1
South Corridor:
Drammen – Stavanger
Alignments and
Environmental impacts
High Speed Rail Assessment phase 3
Conference 26th of January 2012
Gunnar Bratheim, Project Manager
2
Quite a challenge….
Modern High Speed Railway Common Norwegian
single-track railway
3
Important basis for our study
Intercity-study Vestfoldbanen (KVU)
County master plan for Grenlandsbanen (Porsgrunn –
Brokelandsheia)
National and regional environmental databases, made
available through the Avinet web map
Corridor development plan for existing line,
Sørlandsbanen (SUP) relevant for alternative B
4
All alignments studied for new high speed
railway
5
Overview of proposed alignments
6
The B-alternative
Section
nr.
From km To km
Existing
length, km
New
length, km
Estimated
time saving
(s)
Single/
double track
(S/D) Comments
16 Kongsberg 100.2 Nedre Jerpetjønn 117.9 17,7 14,0 544 S Passing loop 1.5 km
13 Lunde 178.2 Nakksjø 193.7 15,5 13,5 454 S Passing loop 1.5 km. (Proposal in SUP: passing loops km 170 and km 185
15 Glitsjø 197.2 Drangedal 204.4 7,2 5,7 207 S Drd.st. km 205. Single track, one passing loop
7 Skorstøl 249.0 Vegårshei 262 13,0 10,2 402 S/D Single track, one passing loop 1.5 km
9 Heldalsmo 287.5 Skredfjell 294.7 7,2 5,7 206 D Double track. (Proposal in SUP: new single track along existing track)
1 Nodeland
Øygard 372.0 Breland 383.0 11,0 9,8 294 S
11 km, with passing loop 1.5 km. A passing loop has recently been built at Nodeland. The SUP
proposes to straighten the existing line at km 380 – 381
2 North of Breland 388.6 Laudal 405.7 17,1 6,1 644 S Single track and passing loop 1.5 km. SUP-proposal: straightening of existing line km 403-407
3 Øvre Laudal 409.4 Start of the
Hægebostad tunnel 419.8 10,4 8,7 290 S Single track and passing loop 1.5 km. Existing passing loops km 402 and km 419
4 After the
Kvineshei tunnel 438.9 Storekvina 446.2 7,3 6,6 193 S Single track. Existing passing loop at Kvina, km 446
11 Moi 478.2 Heskestad 490.5 12,3 11,6 345 D
Tunnel, eliminates existing track through Drangsdalen. The SUP proposes double track. The
table shows reduced running time. This section will also reduce delays caused by crossing
trains, approx. 7 min.
5 Helleland 516.8 sør for Smøråsen 521.3 4,5 4,0 106 S Single track. There will be a passing loop close to this section, at km 513, according to the
SUP-proposal
8 Egersund 525.6 Sandnes (old
station) 583.5 57,9 56,5 480 D
Partly new double track, partly new single track, parallell to existing track. (Length: between
existing stations). Running time reduction depending on stopping pattern, may be higher
12 new sections along existing line
Focus on eliminating bottle-necks with low speed
152 km new tracks, plus some passing loops
7
New high speed alignments
Alternative 2* - 250 km/h with freight
Alternative D1 - 330 km/h with freight
Alternative D2 - 330 km/h without freight
8
Stavanger – Egersund, alternative 2*
9
Stavanger – Egersund, alternative D1
10
Stavanger – Egersund, alternative D2
11
Stavanger – Egersund, environmental issues
Three different
alignments with different
conflicts
2* has major conflicts
with cultural heritage and
agriculture
D1 and D2 have conflicts
with large natural
environments/landscapes
12
Stavanger – Egersund, alignment issues
2* alternative
combines local/
regional traffic and
high speed traffic,
D1/D2 separate traffic
Relocation of several
stations will be
necessary in alt. 2*
13
Egersund – Kristiansand, alternative 2*
14
Egersund – Kristiansand, alternative D1
15
Egersund – Kristiansand, alternative D2
16
Egersund – Kristiansand, alignment issues
Reduced speed
through Egersund
Very high tunnel
share due to difficult
terrain
Long bridge
crossings near
Flekkefjord
17
Egersund – Kristiansand, environmental issues
Low conflict level
between Egersund and
Mandal
Some conflicts with
nature areas, residential
areas and recreational
areas west of
Kristiansand
18
Kristiansand – Brokelandsheia, alternative 2*
19
Kristiansand – Brokelandsheia, alternative D1
20
Kristiansand – Brokelandsheia, alternative D2
21
Kristiansand – Brokelandsheia,
alignment issues
New station in Kristiansand,
proposed located at Eg
(Krossen is an alternative)
Bridge crossing at Kjevik
Stations in Lillesand and
Grimstad near residential
areas
22
Kristiansand – Brokelandsheia,
environmental issues
In general many conflicts around the
cities Kristiansand, Lillesand and
Grimstad
Justvik area east of Kristiansand
Cultural landscapes and cultural
heritage at Topdalselva, Fyresmoen
and Dømmesmoen
Conflict with several registered
nature type locations
23
Brokelandsheia – Drammen, alternative 2*
24
Brokelandsheia – Drammen, alternative D1
25
Brokelandsheia – Drammen, alternative D2
26
Brokelandsheia – Drammen, alignment issues Challenging alignment through
Porsgrunn for all alternatives
Very complicated fjord crossing south
of Tønsberg in the chosen alternative
2* (Intercity)
Probably need for an underground
station in Tønsberg.
