title: Ontario Highway 28

abstract: King's Highway 28, commonly referred to as Highway 28, is a provincially maintained highway in the Canadian province of Ontario. The southwest–northeast route extends from Highway 7 east of Peterborough, to Highway 41 in Denbigh. The route passes over undulating hills before entering the Canadian Shield near Burleigh Falls, and gradually turns eastward. Highway 28 was assigned in 1928, incorporating Highway 12A, one of the original provincial highways. It was extended in the following decade, first to Apsley and then to a new Department of Roads and Northern Development centre in Bancroft. In the early 1980s, Highway 500 was added as an extension, reaching Denbigh. Portions of the highway were decommissioned or transferred in the 1990s, and in 2003 Highway 134 was added, extending the southern terminus to Highway 7.

text:
# Ontario Highway 28

**King's Highway 28**, commonly referred to as **Highway 28**, is a provincially maintained highway in the Canadian province of Ontario. The southwest–northeast route extends from Highway 7 east of Peterborough, to Highway 41 in Denbigh. The route passes over undulating hills before entering the Canadian Shield near Burleigh Falls, and gradually turns eastward.

Highway 28 was assigned in 1928, incorporating Highway 12A, one of the original provincial highways. It was extended in the following decade, first to Apsley and then to a new Department of Roads and Northern Development centre in Bancroft. In the early 1980s, Highway 500 was added as an extension, reaching Denbigh. Portions of the highway were decommissioned or transferred in the 1990s, and in 2003 Highway 134 was added, extending the southern terminus to Highway 7.

## Route description

Highway 28 begins at an intersection with Highway 7 approximately 7 kilometres (4.3 mi) east of Peterborough. The road that carries Highway 28 continues south as Peterborough County Road 34 (Heritage Line). Proceeding north, Highway 28 crosses the Peterborough Drumlin Field, an area dominated by undulating terrain oriented in a southwest–northeast direction. Despite this, the highway progresses due north without regard for the terrain; numerous cuts and fills have since flattened the route for easier travel. Passing east of Lakefield, the straight path of the route is interrupted by the Otonabee River; it curves northeast and intersects Peterborough County Road 29 (Queen Street) and Road 6 while travelling south of the river. At Young's Point, the southern tip of Stony Lake, the highway crosses the river and serves cottages along the western shore of the lake. Approximately 1 kilometre (0.62 mi) south of Burleigh Falls, the route descends a hill and enters the Canadian Shield; south of this point, the terrain is underlain by limestone and covered by deciduous forests, whereas north of it the terrain is dominated by exposed granite bedrock and coniferous forests.

Within Burleigh Falls, Highway 28 encounters the eastern terminus of the former Highway 36. From there it continues northeast through the rugged shield to Highway 118, at which point it has curved fully to the east. The highway passes through Bancroft, where it encounters Highway 62. East of Bancroft, there is relatively little human inhabitation, with the exception of a select group of communities located on or nearby the highway. At the community of Denbigh, Highway 28 ends at a junction with Highway 41.

## History

Highway 28 was assigned in 1928, when the entirety of Highway 12A was renumbered. Highway 12A was one of the original provincial highways assumed in 1919 and 1920. The Port Hope – Peterborough Road was assumed by the Department of Highways on August 11, 1920, extending from Highway 2 (Walton Street) in Port Hope to Highway 7 (George Street North) in downtown Peterborough. The route received the 12A numbering during the summer of 1925.

During the mid-1930s, Highway 28 was extended as far north as Apsley. This was accomplished by assuming existing Peterborough County roads along the Otonabee River as far as Burleigh Falls, via Lakefield. North of there, the department assumed the Burleigh Falls Road. Highway 28 was extended from Peterborough to Burleigh Falls on April 4, 1934. The Burleigh Falls Road was assumed to Apsley on August 11, 1937.

During the 1936 fiscal year, preparations were made for the upcoming merger of the Department of Northern Development and Department of Highway, which occurred on April 1, 1937. The town of Bancroft was chosen as the location of the first operations centre for the new Central District of the department. Consequently, it was decided to extend Highway 28 to the town along the remainder of the Burleigh Falls Road.

Plans to connect Ottawa with Bancroft arose in the mid-1950s. When the province designated Highway 132 in January 1956, they also announced plans for a new highway which would travel south from Renfrew to Calabogie, then turn west towards Denbigh and Bancroft. Ultimately this road was never constructed, but new road links were established in the following years regardless. In early 1956, Highway 500 was established between Kinmount and Hermon following the Monck Road. In 1963, a new road was constructed between McArthur Mills and Denbigh through the Madawaska Highlands, and opened as an extension of Highway 500 on July 1. During the early 1980s, Highway 500 was renumbered as an extension of Highway 28. This took place between 1980 and 1982.

During the 1997 and 1998 mass downloading of highways, the southern 63 kilometres (39 mi) of Highway 28 were transferred to the counties of Peterborough and Northumberland, the town of Port Hope and Lakefield and the city of Peterborough. The section from Highway 115 north to Lakefield was decommissioned on April 1, 1997. On January 1, 1998, the southernmost section, between Highway 2 and Highway 115, was transferred. During the spring of 2003, the entirety of Highway 134 was redesignated as part of Highway 28, extending the southern terminus to Highway 7 east of Peterborough.

### Highway 134

| Highway 134 | |
| --- | --- |
|  | |
| Location | Peterborough County |
| Length | 15.3 km (9.5 mi) |
| Existed | 1975–2003 |

Highway 134 served as an alternate route to Highway 28 in Peterborough County. It was established in 1975, when a 15-kilometre (9 mi) section of Peterborough County Road 34 between Highway 7 and Highway 28 was upgraded, creating an eastern bypass around the City of Peterborough. In 1997, Highway 28 south of Lakefield was downloaded, ending abruptly at the Highway 134 / County Road 6 / County Road 29 intersection. This was rectified in 2003 when Highway 134 became part of Highway 28.

## Major intersections

The following table lists the major junctions along Highway 28, as noted by the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario.

| Division | Location | km | mi | Destinations | Notes |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Northumberland | Port Hope | −65.6 | −40.8 | County Road 2 (Walton Street / Mill Street) | Formerly Highway 2; former Highway 28 southern terminus |
| | | −63.4 | −39.4 | Highway 401Toronto, Kingston | Highway 401 exit 464 |
| Peterborough | Cavan-Monaghan | −33.5 | −20.8 | Highway 7 / TCHLindsay  ---  Highway 115 south – Toronto | Formerly Highway 7A north; former southern end of Highway 115 concurrency; present-day western end of Highway 7 / Highway 115 concurrency; Highway 115 exit 45 |
| *See Ontario Highway 115 § Exit list (exits 45-51)* | | | | | | | |
| Peterborough | | −27.1 | −16.8 | The Parkway, Sir Sandford Fleming Drive  ---  Highway 7 east / Highway 115 / TCHOttawa | Formerly Highway 7 west; Highway 115 exit 51 |
| | −22.6 | −14.0 | Monaghan Road | Formerly Highway 7B east; former northern end of Highway 115 concurrency; former southern end of Highway 7B concurrency; former Highway 115 northern terminus |
| | −18.0 | −11.2 | Chemong Road | Formerly Highway 7B west; former northern end of Highway 7B concurrency |
| | −11.1 | −6.9 | County Road 29 begins | Peterborough city limits; Peterborough County Road 29 southern terminus |
| Peterborough | Selwyn | −7.9 | −4.9 | County Road 23 north (Buckhorn Road) | Formerly Highway 507 north |
| | Douro-Dummer | 0.0  ---  15.3 | 0.0  ---  9.5 | Highway 28 – Bancroft, Peterborough  ---  County Road 29 ends
County Road 6 east | Formerly Highway 134 south; Highway 28 continued north |
|  | | | | | | | |
| Peterborough | Otonabee-South Monaghan | 0.0 | 0.0 | Highway 7 / TCHPeterborough, Ottawa  ---  County Road 34 south (Heritage Line) | Highway 28 southern terminus; formerly Highway 134 southern terminus |
| | Douro-Dummer | 6.1 | 3.8 | County Road 8 | Five Corners |
| | 6.4 | 4.0 | | County Road 4 – Warsaw |
| | Selwyn / Douro-Dummer boundary | 12.3 | 7.6 | County Road 33 east – Lakefield |  |
| | Douro-Dummer | 15.3 | 9.5 | County Road 29 (Queen Street) – Lakefield  ---  County Road 6 east | Formerly Highway 28 south; formerly Highway 134 northern terminus |
| | Selwyn | 21.1 | 13.1 | County Road 25 south (Young's Point Road) – Douro | Young's Point |
| | Trent Lakes | 31.0 | 19.3 | County Road 36 west – Buckhorn, Bobcaygeon | Burleigh Falls |
| | North Kawartha | 38.3 | 23.8 | County Road 56 south (Northey's Bay Road) | Woodview |
| | 57.9 | 36.0 | County Road 504 east (Burleigh Street) – Apsley, Lasswade | Formerly Highway 504 east |
| | 59.2 | 36.8 | County Road 620 east (Burleigh Street) – Apsley | Formerly Highway 620 east |
| Haliburton | Highlands East | 77.7 | 48.3 | County Road 48 north (Dyno Mines Road) – Cheddar | Dyno Estates |
| | | 82.2 | 51.1 | County Road 9 north (McGillivray Road) – Cardiff |  |
| Hastings | Faraday | 89.5 | 55.6 | Highway 118 west – Haliburton, Bracebridge | Paudash |
| | Bancroft | 99.6 | 61.9 |  | Beginning of Connecting Link agreement |
| | 102.2 | 63.5 | Highway 62 south (Mill Street) – Madoc | Directional signage changes from north-south to east-west; western end of Highway 62 concurrency |
| | 102.4 | 63.6 | Highway 62 north (Hastings Road) – Maynooth | Eastern end of Highway 62 concurrency |
| | 103.1 | 64.1 |  | End of Connecting Link agreement |
| | Carlow/Mayo | 128.3 | 79.7 | Boulter Road Boulter | McArthur Mills |
| Renfrew | Brudenell, Lyndoch and Raglan | 144.0 | 89.5 | County Road 514 north – Schutt | Formerly Highway 514 north |
| Lennox and Addington | Addington Highlands | 162.6 | 101.0 | Highway 41Pembroke, Eganville | Denbigh; Highway 28 eastern terminus |
| 1.000 mi = 1.609 km; 1.000 km = 0.621 mi
* Closed/former * Concurrency terminus | | | | | | |

### Citations

### Sources

Books  * Shragge, John; Bagnato, Sharon (1984). *From Footpaths to Freeways*. Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Communications, Historical Committee. ISBN 0-7743-9388-2.

Template:Attached KML/Ontario Highway 28KML is from Wikidata

## InfoBox

| Highway 28 | |
| --- | --- |
| Route information | |
| Maintained by the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario | |
| Length | 162.6 km (101.0 mi) |
| Major junctions | |
| South end | Highway 7 near Peterborough |
| East end | Highway 41 at Denbigh |
|  | |
| Location | |
| Country | Canada |
| Province | Ontario |
|  | |
| Highway system | |
|  | |
| Highway 27   Highway 33 | |
| Former provincial highways  Highway 29 | |


title: Ontario Highway 29

abstract: King's Highway 29, commonly referred to as Highway 29, was a provincially maintained highway in the Canadian province of Ontario. The 52.29-kilometre (32.49 mi) route connected Highway 2 in downtown Brockville with Highway 15 south of Smiths Falls. Between those larger settlements, it provided access to the communities of Forthton, Addison, Frankville, Toledo and Newbliss. When Highway 29 was established in 1927, it consisted of two separated halves. One half connected Brockville with Smiths Falls, while the other connected Carleton Place with Arnprior; Highway 15 provided the only provincial highway link between Smiths Falls and Carleton Place, via Perth. The missing link was filled in 1936. The highway was paved in its entirety the following year. In 1983, it was truncated at Smiths Falls, with the northern portion becoming part of Highway 15. The remainder of Highway 29 remained until 1998, when responsibility for maintenance of the route was transferred to the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville. It is now known as Leeds and Grenville County Road 29

text:
# Ontario Highway 29

**King's Highway 29**, commonly referred to as **Highway 29**, was a provincially maintained highway in the Canadian province of Ontario. The 52.29-kilometre (32.49 mi) route connected Highway 2 (King Street) in downtown Brockville with Highway 15 (Lombard Street) south of Smiths Falls. Between those larger settlements, it provided access to the communities of Forthton, Addison, Frankville, Toledo and Newbliss.

When Highway 29 was established in 1927, it consisted of two separated halves. One half connected Brockville with Smiths Falls, while the other connected Carleton Place with Arnprior; Highway 15 provided the only provincial highway link between Smiths Falls and Carleton Place, via Perth. The missing link was filled in 1936. The highway was paved in its entirety the following year. In 1983, it was truncated at Smiths Falls, with the northern portion becoming part of Highway 15. The remainder of Highway 29 remained until 1998, when responsibility for maintenance of the route was transferred to the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville. It is now known as **Leeds and Grenville County Road 29**

## Route description

Highway 29 was a 52.29-kilometre (32.49 mi) route that connected Highway 2 in Brockville with Highway 15 in Smiths Falls. The former route provides access to several communities between the two locations. It is now designated as Leeds and Grenville County Road 29 outside of Brockville. Traffic levels along County Road 29 in 2018 were highest near Brockville, where approximately 11,300 vehicles travelled the road on an average day. Approximately 4,300 vehicles travelled the road approaching Smiths Falls. The least travelled portion of the road was near Newbliss, where 2,000 vehicles used the road, on an average day. Traffic volumes are unavailable within Brockville and Smiths Falls.

As the route existed prior to being decommissioned, Highway 29 began at King Street (itself formerly Highway 2) and Courthouse Avenue in downtown Brockville. Proceeding generally in a northwest direction, the former route travelled one block before splitting around the Leeds and Grenville County Court House, a National Historic Site. Northbound traffic followed Court House Square, Wall Street and Pearl Street, while southbound traffic followed William Street and Court Terrace. Both directions reconvened along William Street and crossed over the Canadian National Railway (CN) Kingston subdivision, adjacent to the Brockville VIA station; Williams Street became Stewart Boulevard north of the overpass. The former highway met and crossed over Highway 401 at Exit 696, next to the Brockville Shopping Centre before exiting Brockville approximately 250 metres (820 ft) north of Centennial Road.

Highway 29 continued into Elizabethtown-Kitley, where some low-density development extended along the route as it transitioned to a rural farmland setting. After passing through the communities of Tincap and Spring Valley, it curved west briefly before returning towards the northwest. It travelled through the hamlets of Glen Buell and Forthton, meeting the eastern terminus of former Highway 42 at the latter. Curving almost northward, it became fully immersed in farmland for most of its remaining length. It bisected the communities of Addison, Hawkes, and Frankville. After crossing the large marshland surrounding Irish Lake, the former highway made a large sweeping curve to the northeast, bypassing the community of Toledo.

Highway 29 entered into a forested area as it travelled around Irish Lake. It turned north and later entered the community of Newbliss, curving northwest and returning to farmland shortly thereafter. At the hamlet of Shanes, the former highway intersected Kitley–South Elmsley Townline Road and crossed into the municipality of Rideau Lakes. It meandered northeast approaching the outskirts of Smiths Falls, before crossing into the town 100 metres (330 ft) south of Van Horne Avenue. Within Smiths Falls, the road took on the name Brockville Street. Highway 29 ended at a junction with Lombard Street (Highway 15 south) and Jasper Avenue that lies immediately south of the Rideau Canal. Through traffic continued north across the canal onto Beckwith Street South (Highway 15 north).

## History

### Early history

Southern portion from Brockville as far as Toledo was opened as a wagon trail in 1816 by settlers heading inland to the newly established military town site of Perth via Rideau Ferry, and thus became known as the Perth Road. Smiths Falls did not begin to develop until the completion of the Rideau Canal in 1832. In 1837, work began to improve the road north from Brockville, though very little was accomplished over the following ten years, until the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville contracted the construction of a macadamised road from Brockville to Smiths Falls in 1847. This would be completed in 1852 and known as the Victoria Macadamised Road; tolls were collected for approximately a decade. Although numerous realignments straightened and shortened the road over the years, Highway 29 would largely come to follow this toll road.

### Designation and paving

From 1936 until 1983, Highway 29 (*in red*) continued north from Smiths Falls along what is now Highway 15 (*in blue*). Bypassed segments are also shown (*in dark yellow*).

Highway 29 was first designated as a provincial route by the Department of Public Highways (DPHO), predecessor to the modern Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO), in 1927. It was initially split into two separate halves, with a discontinuity between Smiths Falls and Carleton Place; Highway 15 provided the only provincial highway connection between the two towns, via Perth. Responsibility was assumed by the DPHO for the upkeep of the 49.1-kilometre (30.5 mi) southern portion of the road, within the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville, on May 11, 1927. The 44.6-kilometre (27.7 mi) northern portion, within Lanark County and Carleton County, was assumed on August 17, 1927. Until 1934, Highway 29 passed into downtown Almonte. That year saw the route redirected along what is now Christian Street along the western edge of the town, much to the chagrin of local residents. On January 9, 1936, it was announced that the 26-kilometre (16 mi) Franktown Road, connecting Smiths Falls with Carleton Place, would be improved and assumed as a provincial highway. This officially took place on August 5, 1936. The highway from Brockville to Arnprior now bore a single number and was 123.2 km (76.6 mi) long.

The majority of Highway 29 was a gravel road when it was assumed; by 1927, it was paved through Smiths Falls, between Carleton Place and Almonte, and through Pakenham. In addition, the Franktown Road was paved between Smiths Falls and south of Franktown. Paving operations between Brockville and Smiths Falls commenced in 1929, with the portion between west of Spring Valley and Forthton being completed that year. The Franktown Road was also paved entirely by then, except within its namesake town. Paving north of Brockville to the existing pavement west of Spring Valley was completed in 1930, and between Newbliss and Smiths Falls in 1931. Paving of the segment between Frankville and Newbliss, as well as through Franktown, followed in 1933. The final gap between Brockville and Smiths Falls — from Forthton to Newbliss — was paved in 1934.

Limited resources in the depression years resulted in other highways receiving priority attention, notably Highway 15 and Highway 17. As a result, the remainder of Highway 29 was paved in a piecemeal approach. The northern 10 km (6 mi) of the route, near Arnprior, were paved in 1932; a short segment between Almonte and the Indian River in 1934. Approximately 6.2 km (3.9 mi) were paved south of Pakenham the following year. The remaining gaps, near Pakenham — a 4.5 km (3 mi) section south to the Indian River, and a 9.6 km (6.0 mi) section north to the Lanark–Carleton county line — were improved by 1937, completing the paving of the highway.

### Improvements, concurrencies, and downloading

Until the 1950s, Highway 29 connected to King Street in downtown Brockville via Perth Avenue. On October 9, 1952, Stewart Boulevard was opened, connecting with William Street. A few years later in October 1954, a contract to construct the Brockville Bypass section of Highway 401 was awarded. Construction of the cloverleaf interchange at Highway 29 began in 1957. Both the interchange and the eastbound lanes of Highway 401 (from west of Brockville to Prescott) were opened by Minister of Highways, Frederick Cass, on November 13, 1959. The westbound lanes opened 10 months later on September 16, 1960.

Two other highways were signed concurrently with Highway 29 over the course of its existence. In August 1935, the DHO took over the route between Forthton and Westport as Highway 42. It was signed concurrently with Highway 29 between Brockville and Forthton at the same time. Until the 1960s, Highway 15 connected Smiths Falls with Carleton Place via Perth. By the mid-1950s, the well-established highway network had changed travel characteristics, and the numbering of Highway 15 between Perth and Ottawa confused motorists. The Ottawa Board of Trade petitioned the Department of Highways to renumber several highways surrounding the city. The department performed a series of renumberings similar to these recommendations following the extension of Highway 43 on September 8, 1961. Highway 15 was rerouted between Smiths Falls and Carleton Place to travel concurrently with Highway 29; Highway 7 was extended along the former routing from Perth to Carleton Place and signed concurrently with Highway 15 eastward to Ottawa.

Highway 29 was significantly reduced in length during the early 1980s, in order to reduce the redundancy of Highway 15. Highway 29 was truncated at Smiths Falls, while Highway 15 was rerouted along the section of Highway 29 between Carleton Place and Arnprior. This change was approved by the provincial government in 1983, without consulting local governments; signage changes were made in the spring of 1984. This established the route of Highway 29 for the remainder of its existence. As part of a series of budget cuts initiated by premier Mike Harris under his Common Sense Revolution platform in 1995, numerous highways which were no longer significant to the provincial network were decommissioned and responsibility for the routes transferred to a lower level of government, a process referred to as downloading. Highway 29 was downloaded in its entirety on January 1, 1998, and transferred to the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville.

