Nordhavnsvej (Northern Harbour Link) Project, Copenhagen – Road Traffic Technology

Doesn’t the Mayor want Fremantle to be like Copenhagen, well they are building a tunnel and new road to make their growing port more efficient.

The Northern Harbour Link or Nordhavnsvej is a 3km-long bypass road being built between Nordhavn and Helsingørmotorvejen (Elsinore Highway) at the north of Copenhagen, Denmark.

Source: Nordhavnsvej (Northern Harbour Link) Project, Copenhagen – Road Traffic Technology

 

Denmark Copenhagen builds new road and tunnel to improve connectivity with north port and to lower congestion issues removing traffic from the suburbs lowing noise pollution
All the things the Perth freight link (PFL) was aiming to achieve Roe8 Roe9. Somehow the rest of the world can safely build tunnels through and under cities yet in Fremantle they think it’s to dangerous for our suburbs.
Fear mongering is rife with BS like alley through the valley, and politically driven groups like road to rail and re-think the link.
Showing why Fremantle is where it is, lingering with its lack of business and cities like Copenhagen thrive. I guess Copenhagen has enough real leadership to see vital infrastructure projects go ahead while Fremantle has carbon hybrid brad.
Copenhagen develops while protecting its identity culture and heritage keeping what makes Copenhagen, Copenhagen. While Freo just continually loses or drives out what makes Freo Freo.

Seems our Mayor wants to kill off the port as well, I wonder what developers will benefit from that? Fremantle is a port city its possibly the last area of real activity outside cafes left in Freo. But our Mayor looks set to finish that off as well. A great letter in the herald last week showing the continuous loses Fremantle has suffered under its current local government regime. Will the port be added to the loses Fremantle is suffering at the hands of our council?

http://heraldonlinejournal.com/2016/01/08/letters-3/

Freo losing its character
ONCE again the headlines in the Herald (December 19, 2015) announce the demise of yet another piece of irreplaceable Fremantle culture, with the Markets bar joining the Deckchair Theatre, The Fly By Night, Kulcha and many other former icons of the city.
What will be left of old Fremantle after the council has turned the whole place over to developers? I fear not much: the Esplanade will have become a “park hub” — whatever that may be — open to both community and commercial activities and if the past is anything to go by the latter will hold sway.
Hit the link above to read the whole story

Leave a Reply

8 comments

  1. freoishome says:

    This is nothing like the tunneling needed to get HGVs across the Swan River Estuary. This is 22m deep just for normal surface tunneling, using cut and fill rather than tunnel boring technology!
    If you read more about this project it is actually one part of making Nordhavnsej a more walkable, more cycle friendly, more public transport orientated place!
    It is comparable with the tunneling at Subiaco Station.
    Yes it is intended to make one side of the port more effective. So at Fremantle Harbor, it would be like sinking the West Coast Hwy to make the northern side of the river more walkable, more cycle friendly and more public transport orientated, ie, nothing whatever to to do with transport south of the river.
    Yes it might make the transport to the Outer Harbour at Kwinana more suited to 21st century living, ie, more walkable, more cycle friendly more public transport orientated.
    Paul

    • Mark says:

      Paul I glad you got part of the point. If you had read my piece in the Herald my idea was if they built the PFL as a tunnel it would make Fremantle more walkable livable and cycle friendly which is the reason I wrote this piece for the herald and put a url into this story linking this piece to Copenhagen. If i hadn’t read the story i would not have used the linkage.

      Done properly the old PFl could have fixed much of the issues for north freo and south of the river giving a proper east/west freeway which the area needs.

      Copenhagen hasn’t closed its port its expanded it to include Sweden area of Malmo and made it more efficient.

      How with a massive bridge and tunnel system, how hard is that to get?

      Its what the Perth Freight Link could have done for Fremantle and allowed the option to connected the Outer Harbour into the canningvale, bribra lake, cockburn area.

      Yet again you have assumed i am against bikes, walking and PT, yet again you are wrong.

      • freoishome says:

        But when you need to tunnel under 15m of water, the overall depth requires a very long approach and exit. I don’t think there is the exit space within North Mole? If I recall correctly, the Channel Tunnel has 5km on one side and 7km the other. Not that the requirements are identical, but it puts it into perspective.

  2. Martin says:

    Paul,
    The exit points from either side of the Channel Tunnel was driven by the stratigraphy below the surface not by the depth of the tunnel under the ground. The tunnel was put through a very specific layer of the subsurface, due to the impermeable layer or material above it (to keep the water out!). It came out where it came out because that was the sensible place for the tunnel to come out of the ground given the stratigraphic layer it was being pushed through.
    I have provided you with this material, in detail, previously on this blog site. Obviously you chose not to read it last time because it did not suit your argument – which you have just continued with here again.
    If you want to do the math about getting a tunnel out from 20m under the river, just pull out the Tan function on your calculator, refer to the road design manual for acceptable gradients and you will get your answer. It is less than 500m. There is plenty of room. It just depends on what your design constraints are (ie where all the other existing roads are, and what you are trying to achieve)
    It is interesting that all of the opponents of a tunnel under the river spout the same story, but they choose never to do the maths or look into it properly.
    Even Prof Newman is too lazy to do the maths – Oh! I forgot he doesn’t actually have any qualifications in transport and traffic engineering, so probably wouldn’t know where to start…
    I am frankly baffled. While everyone says that Freo Port will continue to operate, it will get considerably busier than it currently is – even with a new outer harbour – yet the worsening congestion to the existing port, right through Freo / East Freo and North Freo is something we residents are supposed to embrace??? With or without a new port, we have a traffic problem in Freo that needs to be addressed! A new port in Kwinana will not fix out existing problem! … a dose of reality is needed!

