SkyscraperCity banner

1461 - 1480 of 1659 Posts

·
The Road and Map Geek
Joined
·
2,743 Posts
This is generally true, but the biggest advantage of PPP is that it is able to deliver large projects in a short amount of time. This is where conventional government projects fail to deliver.

I see it like a house construction. You take out a mortgage to be able to buy a house and not set € 500 per month apart for construction so that in 30 years, your house will finally be finished.

Germany is a good example, where there is a striking difference between PPP projects and conventional government projects. It means that they can build 50 kilometers of motorway in 4 years, instead of sections of 4 kilometers over a period of 50 years. This is hugely beneficial to society, despite the somewhat higher cost of PPPs.

It's a cost-benefit consideration really. Do you accept the higher cost to have higher benefits? Do you want to wait a generation or more until the promised product is complete?
There are dynamic implications, too: In the PPP model where the construction company will be responsible for the maintenance for 15-30 years after the completion, there is a substantial incentive to make high quality. This alone is likely to compensate the extra cost of the model. In addition, outsourcing the financial arrangements to the service provider will save the the government labor cost.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,371 Posts
Two big tenders were announced yesterday.

The first is Väo interchange between T1/E20 and T11/E265. Start of construction is planned for Spring 2020 and end of construction by late 2021. The cost of construction is € 20 million.
IMO the interchange design is highly insufficient for the traffic flow (currently 49,000 cars per day) and I drive through it every day. The highest traffic flows are left turns from E20 to E265 and from E265 to Peterburi road and Rahu tee (into Tallinn). However, these traffic flows will meet at the small roundabout...we'll see how it turns out.

------------------------------

The second is the 16 km 2x2 Võõbu-Mäo section on T2/E263. Construction will start in the Spring of 2020 and end by late 2022. The cost of construction is € 73 million. After this section is completed roughly half of Tallinn-Tartu highway will have been upgraded to 2x2 with some further sections between Mäo and Tartu being 2+1.

 

·
Naudotojas
Iš šiaurės pelkių
Joined
·
3,048 Posts
Two big tenders were announced yesterday.

The first is Väo interchange between T1/E20 and T11/E265. Start of construction is planned for Spring 2020 and end of construction by late 2021. The cost of construction is € 20 million.
IMO the interchange design is highly insufficient for the traffic flow (currently 49,000 cars per day) and I drive through it every day. The highest traffic flows are left turns from E20 to E265 and from E265 to Peterburi road and Rahu tee (into Tallinn). However, these traffic flows will meet at the small roundabout...we'll see how it turns out.

I read somewhere in this forum that turbo-roundabouts can handle up to like 30-40k of AADT. This turboroundabout seems to be put into its technical maximum :)

I remember there were more grandiose project for this junction, but times has changed, it seems. ...and we in Lithuania have similar situation (at least to some extent). I found older project - https://www.postimees.ee/165077/vao-liiklussolme-ehitus-ahvardab-edasi-lukkuda (2009)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,336 Posts
The thing that's really pissing be off is the fact that they're willing to build a long sunken section and two overpasses on it just because some gas station has bought up some land decades ago (which already screwed over the past two? projects) but not a grade separated turning opportunity for the left turn from E20 towards E265.... :rant:

Also Merry Christmas everyone! :cheers:
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
8,707 Posts
Construction of double viaduct on T11 (Tallinn's metro area ring road),on section between Saku and Luige. Among one of last few sections to be upgraded to 2+2 on ring road.

Tallinna Ringtee (T11) ehitatava Saku-Luige 2+2 lõigu Saku viadukti hetkel kasutusel oleva poole ehitus eelmise aasta oktoobris.

Raivo Tiikmaa ©
Tallinna Ringtee (T11) ehitatava Saku-Luige 2+2 lõigu Saku viadukt,tänased fotod.





There's another double viaduct under construction not far from it in Saustinõmme over future HSR line.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,371 Posts
An update on the dual carriageway project on T2/E263 between Kose and Võõbu. The drone videos were filmed on the 18th of March. Here's the first video in the playlist:

And the full playlist. I suggest setting the playback speed to 2x.