## Major intersections

The following table lists the major junctions along Highway 29, as noted by the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario in the 1997 *Provincial Highways Distance Table*.

| Division | Location | km | mi | Destinations | Notes |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Brockville | | 0.00 | 0.00 | Highway 2 (King Street) |  |
| | 0.10 | 0.062 | Courthouse Square / George Street | Highway 29 split into one-way pair; northbound traffic follows Wall Street, southbound traffic follows William Street |
| | 0.50 | 0.31 | Pearl Street / William Street | End of one-way pair; both directions of Highway 29 follow William Street |
| | 0.74 | 0.46 | CN Kingston subdivision and Brockville VIA station | Grade-separated; William Street becomes Stewart Boulevard |
| | 1.86 | 1.16 | Highway 401Kingston, Cornwall | Exit 696 |
| | 4.51 | 2.80 | County Road 27 (Centennial Road) |  |
| Leeds and Grenville | Elizabethtown-Kitley | 10.27 | 6.38 | County Road 7 (Greenbush Road) – Greenbush |  |
| | | 12.00 | 7.46 | County Road 32 (to Graham Lake Road) | Now County Road 46 |
| | | 14.15 | 8.79 | County Road 28 – North Augusta | Community of Glen Buell |
| | | 15.34 | 9.53 | Highway 42Athens | Now County Road 42; community of Forthton |
| | | 18.34 | 11.40 | County Road 30 (Addison Road) | Community of Addison |
| | | 30.41 | 18.90 | County Road 1 north – Toledo |  |
| | | 31.24 | 19.41 | County Road 8 west (Line 6 Road) – Toledo, Lombardy |  |
| | | 38.12 | 23.69 | County Road 16 – Jasper |  |
| Smiths Falls | | 52.29 | 32.49 | Highway 15 south (Lombardy Street)
Jasper Avenue | Highway 15 continues north towards Carleton Place |
| 1.000 mi = 1.609 km; 1.000 km = 0.621 mi
 | | | | | |

Template:Attached KML/Ontario Highway 29KML is not from Wikidata

## InfoBox

| Highway 29 | |
| --- | --- |
| A map of Highway 29, in red
(as of December 31, 1997) | |
| Route information | |
| Maintained by Ministry of Transportation of Ontario | |
| Length | 52.29 km (32.49 mi) |
| Existed | May 11, 1927–January 1, 1998 |
| Major junctions | |
| South end | Highway 2 (King Street) in Brockville |
| Major intersections | Highway 401Kingston, Cornwall
Highway 42 west in Forthton |
| North end | Highway 15 (Lombard Street / Beckwith Street) in Smiths Falls |
|  | |
| Location | |
| Country | Canada |
| Province | Ontario |
| Counties | Leeds and Grenville |
| Major cities | Brockville |
| Towns | Smiths Falls |
| Villages | Forthton, Addison, Frankville, Toledo, Newbliss |
|  | |
| Highway system | |
|  | |
| Highway 28   Highway 33 | |
| Former provincial highways  Highway 30 | |


title: Oncideres bucki

abstract: Oncideres bucki is a species of beetle in the family Cerambycidae. It was described by Melzer in 1934. It is known from Brazil.

text:
# Oncideres bucki

***Oncideres bucki*** is a species of beetle in the family Cerambycidae. It was described by Melzer in 1934. It is known from Brazil.

## InfoBox

| *Oncideres bucki* | |
| --- | --- |
|
| Scientific classification | |
| Domain: | Eukaryota |
| Kingdom: | Animalia |
| Phylum: | Arthropoda |
| Class: | Insecta |
| Order: | Coleoptera |
| Family: | Cerambycidae |
| Genus: | *Oncideres* |
| Species: | ***O. bucki*** |
| Binomial name | |
| ***Oncideres bucki***<br>Melzer, 1934 | |
|


title: Oncideres castanea

abstract: Oncideres castanea is a species of beetle in the family Cerambycidae. It was described by Dillon and Dillon in 1946. It is known from Brazil.

text:
# Oncideres castanea

***Oncideres castanea*** is a species of beetle in the family Cerambycidae. It was described by Dillon and Dillon in 1946. It is known from Brazil.

## InfoBox

| *Oncideres castanea* | |
| --- | --- |
|
| Scientific classification | |
| Domain: | Eukaryota |
| Kingdom: | Animalia |
| Phylum: | Arthropoda |
| Class: | Insecta |
| Order: | Coleoptera |
| Family: | Cerambycidae |
| Genus: | *Oncideres* |
| Species: | ***O. castanea*** |
| Binomial name | |
| ***Oncideres castanea***<br>Dillon & Dillon, 1946 | |
|


title: Onoba galaica

abstract: Onoba galaica is a species of minute sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk or micromollusk in the family Rissoidae.

text:
# Onoba galaica

***Onoba galaica*** is a species of minute sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk or micromollusk in the family Rissoidae.

## Description

This species shell is 2.8mm long and is a light grey to light jade in colour.

## Distribution

Onoba *galaica* has been recorded off the west coast of Galicia.

## InfoBox

| *Onoba galaica* | |
| --- | --- |
|
| Scientific classification | |
| Domain: | Eukaryota |
| Kingdom: | Animalia |
| Phylum: | Mollusca |
| Class: | Gastropoda |
| Subclass: | Caenogastropoda |
| Order: | Littorinimorpha |
| Family: | Rissoidae |
| Genus: | *Onoba* |
| Species: | ***O. galaica*** |
| Binomial name | |
| ***Onoba galaica***<br>Rolán, 2008 | |
|


title: Only Fools and Horses The Musical

abstract: Only Fools and Horses The Musical is a 2019 British romantic comedy musical with book, music and lyrics by Paul Whitehouse and Jim Sullivan, and additional music by Chas Hodges and John Sullivan. It is based on John Sullivan's BBC television sitcom of the same name which ran from 1981 to 2003. The musical premiered at the Theatre Royal Haymarket in February 2019 and played for over 1,000 performances until the end of April 2023.

text:
# Only Fools and Horses The Musical

***Only Fools and Horses The Musical*** is a 2019 British romantic comedy musical with book, music and lyrics by Paul Whitehouse and Jim Sullivan, and additional music by Chas Hodges and John Sullivan. It is based on John Sullivan's BBC television sitcom of the same name which ran from 1981 to 2003.

The musical premiered at the Theatre Royal Haymarket in February 2019 and played for over 1,000 performances until the end of April 2023.

## Plot

The story compresses 22 years and 64 episodes of the show into a two-hour tale in which Rodney and Cassandra are making wedding preparations, Boycie and Marlene are trying to conceive, and Del Boy goes to a dating agency looking for a "sort" and ends up with Raquel.

It includes classic routines from the TV show such as Del Boy falling through the bar and Rodney trying to explain to Trigger that his name is not Dave.

## Production history

### World premiere: West End (2019–2023)

A musical adaptation of the popular sitcom *Only Fools and Horses* was initially announced to be coming to the West End on October 8, 2018 and would be produced by Phil McIntyre Entertainments and written by Paul Whitehouse and Jim Sullivan. The initial casting announced Paul Whitehouse playing the role of Grandad, Tom Bennett as Del Boy and Ryan Hutton as Rodney. The musical was announced to have its first preview on February 8, 2019.

The musical made its world premiere at the Theatre Royal Haymarket on 9 February 2019, before opening officially on February 19, 2019. The production was directed and choreographed by Caroline Jay Ranger, with musical supervision, orchestrations and arrangements by Stuart Morely. Set and costume were designed by Liz Ascroft, with lighting design by Richard G Jones and Sound Design by Rory Madden.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom mandating the closure of all theatres, the production was forced to take a lengthy hiatus. It reopened on October 1, 2021. The production closed on April 29, 2023 after over 1000 performances, making it the longest-running production in the Theatre Royal Haymarket's history.

### UK and Ireland tour (2024-25)

On October 27, 2023, it was announced that the musical would begin a UK and Ireland tour on September 23, 2024 at the Churchill Theatre, Bromley, touring until July 5, 2025. It will also include a Christmas season at the Hammersmith Apollo from December 17, 2024 until January 5, 2025. Whitehouse will reprise his role as Grandad at certain venues, including the London season.

## Musical numbers

### Original West End Production

## Original cast and characters

| Character | West End |
| --- | --- |
| | 2019 |
| **Grandad / Uncle Albert** | Paul Whitehouse* |
| **Del Boy** | Tom Bennett |
| **Rodney** | Ryan Hutton |
| **Raquel** | Dianne Pilkington |
| **Cassandra** | Pippa Duffy |
| **Boycie** | Jeff Nicholson |
| **Marlene** | Samantha Seager |
| **Trigger** | Peter Baker |
| **Denzil** | Adrian Irvine |
| **Danny Driscoll** | Pete Gallagher |
| **Tony Driscoll** | Adam Venus |
| **Mickey Pearce** | Chris Kiely |
| **Dating Agent** | Oscar Conlon-Morrey |
| **Mrs Obooko/Wedding Fitter** | Melanie Marshall |
| **Mike the Barman** | Andy Mace |
| **Sid / Alternative Del Boy** | Chris Bennett |

* From 2022 All the following played by the same actor - Marlene/Cassandra, Mickey Pearce/Danny Driscoll, Mike The Barman/Tony Driscoll and Dating Agent/Sid

### Notable West End replacements

## Critical reception

Peter Mason in the *Morning Star* newspaper described the production as "well conceived, well wrought and, above all, great fun", adding that "in general, the tenor of the stage interpretation is rather more emotional than the TV series, with more pathos and some darker moments."

