INFRASTRUKTUR | Norske jernbaner | Railways

[Mulefisk]

I'm a bit skeptical to the amount of stations:



Do we really need a station in Stange? Or Skoppum? Or Råde? All this does is slow the trains down without adding any significant number of passengers.

[Kjello0]

Skoppum is the local station for Horten.

Stokke, Råde, Tangen and Stange is however useless. Sande is also on the border to useless.

[Bannor]

Originally Posted by Kjello0

Skoppum is the local station for Horten.

Stokke, Råde, Tangen and Stange is however useless. Sande is also on the border to useless.

Oslo is useless too. It is just there to waste the oil and gass money with rediculous amounts of bureocracy. Besides, its the gay capitol of europe...

[marshol]

You must be from Bergen. Lol

[bookings]

I could potentially live at Stange if I had a job around Oslo S and it would take me 50 minutes to get there. That's not much more than with bike/subway today inside Oslo. I think it's the right way to do it; have stations before people. Isn't that typically how many towns have come to be, like Lillestrøm, which Bannor must have confused with Oslo?

I think we would see rapid development around the less-than-an-hour-away stations. Oslo is expected to grow with a couple hundred thousand, without touching the forests or the parks, and with every attempt at something higher than 5 floors being cut down? Open up Stange, I would say (but plan it properly)

[SmalltownUrbanist]

Stange is fairly close to Hamar though, so you could make the argument it would be better to get everyone on there. Then again how much time do you actually lose by making one or two stops extra? And as bookings says, the places with stations will probably see increased growth due to the expanded job market.

I really like the plan in itself, and it is good they are very determined to get it done quickly. This gives us an opportunity to build some great new urban areas focused around the train stations, if the politicians seize this opportunity. With (hopefully) a large increase in activity they can provide a very good basis for some great, lively centres across the region.

[Mulefisk]

The stretch between Tangen and Brummundal is only 35 km, and yet it could get as many as 4 stations. With acceleration, stopping and waiting time per station that's quite a bit of extra time. The stretch between Skøyen and Asker is roughly 35 km, and intercity trains only stop at a total of 4 stations.

Could it really be defended that such a sparsely populated area should have the same station density as one of the most populated areas in the country?

A better solution would be to have one intercity station in Hamar, and to run local feeder trains on the old track between Tangen and Brummundal.

[bookings]

Well, there might be just one station between Eidsvoll and Hamar, but I'm pretty sure not all trains will stop at all stations (like Tangen and Stange). If you just have feeder trains for these stations, the whole point is lost. Anyway, this map is probably not complete, places like Jessheim and Kløfta should be there. It's not a big deal; express-trains run like hell between Lillehammer-Hamar-Oslo, and others stop more often. 4 trains per hour should be enough for 2 express ones and 2 "slow" ones. At a place like Tangen, that would at least mean one train per hour, which is as good (or bad) as commuters on the Gjøvik-line get today. And people still use that one (I've done, for a long, dreadful year)

If they could also extend the Gjøvik-line up to Lillehammer, more cargo could be put on this.

But my point is that more stations should not be a problem, but they need to make it possible to run through them quite fast.

[IceCheese]

Everybody realize the map just shows the current stations, right? We can change it, but I guess that is a political question.

And Bookings, how can the train stop at both OSL and Jessheim? This stretch is also already completed.

[Galro]

Originally Posted by bookings

I could potentially live at Stange if I had a job around Oslo S and it would take me 50 minutes to get there. That's not much more than with bike/subway today inside Oslo. I think it's the right way to do it; have stations before people. Isn't that typically how many towns have come to be, like Lillestrøm, which Bannor must have confused with Oslo?

I think we would see rapid development around the less-than-an-hour-away stations. Oslo is expected to grow with a couple hundred thousand, without touching the forests or the parks, and with every attempt at something higher than 5 floors being cut down? Open up Stange, I would say (but plan it properly)

Yeah, Norway certainly needs policies that encourages sprawl ... That's the thing the country have lacked.

