[CH][A002] Gotthardtunnel • de bouw van de tweede buis is gestart

Moderator: Moderatoren

Pino
4x3 autosnelweg
Berichten: 21460
Lid geworden op: ma 28 feb 2005, 9:17
Locatie: Sesamstraat

Re: [CH] Gotthardtunnel gaat dicht voor sanering

Bericht door Pino » ma 16 mei 2011, 18:42

Coccodrillo schreef:If there is no second tunnel is mainly because the extreme slowness of government's decisions, not because of the Alpen Initiative.
At the very least, it is because of NEAT that a lot of decisionmakers in Switzerland think that closing the Gotthard road tunnel for three years is not an issue. And when you then look beyond that proposed closure, you have to face that many of those decisionmakers also think that the entire transit problem will solve itself through NEAT and that a second tunnel will only have an adverse effect on NEAT's success (which those decisionmakers see as guaranteed). As such, NEAT has been used as a prevention technique for any discussion about solving issues around road cargo through Switzerland.
Even much easier projects of any kind (not only transport infrastrcuture) take decades to become reality. Around 400 km of roads are expected to be congested in 2020, of these 81 km are considered to be the most serious bottlenecks, 182 km are in a second level of priority, 143 km in a third. The Gotthard tunnel is the second of these groups, with the note that congestion is seasonal, this probably means that nothing (even without the Alpen Initiative) would be done before all first level and most second level projects are completed. Construction in the Netherlands before the recent road boom proceded much more quickly than today in Switzerland.
I would fully understand this if there was no three-year closure of the existing tunnel to be expected. This is not about a duplication or about seasonal congestion. This is about the way Switzerland looks without a North-South motorway, and the impact that will take on national and international traffic between both sides of the Alps.

Speaking of which, it strikes me how everybody mentions the use of the San Bernardino route during that closure (including the NIMBY-reaction from Graubünden that they do not want it), but that nobody considers the Simplon. In the 2020s, the A9 will be complete until Brig. As much as there is no road tunnel underneath the Simplon, the road over the pass is an easy drive. It will depend on your place of origination / destination, but the Simplon could take precedence over the San Bernardino when it comes to alternatives for the Gotthard.
Beside that there is the idea of building one or more terminals near Chiasso (just north of the border) or somewhere in Lombardia with longer shuttle trains to Germany and The Netherlands for containers, swapbodies and semitrailers (as an exception of the rule of slowness, the government is apparently going to decide this year to enlarge loading gauge for 4m trucks within 10 years). Unlike the short road shuttles during the A2 clousure these trains will not be subsidized.
How about the existing terminal in Novara?

Coccodrillo
stadsweg
Berichten: 298
Lid geworden op: di 25 jan 2011, 13:11
Locatie: Zwitserland

Re: [CH] Gotthardtunnel gaat dicht voor sanering

Bericht door Coccodrillo » ma 16 mei 2011, 19:18

and that a second tunnel will only have an adverse effect on NEAT's success
Regarding goods it is possible (or certain), regarding passengers I don't think so much because of tourists, especially in transit.
...any discussion about solving issues around road cargo through Switzerland.
The solution is simple, forbid it (or the long distance part of it) after provision of an alternative more or less comparable in price and time. It's just that the EU and the ASTAG don't like the idea.
I would fully understand this if there was no three-year closure of the existing tunnel to be expected.
There are many works planned in these three years, it is possible that renouncing to some of them the clousure can be shortened.

As I said in the previous page the planned works are:

- raising of the ceiling (replacement of the existing celing, which has signs of wearing)
- upgrading of the ventilation system
- upgrading of the waste water treatement
- the slope of the carriageway will be increased from 2 to 2.5%
- widening of the shoulders for pedestrians
- new and widened service bays (for broken vehicles, etc), now they are every 750 m southbound and every 1500 m northbound, I suppose there will be one every 750 m in both directions

...but the Simplon could take precedence over the San Bernardino when it comes to alternatives for the Gotthard.
It's true, nobody speak about it, and of the Great St Bernard. But it is hoped to keep the Gotthard tunnel opened in summer. Beside that on sundays the limit of 1000 vehicles-equivalent per hour (1 truck = 3 cars, but there aren't many on sundays) could be raised to 1500 or more to reduce queues, as it was introduced to reduce the incidents caused especially by trucks (this worked, accidents fell by 75% or so between 2000 and 2008).
How about the existing terminal in Novara?
I don't know if it's sufficient, and in any case, the railway reaching it is single track and doubling is not really supported by Italy.
für Güter die Bahn
pour vos marchandises le rail
chi dice merci dice ferrovia

Gebruikersavatar
Vinny
4x5 autosnelweg
Berichten: 41015
Lid geworden op: zo 27 feb 2005, 12:52
Locatie: Friesland

Re: [CH] Gotthardtunnel gaat dicht voor sanering

Bericht door Vinny » ma 16 mei 2011, 19:57

The solution is simple, forbid it (or the long distance part of it) after provision of an alternative more or less comparable in price and time. It's just that the EU and the ASTAG don't like the idea.
This is typical Swiss argumentation: "The EU simply doesn't like it, The Italians are lazy and the Germans are crazy. We know it better so we don't join the EU. Never."

You can say this in almost every discussion about any topic to gain support :rofl2:
Let op: Sarcasmemodus over een lengte van 10 kilometer.

Pino
4x3 autosnelweg
Berichten: 21460
Lid geworden op: ma 28 feb 2005, 9:17
Locatie: Sesamstraat

Re: [CH] Gotthardtunnel gaat dicht voor sanering

Bericht door Pino » di 17 mei 2011, 8:45

Coccodrillo schreef:
I would fully understand this if there was no three-year closure of the existing tunnel to be expected.
There are many works planned in these three years, it is possible that renouncing to some of them the clousure can be shortened.
I think that would be shortsighted. The works are needed in some form and at some stage anyway and renouncing them would probably only increase the problem later. Besides, the tunnel approaches its 50th birthday in the 2020s. It will then have reached an age on which maintenance becomes more intensive and likely to be more regular anyway. So we can expect further closures over time.

