An article about them: http://www.tunnelbuilder.com/headlinenews-detail.php?pid=677&querystring=week=28&year=2008&head=&newsdescription=&sqlSearch=SELECT%2B*%2BFROM%2Bnews%2BWHERE%2B%2B(%2Bweek%2B=%2726%27%2B||%2Bweek%2B=%2726%27%2B)%2B%2BAND%2B%2Byear%2B=%272008%27%2B%2Border%2Bby%2Byear,week%2Bdesc,newsdescription%2Basc

And a list: http://home.no.net/lotsberg/data/norway/sub.html

Thread about Norwegian highways: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=443589

An article about them: http://www.tunnelbuilder.com/headlinenews-detail.php?pid=677&querystring=week=28&year=2008&head=&newsdescription=&sqlSearch=SELECT%2B*%2BFROM%2Bnews%2BWHERE%2B%2B(%2Bweek%2B=%2726%27%2B||%2Bweek%2B=%2726%27%2B)%2B%2BAND%2B%2Byear%2B=%272008%27%2B%2Border%2Bby%2Byear,week%2Bdesc,newsdescription%2Basc

And a list: http://home.no.net/lotsberg/data/norway/sub.html

Thread about Norwegian highways: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=443589

Several massive projects being planned, among them the twin-tube 24-km Boknafjord crossing north of Stavanger. In the same area, the 13-km link (also twin-tube, apparently) to Ryfylke (east of Stavanger) will be built in a few years. Interestlingly enough, the road authorities have just started to get cold feet regarding future projects: the long and steep hills in tunnels going 250-300 (or more) metres below sea level, cause unnecessary high emission levels. So the "tunnel nation" might just be the "bridge nation" in years to come. Perhaps even the "submerged tube" idea will be ressurected, who knows?

C'mon Norway is a very mountainous country, and they're worrying about the emissions at a 300m altitude difference? Looks to me that they're using this argument to hide something else.

The fact that Norwegian tunnels are always collapsing virtually and having constant issues? ;)

Why don't you include some pictures here?

Map of one Y-Shaped tunnel: http://www.tunnelbuilder.com/Finnfast_Map.pdf

Profile: http://www.tunnelbuilder.com/Finnfast_Geological-mapping.pdf

Another infos: http://www.tunnelbuilder.com/SINTEF_Subsea-tunnelling.pdf

i didn't quite get this thing...
norway builds tunnels cause they are cheaper than bridges or?

C'mon Norway is a very mountainous country, and they're worrying about the emissions at a 300m altitude difference? Looks to me that they're using this argument to hide something else.

It is serious, apparently. Emissions will now be added as a factor when selecting a bridge or tunnel solution.

i didn't quite get this thing...
norway builds tunnels cause they are cheaper than bridges or?

Yes, that has been the case. Tunnels are considerably cheaper, sometimes less than 50%. Of course, Norwegian tunnels have traditionally been built with far less safety equipment, concrete linings etc than what you'll find elsewhere in Europe.

The fact that Norwegian tunnels are always collapsing virtually and having constant issues? ;)

What kind of issues are you thinking about..? The tunnel that collapsed, was not the cheaper drilled and blasted and not much more, but a more modern tunnel. But in order to save cash, they didn't do enough.

What kind of issues are you thinking about..? The tunnel that collapsed, was not the cheaper drilled and blasted and not much more, but a more modern tunnel. But in order to save cash, they didn't do enough.

It was a motorway tunnel, and they didn't have any experience building motorways, so that's probably why they did such a poor job :D

Do they even tender motorway projects? All (few) of them seem to be built by the state-owned contractor.

i didn't quite get this thing...
norway builds tunnels cause they are cheaper than bridges or?

And those few hundred people they build the tunnels for don't want a bridge because it ruins their view.

It was a motorway tunnel, and they didn't have any experience building motorways, so that's probably why they did such a poor job :D

Do they even tender motorway projects? All (few) of them seem to be built by the state-owned contractor.

A tunnel is a tunnel. Norway have built a lot of tunnels. Believe me, we do have the know-how. But with the new ideas of tenders and choosing the cheapest possible offers, quite a few shortcuts were taken to save money, particularly regarding geological surveys beforehand. Thus, a quite short tunnel through some of the most difficult geology in Europe turned into a scandal...