As you can see there is still plenty of work to do, especially at interchanges but they are well withing their deadline of finishing before the end of the year.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
8,707 Posts
Looks amazing,can't wait to drive there! 😀

One thing that troubles me about all those 2+2 upgrades is lack of rest stops for trucks. They could really think about international freight traffic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,371 Posts
Looks amazing,can't wait to drive there! 😀

One thing that troubles me about all those 2+2 upgrades is lack of rest stops for trucks. They could really think about international freight traffic.
This section has one rest area in either direction. They are quite small, however, and without any real facilities but supposedly there has been some interest from petrol stations to set up shop at these places.

Tartu-bound:

And Tallinn-bound:
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
8,707 Posts
I was thinking about rest stops in general. There have been quite a lot of 2+2 and 2+1 sections been built in last decade. At best they include few places where you can stop your car. Tough luck if your car happens to be fully loaded truck and your stopping options include some narrow embankments or sideroads.
Atleast on 2+2 it should be mandatory that there are rest stops included in the project. Proper size rest stops which can house atleast 5-10 trucks. That Kose-Ardu 2+2 upgrade alone cuts off some roadside diners with parking lots which have turned impromptu 24h truck stops.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
52,656 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1,470 ·
When was the Tallinn bypass first built? I was looking at historic imagery on Google Earth and the bypass already existed in 1984 (the earliest available imagery). However the bypass was not numbered in the Soviet route numbering system of 1982, while almost all other main roads in Estonia were numbered as an M- or A-route at that time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,371 Posts
When was the Tallinn bypass first built? I was looking at historic imagery on Google Earth and the bypass already existed in 1984 (the earliest available imagery). However the bypass was not numbered in the Soviet route numbering system of 1982, while almost all other main roads in Estonia were numbered as an M- or A-route at that time.
Good question. I did some research using Soviet maps from the Estonian Geoportal (Web Maps). I'm going to go chronologically here since it makes the most sense.

The first map is a 1:25 000 map already from 1947. As you can see Keila bypass and the sections next to Keila are already under construction.


Then we have a 1:200 000 map of the whole area from 1953. If you look really closely the same sections still appear to be U/C as before.


Next is a 1:10 000 map from 1958. This a section between Keila and Saue. Keila bypass had been built by then.


Construction then continued between Keila and Saue. This is a 1:25 000 map from 1961:


A 1:50 000 map from 1962.


A 1:100 000 map from 1963. As you can see, the section next to Keila had been finished and the section between the railway and current T4/E67 is shown as U/C.


Then there's a bit of a gap and next is a 1:200 000 map (partially) from 1971. The section between Lagedi and Jüri had been built by then, also from Jüri towards Saku but how far is unclear since the lower part of the map is older, from 1964:


Next is a 1:200 000 map from 1979 when the whole bypass had been finished:



In conclusion, construction started already in the late 1940s and lasted until the mid to late 1970s.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
52,656 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1,472 ·
Very interesting. The map also shows that M-11 was widened to four lanes before 1971 and the M-12 to Saue was widened to four lanes sometime during the 1970s.
 

·
Naudotojas
Iš šiaurės pelkių
Joined
·
3,048 Posts
Very interesting. The map also shows that M-11 was widened to four lanes before 1971 and the M-12 to Saue was widened to four lanes sometime during the 1970s.
My previous bet were that 2x2 sections and the bypass near Tallinn was built in the 1980s or second half of 1970s at earliest.

In comparison Lithuania was building higher standard dual carriegeways back then. Probably due to higher population density and we had quite high construction standards in Soviet terms. Except there were more U-turns, as far as I know. Many minor grade seperated junctions were built in 1980s. As for today, our motorways are a little bit substandard due to bit substandard junctions, but with minor reconstructions of motorway lanes near junctions + some overpasses/underpasses, there can be significant improvement. Estonian Soviet sections would need more investment for similar result.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
96 Posts
A 1:100 000 map from 1963. As you can see, the section next to Keila had been finished and the section between the railway and current T4/E67 is shown as U/C.
This railroad bridge was the first grade separated railroad crossing on a highway in Estonia. Before it railroad bridges have been built only inside of towns.

Next is a 1:200 000 map from 1979 when the whole bypass had been finished:
There had to be a grade separated crossing with M-11. They have started building a diamond interchange, and ramps on one side are there even now, but construction halted and was never completed.

Very interesting. The map also shows that M-11 was widened to four lanes before 1971 and the M-12 to Saue was widened to four lanes sometime during the 1970s.
M11 was the first dual carriegeway in Estonia. First 2+2 sections were build in late 50s early 60s up to Maardu. Those were the concrete sections, half of which exist to this very day! It replaced the original road built by german prisoners after the war.