## InfoBox

| *Only Fools and Horses* | |
| --- | --- |
| ***The Musical*** | |
| Official West End poster | |
| Music | Paul Whitehouse
Jim Sullivan
John Sullivan (additional)
Chas Hodges (additional) |
| Lyrics | Paul Whitehouse
Jim Sullivan
John Sullivan (additional)
Chas Hodges (additional) |
| Book | Paul Whitehouse
Jim Sullivan |
| Basis | *Only Fools and Horses*
by John Sullivan |
| Premiere | 9 February 2019 (2019-02-09): Theatre Royal Haymarket, London |
| Productions | 2019 West End
2024 UK and Ireland tour |


title: Onna no Sono no Hoshi

abstract: Onna no Sono no Hoshi Onna no Sono no Hoshi is a Japanese manga series written and illustrated by Yama Wayama. It has been serialized in Shodensha's josei manga magazine Feel Young since January 2020, with its chapters collected into four tankōbon volumes as of October 2024. The story follows Hoshi-sensei, a teacher at an all-girls school, navigates a whirlwind of quirky student antics and playful colleague interactions, leading to a series of offbeat comedic moments. An original video animation adaptation produced by Lapin Track was released in December 2022. By September 2024, the manga had over 2.45 million copies in circulation.

text:
# Onna no Sono no Hoshi

***Onna no Sono no Hoshi*** (女の園の星, lit.'Hoshi of the Girls' Garden'  or 'The Star of the Girls' Garden') is a Japanese manga series written and illustrated by Yama Wayama. It has been serialized in Shodensha's *josei* manga magazine *Feel Young* since January 2020, with its chapters collected into four *tankōbon* volumes as of October 2024. The story follows Hoshi-sensei, a teacher at an all-girls school, navigates a whirlwind of quirky student antics and playful colleague interactions, leading to a series of offbeat comedic moments.

An original video animation adaptation produced by Lapin Track was released in December 2022. By September 2024, the manga had over 2.45 million copies in circulation.

## Synopsis

The series follows the everyday life of Hoshi, a male Japanese language teacher at an all-girls school. His various exploits are examined in a slice of life format, such as looking after the class pet dog, giving advice to students, and drinking with his co-workers.

## Characters

Hoshi-sensei (星先生) Voiced by: Gen Hoshino A Japanese language teacher at an all-girls school. Kobayashi-sensei (小林先生) Voiced by: Mamoru Miyano A teacher at the school where Hoshi works, and friend to Hoshi. Kagawa (香川) Voiced by: Yumi Uchiyama A student in Hoshi's class.

## Media

### Manga

Written and illustrated by Yama Wayama, *Onna no Sono no Hoshi* began serialization in Shodensha's *josei* manga magazine *Feel Young* on January 8, 2020. As of October 2024, four *tankōbon* volumes have been released.

#### Volumes

| No. | Japanese release date | Japanese ISBN |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | July 8, 2020 | 978-4-39-676797-6 |
| 2 | May 8, 2021 | 978-4-39-676819-5 |
| 3 | December 8, 2022 | 978-4-39-676869-0
978-4-39-676870-6 (special edition) |
| 4 | October 8, 2024 | 978-4-39-675053-4
978-4-39-675054-1 (special edition) |

### Original video animation

In August 2022, it was announced that the manga would be adapted into an original video animation (OVA). It was produced by Lapin Track and directed by Mamoru Hatakeyama, with scripts written by Teruko Utsumi, character designs handled by Naho Kozono, who also served as chief animation director, and music composed by Kei Haneoka. The OVA is in a Blu-ray Disc that was bundled with a special edition of the manga's third volume, which was released on December 8, 2022.

## Reception

By September 2021, *Onna no Sono no Hoshi* had over 1 million copies in circulation; it had over 1.6 million copies in circulation by December 2022; and over 2.45 million copies in circulation by September 2024.

The series ranked ninth on the 2020 "Book of the Year" list by *Da Vinci* magazine; it ranked sixth on the 2021 list; and seventh on the 2023 list. It topped Takarajimasha's *Kono Manga ga Sugoi!* 2021 list of best manga for female readers; it also ranked fifth on the 2022 list. The series ranked seventh in the 14th Manga Taishō in 2021; it ranked fourth in the 15th edition in 2022; it ranked third in the 16th edition in 2023, tying with *You and I Are Polar Opposites*. The series ranked fourth in the 2021 Next Manga Award in the print category. It won the Social Impact Award in the manga division at the 25th Japan Media Arts Festival in 2022. The manga has been nominated for the 47th Kodansha Manga Award in the general category in 2023.

## InfoBox

| Onna no Sono no Hoshi | |
| --- | --- |
| First *tankōbon* volume cover, featuring Hoshi | |
| 女の園の星 | |
| Genre | Comedy |
| Manga | |
| Written by | Yama Wayama |
| Published by | Shodensha |
| Imprint | Feel Comics Swing |
| Magazine | *Feel Young* |
| Demographic | *Josei* |
| Original run | January 8, 2020 – present |
| Volumes | 4 |
| Original video animation | |
| Directed by | Mamoru Hatakeyama |
| Produced by | Yuka Okayasu |
| Written by | Teruko Utsumi |
| Music by | Kei Haneoka |
| Studio | Lapin Track |
| Released | December 8, 2022 |


title: Oosterweel Link

abstract: The Oosterweel Link is a construction project first proposed in 1996, intended to complete the R1 Antwerp Ring Road in Antwerp, Belgium. The firm Antwerp Mobility Management Company, is the Flemish Government controlled organisation assigned responsibility for the project. The Oosterweel link will connect the Expressweg (E34) near Blokkersdijk via a toll tunnel underneath the Scheldt, leading to a dual-layered tunnel under the Albert Canal and connecting with the Antwerp Ring Road at Merksem and Deurne.

text:
# Oosterweel Link

The **Oosterweel Link** is a construction project first proposed in 1996, intended to complete the R1 Antwerp Ring Road in Antwerp, Belgium. The firm Antwerp Mobility Management Company (name changed to Lantis in 2019), is the Flemish Government controlled organisation assigned responsibility for the project. The Oosterweel link will connect the Expressweg (E34) near Blokkersdijk via a toll tunnel (the Oosterweeltunnel) underneath the Scheldt, leading to a dual-layered tunnel under the Albert Canal and connecting with the Antwerp Ring Road at Merksem and Deurne.

## Characteristics

The Flemish Government wishes to improve access to the city of Antwerp as well as to the port, to relieve traffic congestion on the Antwerp Ring Road and to reduce "rat running" commuter traffic in the larger urban area.

The Oosterweel Link is one element, the largest by cost, of a general Antwerp Masterplan for transport. The Masterplan consists of sixteen infrastructure projects for roads, waterways and inland shipping, public transport, docks and solutions for pedestrians and cyclists. These Masterplan projects are intended to improve quality of life, traffic safety and mobility throughout the urban area, the port and surrounding towns and districts.

## History

### Van den Brande-government IV (20 June 1995 – 13 June 1999)

In his opening speech on October 4, 1996 Camille Paulus, governor of the province of Antwerp at the time, mentioned the 'multimodal traffic model', a computer model developed to study mobility in the Antwerp area. At the governor's request, this model was used to elaborate a solution to congestion problems in and around Antwerp. From this model, it was deduced that an additional river crossing would lead to a spectacular amelioration of mobility and practically relegate congestion on the Antwerp ring road to the past. Eddy Peetermans, who was responsible for the realization of this traffic model for the province of Antwerp, presented as the solution a 5 km long underground road – a tunnel. Because of financial restrictions, this would take the form of a combination of demand control measures (toll, communal traffic etc.) and demand driven measures (more infrastructure). Completing the Ring Road by means of a northern addition would be the only way to prevent total traffic chaos in 2010, was the engineer's conclusion at the time.

In his New Year's speech in January 1998, Mr. Marc Van Peel, party leader for CVP (the Christian democrats, now renamed CD&V) announced that a definitive decision regarding the construction and financing of a third connection between the river banks, in the form of a bridge at Oosterweel, would be taken in the course of that same year. He stated that the financial feasibility of the project clearly depended on the possibility it offered for levying toll on vehicles using the new infrastructure. Since 1999 and 2000 were election years, the party leader deemed this period to be less than propitious for launching a new system that was not expected to gain great popular support. In June 1998, daily newspaper De Tijd carried a story about disagreements within the government on the subject of its proposed traffic mobility policies. The CVP accused the SP (Socialist Party) of ‘proposing unattainable measures’. The SP suspected the CVP 'of blocking mobility policies in order to demand this post for a Christian democrat after the elections’.

In October 1998, the Flemish government decided to complete the Antwerp Ring, and accordingly modified the relevant district plan. In April 1999, Minister of Finance Wivina Demeester (CVP) emphasised that the completion of the Antwerp Ring Road was to be considered one of the next Flemish Government's priorities. Just before the election on June 13, 1999, the mayors of 30 Antwerp towns signed a regional charter with Wivina De Meester, stating that all parties had agreed to embark on a number of so-called leverage projects – one of which would be the closing of the Antwerp Ring Road – intended as an economic boost for Antwerp and the surrounding area. On the occasion of the charter's official presentation, the Minister also explained that a Public-Private-Partnership would be a perfectly suitable tool for the completion of the R1 ring road.

On June 10, 1999, the engineering consultancy agency ABM (Atenco, Belgroma and Maunsell) started investigating 6 proposed road layouts: 1 featuring a bridge ("*Brug*" in image #1) over the River Scheldt, 5 featuring tunnels.

### Dewael government I (13 July 1999 – 5 June 2003)

A bridge was clearly the preferred option, as it had the added benefit of providing Antwerp with a landmark, but because of low vertical clearance on the Scheldt it was technically unfeasible. After examining all 6 proposals, on January 14, 2000, the Roads and Traffic Administration came up with a 7th proposal, featuring a bridge - not a bridge over the river but a viaduct over the docks and the Albert canal. In the course of a conference organised by Camille Paulus, governor of the province of Antwerp, on April 7, 2000, this latter layout was selected. Construction costs were estimated at 0,55 billion euro. The governor said that he expected to inaugurate the Oosterweel connection sometime in 2005.

The Flemish Government approved the “Masterplan Antwerpen” on December 15, 2000, and stated its intention to levy a toll to finance it. In order to ensure a smooth and efficient rollout of the project, it was decided to create BAM, (Antwerp Mobility Management Company, renamed Lantis in 2019), in order to provide the Flemish Government with an entity under public law with ample flexibility in matters of human resources and financial options. This was considered to be the best way to attract specialist professionals at a level equivalent to market conditions (which is not compatible with remuneration policies in the Flemish civil service)

In September 2001, the public tender for research, specifications and project management for the Oosterweel Link and all other Masterplan projects, for the complete duration of the execution of the Masterplan Antwerpen, was awarded to Temporary Association TV SAM (Studiegroep Antwerpen Mobiel: Belgroma –Technum – Gedas). Costs were estimated at 0,59 billion euro and the timeframe at 6 years. It wasn't long before TV SAM indicated that the estimated realisation period of 6 years was not realistic.

### Somers I government (11 June 2003 – 20 July 2004)

In October 2003, according to the new prognosis - assuming maximal overlap of administrative procedures and public consultation processes - construction would, at the very earliest, start by the middle of 2005.