And that remains the point. I cannot see the discussions about duplication of the Gotthard road tunnel as only a means of solving the (largely seasonal) capacity problems that exist there. I see the discussion as a means of establishing how exposed Switzerland is without any road tunnel at the Gotthard. And to the extent that it is established that that exposure is not acceptable, whether a duplication of the road tunnel is indeed the appropriate mitigant.

My personal view is that Switzerland is economically exposed as long as the Gotthard road tunnel is closed. I do not think that you can simply turn back the clock to the 1970s, when Switzerland coped without. Since I not only anticipate the extended closure in the 2020s, but also more shorter closures for maintenance than there are now (see above), I think that Switzerland should seek mitigants against its economic exposure. So is a second tunnel an appropriate mitigant? For me the answer is yes. Without any doubt, you can take different views about mitigants. But here you face the NEAT factor: as long as the Swiss are in denial that road closures at the Gotthard are a problem ("we have NEAT, so problem solved"), you cannot have a proper discussion about the merits of a duplication, as people only see duplication as a capacity increase.

Coccodrillo
stadsweg
Berichten: 298
Lid geworden op: di 25 jan 2011, 13:11
Locatie: Zwitserland

Re: [CH] Gotthardtunnel gaat dicht voor sanering

Bericht door Coccodrillo » di 17 mei 2011, 11:45

I partly agree but I can do nothing, it's up to cantonal and central governments to decide. The latter should reveal its plans by the end of 2011.
So is a second tunnel an appropriate mitigant? For me the answer is yes.
What about a second tunnel, but under he Simplon Pass?

What about a lower quality and quicker refurbishment of the Gotthard road tunnel, with a full refurbishment later (then not before 2030-2040) after the construction of a second tunnel?
The EU simply doesn't like it, The Italians are lazy and the Germans are crazy.
I'm still waiting the doubling of the Novara line and quadrupling of the Basel-Karlsruhe railway promised (there is even an official agreement somewhere) and decided years ago. Today's traffic alone requires it.
We know it better so we don't join the EU. Never.
Well, this idea is quite spread over Europe. I don't hink that the British or the Norwegians like the EU much more than the Swiss. Think also to Catalan, Basque, Scottish or Flemish (among others) requests for indipendendence. The "we know it better" philospohy is quite common.
für Güter die Bahn
pour vos marchandises le rail
chi dice merci dice ferrovia

Pino
4x3 autosnelweg
Berichten: 21460
Lid geworden op: ma 28 feb 2005, 9:17
Locatie: Sesamstraat

Re: [CH] Gotthardtunnel gaat dicht voor sanering

Bericht door Pino » di 17 mei 2011, 12:16

Coccodrillo schreef:What about a second tunnel, but under he Simplon Pass?
As nice as a Simplon tunnel sounds from an international perspective, it is not helpful at all for inner-Swiss relationships. Besides, I have always seen the Simplon as an East-West route more than anything else. From Basel to Milan, the detour is simply too large (unless they also constructed a Lötschberg road tunnel). And for traffic between France and Italy, the Mont Blanc tunnel with the Frejus as a backup will do the trick.
What about a lower quality and quicker refurbishment of the Gotthard road tunnel, with a full refurbishment later (then not before 2030-2040) after the construction of a second tunnel?
Doing the same thing twice is always a waste of money. But it may be the way forward if it is not feasible to approve a duplication within the next year or two. There is a security tunnel next to the road tunnel, which I understand to have been constructed such that it may be turned into a second tunnel. That pre-work will reduce the construction time (maybe to seven years?), which places you in a position to postpone the large maintenance on the existing tunnel until after opening.

Coccodrillo
stadsweg
Berichten: 298
Lid geworden op: di 25 jan 2011, 13:11
Locatie: Zwitserland

Re: [CH] Gotthardtunnel gaat dicht voor sanering

Bericht door Coccodrillo » di 17 mei 2011, 12:23

The service tunnel is really narrow (around 3 m, with a similar height) and full of cables, tubes and other utilities. It was planend as a pilot bore for the second tunnel, but now it is said that a second tunnel would be built on a different alignment. This because during works the existing tunnel would remain without safety access, because the utilities in the service tunnel would have to be moved in the main tunnel causing disruptions to the traffic, and because the enlargment would require the demolition of part of the internal lining which does not allow the use of a TBM.
für Güter die Bahn
pour vos marchandises le rail
chi dice merci dice ferrovia

Coccodrillo
stadsweg
Berichten: 298
Lid geworden op: di 25 jan 2011, 13:11
Locatie: Zwitserland

Re: [CH] Gotthardtunnel gaat dicht voor sanering

Bericht door Coccodrillo » di 17 mei 2011, 20:11

Pino schreef:Speaking of which, it strikes me how everybody mentions the use of the San Bernardino route during that closure (including the NIMBY-reaction from Graubünden that they do not want it), but that nobody considers the Simplon.
:arrow: http://www.news.admin.ch/message/index. ... sg-id=8708
für Güter die Bahn
pour vos marchandises le rail
chi dice merci dice ferrovia

SnarfFlevoland
2x2 autosnelweg
Berichten: 6177
Lid geworden op: di 20 mei 2008, 8:40
Locatie: [CH]

Re: [CH] Gotthardtunnel gaat dicht voor sanering

Bericht door SnarfFlevoland » di 17 mei 2011, 20:40

Coccodrillo schreef:I'm still waiting the doubling of the Novara line and quadrupling of the Basel-Karlsruhe railway promised (there is even an official agreement somewhere) and decided years ago. Today's traffic alone requires it.
But the problem is that the EU has a preference for a good motorway infrastructure and the Swiss people only considers about a good Railway infrastructure. Don't forget that roads are the most important infrastructure for the EU. Its a little selfish to say that Switzerland don't need a better Gotthard passage. Trucks are also very important for the goods transport in Europe. If the Swiss people don't do anything, the traffic jumps will be getting bad to worse.
"A mile of highway will take you just one mile... A mile of runway takes you anywhere!"