M-12 was widened in 70s due to 1980 Olympic games. This short section was meant to impress tourists comming from the south, as roads leading to Soviet capitals had to be wide. After the Olympics, this section had to be extended to Pärnu.

The same goes to M-11. Due to Olympics there was an ambition to build a 2+2 road to St Petersburg, but due to lack of funds it has never been completed and back then only Maardu - Valgejoe section was completed by 1980.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
My previous bet were that 2x2 sections and the bypass near Tallinn was built in the 1980s or second half of 1970s at earliest.

In comparison Lithuania was building higher standard dual carriegeways back then. Probably due to higher population density and we had quite high construction standards in Soviet terms. Except there were more U-turns, as far as I know. Many minor grade seperated junctions were built in 1980s. As for today, our motorways are a little bit substandard due to bit substandard junctions, but with minor reconstructions of motorway lanes near junctions + some overpasses/underpasses, there can be significant improvement. Estonian Soviet sections would need more investment for similar result.
Replacing U-turns with grade separated junctions gonna be huge task in all Baltic countries. For me they are very dangerous especially when the speed limit is 80 km/h+. I don't get how on earth A2 in Lithuania between Ukmerge and Panevezys has a motorway status when there are about 6 junctions with U-turns and without any cross-over or underpass. Thank god there aren't any here in Finland. If there aren't grade separated junctions on 2+2 roads atleast the junctions usually have traffic lights to allow turning left safely here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,371 Posts
Replacing U-turns with grade separated junctions gonna be huge task in all Baltic countries. For me they are very dangerous especially when the speed limit is 80 km/h+. I don't get how on earth A2 in Lithuania between Ukmerge and Panevezys has a motorway status when there are about 6 junctions with U-turns and without any cross-over or underpass. Thank god there aren't any here in Finland. If there aren't grade separated junctions on 2+2 roads atleast the junctions usually have traffic lights to allow turning left safely here.
At least over here it's very difficult to find the political will to spend money on making roads safer. Unless an interchange eases congestion there isn't much public interest in these kinds of upgrade projects. It's much "sexier" to spend money on brand new 2x2 highways that are much more memorable to the average voter. That is why the Soviet-era 2x2 highways near Tallinn that carry 20,000+ cars per day are still built to a much lower standard than brand new 2x2 highways that carrry less than 10,000 cars a day. Until the Estonian Road Administration gets more autonomy in how it gets to spend money this isn't going to change, unfortunately.

Just an example:
This is an actual, current day bus stop just outside of Tallinn where the AADT is roughly 27,000. The bus stop is completely unprotected, there are no dedicated pedestrian roads leading to the bus stop, no grade-separated crossing etc. From the footpath in the grass you can tell that people actually do use this bus stop. It's a disgrace!

And this is the section at Haljala interchange on T1/E20. The bus stop is at least somewhat separated from the main road, there is a pedestrian/cycling path leading to a pedestrian overpass down the road. The AADT at this place is 4,800...or around 5.5 times lower than in my previous example....

Yet, politicians are much more likely to spend money on projects like the latter, rather than spending money on projects that improve existing infrastructure and make it safer.
 

·
Naudotojas
Iš šiaurės pelkių
Joined
·
3,048 Posts
Replacing U-turns with grade separated junctions gonna be huge task in all Baltic countries. For me they are very dangerous especially when the speed limit is 80 km/h+. I don't get how on earth A2 in Lithuania between Ukmerge and Panevezys has a motorway status when there are about 6 junctions with U-turns and without any cross-over or underpass. Thank god there aren't any here in Finland. If there aren't grade separated junctions on 2+2 roads atleast the junctions usually have traffic lights to allow turning left safely here.
It's unique stretch here in A2. Interestingly, I think there is motorway status near those junctions, because it prohibits slow transport to enter the motorway which is even more dangerous than regular transport on motorways. Due to low AADT I would rather improve safety of those junctions without reducing speed on the main road, like reconstructing entrance, U-turn and exit lanes. Proper junctions would probably be too expensive for such low AADT.