In September 2003 BAM had started managing projects for the Masterplan Antwerpen. Bruno Accou was appointed general manager of BAM. Yvan Verbakel, who was familiar with the project as the former head of department at the Roads and Traffic Administration, was appointed operations manager. Kris Blommaert became financial manager and Leo Van Der Vliet was transferred from TV SAM to be appointed administrative manager.

In 2004, the total construction cost was estimated at 0,95 billion euro. On February 20, 2004, the BAM board of directors decided that each separate part of the construction could be allocated to a different construction company as a separate lot.

On June 18, 2004, the board of directors reconsidered its decision of February 20, 2004 and decided that the allocation of the whole project to a single consortium would be preferable. The tender procedure was started on July 9, 2004, date of its publication in the National Bulletin of Tenders.

### Leterme I Government (20 July 2004 – 28 June 2007)

At the end of December 2004, 4 consortia (temporary trading associations Bouyges, LORO, Antwerpse Bouwwerken and Noriant) were selected to enter the negotiation procedure. Construction works was scheduled to start in the course of the first quarter of 2006. In February 2005 the Antwerp city aldermen were among the first to see a scale model of the viaduct. The city council immediately ordered an investigation in order to find out whether a tunnel might be a viable alternative. BAM let it be known that building a tunnel would mean they would have to raise the price to 2 billion euros, 850 million euros more than the price of a viaduct. BAM was of the opinion that, given the parameters of its business plan, they didn't have sufficient means to pay for this additional cost. BAM also argued that any changes to the project at this stage would lead to damage claims from the consortia that had been selected for the negotiations procedure in December 2004. On February 24, 2005, Minister Kris Peeters (CD&V) announced that the viaduct would be named ‘Lange Wapper’. The minister's spokesperson added that this would be a bridge that would strengthen ties between all of the population of Antwerp. On February 24, 2005, a row erupted in the Flemish Parliament because Minister Peeters refused to allow the scale model to be shown to the members of parliament. During this parliamentary session Minister Peeters admitted that he wasn't in favour of the alternative to a bridge, i.e. a tunnel underneath the ‘Eilandje’ area. This alternative would require more research, meaning it would take a few years longer. He said the time had come to make a decision on the exact route as well as on the specifications of the bridge. On June 10, 2005, the Flemish Government (Leterme I) decided on the basis of the plan-MER (milieu effecten rapport\- survey of the effects of a project on the environment) that the Master plan Antwerp would be executed in its entirety, with a toll levy on the Oosterweel connection. Minister Peeters expected to break ground in 2008 and to inaugurate the connection at the earliest in 2010. In July 2005 the estimate was revised and set at 1,345 billion euro. This increase in costs was a consequence of the government's wish to build a nicer-looking bridge (50 million euro) and a better connection with the R1 (94 million euro). On September 6, 2005, citizen action group stRaten-generaal proposed its own alternative plan, featuring a new tunnel further north of the city, and keeping the existing Kennedy Tunnel accessible to all vehicles. According to them, this would ensure that a lot fewer people would suffer the consequences of the new highway and the traffic congestion ensuing from it.

On September 16, 2005, the Flemish Government chose as its preferred means of realising the Oosterweel Link a layout completing the Antwerp Ring Road by means of a sunk tunnel underneath the Scheldt, running from the Left Bank via the Sint-Annabos next to Blokkersdijk, to the Right Bank right next to the Oosterweel church. This proposal requires the felling of the Sint-Annabos woodland and partially re-wooding it after the completion of the project. Past the connection point with the road to and from the harbour, the Oosterweel connection joins the existing Merksem flyover by means of the “Lange Wapper” bridge. As a consequence, at Sportpaleis, the Merksem viaduct will double in width on the Lobroekdok side.

The stRaten-generaal proposal was judged to be unfeasible by the Flemish Government and BAM. According to the Flemish Government, European legislation would not allow levying toll on lorry traffic at the Kennedy tunnel as a means of financing the project. Citizens’ group stRaten-generaal disputed this and insisted that the question be put explicitly to the European Commission. In December 2008, the European Commission has confirmed stRaten-generaal's stance on the matter.

At the end of October 2005, a first instance of participation in the decision-making process took place on the occasion of the drafting of the GRUP (Gewestelijk Ruimtelijk Uitvoeringsplan) for the Oosterweel connection and the construction sites it would require. StRaten-generaal took this occasion to elucidate its own proposal. At the start of the public enquiry Camille Paulus, Antwerp province governor, declared that all possible alternatives had been examined, including the stRaten-generaal one, and that any new survey would lead to two years’ delay. The governor also said huge damage claims were to be expected from the construction companies if the project were to be altered at this stage.

On November 27, 2005, the Flemish Government approved the composition of the quality chamber, which was given the task of judging the competing consortia on their architectural merits. Camille Paulus, Antwerp province governor, was appointed president of this chamber. Marcel Smets, the Flemish Government architect, was appointed vice-president. As international experts, Prof. ir. Cecil Balmond, Prof. ir. Jörg Schlaich and Prof. ir. Dirk Sijmons were mentioned.

In February 2006 Jan Van Rensbergen, until then administrator general of the Openbaar Psychiatrisch Ziekenhuis (OPZ – State Psychiatric Hospital) in Geel, was appointed the new CEO of NV BAM. On the occasion of his appointment, he declared the Masterplan Antwerp to be an important societal project, with an impact even on generations to come. He stated that to his mind, attaining a balance between quality of life and mobility is one of the great challenges of the 21st century. Also in February 2006, The Flemish Government decided to replace ir. Patrick Debaere, as a member of the Board of Directors of BAM, with Wivina Demeester (CD&V), as Debaere was to be BAM-project leader Oosterweel connection.

The VLACORO (Vlaamse Commissie voor Ruimtelijke Ordening – Flemish Commission for Town and Country Planning) advised on March 14, 2006, that this new proposal be studied as part of the project-MER. The Cel-Mer (cel Milieueffectenrapportage – department Environmental Effects Reporting) also decided that this new proposal should be examined thoroughly.

On June 15, 2006, Jan Van Rensbergen, CEO of NV BAM, told the weekly business magazine Trends that the second phase of the allocation process would be about the details, but that those who propose a tunnel instead of a viaduct were de facto excluding themselves from the process. A day later, the Flemish Government decided to accept the GRUP 'Oosterweelverbinding' without making any fundamental changes to it, even though the city of Antwerp had, in its objections stated on the occasion of the public enquiry, pleaded for the insertion of less specific prescriptions for infrastructure below and above ground level, as the existing prescriptions only allowed for a viaduct as a way of connecting the Oosterweel junction and the R1.

Three out of the four selected builders’ consortia submitted a bid for the construction of the project on June 23, 2006. The group around Bouygues, which was expected to propose a tunnel, did not submit any proposal. The GRUP specifications effectively excluded the building of a tunnel instead of a viaduct.

On June 26, 2006, the 10 members of the Quality Chamber were officially presented. Antwerp local government architect Kristaan Borret and ir. Dirk Brusselaers, representative of the Flemish Administration, former deputy chef de cabinet to Minister Van Mechelen, both joined the chamber. Prof ir. Cecil Balmond, an authority in the field of structural design, immediately put ir. Joop Paul forward to replace him, a director of Arup Nederland, who had, for instance, been involved in the construction of the Nesciobrug in Amsterdam. Prof ir. Jörg Schlaich, an eminent designer of bridges, resigned after the quality chamber's first meeting. 'It makes no sense to take part in a competition that isn't judged by a jury of excellent engineers specialising in bridges, who are knowledgeable about designing bridges.' (extract from his letter of resignation, cited in weekly magazine Humo).

On October 13, THV Antwerpse Bouwwerken, the consortium that had proposed to build a single deck bridge instead of a double deck bridge after a design by Norman Foster, was excluded as a candidate for the construction, on the grounds that this solution did not comply with specifications. In November 2006, the candidacy of THV Loro was rejected by the quality chamber. THV Noriant remained as the only candidate to execute the construction work. In April 2007 the project-MER was completed. That's when it became clear that the survey of alternative proposals had been completed as early as June 8, 2006 - just before the GRUP was approved by the Flemish Government. StRaten-generaal was of the opinion that its proposal hasn't been examined objectively, and felt at least the suspicion of bias hanging over this report. The citizen action group has formulated its objections in an extensive report that was handed over to Minister Crevits. There was no answer. StRaten-generaal then applied to the Flemish Ombudsman, who judged in favour of the citizens’ group. A television documentary aired on 26 October 2008 on Canvas (public broadcasting) leaves viewers with the impression that BAM was imperturbably favouring its preferred route, and in the process ignoring any and all alternatives - all the while stating that it was involving itself in a broad societal debate. Moreover, during said project-MER, the stRaten-Generaal alternative was examined only by TV SAM, the designer of the BAM-route. The documentary suggests that this might be an instance of conflict of interests, which would, of course, be contrary to legislation. The accusation of this conflict of interest by stRaten-generaal and the response from the Flemish Ombudsman were later submitted as the subject of a complaint to the Council of State.

### Peeters government I (28 June 2007 – 13 July 2009)

On October 1, 2007, TV Noriant, the only remaining bidder, submitted its Best And Final Offer (BAFO) for the construction of the Oosterweel connection.

In June 2008 cost was estimated at 2,5 billion euro. Return on investment in the Oosterweel connection was expected to come from toll revenue generated at the Oosterweel tunnel. In order to guarantee these revenues, the banks requested that the existing Kennedy tunnel be closed to lorry traffic as soon as the Oosterweel connection would be operational. It was also stipulated that during a period of 35 years, it would be forbidden to make any decisions that might diminish traffic levels in the Oosterweel tunnel.

Meanwhile, under pressure of growing opposition, the Flemish Government decided on June 27, 2008, to commission an in-depth independent survey into two proposed alternatives to the ‘official’ layout for the Oosterweel connection with a Lange Wapperbrug, as well as the official BAM-proposal. Minister-President Kris Peeters wanted a clear decision on the layout for the northern part of the Antwerp Ring Road before the end of 2008. A Europe-wide tender was called. Simultaneously, the government decided to reshuffle the board of directors of BAM in order to restore trust in the holding company. Three civil servants, members of the board of directors of BAM, one of them its president, Fernand Desmyter, were replaced by company directors Karel Vinck, Toon Colpaert (president of Infrabel) and Wouter De Geest (BASF). These new members were supposed to use their experience and their contacts in order to widen popular support for the Lange Wapper, as the Minister-President explained. For the position of president of the board, the government had Wivina Demeester in mind. When she refused, on June 30, 2008, the Flemish Government proffered Karel Vinck as the new president.