Gebruikersavatar
Chris
Moderator
Berichten: 74794
Lid geworden op: zo 27 feb 2005, 15:19
Locatie: NL

Re: [CH] Gotthardtunnel gaat dicht voor sanering

Bericht door Chris » di 17 mei 2011, 21:26

Zowieso is het beleid in de Alpen slecht. Op de Frans-Italiaanse tunnels wordt veel te hoge tol geheven voor vrachtverkeer wat ongewenste vrachtstromen veroorzaakt. Denk maar niet dat ze in Wallis of langs de zuidoever van het meer van Genève zo blij zijn met het vrachtverkeer dat via de Simplon in plaats van de Mont Blanctunnel rijdt. Want in tegenstelling tot de Gotthard heeft de Mont Blanctunnel nog veel restcapaciteit, evenals de Fréjustunnel. En ook Oostenrijk zal de bizarre Zwitserse vrachtwagentol niet in dank afnemen, zelfs op Frankfurt - Milano is de route over de Brennerpas nog goedkoper ondanks de grote omrijfactor. En van een rit van Genève naar Sankt-Margrethen wordt je ook niet blij als transporteur. Vandaar dat je ook veel centraal-Europese trucks ziet op de Franse A36 en A39. Die mijden gewoon Zwitserland.

De Zwitserse A2 is simpelweg de beste route voor het noord-zuid vrachtverkeer door de Alpen vergeleken met de Fernpass, San Bernardino of Simplon. En er wordt enorm moeilijk gedaan over een non-existent probleem. Er rijdt amper vrachtverkeer, zelfs al zou het verdubbelen dan nog is er lang geen sprake van een probleem zolang er maar een tweede Gotthardbuis is. Dan kan je wel naïef miljarden investeren in een Gotthard basistunnel en lekker de Gotthard wegtunnel enkelbaans laten om een niet-bestaand probleem op te lossen, maar dat is zinloos. Ik zou me behoorlijk genaaid voelen als Zwitserse belastingbetaler.

Pino
4x3 autosnelweg
Berichten: 21460
Lid geworden op: ma 28 feb 2005, 9:17
Locatie: Sesamstraat

Re: [CH] Gotthardtunnel gaat dicht voor sanering

Bericht door Pino » di 17 mei 2011, 22:17

Als je de muren van vrachtwagens op een Nederlandse A67 of A15 vergelijkt met vrachtverkeer door de Alpen, vraag je je af waar het probleem nu ligt. Natuurlijk geven vrachtwagens in Alpendalen een wat ander soort geluidsoverlast dan vrachtwagens in de vlakte, maar het probleem wordt nogal buiten proportie getrokken.

Coccodrillo
stadsweg
Berichten: 298
Lid geworden op: di 25 jan 2011, 13:11
Locatie: Zwitserland

Re: [CH] Gotthardtunnel gaat dicht voor sanering

Bericht door Coccodrillo » di 17 mei 2011, 22:29

SnarfFlevoland schreef:But the problem is that the EU has a preference for a good motorway infrastructure [...]
But also plans railways, some of them not really urgent but very costly in my opinion, but that's another matter.

Beside that, Italy signed an agreement (only in de-fr-it) about the works on AlpTransit access railways promising sufficient capacity for trains. But it can be resigned at any time...but until now Italy has not done a lot (something yes).

And doing nothing on one of the rare railways where potential but also existing traffic is really notable is also selfishness. The Gotthard railway is already one of the most used freight railways in Europe, so here is where investing really makes sense. The Gotthardbahn carries around 16 millions of tonnes a year + 10 on the parallel Simplon, both start in Basel and end in the small region between Novara and Milano so traffic is routed on one or on the other depending on available capacity, and the investments planned in Germany and Italy serve both.
Chris schreef:Denk maar niet dat ze in Wallis of langs de zuidoever van het meer van Genève zo blij zijn met het vrachtverkeer dat via de Simplon in plaats van de Mont Blanctunnel rijdt.
Traffic diverted from the Mont Blanc to the Simplon is not that much. Great St Bernhard saw 55.000 trucks in 2007, the Simplon saw 82.000, of them around 35.000 for each of them were in transit, around one hundred a day.
Pino schreef:Als je de muren van vrachtwagens op een Nederlandse A67 of A15 vergelijkt met vrachtverkeer door de Alpen, vraag je je af waar het probleem nu ligt. Natuurlijk geven vrachtwagens in Alpendalen een wat ander soort geluidsoverlast dan vrachtwagens in de vlakte, maar het probleem wordt nogal buiten proportie getrokken.
But if you can't (or it's difficult) use trains on trips like Rotterdam-Dortmund or Antwerpen-Duisburg, it is possible and can be economically acceptable on trips like Rotterdam-Milan. That's the point, road has already a lot of local freight traffic that has no alternatives, and personally I don't oppose to road improvements for this, what I don't like is using trucks when ships, barges or train alternatives are possible. I would be happy with a second Gotthard road tunnel for cars (long distance tourists will ever use either cars or airplanes depending on their needs, certainly not the train), but with long distance freight on trains.
für Güter die Bahn
pour vos marchandises le rail
chi dice merci dice ferrovia

SnarfFlevoland
2x2 autosnelweg
Berichten: 6177
Lid geworden op: di 20 mei 2008, 8:40
Locatie: [CH]