It's still uncertain why there are motorway status near bus stops without proper pedestrian infrastructure. I think the reason why there are not very much investments is because A2 between Ukmergė and Panevėžys has quite low AADT, something like 6,000-7,000. I wish that Krikštėnai U-turn junction between Vilnius and Ukmergė to be reconstructed. The stretch has higher AADT above 10,000. It is even signed as the black spot. I hope they will reconstruct those bus stops both in A1 Kaunas-Klaipėda and A2 Vilnius-Panevėžys in similar way as in Vilnius-Kaunas (there are some last remaining bus stops that will be probably removed soon(er or later)).

Renovating junction infrastructure could make an important positive impact on general Lithuanian motorway quality. Estonian 2+2 system has more U-turns, but also a lot more T-junctions. Lithuania has such junctions too, but they are more minor and more rare.

I don't say it would be ideal result similar to Western European motorways, but ideal results would mean way more money. I'm a little bit glad that without very huge investments you can still create quite proper result.

There are distant plans to remove all remaining U-turns in A1, but it's uncertain with A2 since it has lower traffic levels. There are already quite few U-turns in A1 and traffic on those junctions are really low. Most of the traffic is on the main road.
 

·
Naudotojas
Iš šiaurės pelkių
Joined
·
3,048 Posts
At least over here it's very difficult to find the political will to spend money on making roads safer. Unless an interchange eases congestion there isn't much public interest in these kinds of upgrade projects. It's much "sexier" to spend money on brand new 2x2 highways that are much more memorable to the average voter. That is why the Soviet-era 2x2 highways near Tallinn that carry 20,000+ cars per day are still built to a much lower standard than brand new 2x2 highways that carrry less than 10,000 cars a day. Until the Estonian Road Administration gets more autonomy in how it gets to spend money this isn't going to change, unfortunately.

Just an example:
This is an actual, current day bus stop just outside of Tallinn where the AADT is roughly 27,000. The bus stop is completely unprotected, there are no dedicated pedestrian roads leading to the bus stop, no grade-separated crossing etc. From the footpath in the grass you can tell that people actually do use this bus stop. It's a disgrace!

And this is the section at Haljala interchange on T1/E20. The bus stop is at least somewhat separated from the main road, there is a pedestrian/cycling path leading to a pedestrian overpass down the road. The AADT at this place is 4,800...or around 5.5 times lower than in my previous example....

Yet, politicians are much more likely to spend money on projects like the latter, rather than spending money on projects that improve existing infrastructure and make it safer.
It seems that Estonian 2x2 building policy is something like: "forget the Soviet past, let's go Nordic". This term overall has positive aspects in country development though, especially in comparison with most other Post-Soviet republics, but by such road policies forgetting the past it can be translated as "forget the old Soviet infrastructure and keep an eye on brand new Nordic infrastructure". This ends up with quite terrible old 2x2 highways infrastructure. The only good things on such sections are quite satisfactory directional signage and pavement (mostly).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
760 Posts
At least over here it's very difficult to find the political will to spend money on making roads safer. Unless an interchange eases congestion there isn't much public interest in these kinds of upgrade projects. It's much "sexier" to spend money on brand new 2x2 highways that are much more memorable to the average voter. That is why the Soviet-era 2x2 highways near Tallinn that carry 20,000+ cars per day are still built to a much lower standard than brand new 2x2 highways that carrry less than 10,000 cars a day. Until the Estonian Road Administration gets more autonomy in how it gets to spend money this isn't going to change, unfortunately.
Wasn't the main reason to build the new 2x2 stretch from Kose to Ardu (and in the future to Mäo) that the current stretch comprises 20% of the distance from Tallinn to Tartu, but 50% of all accidents happen on that stretch?
 

·
Naudotojas
Iš šiaurės pelkių
Joined
·
3,048 Posts
Wasn't the main reason to build the new 2x2 stretch from Kose to Ardu (and in the future to Mäo) that the current stretch comprises 20% of the distance from Tallinn to Tartu, but 50% of all accidents happen on that stretch?
On the other hand, you are right. Those old sections due to low inbound pedestrian and motorised traffic tend to be satisfactory safe and high AADT 1+1 (1x2) seem to be more dangerous.

As for Lithuania, I hear more often about traffic accidents in narrow Via Baltica (E67) rather than in "unsafe" A2 sections with low AADT. Sincerely, I don't even remember that A2 U-turns between Ukmergė and Panevėžys had caused any significant accidents due to lateral traffic crossing the motorway.
 
1461 - 1480 of 1659 Posts
Top