At the end of October 2008 Arup/Sum Research was commissioned to execute the independent survey. A supervisory committee consisting exclusively of Flemish government civil servants from the relevant departments was set up, its mission to watch over neutrality and completeness. The consulting agency got until the beginning of February 2009 to complete the survey.

On 18 December 2008, Antonio Tajani, the European Commissioner for Transport, has written a letter to the Flemish Government, stating that on the contrary, levying toll at the Kennedy Tunnel is allowed.

On March 4, 2009, the results of this independent survey were announced. Its conclusion was not very encouraging for the BAM-route. The report concluded that all routes were technically feasible, but none of them were profitable in compliance with the Flemish Government's prelimiting conditions, the BAM-route would be 400 M euro cheaper than the stRaten-generaal layout, and, since the former project was in a more advanced stage of development, it would also be finished sooner. The stRaten-generaal project came out on top regarding all the indicators of sustainability (mobility, the environment and quality of life). The Horvath-route, with a tunnel exactly on the same route where BAM wanted to build the Lange Wapper flyover, turned out to be the most expensive of the three, as well as the lowest scoring on indicators of sustainability. In its conclusions, the consulting agency suggested better management of vehicle usage of road infrastructure, implementation of electronic toll systems and optimisation of stRaten-generaals proposal of a boring tunnel further north.

On the same day, Minister Van Mechelen stated that the BAM-tracé had clearly come out as the best solution. The other members of the Flemish government didn't agree with him. They were wondering what was the use of ordering a 400-page, 2,3 million euro survey, if the principal then chose to overlook its conclusions. On Friday the 17th of March, the Minister-president asked all concerned parties (stRaten-generaal, BAM and the Antwerp port authorities) to advise him of their views. BAM gave its conclusion the blunt title: Arup/SUM unreservedly prefers the Bam-route. This caused Robert Voorhamme, member of the Flemish Parliament to remark, on March 17, 2009, during an interpellation of Minister Dirk Van Mechelen, that BAM was manipulating data from the report in such a manner that even a complete novice could tell that BAM's conclusions were manifestly untrue. On March 23, 2009, the Flemish advisory commission on referendums proposed that the original referendum question, dating from September 2008, be updated as a consequence of the (then) recent announcement of the results of the independent survey. In June 2009, the auditor at the Council of State concluded that there had indeed been a conflict of interest in the matter of the generation and drawing up of the environmental effects reports.

### Peeters government II (since 13 July 2009)

In August 2009 the market research consultancy TNS-media was commissioned by the engineers of the BAM-route to research the attitude of the inhabitants of the city of Antwerp with regard to the Oosterweel connection. The results showed that less than 1 in 3 supported the BAM-route. The survey also showed that more than half of the people of Antwerp supported the ARUP/SUM-route and few of the ones who didn't, were really set against it. Action groups Ademloos en stRaten-generaal pleaded for the inclusion in the referendum of an additional question about Arup/SUM's alternative tunnel layout, but the Antwerp city council rejected this on September 3, 2009, because of fears that this additional question might somehow ‘legitimise’ this alternative layout.

On October 18, 2009, a referendum was held in Antwerp on the subject of the BAM layout. The question was: "Should the city of Antwerp support the request for a building licence for the Oosterweel connection according to the proposed layout, between Zwijndrecht/Linkeroever and Merksem/Deurne? Yes or no?" Result: 40,76% "Yes" and 59,24% "No". The outcome of this referendum was, however, not binding. It was only meant to be an advisory report transmitted by the population of Antwerp and its districts to the city council, which in turn would offer its own advisory report to the Flemish Government. On October 22, 2009, the Flemish government decided to get to grips with the process, by setting up a ministerial commission “Duurzame Antwerpse Mobiliteit” (DAM – Durable Mobility in Antwerp), consisting of minister-president Kris Peeters, vice-presidents Ingrid Lieten and Geert Bourgeois, minister of public works and infrastructure and mobility Hilde Crevits and minister of finances and urban and land use planning Philippe Muyters. Seven separate parliamentary commissions were set up, each studying one aspect of this project, consisting of a core group of cabinet members representing the abovementioned ministers, the inspection department of the ministry of finance, the PPS-knowledge centre Via-invest and NV Liefkenshoektunnel. The city of Antwerp and NV BAM are represented in some of these commissions. On Friday, 23 October 2009 the Antwerp city council delivered a negative advice. They were of the opinion that BAM's construction licence application was lacking in several respects: it clashes with the objectives of the Antwerps structuurplan (urban planning project), the design contains a number of unsafe areas, a number of road safety and traffic efficiency negatives. The city council also noted that, despite the fact that the Flemish administration had issued a ‘completeness proof’, the material file was in fact incomplete.

On November 13, 2009, the DAM commission held its first meeting. Afterwards, the spokesman for the Minister-President announced that there was to be no intermediate communication. On the occasion of the 13th follow-up commission in the Flemish Parliament, on January 22, 2010, the Rekenhof, the body overseeing the government budget, indicated that it had no means of assessing the functioning of the DAM ministerial commission. On February 25, 2010, in the course of a public presentation, a member of these DAM task groups stated that the DAM task group in charge of researching the effects the project would have on urban development had had no meetings since it first convened on November 13, 2009.

In November 2009, Forum Antwerpse mobiliteit 2020, a group of company directors (Christian Leysen, Geert Noels, Robert Restiau, Nicolas Saverys, Jan van den Nieuwenhuijzen, Jan Vercammen en Jean-Jacques Westerlund) and academics (Bruno De Borger, Walter Nonneman and Willy Winkelmans), announced its intention to order a survey of the mobility problems in and around Antwerp. The group commissioned Manu Claeys and Peter Verhaeghe from stRaten-generaal to do the necessary research. Christian Leysen said that the Forum 'wants to propose its own – technically and financially viable - solutions to the mobility problems in and around Antwerp'. According to the Forum, these proposals would have to be acceptable to all parties and construction would have to be finished before 2020. The Forum consciously left out the prelimiting conditions the Flemish Government had set out for the master plan, in order to allow for a broader view in their search for solutions.

February 2010 saw the announcement of the verdict of the Council of State on the matter of the alleged conflict of interest that would have occurred during the drafting of the reports on environmental impact. The court did not concur with the auditor's conclusions, on the grounds that the wording of the complaint contained an element that was not entirely clear, which meant it did not comply with formal requirements for a complaint to be considered by the Council of State on its merits as regards content. The DAM-team responsible for licensing concluded on March 20, 2010, that this judgment leaves open the possibility that the independence of the project-MER-experts may yet again be questioned in the course of any procedures to obtain urban development permits.

On February 24, 2010, the Forum first came out with its alternative. One of its main points is that it keeps through traffic away from the R1 by means of a combination of connections between a number of highways to the north of Antwerp. The media reactions to the new vision the forum was proffering were positive. Only daily newspaper De Standaard was quick to deliver its opinion just one day later, on February 25, 2010, that the proposal had any number of Achilles’ heels. According to this newspaper the tunnel would be running underneath at least 6 dangerous petrochemical companies. On the same day, the day before Forum 2020 was to elucidate its proposal before the Antwerp city council, Marc Van Peel (CD&V), Antwerp alderman responsible for the port, told daily newspaper Gazet van Antwerpen that to his mind a ‘Wapper Light’ was the only realistic solution. He said the Forum's proposal was not an option because it would take up 20% of the harbour area and also because there wasn't enough time to examine this proposal. During the parliamentary debate about the Oosterweel connection on March 3, 2010, one day before Forum 2020 was due to present its proposal to the parliament, Dirk de Kort (CD&V) said Forum 2020 was very similar to the story of the ten little niggers as, according to him, the “group of ten” was shrinking, as some of its members were no longer staunch supporters of the proposal. The next day in parliament, Forum 2020 replied that it was incomprehensible that Dirk de Kort was launching these rumours "… as if there were a group of ‘dissenters’ distancing itself from its own conclusions." Forum leader Christian Leysen concluded.

At the end of 2010 the town of Schoten let it be known that it had no objections to a tunnelled highway on its territory. Simultaneously, the municipality of Zwijndrecht requested that the Flemish Government undertake a serious survey of this alternative, as the town council was of the opinion that it might result in better mobility and quality of life in and around the town.

On March 30, 2010 the Flemish government decided to agree in principle with the Masterplan 2020. This means is a confirmation of the existing view on mobility in and around Antwerp, and of the decision taken by the Flemish Government on March 28, 2009. In addition, they decided to consider building a tunnel instead of the Lange Wapper viaduct, on exactly the same route of said viaduct. If, however, the Flemish government should become convinced, before the summer of 2010, that this tunnel is technically impossible to build, more expensive to build than a viaduct or likely to take longer to build, then the originally planned viaduct will be built, anyway. Another addition to the existing plan is the Government’s stated intention to build the A102, intended to keep part of the through traffic away from the R1 Ring Road.

On June 22, 2010, the weekly magazine Trends announced that BAM was considering a name change. Because of what has happened in the past, the company surmised that a restart with a squeaky clean image would not be feasible if it kept its existing name. Rebranding as a communication strategy has been used before by BAM in October 2009, during the campaign for the referendum, when BAM campaigned as Vooruit met Antwerpen and changed the name of its project from Oosterweel connection to *natuurlijk tracé* (natural route).

On September 22, 2010 it was decided to build a tunnel version (3,05 billion euro) of the BAM-route. The additional cost (352 million more than the cost of the ‘flyover version’) is to be met by the City of Antwerp and the Port. It was also confirmed that an underground A102 (700 million to 1 billion) is to be constructed, but only after the BAM-route has been completed. In addition, the final negotiations have resulted in a decision to construct a tunnel version of the current R11road (425 to 530 million euro), connecting the E313 and the E19 highway, after 2021. The global cost of Oosterweel connection, A102 and R11 is calculated at 4,2 billion to 4,6 billion euro. Existing plans to enlarge the entire R1, as proposed in the Antwerp Master plan since 2004, would become obsolete after the construction of both tangent roads east of the city, and have been scrapped accordingly.

## Routes

BAM proposed the originally submitted layout for the first time in February 2005. In April 2005 Prof. of Engineering Dr. Horvat was commissioned by the city of Antwerp to examine whether a tunnel version of this layout might be feasible. In September 2005 the citizen group stRaten-generaal proposed an alternative layout situated a bit to the north, further from the built-up residential area. All 3 routes included a tunnel underneath the river Scheldt, roughly between the Knooppunt Antwerpen-West and the Noordkasteel. The way the tunnel is connected to the Ring Road is where they differ.