In part, this should answer your question: Yes, we do tenders. In fact, as members of the EEA we're not allowed not to.

And those few hundred people they build the tunnels for don't want a bridge because it ruins their view.

Well, in my opinion, an elegant bridge doesn't necessarily ruins a view. Especially a nice suspension bridge.

how many tunnels are there in norway? i really didn't know there are tunnels longer than 4-5km in norway... it seems like a very big project...

There are advantages in leaving nature untouched though, where possible.

how many tunnels are there in norway? i really didn't know there are tunnels longer than 4-5km in norway... it seems like a very big project...

They are uncountable. They have a 24km tunnel in southern Norway.

how many tunnels are there in norway? i really didn't know there are tunnels longer than 4-5km in norway... it seems like a very big project...

We might start with the world's longest road tunnel, the Lærdal tunnel, 24.5 kms. A total of 30 Norwegian road tunnels are longer than 5 kms, 8 of which are subsea. A list can be found here:
http://home.no.net/lotsberg/data/norway/list.html

Altogether, I believe there are some 3000 tunnels on Norwegian roads, which apparently makes us the country with the most road tunnels in the world. However, very few of these are twin tube, the longest is the Nordby tunnel on the E6 south of Oslo at 3.8 kms.

Yes, that has been the case. Tunnels are considerably cheaper, sometimes less than 50%. Of course, Norwegian tunnels have traditionally been built with far less safety equipment, concrete linings etc than what you'll find elsewhere in Europe.
The reason is that Norway generally has very good geology (i.e. solid cliffs), and that most tunnels have considerably less traffic than in for instance central Europe. In fact, in Norway there are less accidents per km in tunnels than in open air.
Well, in my opinion, an elegant bridge doesn't necessarily ruins a view. Especially a nice suspension bridge.
I don't know about many cases where the view has been a major factor in selecting a submarine tunnel instead of a bridge, except for urban areas like Trondheim and Oslo where submarine tunnels are now constructed despite of difficult geology (clay!) for exactly that reason. In most cases, however the cost and feasability are the major factors. Many fjords and straits in Norway are so wide and deep with deep layers of deposits on the sea floor that a bridge becomes very expensive, if at all possible. In most cases, ship traffic also has to be able to cross under the bridge, adding to the cost and complexity.

In addition to the mega-projects around Stavanger, various crossings of the Trondheim fjord (10-25 km depending on the route) and a new Oslo-fjord crossing Moss-Horten (about 15 km tunnel) is discussed. Both these projects, as well as the 25 km E39 Boknafjord project north of Stavanger, have these factors in common:


Relatively high traffic (on a Norwegian scale)
-> Two tubes/four lanes required according to safety standards
-> Expensive
-> Chance of approval nil with current government?


More about the various Trondheim fjord crossing proposals can be found here (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=443589&page=8ž), and information about a couple of submarine urban U/C tunnels can be found here (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=16867710&postcount=27).

Many fjords and straits in Norway are so wide and deep with deep layer of deposits on the ground that a bridge becomes very expensive, if at all possible.

Yeah, but then again, how expensive would a tunnel be that has to descent 300m under the sea? You need huge ramps for that, all underground.

For instance, if you have a 5% descent, you need a 6km ramp to reach the lowest point, and another 6 to climb back up at a 300m deep fjord. I don't think you want more than a 5% continuous climb because of trucks.

^^ Although 7% climb is accepted on submarine tunnels according to Norwegian standards (vs 5 % in ordinary tunnels) this is exactly why these proposed megatunnels become so long. However, it is simply not possible to bridge these fjords, so the alternative is to continue the ferry service or perhaps constructing a submerged, but floating concrete tunnel. The latter solution will be very expensive to construct and maintain.

Trucks slow down significantly if there is a 7% climb for 6 continuous kilometers. I saw at a 6%, 3km ascend in Belgium that they drove as slow as 40 km/h.

However, the floating submerged tunnel idea sounds not too unrealistic, high costs are an issue, especially in these relatively remote area's. You have to ask yourself if the road is important enough to justify the costs. On the other hand, Norway is one of the richest countries in the world with an abundance of natural resources. (natural gas for instance). That ought to generate some significant government income.

As long as there are multiple lanes in each direction, and the traffic is relatively low (below 10 000), trucks slowing to 40 km/h is not a major problem.

Funds is not the problem either. The Norwegian government currently has more than 250 billion euros in international stocks and bonds, and the number is increasing by the day with the current oil prices. Although the cost of a superb road and train infrastructure would only cost a small fraction of this, and most infrastructure costs are peanuts compared with many oil and gas developments, I guess you coming from a country that created the term "Dutch sickness" should know that it is not unproblematic to pump these funds into the economy. There is just a limited number of hands, and the Norwegian economy is still running a full steam despite the international trends.

In my opinion, however, the government should prioritize infrastructure higher compared with other areas, and our public sector could be a lot more efficient than it is today. There are is also suggested ways of building infrastructure without affecting the domestic economy so much, for instance by using foreign contractors. However, nothing will happen with the current government, the next national election is a year from now...

In addition to the mega-projects around Stavanger, various crossings of the Trondheim fjord (10-25 km depending on the route) and a new Oslo-fjord crossing Moss-Horten (about 15 km tunnel) is discussed. Both these projects, as well as the 25 km E39 Boknafjord project north of Stavanger, have these factors in common:


Relatively high traffic (on a Norwegian scale)
-> Two tubes/four lanes required according to safety standards
-> Expensive
-> Chance of approval nil with current government?




I know about the geology, that's exactly what made the Hanekleiv tunnel different. The Trondheimsfjord crossing is unlikely to get approved, the outer Oslofjord tunnel faces local opposition whereas the Boknafjord tunnel most likely will happen, eventually.

Trucks slow down significantly if there is a 7% climb for 6 continuous kilometers. I saw at a 6%, 3km ascend in Belgium that they drove as slow as 40 km/h.

However, the floating submerged tunnel idea sounds not too unrealistic, high costs are an issue, especially in these relatively remote area's. You have to ask yourself if the road is important enough to justify the costs. On the other hand, Norway is one of the richest countries in the world with an abundance of natural resources. (natural gas for instance). That ought to generate some significant government income.

7% ascends for kilometres are common in Norwegian tunnels (even 8-10% is found in a few shorter tunnels). The EU is quite sceptical to anything exceeding 5%, and it it debatable whether 7% will be accepted in the future along European routes. This has also lead to a rethink regarding bridges vs tunnels, and the floating submerged tunnel idea - thought to be dead when the Høgsfjord crossing outside Stavanger was rejected in favour of direct subsea tunnel - is returning. Still, no such project has been built or even approved, we'll just have to wait and see.

I know about the geology, that's exactly what made the Hanekleiv tunnel different. The Trondheimsfjord crossing is unlikely to get approved, the outer Oslofjord tunnel faces local opposition whereas the Boknafjord tunnel most likely will happen, eventually.
You may be right, Boknafjord seems to have strong local support, but it has turned out to be a quite expensive project and turned somewhat into dead water lately. The advantage of the Oslofjord project is it's proximity to Oslo (which lately has meant easier access to road funds) and that it probably is a less complicated project than the other two. As argued here (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=16439706&postcount=158) one of the Trondheim fjord projects actually is likely to have the highest traffic, at least around 10 000 AADT on the Trondheim-Frosta E6 leg. However, the project has not been studied in detail lately, and the local politicians (rightfully) is more concerned with upgrading the E6 south of Trondheim which is in a terrible state. In addition, national politicians elected from the region has a very bad track record in attracting infastructure funds, their goal seems to be a place in the cabinet rather than serving those that elected them, which may explain the sorry state of the Trøndelag infrastructure compared with other regions in Norway (possibly excluding Telemark, who is hardly even represented in the cabinet!)

This thread would not be complete if the "Møreaksen" project was not mentioned. Basically, they want to remove all 5 ferry crossings in their county, including all three on the E39 running through this county in the western/central part of the country:
http://rbimg.no.publicus.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Avis=RB&Dato=20080614&Kategori=NYHETER&Lopenr=930222233&Ref=H3&MaxW=884&title=1&NoBorder
This region has been very successful in the past lobbying for similar projects, so I would not be surprised if at least the main challenge (and most important link), the crossing of the Romsdalsfjord between Molde and Ålesund, is solved before any of the other tunnels discussed above are drilled......

Profile of one of the alternative Romsdalsfjord crossings:
http://rbimg.no.publicus.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Avis=RB&Dato=20080614&Kategori=NYHETER&Lopenr=930222233&Ref=V2&MaxW=884&title=1&NoBorder

Here is the link to the Møreaksen webpage http://www.moreaksen.no/ I live close to where the suspension bridge will be, I will be able to see both bridges from my house.

If you end up with a 1.5 hour drive from Kristiansund to Ålesund then another project should also be looked at, merging the three airports Molde, Ålesund and Kristiansun into one central airport, the improvements in services that this would bring would far outweigh any issue with removing a local airport.

If my plans became true, you would be able to do Kristiansund - Ålesund in 50-55 minutes.

A centralized airport for Møre og Romsdal would demand a brand new airport. Probably at the size of todays Flesland. Both to handle the current traffic from the four airports (1,5 mill), but also to handle future growth. The terminal at Flesland is built to handle 2,8 million passangers, though 4,8 millions traveled trough the airport in 2008.

However, there isn't many areas where you could build a such airport between Ålesund and Kristiansund. Perhaps the only area suitable for a such airport is the area west of Vestnes where the planed tunnel under Romsdalsfjorden comes up at the south side.

http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/5800/mrelufthavn.png


This is my plans.
http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/580/mreogromsdal.png

But such good plans will never be realized in Norway. ;)

^^ you cold probably expand Molde if Avinor bought the farm next door, the runway could be expanded another few hundred meters, the previous expansion project and was completed 2008. Replacing the airports with a central one would happen if Norway started to take emmissions seriously.

How would you be able to drive Ålesund Kristiansund in 55 minutes, that would require a real motorway and some major tunneling. It's good to see that the tunnel under Tautra will be 4 lanes.

C'mon Norway is a very mountainous country, and they're worrying about the emissions at a 300m altitude difference? Looks to me that they're using this argument to hide something else.

The grades in any submerged tunnel can be quite steep. Climbing up those grades in a large vehicle means the driver would have to gear down to climb the grade out of the tunnel when someone in a car might not have to. Diesel engines running a high RPMs put out a lot of smoke.

^^ you cold probably expand Molde if Avinor bought the farm next door, the runway could be expanded another few hundred meters, the previous expansion project and was completed 2008. Replacing the airports with a central one would happen if Norway started to take emmissions seriously.
How on earth do you plan to expand the runway at Årø by buying the farm next door? You need to fill up the sea to do that. And that few hundred meters is minimum 600 meters.
I'm pretty sure that expanding Årø to the suitable size will be more or equally expensive as to build a brand new airport at Vestnes. I also doubt that Ålesund would accept to close their airport for a airport so far away. A airport at Vestnes would be app 45 km or 25 minutes of driving. Årø would be 85 km away and 45 minutes of driving. For Molde it would be the same thing. Both Årø and a new airport at Vestnes would be 10 minutes away. A airport at Vestnes would be a bit longer away from Kristiansund than Årø, but in driving time it wouldn't do more than 10 minutes.


How would you be able to drive Ålesund Kristiansund in 55 minutes, that would require a real motorway and some major tunneling. It's good to see that the tunnel under Tautra will be 4 lanes.

Of course it require a motorway. A such motorway will tie the whole county together. Giving it the possibility to have massive growth. Also, a motorway from Kristiansund to Trondheim mean a total travel time between Trondheim and Aalesund of 2 hours and 10 minutes. Compared to the 5 hours and 40 minutes of today. That's not counting waiting time at the two ferry stops which fast is 20 minutes in total.
This will give Central Norway a real boost for the future. A needed one. Perhaps it also will tie Sunnmøre to Trøndelag and Trondheim instead of the historic tie with Bergen and Western Norway. Møre og Romsdal is still a county where Nordmøre consider themself as Central Norway, Sunnmøre consider themself as Western Norway, while Romsdal is a bit unsure of where they belong with a leaning against Central Norway.