Re: [CH] Gotthardtunnel gaat dicht voor sanering

Bericht door SnarfFlevoland » di 17 mei 2011, 23:34

Coccodrillo schreef:But if you can't (or it's difficult) use trains on trips like Rotterdam-Dortmund or Antwerpen-Duisburg, it is possible and can be economically acceptable on trips like Rotterdam-Milan.
We build the new Betuwe Railroad from Rotterdam to the German border. So there is a good possibility to transfer goods on a Railway, but it is cheaper for many enterprises to send Trucks from Rotterdam to somewhere else in Europe.
Coccodrillo schreef:what I don't like is using trucks when ships, barges or train alternatives are possible.
I agree, but how can we stop the Trucks? All country's in the EU have there freedom to transport goods on the way they like.
Chris schreef:En ook Oostenrijk zal de bizarre Zwitserse vrachtwagentol niet in dank afnemen, zelfs op Frankfurt - Milano is de route over de Brennerpas nog goedkoper ondanks de grote omrijfactor. En van een rit van Genève naar Sankt-Margrethen wordt je ook niet blij als transporteur.
Daarom vind ik het ook heel merkwaardig dat de Zwitserse politiek en burgers zich niet verantwoordelijk voelen voor al deze gevolgen. Zolang ze het zelf maar goed hebben zit alles wel snor. Ze kunnen ook gewoon transit vrachtverkeer verbieden door Zwitserland te rijden, maar ze als optie geven om direct in Basel op de trein te gaan. Vervolgens al het vrachtverkeer door de Gotthard basistunnel loodsen om vervolgens bij Chaisso de zaak de snelweg op te laten richting Milaan. Zorg dat de prijs aantrekkelijk is en de capaciteit voldoende is. Ik vind het nu absurd dat Oostenrijk de lasten moet dragen voor Zwitserland, zonder dat daar enige compensatie tegenover staat. Op deze manier mag er wel een extra Alpen transit corridor gebouwd worden.
Chris schreef:Dan kan je wel naïef miljarden investeren in een Gotthard basistunnel en lekker de Gotthard wegtunnel enkelbaans laten om een niet-bestaand probleem op te lossen, maar dat is zinloos.
Maar Chris, je weet toch dat Zwitserland nu eenmaal zo is? ;) Ik ben het helemaal met je eens dat het volkje zo naïef is als het maar kan, maar goed, zo zijn ze nu eenmaal. Ze hebben ooit niet voor niets een eed gezworen om alleen elkaar te helpen.

Trouwens snap ik de Zwitsers ook niet compleet. Waarom hebben ze ooit voor de A2 slechts één tunnelbuis voor de Gotthard gebouwd, terwijl de lange Seelisbergtunnel gerust wel twee tunnelbuizen gebouwd werd? Dat is nogal onlogisch, omdat het beetje verkeer tussen Altdorf en Luzern niet de moeite waard kan zijn om maar een extra tunnelbuis te boren. Hebben ze dat ooit gedaan met het oog op een doorlopende autosnelweg? Als de Zwitsers nu echt zo tegen een Alpen transit route zijn dan hadden ze net zo goed de complete A2 gedeelte tussen Stans en Bellinzona enkelbaans kunnen uitbouwen. Dat had veel minder geld gekost en had al het nationale verkeer prima aangekund.
"A mile of highway will take you just one mile... A mile of runway takes you anywhere!"

Pino
4x3 autosnelweg
Berichten: 21460
Lid geworden op: ma 28 feb 2005, 9:17
Locatie: Sesamstraat

Re: [CH] Gotthardtunnel gaat dicht voor sanering

Bericht door Pino » di 17 mei 2011, 23:46

Coccodrillo schreef: That's the point, road has already a lot of local freight traffic that has no alternatives, and personally I don't oppose to road improvements for this, what I don't like is using trucks when ships, barges or train alternatives are possible.
Politicians have decided to spend billions and billions of taxpayer's money on those train alternatives, yet for all sorts of reasons, the demand from freighters is low and freighters do not want to pay the extra euro for an alternative that they see as less than ideal anyway. We live in market-driven economies. It resembles communist thinking to decide "we'll do something the market does not like, force the market into our alternative."

Now of course there may be market imperfections that should push governments into impopular solutions. But as we agree that the number of lorries on the Gotthard route is limited, the conclusion has to be that taking lorries off the road onto your multi-billion train project is not offering any worthwhile environmental relief. Which leaves the question which compelling argument ever justified the choice for NEAT over what the market wanted and wants - a second road tunnel. The project is one large symbol of environmentalism without substantial environmental upside, certainly not one worth the investment of so much taxpayer's money.

I guess that also puts the remark "no second road tunnel as long as there is NEAT capacity" into a perspective. If the policy is such, you require truck drivers to pay the price for a mistake that they did not make. Thanks, dear politicians who promoted this environmental Tower of Babylon.

Coccodrillo
stadsweg
Berichten: 298
Lid geworden op: di 25 jan 2011, 13:11
Locatie: Zwitserland

Re: [CH] Gotthardtunnel gaat dicht voor sanering

Bericht door Coccodrillo » wo 18 mei 2011, 0:44

I agree, but how can we stop the Trucks? All country's in the EU have there freedom to transport goods on the way they like.
How? I don't know. The Alpen Initiative ask for a truck limit, probably with a limited number of daily (or yearly) travel concession, with prices increasing according to the request, just like airlines sell places on their airplanes. This is not what the Swiss government wants, as it tries to improve railways without subsidizing rail transport (except the RoLa) nor imposing a truck limit.
Pino schreef:Politicians have decided to spend billions and billions of taxpayer's money on those train alternatives [...]
Not the politicians, but two thirds of voters. The project dates back from the 1940s.
Pino schreef:[...] the demand from freighters is low and freighters do not want to pay the extra euro for an alternative that they see as less than ideal anyway.
The demand of the economy is to make as much money as possible with as little expense as possible. I don't think that transporting Evian water to Italy and Italian garbage to German incinerators is a good idea from an ambientalist point of view, even if this economically makes sense.