### BAM- or Noriant route

The BAM-layout requires a toll plaza to be built right in front of the spot where the Oosterweel tunnel is to go underground (now the Sint-Annabos site). The tunnel then runs underneath the Schelde and comes up above ground level on the right bank parallel with Scheldelaan at Noordkasteel, where the road turns into an ascending junction with approach and exit ramps in all directions. This junction then turns into a connective structure guiding one driving direction above the other. This structure ascends toward a double deck viaduct near the Hogere Zeevaartschool, where it crosses Oosterweelsteenweg. The Lange Wapper viaduct then crosses over Royerssluis, Suezdok, Straatsburg bridge, Straatsburgdok and Noorderlaan bridge. On the grounds of De Lijn at Tjalkstraat the double deck viaduct splits into two ‘arms’. The northernmost arm turns near the Sint-Jozefinstuut, an institution for physically and mentally handicapped children, over the railroad and the southward bound lanes of the R1. At that point, the viaduct's arm turns into a connective structure. Past this structure, both directions connect to the left with the R1 at Luchtbal, past the motorway feeders at Groenendaallaan. The southernmost arm of the viaduct makes a turn over the Albertkanaal and the railroad toward the southern connective structure. Past this structure both directions connect with the R1 at Lobroekdok. The southward direction connects with the R1 on the right and with the urban ring road on the left. The approach ramp to the viaduct from the south is situated to the left of the R1.

On the left bank, the junction Antwerpen-West is to be adapted, which means Charles De Costerlaan will no longer be connected to this junction, into which, instead, a toll plaza will be integrated. At Noorderkasteel, an additional connection with the existing local harbour roads will be built: the so-called Oosterweel junction.

At the core of the BAM-design lies the wish to levy tolls at its Oosterweel connection, which makes it essential to ban lorry traffic from the Kennedy Tunnel. In the run-up to the referendum, the name of the BAM-project was changed to ‘natural route’.

### Wapper Light

As the public inquiry into the procedure leading to the awarding of a building license to the BAM-project drew to a close, the BAM architects declared that the connection at Sportpaleis was not a satisfactory solution. During a parliamentary session on August 25, 2009, one of them repeated his doubts about the connection of the flyover with the Antwerp ring road at Sportpaleis. During this session, it was announced that Noriant's urban planners and architects had undertaken some ‘out of the box’ thinking, the results of which Noriant intended to divulge to BAM and policy makers the moment the latter put a sensible proposal on the table. On October 8, 2009, ex-minister Dirk Van Mechelen explained that the alternative plan for the Sportpaleis connection elaborated by Noriant's engineers would entail turning part of the R1 ring road into a tunnel starting at the E313 exit ramp, near Sportpaleis. The tunnel would come up above ground again at the bifurcation where the highway splits into the E19 (Breda) and the A12 (Bergen-op-Zoom). According to Van Mechelen, two possibilities are valid for the viaduct at Sportpaleis: either it is used as an inner ring road for local traffic, connecting to the Lange Wapper bridge, or another, new, viaduct has to be built. This adaptation of the original plan would entail an additional cost of 800 million euro.

In a survey of the economic benefits of the Oosterweel connection, transport economists Stef Proost en Saskia Van der Loo from KUL (Leuven University), say that the Oosterweel connection is an economically unjustifiable project and that adaptations to the layout and design of the Oosterweel bridge that have been made in order to guarantee a political majority, are no more than irrelevant marginal notes to an economically unprofitable project.

### Horvathroute

The Horvathroute (Royersluistunnelroute) is roughly the same as the BAM-route, except that the flyover crossing the Antwerp docks is replaced by a tunnel underneath these docks. This layout was deemed the least effective alternative according to the independent evaluation by ARUP/SUM in March 2009. It requires extensive construction activities in the densely populated Merksem area which would, according to the researchers, have a devastating environmental impact. Like the BAM-route, the Horvat-route would occupy a significant part of the surrounding surface areas at the Ring Road junction (in order to widen the Merksem flyover), but the barrier effect it would cause would be even worse than with the BAM-route where the tunnel would morph into a flyover. As this has to be linked in two directions with the Ring Road, this route requires a complex tunnel configuration, deemed by ARUP/SUM to be just barely feasible. Because of these inconveniences, the independent study judged this layout to be the least adequate.

### stRaten-Generaal route

Citizen action group stRaten-Generaal has proposed a route with a boring tunnel starting at Noordkasteel toward the north, joining the A12. This design was the group's own constructive response to its criticism of the traffic streams in the BAM-layout that were the result of the decision to force all lorry traffic coming from the east to drive along the Ring Road at Sportpaleis. The essence of the stRaten-generaal proposal: creating an Oosterweelconnection for the traffic stream coming from Ghent going in the direction of Breda, while allowing the traffic stream coming from the east and driving toward Ghent to take the Kennedy Tunnel – allowing lorry traffic to pass through the latter tunnel. This alternative stRaten-generaal route was supported, from 2008 on, by Wim Van Hees, an ex-advertising agent who had set up another citizens’ group called Ademloos (breathless) to publicise the negative sides of the BAM-project, especially pollution (fine dust) and the way traffic would cut off the areas reserved for town development toward the north. The validity of this latter argument, however, is subject to fierce discussion. Ademloos took the initiative to demand a referendum, to allow the citizens of Antwerp to have a say in the proceedings. In July 2009 stRaten-generaal announced that henceforth it considered the ARUP/SUM route to be an optimalisation of its own alternative design, and pleaded in favour of a referendum allowing voters to choose either the BAM route or the ARUP/SUM route.

### Arup/SUM-route

In March 2009 the consultancy agency Arup/SUM announced the results of its independent examination commissioned by the Flemish Government: none of the proposals could be considered to be the complete, self-evident solution. The agency recommended that access to the existing Liefkenshoektunnel be ameliorated asap, to immediately implement ATM (Automatic Traffic Management), to keep the Kennedy Tunnel open to lorry traffic and to build a third Scheldt crossing by means of a 4,3 km boring tunnel in a practically straight line knooppunt Antwerpen-West and the A12. Meanwhile, in consultation with the Flemish Government, the city of Antwerp decided at the beginning of April 2009 to order an additional report from Arup/SUM, allowing the agency to examine and refine this latter proposition. On July 9, 2009, this latest route was presented. The use of boring tunnels precludes the necessity to undertake complex construction work in the vicinity of the city centre, as would be the case in the BAM-scenario. Basic investment as well as maintenance costs would be cheaper, an advantage that would lead to higher project yield. The report concluded that this route is a feasible and creditable alternative to the original BAM-design.

### Northern bypass

At the end of February 2010, ‘Forum 2020’, a group consisting of a number of captains of industry and academics from the Antwerp area and stRaten-generaal, proposed a comprehensive new plan, starting from the given fact that the Oosterweel connection had been disapproved by referendum. They proposed a ‘meccano-scenario’, in which the E17 and the E34 are connected with the E313/E34 by means of a sequence of short tunnels to the north of Antwerp. In Waasland, a ‘western tangent road’ is put forward as an alternative to the R2. It would start in Melsele and connect the E17 with the E34 by means of a tunnel. A 'northern tangent', again composed of tunnels, would connect this junction with the A12 and the E19 in the northernmost part of the port area. It would connect with an eastern tangent T102, again a tunnel, connecting the Ekeren junction with the E313/E34 past Wommelgem, which would run along the route of the planned above ground A102. Simultaneously, next to the tunnel underneath the Albert canal in Schoten, a tunnel for local use would be built to replace the planned construction works to add height to the existing Hoogmolenbrug. This bypass would use ‘intelligent traffic management’ to steer the bulk of through-traffic away from the R1.

51°14′31″N 4°24′29″E / 51.2419°N 4.40806°E / 51.2419; 4.40806


title: Operation Show Me How

abstract: Operation Show Me How was an international drug enforcement operation coordinated by Interpol which began around January 1998. Interpol is an international agency that coordinates police intelligence and multi-lateral information sharing. International drugs-related operations like Operation Show Me How are a standard part of its mission. This operation was given the name "Show Me How" because some heroin being smuggled from Thailand was discovered in hollowed out books from a series from that same name.

text:
# Operation Show Me How

**Operation Show Me How** was an international drug enforcement operation coordinated by Interpol which began around January 1998.

Interpol is an international agency that coordinates police intelligence and multi-lateral information sharing. International drugs-related operations like Operation Show Me How are a standard part of its mission.

This operation was given the name "Show Me How" because some heroin being smuggled from Thailand was discovered in hollowed out books from a series from that same name.

## The operation

At some point prior to January 1998, a United Kingdom agency was investigating the international origins of drugs being delivered in small packages to hotels within the United Kingdom. In January 1998, the agency asked Interpol to circulate a data request for drug seizures relating to small packages delivered to hotels.

As is typical of their standard mode of information sharing and cooperation between police agencies, Interpol circulated a request for data searches for this case to around 50 countries and several matches were found. The seizures were mainly in Europe, the heroin from each of these reported seizures had links to Bangkok, Thailand as each parcel seized was posted in Bangkok through express mail. Further, each seized parcel was sent to a European city close to an international airport, such as Heathrow and Frankfurt Airport. After a meeting with international police officials at their headquarters in Lyon, France, Interpol launched Operation Show Me How (named after books which some heroin had been found in).

The investigation uncovered Nigerian criminal gangs running heroin from Bangkok and Pakistan and opium and cocaine from Bogotá, Colombia. The operation also contributed to undermining the activity of these gangs in the Czech Republic.

In 1999, Interpol suggested that all its member countries should monitor the type of postal system drug smuggling investigated by Operation Show Me How and other operations.

Between 1998 and 2000, Operation Show Me How resulted in many seizures of heroin and opium and a significant number of arrests in various countries., notably in Slovenia, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Croatia, Niger, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Peru, and Brazil.


title: Opatov (Jihlava District)

abstract: Opatov is a municipality and village in Jihlava District in the Vysočina Region of the Czech Republic. It has about 200 inhabitants. Opatov lies approximately 16 kilometres (10 mi) west of Jihlava and 100 km (62 mi) south-east of Prague.

text:
# Opatov (Jihlava District)

**Opatov** (Czech pronunciation: \[ˈopatof\]) is a municipality and village in Jihlava District in the Vysočina Region of the Czech Republic. It has about 200 inhabitants.