Layout and capacity issues at
Drammen station should be studied
further
27
Brokelandsheia – Drammen, alignment issues
Alternative alignment in
Porsgrunn studied, with
station at Borgestad
Left out because of
complicated stage-by
stage development
28
Brokelandsheia – Drammen, environmental issues
The Grenlandsbanen section passes
through recreational areas
Alignment north of Porsgrunn station will
affect built-up areas
In general high conflict level along the
Intercity corridor, moderate conflicts in
D1/D2 corridor
Large seizures of arable crop land in 2*
2* conflicts with cultural heritage areas
around Sandefjord and in Borre
2* tunnel in Larvik has possible conflict
with Farris mineral water source
29
Technical summary and conclusions Data Alternative D1 Alternative D2 Alternative 2* Alternative B
Total length of line 452,5 km 456,1 km 495,5 km 518,0 km
Use of existing line (excl. IC) 18,0 km 18,9 km 31,4 km 353,4 km
Intercity line 0 0 118,0 km 0
Tunnels
Number of tunnels, total 152 188 162 45
Tunnels, total length 257,5 km 222,1 km 241,0 km 70,4 km
Tunnels, proportion (of new line) 56,9% 48,7% 48,6% 42,8%
Number of tunnels >10 km 2 3 2 1
Number of tunnels >5 km 16 9 12 4
Number of tunnels <1km 94 131 103 1
Bridges/viaducts
Number of bridges, total 153 188 131 43
Bridges/viaducts, total length 53,3 km 64,5 km 48,5 km 12,7 km
Bridges/viaducts, proportion (of new line) 11,8% 14,1% 9,8% 7,7%
Number of bridges > 500 m 34 30 24 6
Number of bridges > 1000 m 8 8 9 0
All lines are technically possible to build
Well-known technology
Many tunnels, but moderate tunnel lengths
30
Collocation of impact assesments Section Theme B 2* D1 D2
Section 1:
Stavanger -
Egersund
Landscape 1 2 4 1
Cultural heritage 4 3 1 2
Natural environment 2 2 4 1
Natural resources 3 3 1 2
Community life and outdoor recreation 3 3 2 1
Section 2:
Egersund -
Flekkefjord
Landscape 1 2 3 4
Cultural heritage 1 2 3 4
Natural environment 1 2 3 4
Natural resources 4 3 1 2
Community life and outdoor recreation 1 2 3 4
Section 3:
Flekkefjord -
Mandal
Landscape 1 2 3 4
Cultural heritage 1 2 3 3
Natural environment 1 2 3 4
Natural resources 4 1 3 1
Community life and outdoor recreation 1 2 3 4
Section 4: Mandal -
Lillesand
Landscape 1 2 2 2
Cultural heritage 1 4 2 3
Natural environment 1 2 2 2
Natural resources 1 4 2 3
Community life and outdoor recreation 1 4 2 3
Section 5:
Lillesand - Risør
Landscape 1 2 3 4
Cultural heritage 1 2 3 4
Natural environment 1 2 4 3
Natural resources 1 4 2 3
Community life and outdoor recreation 1 3 2 4
Section 6: Risør -
Porsgrunn
Landscape 1 3 2 4
Cultural heritage 1 4 2 2
Natural environment 1 2 4 3
Natural resources 1 4 2 3
Community life and outdoor recreation 1 3 2 4
Section 7:
Porsgrunn -
Tønsber
Landscape 1 2 4 3
Cultural heritage 1 4 2 2
Natural environment 1 4 2 3
Natural resources 1 4 3 2
Community life and outdoor recreation 1 3 2 4
Section 8:
Tønsberg -
Drammen
Landscape 1 4 2 2
Cultural heritage 4 3 1 1
Natural environment 1 2 4 3
Natural resources 1 4 2 3
Community life and outdoor recreation 1 4 2 2
All sections Average Ranking 1.43 2.8 2.5 2.83
Not surprisingly, B has less
impacts than a brand new line
Alternative 2* has high
conflicts where existing line is
upgraded (Vestfold, Jæren)
D1 and D2 are quite similar,
but higher proportion of
tunnels in D1 reduces conflict
level.
Overall conflict level is not
higher than other large
infrastructure projects
31
A 3D-model for the entire corridor with the
D1-alignment has been established
A taste of high speed rail in the Norwegian|
landscape - thank you for your attention !