However, this cannot really be easily avoided, so forbidding trucks but giving a rail alternative at a similar price would be better than nothing. I repeat, with a similar price and quality of trucks.
Pino schreef:But as we agree that the number of lorries on the Gotthard route is limited, the conclusion has to be that taking lorries off the road onto your multi-billion train project is not offering any worthwhile environmental relief.
The number of trips is low, the quantity of tonnes-km is not, considering the whole trip Germany-Italy. Transit traffic in general accounts for around 18% of tonnes-km on Swiss roads, however, this number consider also non transalpine traffic.
für Güter die Bahn
pour vos marchandises le rail
chi dice merci dice ferrovia

Pino
4x3 autosnelweg
Berichten: 21460
Lid geworden op: ma 28 feb 2005, 9:17
Locatie: Sesamstraat

Re: [CH] Gotthardtunnel gaat dicht voor sanering

Bericht door Pino » wo 18 mei 2011, 8:46

The point about the 18% is key in the pro-NEAT reasoning, yet it is based on the assumption that the current figure is wrong and that a higher figure would be even worse. But is it? Start at the use of the standard tonne-km, which is hardly a measure for impact on traffic or the environment (and by environment, I mean noise reduction and pollution). The number of trucks would be the key driver there, the distance they make in Switzerland and how heavily they are laden much less so. Next: to what degree is anyone harmed by the situation as it is or even an increase? I'd say that the environmental impact of some additional road transit is small, while from an efficiency / congestion perspective Switzerland's roads can still cope easily. So is limiting transit road cargo really an issue that justifies so much taxpayer's money? To me, NEAT is based on an idealistic target and fails to create value justifying the investment. In other words, a bad business case.

And if you then want to punish useless transport (the Evian bottles that you mentioned), I think that trying to influence transport modality is not the appropriate tool. You need to influence the demand for transport itself.

Coccodrillo
stadsweg
Berichten: 298
Lid geworden op: di 25 jan 2011, 13:11
Locatie: Zwitserland

Re: [CH] Gotthardtunnel gaat dicht voor sanering

Bericht door Coccodrillo » wo 18 mei 2011, 10:26

I'd say that the environmental impact of some additional road transit is small [...]
Yes, considering the total impacts human activities on Earth's scale, no, on a local scale.

Again, following the request of the Alpen initiative (and of the voters of 1993) freight traffic would not be forbidden, only a particular way of transporting goods. And as you can't transport goods by train on Rotterdam-Dortmund trips, I think it's worth on Rotterdam-Milano.
So is limiting transit road cargo really an issue that justifies so much taxpayer's money? To me, NEAT is based on an idealistic target and fails to create value justifying the investment. In other words, a bad business case.
In my opinion, yes, because limiting trucks is not the sole objective. Freight rail traffic is growing, and passengers are expected to increase in the future (even if with low numbers in absolute value, passengers of the Lötschberg railway grew by 30% within 3 years, and goods doubled in 10).

Other rail projects in Europe were or are planned to be built for less traffic than the NEAT, like some high speed lines in Spain, the Milan-Turin HSL (around 20 trains a day, but for a cost similar to the Gotthard base tunnel), the Lyon-Turin tunnel, the Eurotunnel (in this case, France and the United Kingdom wanted a road or a mixed connection, which is impossible because bridging the Channel would be difficult and a 50 km road tunnel impossible). Or, for roads, the Swiss A16 which is being built for only around 25.000 vehicels a day but at a cost of 4,5 billions €.
für Güter die Bahn
pour vos marchandises le rail
chi dice merci dice ferrovia

Tim
expressweg
Berichten: 3405
Lid geworden op: vr 03 mar 2006, 10:26
Locatie: Gießen (Duitsland)

Re: [CH] Gotthardtunnel gaat dicht voor sanering

Bericht door Tim » wo 18 mei 2011, 10:35

Coccodrillo schreef:Not the politicians, but two thirds of voters.
Swiss citizens have to go to plesbicites so often, that one could say that every Swiss citizen is a poltician. :-)

If Switzerland doesn't want trucks on her roads, they have to build car-train-terminals at the borders (Basle, Geneva, Chiasso, Konstanz and Buchs (SG) ) and have to force that trucks with an foreign destinations take the train. Not by forbidding trucks, but by making the train cheaper than the road toll.
»Als je in de verkeerde trein stapt heeft het geen zin door het gangpad in de tegenovergestelde richting te lopen«
Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Coccodrillo
stadsweg
Berichten: 298
Lid geworden op: di 25 jan 2011, 13:11
Locatie: Zwitserland

Re: [CH] Gotthardtunnel gaat dicht voor sanering

Bericht door Coccodrillo » wo 18 mei 2011, 10:43

...but by making the train cheaper than the road toll.
This is what being done, partly with the subsidized RoLa.

The truck limit is imposed by law, but it is not applied now and probably will never (I hope with the exception of, at least, the period of the Gotthard road tunnel clousure).
für Güter die Bahn
pour vos marchandises le rail
chi dice merci dice ferrovia

marcel
2x2 autosnelweg
Berichten: 5335
Lid geworden op: ma 07 mar 2005, 14:15
Locatie: Adliswil CH

Re: [CH] Gotthardtunnel gaat dicht voor sanering

Bericht door marcel » wo 18 mei 2011, 11:42

SnarfFlevoland schreef:Waarom hebben ze ooit voor de A2 slechts één tunnelbuis voor de Gotthard gebouwd, terwijl de lange Seelisbergtunnel gerust wel twee tunnelbuizen gebouwd werd? Dat is nogal onlogisch, omdat het beetje verkeer tussen Altdorf en Luzern niet de moeite waard kan zijn om maar een extra tunnelbuis te boren.
Het is toch een kwart meer dan in de Gotthardtunnel.
Hebben ze dat ooit gedaan met het oog op een doorlopende autosnelweg?
Dat lijkt mij wel, maar er was in de jaren 70 nog zo weinig verkeer dat men een buis voorlopig wel genoeg vond.

Coccodrillo
stadsweg
Berichten: 298
Lid geworden op: di 25 jan 2011, 13:11
Locatie: Zwitserland

Re: [CH] Gotthardtunnel gaat dicht voor sanering

Bericht door Coccodrillo » wo 18 mei 2011, 11:51

^^ Initially the Gotthard road tunnel was not planned. That's why there is a second class national road (the same official status of the mountain part of the A13) between Airolo and the pass.
für Güter die Bahn
pour vos marchandises le rail
chi dice merci dice ferrovia

Pino
4x3 autosnelweg
Berichten: 21460
Lid geworden op: ma 28 feb 2005, 9:17
Locatie: Sesamstraat

Re: [CH] Gotthardtunnel gaat dicht voor sanering

Bericht door Pino » wo 18 mei 2011, 12:05

Coccodrillo schreef:on a local scale [additional road transport takes an environmental impact].
An increase of 50% in the number of trucks travelling through Uri is felt locally indeed. But such an increase still leaves the number of trucks driving through Uri well below the number of trucks passing other regions in Europe. Or even Switzerland. I can hardly see that as a valid reason for a relief project at the scale of NEAT.
Limiting trucks is not the sole objective. Freight rail traffic is growing, and passengers are expected to increase in the future (even if with low numbers in absolute value, passengers of the Lötschberg railway grew by 30% within 3 years, and goods doubled in 10).
Question for the Lötschberg is of course how many of those users will re-shift to the Gotthard once the Gotthard Base Tunnel is open. In other words, how much growth is there in rail transport through Switzerland? Is the shift in the modal split government-driven or market-driven? In other words: would market parties stay on the train or return to the road if the Swiss government stopped its policy of forcing the road transportation business to subsidise the rail transportation business? And to the extent market-driven increases in rail transport are expected to create congestion on the rail network, why is expected future congestion on the rail network prioritised so much over relieving truck drivers from all their waiting on the Gotthard road corridor?

There is only one possible response to that in the NEAT context, and that is a perceived advantage of rail transport over road transport. But is the perception right? Useful as rail transport is, is there any valid reason to push for a shift in the modal split? If there were road congestion issues, seeking a change in the modal split might be response. If towns were suffering because of high numbers of trucks (with bypasses not being an option or appropriate relief), I would say yes. But absent congestion issues or real suffering, my answer is no.
Other rail projects in Europe were or are planned to be built for less traffic than the NEAT, like some high speed lines in Spain, the Milan-Turin HSL (around 20 trains a day, but for a cost similar to the Gotthard base tunnel), the Lyon-Turin tunnel, the Eurotunnel (in this case, France and the United Kingdom wanted a road or a mixed connection, which is impossible because bridging the Channel would be difficult and a 50 km road tunnel impossible). Or, for roads, the Swiss A16 which is being built for only around 25.000 vehicels a day but at a cost of 4,5 billions €.
Each infrastructure project has its own rationale, and the number of users is not always a key driver. In many cases, the focus is on shortening travel time or on bringing relief to other routes. A project may be a large success despite a low number of users and big costs. NEAT relies on numbers though, that supposed relief of areas in the Alps that bear this supposed burden of high numbers of trucks (but see above) and those supposed major advantages of rail transit over road transit. On such a numbers-based analysis, I see the choice to construct NEAT as flawed.

Which is of course not to say that NEAT is the only rail or road project in Europe based on an analysis that was flawed.

Gebruikersavatar
Vinny
4x5 autosnelweg
Berichten: 41015
Lid geworden op: zo 27 feb 2005, 12:52
Locatie: Friesland

Re: [CH] Gotthardtunnel gaat dicht voor sanering

Bericht door Vinny » wo 18 mei 2011, 12:42

Erg interessante discussie. Een deel van het probleem wil ik er wel even uitlichten en dat is het principe van sovereigniteit. De Duitsers schijnen railvervoer niet interessant te vinden, en dus heb je tussen Rotterdam en Zevenaar (Dat is een stad aan de grens met Duitsland) een goederenspoorlijn en een (dure) spoorlijn door de Zwitserse alpen, terwijl er in Duitsland geen of nauwelijks goederenspoorlijnen liggen, maar wel uitbouw van het wegennet plaatsvindt. Doordat de landen hun eigen keuzes maken wordt het integrale plaatje vergeten, en juist daar zou de EU zijn meerwaarde kunnen bewijzen door de landen te laten kiezen voor 1 modaliteit.

English translation:
SPOILER: TOON

A very interesting discussion. I like to underline one aspect of the issue: the souvereignity of the countries. The Germans seems to be not interested in rail-traffic, hence there is a new freight railway built in the Netherlands between the habourcity Rotterdam and Zevenaar (close to the German border) and an (expensive) railway through the Swiss Alps, while in Germany there is not a lot of improvement of railways, but an extension of the roadnetwork. Because countries can make their ouwn choises, the integral picture get lost and the EU could give extra value by forcing the countries to suppurt just one transport modus.
Deutsche Übersetzung:
SPOILER: TOON

Es gibt ein sehr interessante Diskussion. Ich mag gern das Problem mit Souveränität verdeutlichen. In Deutschland findet man Eisenbahntransport nicht interessant, also weil in die Niederlande ein neue guter Eisenbahn gebaut ist zwichen Rotterdam (Hafen) und Zevenaar (Bundesgrenze) und weil in die Schweiz also viel Eisenbahnprojekte gibt, in Deutchland nur autobahnprojekte in ausführung sind. Die Länder vergessen mit einander zusammen zu arbeiten, und jezt ist es Zeit für die E.U. nur ein Transportmodus zu wählen für jeder Länder. Das heisst mehr-wehrt die Europäische Zusammenarbeit.
Let op: Sarcasmemodus over een lengte van 10 kilometer.

Coccodrillo
stadsweg
Berichten: 298
Lid geworden op: di 25 jan 2011, 13:11
Locatie: Zwitserland

Re: [CH] Gotthardtunnel gaat dicht voor sanering

Bericht door Coccodrillo » wo 18 mei 2011, 13:01

An increase of 50% in the number of trucks travelling through Uri is felt locally indeed. But such an increase still leaves the number of trucks driving through Uri well below the number of trucks passing other regions in Europe. Or even Switzerland. I can hardly see that as a valid reason for a relief project at the scale of NEAT.
Traffic (either road or rail) makes more noise and pollution on mountain routes than on flatland and, again, one thing is short range transport like Rotterdam-Dortmund, Bern-Neuchâtel, Madrid-Toledo or whaterver you want, another thing is sending 25 trucks one after another for 1000 km instead of a single train.
In other words, how much growth is there in rail transport through Switzerland?
Quite relevant, transalpine traffic grew from 18 to 25.5 millions of tonnes between 1995 and 2008, and from 6.6 to 14.4 on road. Rail passenger traffic in Switzerland (in general) grow by 50% between 2000 and 2008 (in pkm) to 17% of all passenegr traffic (all public transport in general accounts for 25% of the pkm).

Of all traffic, 13.5 billions tkm are on rail and 17 on road. Rail share in tkm is around 45% on all traffic, 25% on internal, import and export, 10% on internal alone.
Is the shift in the modal split government-driven or market-driven?
Today a mixture of both, as the RoLa and the combined transport are subsidized*, in the near future (~2020) it is hoped only market-driven (the growth of rail freight in Germany proves it is possible, if sufficient capacity is provided).

* no piggyback transport carrying entire trucks can be profitable so the RoLa is heavily subsidized, while unaccompanied combined transport or conventional wagons are lightly subsidized in Switzerland as to compensate bank engines, weight limit and energy consumption needed for the mountain sections, these subsidies were introduced recently and will be whitdrawn with the full opening of the NEAT.
And to the extent market-driven increases in rail transport are expected to create congestion on the rail network, why is expected future congestion on the rail network prioritised so much over relieving truck drivers from all their waiting on the Gotthard road corridor?
I haven't really understood this question. Anyway, in Germany, there are some lines already congested because of the growth in rail freight. In Switzerland there will be problems in the Basel-Olten region, and, shared with Italy, on the Bellinzona-Luino-Novara line. The Domodossola-Novara single track line, used for combined transport trains with high profile (mainly RoLa) has already reached its caapcity. These bottlenecks would probably remain even without the Swiss policy on railways.
NEAT relies on numbers though, that supposed relief of areas in the Alps that bear this supposed burden of high numbers of trucks (but see above) and those supposed major advantages of rail transit over road transit.
The first idea of a Gotthard base tunnel dates back tot he 1940s, the first serious projects from the 1960s-1970s, well before the transport boom started in the 1980s. The Gotthard railway always had much more traffic than the other transalpine lines, that's why the idea of a base tunnel is so old. The Lötschberg base tunnel was added later to help convincing voters to approve the Gotthard base tunnel. Initially the construction of the Lötschberg was considered a waste of money, but today everybody is happy with it as passenger traffic (and toutists in Wallis-Valais) grew much more than expected.
Vinny schreef:[...] while in Germany there is not a lot of improvement of railways, but an extension of the roadnetwork.
Deutsche Bahn and other operators complained about that, and especially than politicians often support high speeed lines for passengers, but not rail freight which has less priority than passengers, but grows a lot (in Germany) leading to congestion on some lines.
Vinny schreef:[...] the EU could give extra value by forcing the countries to suppurt just one transport modus.
It seems to me that the EU supports what member states proposes, projects like the Lyon-Turin railway (technically comparable to the NEAT) are supported by the EU even if most economists and studies say that it is not worth the expense, while cheaper projects with more traffic (existing or predicted) like the Luino-Novara are less considered (this is my favourite example, as it doesn't require too much tunnels and half of it lies on flat quite unhabited territory).
für Güter die Bahn
pour vos marchandises le rail
chi dice merci dice ferrovia

Pino
4x3 autosnelweg
Berichten: 21460
Lid geworden op: ma 28 feb 2005, 9:17
Locatie: Sesamstraat

Re: [CH] Gotthardtunnel gaat dicht voor sanering

Bericht door Pino » wo 18 mei 2011, 16:35

Coccodrillo schreef:Traffic (either road or rail) makes more noise and pollution on mountain routes than on flatland and, again, one thing is short range transport like Rotterdam-Dortmund, Bern-Neuchâtel, Madrid-Toledo or whaterver you want, another thing is sending 25 trucks one after another for 1000 km instead of a single train.
I spent some time in valleys through which the Swiss A2 and the Italian A32 run. Which also happen to have major transalpine railways in them. The trains made tremendous noise indeed, with an echo effect. The noise impact of the motorways in the villages and on the mountains was negligable in my experience. In terms of pollution, I of course did not measure. Whatever is the case, the mountain air in a valley like the Leventina is much fresher than anything you will experience in cities. I cannot imagine a 50% increase in lorries to bring these valleys even remotely close to the pollution level of cities. Plus, more general environmental measures affecting lorries have caused that the pollution caused by lorries is reducing year after year. The pollution impact of 1000 trucks now is much less than it was 15 years ago, yet nobody in the valleys treats trucks accordingly.

In terms of long range routes, I agree that sending 25 trucks one after another for 1000 kilometers is not really sensible. But I don't think that that happens all the time. In the bulk area, you see that rail transport has a strong position in that it saves overhead. But there is -and will also remain- lots of much more individualised transport. For one container only (or less), the multimodal route is typically too complicated. It adds to your overhead costs. I'm not against rail transport or so; it is useful in quite a few areas. But I would state that market demand for 1000 km lorry drives will continue to exist and that it is not a bad thing.

From the point of view that a change in the modal split is not much of an objective, you can only look at NEAT as a means to increase capacity. That increased capacity in itself is useful, but you have to face the fact that you are mostly creating capacity for anticipated future demand. That demand is not unlikely based on market factors, but you run into classic bottleneck theory: solving a bottleneck in Switzerland will not help if the bottlenecks upstream and downstream (Italy, Germany) remain unsolved. In that scenario, the demand for rail transport increases, but it will not lead to a lot of additional trains on the Swiss network. Of course someone has to cast the first stone, but the underutilisation issues that NEAT will face after opening are there.

Then compare that approach to railway capacity to the approach to road capacity. There is one bottleneck for freight transport through Switzerland, namely the Gotthard. It is an actual capacity problem, as truck drivers have to wait for hours thanks to the Tropfenzählersystem. Bottleneck theory does not give rise to any concerns, as there are no issues upstream or downstream. Sounds like great benefits to me, in comparison to the costs. And probably well cheaper than NEAT. So what prompted the Swiss into their choice for NEAT first and Gotthard road tunnel duplication maybe in the 2040s? As I said, I consider the analysis made as flawed or based on idealism as opposed to realistic expectations. Using the noughties for a road duplication and the 2030s for NEAT would have delivered a much better end result.