Opatov lies approximately 16 kilometres (10 mi) west of Jihlava and 100 km (62 mi) south-east of Prague.

## History

The first written mention of Opatov is from 1303.

## Demographics

Historical population
| Year | Pop. | ±% |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1869 | 578 |  |
| 1880 | 518 | −10.4% |
| 1890 | 499 | −3.7% |
| 1900 | 496 | −0.6% |
| 1910 | 482 | −2.8% |
| 1921 | 495 | +2.7% |
| 1930 | 401 | −19.0% |
| 1950 | 286 | −28.7% |
| 1961 | 274 | −4.2% |
| 1970 | 227 | −17.2% |
| 1980 | 177 | −22.0% |
| 1991 | 174 | −1.7% |
| 2001 | 207 | +19.0% |
| 2011 | 186 | −10.1% |
| 2021 | 198 | +6.5% |
| Source: Censuses | | |

## InfoBox

| Opatov | |
| --- | --- |
| Municipality | |
| View towards the Evangelical church | |
|  | |
| OpatovLocation in the Czech Republic | |
| Coordinates: 49°25′52″N 15°23′40″E / 49.43111°N 15.39444°E / 49.43111; 15.39444 | |
| Country | Czech Republic |
| Region | Vysočina |
| District | Jihlava |
| First mentioned | 1303 |
| Area | |
| Total | 6.75 km2 (2.61 sq mi) |
| Elevation | 650 m (2,130 ft) |
| Population (2024-01-01) | |
| Total | 202 |
| Density | 30/km2 (78/sq mi) |
| Time zone | UTC+1 (CET) |
| Summer (DST) | UTC+2 (CEST) |
| Postal code | 588 05 |
| Website | www.opatov.info |


title: Opatkowice Murowane

abstract: Opatkowice Murowane is a village in the administrative district of Gmina Imielno, within Jędrzejów County, Świętokrzyskie Voivodeship, in south-central Poland. It lies approximately 8 kilometres (5 mi) west of Imielno, 9 km (6 mi) south-east of Jędrzejów, and 40 km (25 mi) south-west of the regional capital Kielce.

text:
# Opatkowice Murowane

**Opatkowice Murowane** \[ɔpatkɔˈvit͡sɛ murɔˈvanɛ\] is a village in the administrative district of Gmina Imielno, within Jędrzejów County, Świętokrzyskie Voivodeship, in south-central Poland. It lies approximately 8 kilometres (5 mi) west of Imielno, 9 km (6 mi) south-east of Jędrzejów, and 40 km (25 mi) south-west of the regional capital Kielce.

## InfoBox

| Opatkowice Murowane | |
| --- | --- |
| Village | |
| Opatkowice Murowane | |
| Coordinates: 50°34′N 20°21′E / 50.567°N 20.350°E / 50.567; 20.350 | |
| Country | Poland |
| Voivodeship | Świętokrzyskie |
| County | Jędrzejów |
| Gmina | Imielno |


title: Open-container law

abstract: An open-container law is a law which regulates or prohibits drinking alcohol in public by limiting the existence of open alcoholic beverage containers in certain areas, as well as the active consumption of alcohol in those areas. "Public places" in this context refers to openly public places such as sidewalks, parks and vehicles. It does not include nominally private spaces which are open to the public, such as bars, restaurants and stadiums. An open-container law may also refer to the prohibition of drivers from having any open container of an alcoholic beverage inside their vehicle in areas that are readily accessible to vehicle occupants. The stated purpose of these laws is to restrict public intoxication, especially the dangerous act of operating a vehicle while intoxicated.

text:
# Open-container law

An **open-container law** is a law which regulates or prohibits drinking alcohol in public by limiting the existence of open alcoholic beverage containers in certain areas, as well as the active consumption of alcohol in those areas. "Public places" in this context refers to openly public places such as sidewalks, parks and vehicles. It does not include nominally private spaces which are open to the public, such as bars, restaurants and stadiums.

An open-container law may also refer to the prohibition of drivers (and sometimes passengers) from having any open container of an alcoholic beverage inside their vehicle in areas that are readily accessible to vehicle occupants (this generally excludes the trunk).

The stated purpose of these laws is to restrict public intoxication, especially the dangerous act of operating a vehicle while intoxicated.

## United States

In the United States, open-container laws are U.S. state laws, rather than federal laws; thus they vary from state to state.

The majority of U.S. states and localities prohibit possessing or consuming an open container of alcohol in public places, such as on the street, while 24 states do not have statutes regarding the public consumption of alcohol. However, the definition of "public place" is not always clear. California is unique in that it does have a state law on the books that only prohibits possessing alcoholic beverage containers that have been opened (unless that container is in one's possession "for the purpose of recycling or other related activity") in public places owned by a city, county, or city and county, or any recreation and park district, regional park, or open-space district, but similar to states that have no law, the state law only applies to some or all of the aforementioned areas in which the "city, county, or city and county have enacted an ordinance".

The possession of cans, bottles or flasks or other vessels containing an alcoholic beverage could potentially result in a violation of open container laws.

To be “open”, in most cases, means that some of the contents have been removed, the seal is broken, the cap is off or the alcohol is otherwise readily accessible.

Some states that have legalized cannabis possession also prohibit open containers that contain cannabis in public places.

Open container restrictions are not always rigorously enforced, and open containers may in fact be legally permitted in nominally private events which are open to the public. This is especially true in downtown districts and during holidays and sporting events; see tailgate party.

### Cities

There are public places in the United States where open containers are explicitly permitted:

* Indiana allows the consumption of alcoholic beverages in public.
* Hood River, Oregon allows the consumption of alcoholic beverages in public.
* The city of Butte, Montana, prohibits open containers only between 2am and 8am. Drinking openly in the street is allowed throughout the city (and elsewhere in Montana where no local laws exist) during the other 18 hours of the day. A recent attempt to pass a comprehensive open container prohibition in Butte met with widespread opposition and was dropped. However, Montana state law does prohibit open containers in vehicles on a highway.
* In the Power & Light District of Kansas City, Missouri, a special Missouri state law preempts Kansas City's ordinary local law against open containers and allows the possession and consumption of alcoholic beverages on the street in open plastic containers. Although Missouri has no statewide open container law, the Power & Light District remains the only part of Kansas City where open containers are allowed actually on the street, and throughout the rest of Kansas City, open containers remain expressly prohibited.
* In unincorporated Clark County, Nevada (including the Las Vegas Strip) the laws allow the possession and consumption on the street of alcoholic beverages except within parking lots or, if the alcohol was purchased in a closed container, on the premises of or within 1,000 feet (300 m) of the store from which it was purchased. It is also illegal to possess a glass or aluminum beverage container on specially designated streets during special events, such as the Strip on New Year's Eve.
* The city of New Orleans, Louisiana allows the possession and consumption on the street of any alcoholic beverage in an open plastic container (not in glass bottles or containers). In some parts of Louisiana, however, open containers are still prohibited, despite the fact that drive-thru frozen daiquiri stands are legal.
* In the Savannah Historic District of downtown Savannah, Georgia, city law allows possession and consumption on the street of one alcoholic beverage in an open plastic container of not more than 16 US fluid ounces (470 ml). Because Georgia has no state public open container law, the city law governs. Throughout the rest of Savannah, however, open containers remain prohibited.
* Within an approximately 80-acre (32 ha) area of downtown Dalton, Georgia, city law allows possession and consumption on the street of one alcoholic beverage in an open paper or plastic cup of no more than 16 US fluid ounces (470 ml) between 12:30 p.m. and midnight. The boundaries of the permitted area are Hawthorne Street, the western right-of-way of the L&N Railway, Morris Street, and Thornton Avenue. The beverage must be dispensed by a licensed establishment in the designated area in a cup that meets specifications issued by the Downtown Dalton Development Authority. Throughout the rest of Dalton, however, open containers remain prohibited.
* The state of Ohio, since 2015, allows cities to create a limited number of "designated outdoor refreshment areas" (DORA) where alcoholic beverages are permitted (Sub. H.B. No. 47). Cities that have created these districts include Canton, Delaware, Hamilton, Lancaster, Logan, Lorain, Middletown and Toledo.
* The city of Mobile, Alabama allows open plastic containers with a commercially printed name or logo of a designated licensee.
* The city of Tampa, Florida allows up to two drinks in plastic containers per person on the Tampa Riverwalk, purchased from one of the licensed facilities along it, between 11am and 1am.
* In 2020, New Jersey made public drinking allowed in tourist spots such as the beach and boardwalk of Atlantic City, while Michigan allowed cities to grant social district permits for the open consumption of alcohol.

### Vehicles

To comply with the TEA-21 rules of the federal Department of Transportation, a state's motor vehicle open container laws must:

* Prohibit both possession of any open alcoholic beverage container and consumption of any alcoholic beverage in a motor vehicle;
* Cover the passenger area of any motor vehicle, including unlocked glove compartments and any other areas of the vehicle that are readily accessible to the driver or passengers while in their seats;
* Apply to all open alcoholic beverage containers and all alcoholic beverages, including beer, wine, and spirits that contain one-half of one percent or more of alcohol by volume;
* Apply to all vehicle occupants except for passengers of vehicles designed, maintained or used primarily for the transportation of people for compensation (such as buses, taxi cabs, and limousines) or the living quarters of motor homes;
* Apply to all vehicles on a public highway or the right-of-way (i.e. on the shoulder) of a public highway;
* Require primary enforcement of the law, rather than requiring probable cause that another violation had been committed before allowing enforcement of the open container law.

Currently, 39 states and the District of Columbia are in full compliance with federal government guidelines. However, passengers may either possess open containers or consume alcohol in Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Louisiana, Missouri, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. These states do not currently meet the necessary level of TEA-21 compliance.

In some states, the open container laws apply even if your vehicle is parked on a public road, street, highway, interstate or another publicly maintained thoroughfare. For example, in Texas a vehicle does not need to be in motion for the driver to be cited for an open container violation. Mississippi is currently the only state which does not expressly prohibit the possession of an open container while driving but many states allow passengers to have an open container.

Penalties for open container violations vary from state to state but include fines, possible jail time, license demerit points and community service.

**Cannabis Open Container Laws**

In U.S. states that have legalized cannabis possession, open container laws typically extend to cannabis. This currently includes 11 states, including California, Illinois, Colorado and Massachusetts. In these states, a container of marijuana cannot be opened and readily accessible to the driver of a vehicle.