But as stated earlier, such good plans will never be realized in Norway.

How on earth do you plan to expand the runway at Årø by buying the farm next door? You need to fill up the sea to do that. And that few hundred meters is minimum 600 meters.

Sorry I should have been clearer, I wasn't meaning the runway, I was thinking about the terminal and parking. The runway is long enough now for a fully loaded A321 or 737-800 to safely take off and land.


I'm pretty sure that expanding Årø to the suitable size will be more or equally expensive as to build a brand new airport at Vestnes. I also doubt that Ålesund would accept to close their airport for a airport so far away. A airport at Vestnes would be app 45 km or 25 minutes of driving. Årø would be 85 km away and 45 minutes of driving. For Molde it would be the same thing. Both Årø and a new airport at Vestnes would be 10 minutes away. A airport at Vestnes would be a bit longer away from Kristiansund than Årø, but in driving time it wouldn't do more than 10 minutes.

The exisitng Ålesund airport is already a bit of a drive for a lot of people living in and around Ålesund. The people who really would kick up a stink would be those in Kristiansund, the crap they are putting Molde through about the hospital is insane and about 10 years too late.



Of course it require a motorway. A such motorway will tie the whole county together. Giving it the possibility to have massive growth. Also, a motorway from Kristiansund to Trondheim mean a total travel time between Trondheim and Aalesund of 2 hours and 10 minutes. Compared to the 5 hours and 40 minutes of today. That's not counting waiting time at the two ferry stops which fast is 20 minutes in total.
This will give Central Norway a real boost for the future. A needed one. Perhaps it also will tie Sunnmøre to Trøndelag and Trondheim instead of the historic tie with Bergen and Western Norway. Møre og Romsdal is still a county where Nordmøre consider themself as Central Norway, Sunnmøre consider themself as Western Norway, while Romsdal is a bit unsure of where they belong with a leaning against Central Norway.

But as stated earlier, such good plans will never be realized in Norway.

That would be a fanstastic project but you are right it would require people in Norway to actually plan for the distant future, not something that is done very much around here.

It would be fantastic to bring this region closer together. Today it takes incredibly long time to travel between Trondheim and Ålesund (not to mention southern Sunnmøre ( Ulsteinvik, Ørsta, Volda etc).

However, I do not believe a second that improved roads would lead to a close-down of existing airports and a centralization to Molde. And why should it? Most people would like to have the airport as close as possible (outside hearing range), and a lot of investment has been done in the existing airpor infrastructure. However, that does not mean that the government should continue subsidising such a decentralized structure. We should also not get carried away regarding the potential traffic of a centralized airport. Combined, the three airports had a traffic of 1.4 M pax in 2009, that's just 40 % of Trondheim and 30 % of Bergen airports. The catchment area would probably be significantly less than 220 000, neither the people of southern Sunnmøre or northern / inner Nordmøre will go to Romsdal in order to fly, even with improved roads. Furthermore, the Sunnmøre people will never accept that such a centralized airport would be located in Romsdal, as Ålesund has more traffic than the other two combined.

Sorry I should have been clearer, I wasn't meaning the runway, I was thinking about the terminal and parking. The runway is long enough now for a fully loaded A321 or 737-800 to safely take off and land.
That's not good enough. Bigger flights will come if Møre og Romsdal is supposed to grow. And without a longer runway these flights has to land in Trondheim. Not an ideal situation.


The exisitng Ålesund airport is already a bit of a drive for a lot of people living in and around Ålesund. The people who really would kick up a stink would be those in Kristiansund, the crap they are putting Molde through about the hospital is insane and about 10 years too late.
You compare the 20 minutes out to Vigra with 45 minutes?
Immediately people in Kristiansund wouldn't like to close their airport in favour of a airport at Vestnes. But as the new airport will be bigger and have much more destinations they will prefer that one. Just like we see in Narvik. Most people prefer Evenes that is one hour away becouse it got cheaper tickets more destinations compared to the local airport Framnes.

It would be fantastic to bring this region closer together. Today it takes incredibly long time to travel between Trondheim and Ålesund (not to mention southern Sunnmøre ( Ulsteinvik, Ørsta, Volda etc).