Coccodrillo
stadsweg
Berichten: 298
Lid geworden op: di 25 jan 2011, 13:11
Locatie: Zwitserland

Re: [CH] Gotthardtunnel gaat dicht voor sanering

Bericht door Coccodrillo » wo 18 mei 2011, 17:42

The trains made tremendous noise indeed, with an echo effect.
The noise (especially from freight wagons) is a real problem, and finally the Swiss government is doing something for that, building noise barriers, placing isolated windows in buildings near a transport infrastructure, and replacing brakes on freight wagons with a more quieter type. However, the latter measure is not that effective as most wagons are from other nations (which don't have a plan to upgrade brakes of older vehicles).
Plus, more general environmental measures affecting lorries have caused that the pollution caused by lorries is reducing year after year. The pollution impact of 1000 trucks now is much less than it was 15 years ago, yet nobody in the valleys treats trucks accordingly.
Yes that's true, and as Chris noted on SSC the Alpen Initiative was launched at a time when any euro norm or emission control existed. I would like to see some statistics about pollution in the Leventina and Reuss valleys.

But this does not change the fact that some kind of combined transport should still be favorised, even if for some it is an idealism. Sending semitrailers alone on long distances may also be cheaper than paying 25 drivers, but this is easily doable with big companies (I already see many trains full of Schöni or Winner semitrailers), with small companies with just a few vehicles it's much harder (Italy is full of padroncini as you know).
Using the noughties for a road duplication and the 2030s for NEAT would have delivered a much better end result.
A 17 km tunnel is obviously cheaper than two of 72 in total, but I still prefer the train. I would find a second road (more or less) acceptable in addition to the new rail tunnel (if at least part of the requests, or visions, or idealist ideas, of the Alpen Initiative, WWF and other associations are fulfilled), but certainly not as a replacement.

But as I said, this speech is only theoretical, as Swiss speed of construction (better: in taking decisions) is extremely low, whatever the project is (rail or road, technically demanding or just 5 km of infrastructure in flat terrain, ...). Without strong suport from the population and the cantons, there is absolutely no chanche to have a second road tunnel anytime soon, and Uri votation proves that this support is quite low, outside Ticino-Tessin (and Graubünden-Grigioni because of NIMBYsm).
für Güter die Bahn
pour vos marchandises le rail
chi dice merci dice ferrovia

Pino
4x3 autosnelweg
Berichten: 21460
Lid geworden op: ma 28 feb 2005, 9:17
Locatie: Sesamstraat

Re: [CH] Gotthardtunnel gaat dicht voor sanering

Bericht door Pino » wo 18 mei 2011, 18:25

Coccodrillo schreef:But this does not change the fact that some kind of combined transport should still be favorised, even if for some it is an idealism.
Not sure what exactly you mean here. My view would be: room for multimodal transport - yes / penalising enterprises who, for the wrong or right reasons, pick truck transport only / no. Problem is that you cannot identify whether someone picked road transport for the wrong or right reasons. You would end up with sanctions that are completely random. The costs of a Gotthard crossing by truck should be equal for everbody, whether it is a ride from Wassen to Airolo, a ride from Frankfurt to Milan with fresh fruit or a ride from Frankfurt to Milan in a group of 25 trucks that could also have opted for rail transport.
Uri votation proves that this support is quite low, outside Ticino-Tessin (and Graubünden-Grigioni because of NIMBYsm).
You could also look at Sunday's vote from the opposite angle. In the area where the NIMBY vote is supposed to be highest, the no-vote went 60 to 40 and 50% of the voters did not care. It shows that the people of Uri have more of an issue with minarettes than with a Gotthard duplication. In other cantons, the NIMBY argument takes less of an influence so that opposition may be low enough to obtain both required majorities for a change in the constitution. But well, only time will tell ...

Coccodrillo
stadsweg
Berichten: 298
Lid geworden op: di 25 jan 2011, 13:11
Locatie: Zwitserland

Re: [CH] Gotthardtunnel gaat dicht voor sanering

Bericht door Coccodrillo » wo 18 mei 2011, 18:36

The costs of a Gotthard crossing by truck should be equal for everbody, whether it is a ride from Wassen to Airolo, a ride from Frankfurt to Milan with fresh fruit or a ride from Frankfurt to Milan in a group of 25 trucks that could also have opted for rail transport.
It's there that I don't agree.

With such examples, the tolls should be something like "nothing or very low", "low to medium", and "very high".

It is obviously difficult to make such different prices, but it would be better than the "airline style with limited available transits" tolling system proposed by the Alpen Initiative.
für Güter die Bahn
pour vos marchandises le rail
chi dice merci dice ferrovia

Pino
4x3 autosnelweg
Berichten: 21460
Lid geworden op: ma 28 feb 2005, 9:17
Locatie: Sesamstraat

Re: [CH] Gotthardtunnel gaat dicht voor sanering

Bericht door Pino » di 02 aug 2011, 12:20

Hoe reageert men in Zwitserland eigenlijk op de verdubbeling van de Tauerntunnel, die de fileoverlast op de Tauernroute extreem heeft gereduceerd?

Wordt het als inspiratie gezien voor verdubbeling van de Gotthard? Zegt men "laat de mensen bij ons maar lekker in de file staan"? Of krijg je de reflex van de Nederlandse milieubeweging, namelijk "over een paar jaar staan in Oostenrijk weer dezelfde files, dus de hele investering heeft geen zin gehad"?

Gebruikersavatar
Vinny
4x5 autosnelweg
Berichten: 41015
Lid geworden op: zo 27 feb 2005, 12:52
Locatie: Friesland

Re: [CH] Gotthardtunnel gaat dicht voor sanering

Bericht door Vinny » di 02 aug 2011, 21:29

Kanton Tichino is volgens mij altijd al voorstander van de verdubbeling geweest. Het hangt denk ik op een aantal NIMBY's die te veel te vertellen hebben...
Let op: Sarcasmemodus over een lengte van 10 kilometer.