[bookings]

Originally Posted by IceCheese

And Bookings, how can the train stop at both OSL and Jessheim? This stretch is also already completed.

But will all trains go through OSL? Some will surely go through Jessheim (one of the fastest growing conurbations in the country, already at 17000), but perhaps that stretch of rail is just not good enough for speed?

Yeah, Norway certainly needs policies that encourages sprawl ... That's the thing the country have lacked.

Linked to above quote also; It's not sprawl to promote density around stations. We might as well just accept the fact that even if Oslo would develop Manhattan-like density, not everybody would actually prefer to live like that. If you can have a villa 5 minutes from a small downtown around a station, that's much better than a villa on the outskirts of endless Oslo-sprawl. I've lived in both the US and Switzerland. US; endless sprawl linked with highways, all space filled with houses and grass. Switzerland: strings of towns with dense cores, and a small ring of houses around each. Efficient trains make it worthwhile to live within short distance of a station, even if that station is 100-120 km away from the place you work. Trains of all shades are active; express ones and those that stop at the smallest cowshed. In any case, they are all quite fast in between the stations.

I think it's promoting MORE sprawl by not using the railway to shorten distances. Even if forumers might be above average interested in density and highrises, you got to see what people want. Those who want villas, unable to fit it into Oslo, will sprawl as close as possible. Today that means places like Skedsmokorset etc. Soon it will be up Nittedal (I only know the eastern parts, I'm sure there are examples from south and west also). A Swiss model is preferable, EVEN if that means there is a station at Stange

Edit: and I would like to see a link Moss-Skoppum

[Galro]

I didn't mention any highrises. I'm generally against them with the exception of a few places. You think the only alternatives is to either build Manhatten-style hoods or increase the size of Oslos metro to incorporate places like Stange into it? If we built up Grorudalen with same density as Torshov or Homansbyen (which is not high by any standards) then we would have enough to house as many people as we will ever need. As for what people want: I think you will find that houses and apartments at Homansbyen is quite a lot more expensive than at Stange. The same goes for most "high density" central places. It don't appear to me like people agrees with in you in what they want. People who move out usually do it because of the high price you have to pay to live central.

[bookings]

Originally Posted by Galro

I didn't mention any highrises. I'm generally against them with the exception of a few places. You think the only alternatives is to either build Manhatten-style hoods or increase the size of Oslos metro to incorporate places like Stange into it? If we built up Grorudalen with same density as Torshov or Homansbyen (which is not high by any standards) then we would have enough to house as many people as we will ever need. As for what people want: I think you will find that houses and apartments at Homansbyen is quite a lot more expensive than at Stange. The same goes for most "high density" central places. It don't appear to me like people agrees with in you in what they want. People who move out usually do it because of the high price you have to pay to live central.

Well now, no reason to get upset because of Stange or any other place. It's not specifically about Stange either, it's about the IC-triangle having few stations (and thus potentially be a few minutes faster), or more stations (which not always have to be used by all trains). It doesn't matter how many people you can put into Oslo, be it Majorstua-style or Manhattan, there will be a market for single houses and less density also. All I'm saying is that faster trains allow these markets to develop around stations farther away than today, and that this is, in my eyes, a good thing. Homansbyen is expensive because it is central, but how do you explain the higher prices of Holmenkollen or Tåsen, further away? I'd like to think that type of house matters also. And, sure, there's room for hundreds of thousands in Groruddalen (where I now live), but then there will be people who would want something else. Believe it or not, I want more space around me than I used to (yes, I've also lived in the traditional 1890s blocks of Majorstua, in a huge apartment). I think people want diversity, and some people want to live rural, but still need to work in the city. There are many reasons for "sprawl", and the prices downtown is one of them, not necessarily the only one.

As I said, if I could live at Stange or Tangen, with a sailboat on Mjøsa, and get to my job in Oslo in less than an hour, I would. Then the suckers from Hamar could spend another 2 minutes to get to Oslo for all I care

[Galro]

Yes, but we already have plenty of single houses. We shouldn't encourage to build more of them. Especially not on farmland (like at Stange). It should be much more important to get a fast and effective connection between the already built up areas.

Homansbyen is expensive because it is central, but how do you explain the higher prices of Holmenkollen or Tåsen, further away?

Mostly due to the views and the location. Holmenkollen have more high density commies than Homansbyen and the building have about the same space between them (with a few exceptions of course) so I don't think you can use the lack of density as the cause. A building that would have been seen as ghetto at Tveita is considered to be very desirable at Holmenkollen. It have very little to do with the building style.

Besides, I'm not completely sure why you think I'm upset?

[Mulefisk]

Regardless of what people want/think it's likely that the intercity triangle will encourage a lot of sprawl. Land policies in Akershus are fairly restrictive, whereas in Hedmark/Østfold/Vestfold they're likely to be more accepting towards development. There's also none of the stigma against sprawl that we see in the Oslo region.

It's also been proven that commuter rail lines like this encourage sprawl unless the planning of lines is closely linked with the planning of housing around stations. Most likely, people won't walk to the train, they'll drive from their suburban home to a park&ride facility and change there.

It makes sense. With the explosive property market in Oslo, why would you buy an apartment near the centre when you can get a house for half the price in the countryside and commute carbon-free on a brand new train?

[bookings]

Originally Posted by Galro

Besides, I'm not completely sure why you think I'm upset?

ah, I guess I read an accusation from your question. Nevermind. Anyway, the station cities must be properly planned, and I don't think we should only have stations where tons of people already live, but do like they did with the metro in the 50s; Extend it out "to nowhere", and then regulate for houses and small town development. Hopefully one can learn from the mistakes done then. And I agree location is important, but location means a lot of things, and what it doesn't mean is that all people at Stange live where they do because they can't afford Homansbyen. So what I'm saying is that it doesn't necessarily "solve the sprawl" by densifying Oslo. Some people just want to live differently. Then better to use fast communication to thin sprawl, like around stations for 150-200 kms around Oslo, than to have Oslo balloon out in all directions. You cannot force people to live dense and urban. Ok, I promise I'll stop blaspheming now

Maybe not Stange, but instead perhaps just a station between Eidsvoll and Tangen (30 km), and open up for terraced semi-urban housing down towards Mjøsa. Oh, I already broke my promise..

[IceCheese]

Presentation from the HSR-report. Doesn't get more "lettfattelig" than this:



Løren

[Mulefisk]

Quote from the Swedish forums:

Originally Posted by Smastad

... och där kändes plötsligt tunnelbanediskussionen lite futtig.

Artikel i SdS: Snabbtåg Oslo-Trelleborg-Berlin.


Bortsett från allt annat så kan jag tycka att det är ett smart sätt att använda pengarna från oljefonden. Järnväg är bra för miljön och en snabb förbindelse till Berlin känns som en långsiktig investering för norskt näringsliv. Dessutom känns det mycket enklare att bygga i Sverige än i Danmark.

Om detta blir verklighet kommer Fehrmer Bält förbindelsens kalkyl att se ännu sämre ut.

A good idea? There were some point brought up that this would be a good investment for Norway. Once the oil dries up we will need good infrastructure to fuel industry.

[Galro]

Follobanen kan bli utsatt til 2023
"Omdisponering av investeringsmidler fra den nye Follobanen til vedlikehold kan føre til at utbyggingen tidligst står ferdig i 2023. På tross av at jernbaneprosjektet er et eget punkt på statsbudsjettet."


http://www.bygg.no/2012/03/86017.0

[IceCheese]

Yeah, the NTP suggestion warns about that, but I think the politicians are too sensible to take that risk. In the +45 %-scheme, Follobanen is back with 2019-20.