) on the Gotthard line, as carrying containers or semitrailers alone from Amsterdam to Bologna is better than shuttling trucks from Erstfeld to Biasca or from Basel to Chiasso (less freight by roa, less weight (tractors) on trains). Throught Switzerland there are a few RO-RO trains, but this offer will not be extended: 10 trains per direction on Freiburg-Lötschberg-Simplon-Novara, one train on Basel-Gotthard-Lugano, carrying respectively around 100.000 and 10.000 trucks a year.

Finally I don't see why Switzerland should spend money for European Union's road vehicles while Germany and Italy don't do the same for Swiss trains. I would expect reciprocity, at least.

@Suburbanist: trucks to/from Ticino don't have to wait and can traverse the Gotthard tunnel when they want (they use the same waiting line as passenger vehicles), but it's a small part of the total. Trucks travlling from Switzerland (except Ticino and part of Graubünden) to Italy have to wait at the Gotthard and San Bernardino tunnels like everyone other.

@Jeroen669: in my opinion the best solution may be a 2+2 tunnel, without an absolute truck limit but with tolls varying according to the day (very high on summer weekends, lower during winter weeks) and to the type of goods carried (low tolls for a truck carrying flowers from Amsterdam to Milano, but very high for washing machines manufactured in Italy and sold in Sweden). But in absence of such toll policy I still prefer the status quo (the queues don't bother me, as I nearly always travel by train to go north of the Gotthard).
__________________
1.6.2016: Basistunnel!

für Güter die Bahn ~ pour vos marchandises le rail ~ chi dice merci dice ferrovia
Coccodrillo no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
schweiz

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 11:32 AM.


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