However, I do not believe a second that improved roads would lead to a close-down of existing airports and a centralization to Molde. And why should it? Most people would like to have the airport as close as possible (outside hearing range), and a lot of investment has been done in the existing airpor infrastructure. However, that does not mean that the government should continue subsidising such a decentralized structure. We should also not get carried away regarding the potential traffic of a centralized airport. Combined, the three airports had a traffic of 1.4 M pax in 2009, that's just 40 % of Trondheim and 30 % of Bergen airports. The catchment area would probably be significantly less than 220 000, neither the people of southern Sunnmøre or northern / inner Nordmøre will go to Romsdal in order to fly, even with improved roads. Furthermore, the Sunnmøre people will never accept that such a centralized airport would be located in Romsdal, as Ålesund has more traffic than the other two combined.

A central airport would offer cheaper tickets, more destinations and more departures. Today the route to Oslo has 10 departures from Ålesund, 7 departures from Molde and 4 departures from Kristiansund. A central airport would perhaps offer 16-20 departures a day.
It's just like you see in Narvik, people rather drive 1 hour and 15 minutes to Evenes instead of using the local airport Framnes.

Many people wouldn't be happy in the beginning, but after a while pretty much everybody will be happy. Not many people in Oslo miss Fornebu to say it in that way.

It's btw 1,5 M pax when you include the 90 000 at Ørsta/Volda.

That's not good enough. Bigger flights will come if Møre og Romsdal is supposed to grow. And without a longer runway these flights has to land in Trondheim. Not an ideal situation. .

The runway was lengthened, charter flights are going to Turkey in A321's, an A321 is a pretty big plane, Turkey is about as far as most people are likely to fly, nobody is suggesting transatlantic or asian flights from Møre og Romsdale, heck you get bugger all long haul destinations from Oslo.


A central airport would offer cheaper tickets, more destinations and more departures. Today the route to Oslo has 10 departures from Ålesund, 7 departures from Molde and 4 departures from Kristiansund. A central airport would perhaps offer 16-20 departures a day.
It's just like you see in Narvik, people rather drive 1 hour and 15 minutes to Evenes instead of using the local airport Framnes.

Many people wouldn't be happy in the beginning, but after a while pretty much everybody will be happy. Not many people in Oslo miss Fornebu to say it in that way.

It's btw 1,5 M pax when you include the 90 000 at Ørsta/Volda.

I would love a direct flights to Copenhagen, Stockholm and London, all would be possible with a central airport, but as you alluded too Norwegians are more concerned with petty local politics rather than looking at the big picture. The debacle over the new Molde hospital is a prime example.

The runway was lengthened, charter flights are going to Turkey in A321's, an A321 is a pretty big plane, Turkey is about as far as most people are likely to fly, nobody is suggesting transatlantic or asian flights from Møre og Romsdale, heck you get bugger all long haul destinations from Oslo.

It's not all about passengers. Møre og Romsdal is perhaps the biggest export county in Norway when it comes to fright.
The runway at Årø can take up to 100 tons Max Take-off Weight.
Of jet aircrafts it's pretty much only the 737 and 320-series that can take off from Årø. Along with MD-aircrafts, excluding DC-10 and MD-11.

Actually, neither a full weight A321 or a full weight 737 can take of from Årø. The runway is 130 to 550 meters to short.

And even if it's cheaper to expand Årø, they still should build a new one to have a new start for the county and becouse of Årø's location.
In the long run a new airport at Vestnes will be the best option for future growth in Møre og Romsdal.

A new start becouse
expanding Årø in many eyes from Sunnmøre og Nordmøre mean that Molde won a battle. And yet again central thing is placed in Molde. I'm just mentioning that Molde is the home of Møre og Romsdal county administration and Statens Vegvesen Region Midt administration. Vestnes would not give that feeling as it's on the other side of the fjord.

Location becouse
Vestnes would be close enough for Ålesund for them to accept Vigra being closed. And it's close enough for Molde to accept Årø to be closed. Kristiansund wouldn't like closing Kvernberget in the beginning. But for them it's pretty much the same if Vestnes or Årø is chosen. Vestnes would be maximum 10 minutes extra compared to Årø. And with new roads they would be able to be at Vestnes in 35-40 minutes.