    • freoishome says:

      This “You, did this’, ie, typical blaming, bullying language isn’t called for Martin.

      I didn’t choose not to follow your information, in fact I always try to follow the links supplied here, as I am interested in informing myself. Often the links (no ref to anyone in particular) either just don’t work, or they lead to a general or home page, and finding the specifics just gets too hard, if the blogger hasn’t used the precise phrasing, etc. Mark provided links to the Nordhavnsvej project, and when I read the detail the tunneling wasn’t to cross water but rather just to get the road out the way, so the land above could be used for cycling, pedestrian and public transport infrastructure! The cut and fill approach also seems anything but suited to crossing an estuary.

      I’m pleased you pointed out the info about the strata. Do you know the strata implication for Freo harbour?

      I looked at info about several tunneling projects and it seems that gradients within tunnels are recommended to be very shallow, ie less than 1:100, and the approaches 1:40 unlike on roads where 1:12 is possible but truck routes would typically be less than 1:16. So obviously the calculations although simple arithmetic, aren’t straight forward.

      Likewise calculating the depth isn’t either. The water depth is about 15m, but then there is a need for material between the estuary base and the tunnel top, tunnel thickness, including extra if bored and hence circular, clearance height, services, etc. Probably inching the base towards 40-50m

      With a gradient of 1:40, you need 1.6km, ie, half way down North Mole. (If it were freight rail 1:65 needing 2.6kms.) It is very unlikely they would want trucks queuing within the tunnel, so that would require significant infrastructure on North Mole dedicated to queuing. Just simple back of envelope calculation such as these, soon eats into the viability.

      This might be worth pursuing if it was the only option. But no one is arguing about the need for the Kwinana Harbour, just how soon that ought to start. The sooner it is started the better all round, as when needs change we have two harbours for consideration. The anti Roe Hwy message is stop putting all your eggs in one basket. If as much effort was put into Kwinana as the current Gov’t is putting into trying to enhance the worth and sale of the Port, with the promises of the PFL, many including me think a far better solution for everyone can be reached.

      My Kwinana solution is for it to be predominantly freight rail based, being fed from the existing freight Hub at Kewdale but subsequently from 2 or 3 more Hubs to cater for the whole metro. These Hubs would be the end of the road for trucks, including all the facilities for things like break bulk and road train management. These Hubs would in effect be a logistical extension of the Kwinana port. Storage would be at these Hubs until needed at the wharf, when freight rail would transport the vast majority of containers to and from the cranes. Unlike today where private haulage for the Port operates largely on slightly extended office hours, freight rail has always operated 24×7.

      By 2040, it is already expected that most of this type of freight rail transport and crane ops will be robotic.

      • Mark says:

        Sorry Paul that the circumstances of the Copenhagen are not a carbon copy of the Fremantle port issue.

        While you are talking about language and now you have basically said i have mislead people.
        I don’t think i said it was the same i said i quote ” Denmark Copenhagen builds new road and tunnel to improve connectivity with north port and to lower congestion issues removing traffic from the suburbs lowing noise pollution”
        Don’t see where i said about going under a river.

        Here is an extract verbatim (cut and paste) from the article.
        “The Northern Harbour Link or Nordhavnsvej is a 3km-long bypass road being built between Nordhavn and Helsingørmotorvejen (Elsinore Highway) at the north of Copenhagen, Denmark. Consisting of a 620m-long tunnel and above ground roadway, the kr2bn ($352m) project represents the biggest road infrastructure project in Copenhagen in the last 50 years.

        The new road passing through the densely populated downtown district, two busy railway lines and major road intersections will improve the connection between the Helsingør motorway and the northern port area of Copenhagen.

        Construction of the project began in 2011 and is scheduled for completion in 2017.

        Nordhavnsvej project details

        The four-lane road will provide access to the new town in North Harbour and is expected to be used by 15,000 cars a day, significantly reducing the traffic congestion and noise levels on central residential streets in Østerbro and in the neighbouring town of Gentofte.

        “The kr2bn ($352m) project represents the biggest road infrastructure project in Copenhagen in the last 50 years.”
        The project gained environmental approval from the City of Copenhagen in January 2009 and the final project proposal was approved in November 2010.

        Sounds alot like the aspirations of the PFL, roes 8,9 and 10 if that’s what they call it.
        Clearly this Copenhagen project was not done for bikes and pedestrians, these benefits are a bi products from building the tunnel, tunnels are designed to go under something, whether its a river, mountain, city its outcome is similar. You will note one of their key benefits is removing congestion, sound familiar.

      • Martin says:

        Like a broken record…

        The guidelines for gradients for tunnels are quite clear and articulated in the design manuals. 5 degrees is stated as being acceptable, although not a limit. It is not a complicated calc or a complicated issue.

        Speculating on recommended gradients is a waste of time when you can just refer to the agreed standards. This is what the engineers refer to… they don’t simply make it up from scratch each time.

        I won’t bother sending a link because you won’t read it. Sounds like 1.6km is a much more convenient figure for your argument. You clearly are not interested in actually understanding the issue.

        The Copenhagen tunnel is expected to take 15,000 vehicles per day. There is more than 60,000 crossing through Nth Freo every day, with more than 90% of this being cars – nothing to do with the port. This is a problem regardless of what happens with the port. Copenhagen addresses their problem while you are suggesting we do nothing in Freo???

        As for your comments on bullying Paul, it shows a distinct lack of maturity.

%d bloggers like this: