daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Highways & Autobahns

Highways & Autobahns All about automobility



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old January 17th, 2008, 07:49 PM   #181
Maxx☢Power
BANNED
 
Maxx☢Power's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 387
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
The official proposal for the Norwegian transport plan for the next 10 years was published today. Seldom have I seen a less ambitious document.....
I want to say it's a huge disappointment, but that would imply I was hoping for any improvement at all..
Maxx☢Power no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old February 15th, 2008, 05:15 PM   #182
Ingenioren
Registered User
 
Ingenioren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oslo
Posts: 5,604
Likes (Received): 584

In my opinion the first thing to take care about in regarding Norwegian roads is getting straiter and wider roads in the most important regional routes. For those who haven't driven outside major cities in Norway, long stretches on the most important regional roads are way to narrow! This is one of many examples, how E16 main highway between Bergen and Oslo cities look like : , not very efficient.
Ingenioren no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2008, 05:25 PM   #183
GuyFromMoss
Real Norwegian
 
GuyFromMoss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bergen op Zoom
Posts: 175
Likes (Received): 1

But we fly between Oslo and Bergen. So why do we need a good road? Traffic volumes are extremly low on this road, and the standard is not any worse than other roads with this low traffic volume.

I think it is much more important to use more money in southeastern Norway, where people live, and want to live!
__________________
Guess I am quite...
...boring
GuyFromMoss no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2008, 09:16 PM   #184
Ingenioren
Registered User
 
Ingenioren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oslo
Posts: 5,604
Likes (Received): 584

Unless you want to bring you're car;P This is an important truck route too. Reducing emissions and travel time between the cities would be great!
Ingenioren no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 17th, 2008, 01:30 AM   #185
54°26′S 3°24′E
Registered User
 
54°26′S 3°24′E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 811
Likes (Received): 155

I agree with Ingeniøren here. The main problem in Norway is that way to little is set aside to transportation. However, regarding the priorities, once the E6 from the Swedish border to Kolomoen, and the E18 through Vestfold is completed, south-eastern Norway actually is one of the few areas where there is a decent road network. Sure, in Oslo like other cities there are some problems during rush hours, but in the central south-eastern Norway there is also an excellent alternative provided by the government, a quite efficient rail system. Building a lot more roads here would not make much sense either economically nor environmentally.

Between the regions in Norway the roads are however simply terribly. It may not bother GuyFromMoss, but about 50 % of travels above 300 km in Norway is actually on road, not by air. If we got a decent motorway network this percentage would increase a lot, which would be very good for the environment. When it comes to goods, the air is usually not an alternative. In some places the railway could be an alternative if the freight capacity was increased, but many places along the Norwegian coast will simply never be reached by the railway.

Almost all the export industries in Norway are located along the coast. Very little is located in the south/eastern corner of Norway. Needless to say, the poor Norwegian road and railway network costs Norwegian industry a heap of money in extra costs every year. Economist have estimated the economic advantage of developing a motorway network connecting Stavanger, Bergen, Oslo and Trøndelag would be around 60 billion NOK (about 7.6 billion Euro) every year, and such a network would thus pay off from day one.

According to a report from the Norwegian research organisation Sintef, developing motorways on the transit routes will also pay off for the environment, as trucks and cars no longer have to make the frequent accelerations, stops and climbs so often often found on the current very winding, narrow and sometimes clogged roads. Except that we could expect some transfer of passengers from the environmentally unfriendly air traffic, the long-haul traffic volumes in Norway is not expected to be very dependent on road standard.

The final argument is of course safety. Most fatal accidents in Norway happens on two-lane countryside roads we call highways, not in the cities, and certainly not at the few motorways we have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyFromMoss View Post
I think it is much more important to use more money in southeastern Norway, where people live, and want to live!
It sounds like you have inhaled a little bit to much of the famous Mosse-smoke.....

I could say a lot to this, but most of it would be offtopic for the current forum, so I will try to be short:
  1. Only roughly 50 % of the Norwegian population lives in south-eastern Norway. The population of all regions of Norway except Northern Norway has population growth, and there has only been marginal changes in population between the regions the last couple of decades (again with the exception of Northern Norway). Oslo and Akershus has a combined population of little over 1 million of Norway's total 4.7.
  2. Except Troms, Oslo had the lowest traffic growth last year at only 1.5 %. Østfold couty had the fourth slowest growth. Hedmark, Aust-Agder (5.4%), Vest-Agder, Rogaland, Sogn og Fjordane, Sør-Trøndelag and Nord-Trøndelag counties all had higher traffic growth than Akershus at 3.6 %, which had the highest growth in South-Eastern Norway.
  3. Despite this, south-eastern Norway in general, and Oslo/Akershus in particular, gets almost all public transportation money today, some projects, like the Bjørvika projects where the road is put under ground just because of easthetic reasons, other parts of Norway could just dream about. In contrast I could mention the two-lane 8 m broad road called E6 south of Trondheim. It has almost 30 000 AADT, still, the government except an upgrade to be financed 100 % through toll charges.
  4. Nobody I know have moved to the Oslo-region because that's where they want to live, but because thats where they can find an interesting job. A big explanation for this is the huge government public sector of Oslo. Not including fully government owned employers like the railway etc, and partly government owned bussinesses like Telenor and Statoil-Hydro, Oslo has almost 40 000 government workers in Oslo, 14 % of the total workforce, which is skyhigh above any other region in Norway.

Well, maybe not so short....

I live in Akershus myself, btw, rarely has to pay any toll charge and seldom experience any traffic problems on my way to my government job....
54°26′S 3°24′E no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 17th, 2008, 11:11 AM   #186
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,569
Likes (Received): 19355

30.000 AADT on a single lane road is unacceptably high. Dutch one lane roads gets congested above 20.000 AADT. The capacity of a one lane road is 40.000, but only in completely free-flow situations, not with at grade intersections.
ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old February 18th, 2008, 10:03 PM   #187
Ingenioren
Registered User
 
Ingenioren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oslo
Posts: 5,604
Likes (Received): 584

I don't want to live any other place than Oslo, but i don't want the goverment building more roads here except lids and tunnels creating nicer neighbourhoods financed by selling gained lots and toll (road money shouldn't be used on this), i never drive in the city because the public transport is so good! A road i could really support would be a ring 4 tunnel under the forrest-areas so people passing by don't have to cross the city going south-north or east-vest,as it is now, there's not that many alternative routes!

Last edited by Ingenioren; February 19th, 2008 at 12:09 PM.
Ingenioren no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 19th, 2008, 07:51 PM   #188
54°26′S 3°24′E
Registered User
 
54°26′S 3°24′E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 811
Likes (Received): 155

Truck drivers run out of patience?

Norwegian truck drivers say they will stop their trucks for two minutes in commemoration of an accident last Sunday killing two truckdrivers. Since this is Norway, and not Italy or France, I guess that's all they will do for now, but you never now.

The accident happened on the Rv (Rv=National highway) 3, which is a 300 km long highway connecting with the E6 in both ends. The northern part of this road goes through one of the least populated regions of Norway, and thus this part of the road has transit traffic only, and the traffic varies between 14 000 AADT in the south and 2000 AADT in the northern end. However, since it is 40 km shorter and the elevation is 300 m less than E6 itself, 90 % of the trucks going from South-Eastern Norway, Oslo or the continent to central Norway/Trondheim uses this route. Thus, around 360 trucks of length above 16 m goes there every day, a number you usually find only on main highway with traffic above 10 000 AADT in Norway. The problem with the road is that it in many places is only 7 m wide, is very run down with lots of bumps, and there is also a big moose hazard (no joke, it is not fun to get this animal through your windscreen!).

During winter, of course, the road effectively gets even narrower, and the road is often slippery, which is a bad combination in particular with the many trucks come from the continent/Eastern Europe that usually neither have the equipment nor skill to drive on such roads. About 60-100 trucks needs assistance on this road every year, meaning hours of closures on this quite important interregional route. Mix this with stressed commuters in private cars and you get a predictable and tragic result. Many people die on this road every year. The government's response so far has been as predictable as unhelpful, a further decrease of the speed limit. There is hardly a place in Norway it would have been easier to widen the road at little expence, though.

I guess the reason that the truck drivers got so upset because of this accident, in addition to built up frustration, was because two trucks hit head on, resulting in the death of both drivers, one Danish and one Norwegian. The reason for the accident is not yet clear. In most accidents it is private car vs truck, and relatively few truck drivers are dying. According to the truck drivers, they have about 20 cm of margin between the ditch and a meeting truck during winter.

Some images from the accident scene:


This is from a "normal" truck rescue operation (i.e. no fatalities) on the same road:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriszwolle View Post
30.000 AADT on a single lane road is unacceptably high. Dutch one lane roads gets congested above 20.000 AADT. The capacity of a one lane road is 40.000, but only in completely free-flow situations, not with at grade intersections.
Well, we are talking about Norway, remember? Politicians seem to believe that traffic jams is a good thing. Most of the stretch I was talking about has grade separate intersections though, but it terminates in an ordinary roundabout with another major road of Norway, the coastal highway E-39 Trondheim-Bergen-Stavanger-Kristiansand The E-39 through Sandnes (south of Stavanger) BTW has even higher traffic, but it is mostly 3-lanes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingenioren View Post
I don't want to live any other place than Oslo, but i don't want the goverment building more roads here except lids and tunnels creating nicer neighbourhoods financed by selling gained lots and toll (road money shouldn't be used on this), i never drive in the city because the public transport is so good! A road i could really support would be a ring 4 tunnel under the forrest-areas so people passing by don't have to cross the city going south-north or east-vest,as it is now, there's not that many alternative routes!
Actually, a fourth ring road is a part of the plan of www.bilaksjonen.no/www.bedreveier.org:

This would be great for transit traffic, but I am not sure if it would make a significant impact on the Oslo traffic volumes. After all, the greater part of the traffic in Oslo is local, and probably most of the traffic coming in from region around Oslo today has its final destination somewhere in the Oslo-area. And besides, with the current funding the "double Y" won't happen in our lifetime.....

Last edited by 54°26′S 3°24′E; February 19th, 2008 at 08:48 PM.
54°26′S 3°24′E no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 19th, 2008, 10:17 PM   #189
Ingenioren
Registered User
 
Ingenioren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oslo
Posts: 5,604
Likes (Received): 584

Would be great to get the oppurtunity to drive from Vestfold to Romerike without having to drive the rollercoaster-road Rv35 or passing an hour in stillstanding traffic. The capasity would probably be eaten up wery fast by trafic-growt, the Oslofjordtunnel has only 6000 yearly-day-trafic, but with the through-going trafic going outside the city, we could start eliminating the cars as best as we can from the city, downscaling roads, buslanes/tramlanes with good parking on busstops with good bus connections to various parts of town. I also would like the Bike-tube idea from Bodø to be realised in Oslo - with good dry weather and good paths there's no excuse not to bike =) Harsh weather and bad paths are keeping people from biking. As to having 4-lane motorway throughout the country is a too much, 2+1 lanes with guardrail could be the normal for light-traficated. A good east-west crossing like the one to Stavanger/Bergen would be the most important road in my opinion. And a broadening off Rv3 to Trondheim =)

Last edited by Ingenioren; February 19th, 2008 at 10:35 PM.
Ingenioren no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 19th, 2008, 10:29 PM   #190
Ingenioren
Registered User
 
Ingenioren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oslo
Posts: 5,604
Likes (Received): 584

Norway has again surpassed its own world record of lowest underwater road-tunnel=) 287 meters below sealevel and 7,8 km long.


The road connects 22 000 innhabitants on some islands to the mainland with E39, Volda airport, university college and hospital. Cost off about 1 billion Euros.

Last edited by Ingenioren; February 19th, 2008 at 11:29 PM.
Ingenioren no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 19th, 2008, 10:56 PM   #191
Þróndeimr
Adventurous!
 
Þróndeimr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Posts: 12,216
Likes (Received): 2267

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
Actually, a fourth ring road is a part of the plan of www.bilaksjonen.no/www.bedreveier.org:

This would be great for transit traffic, but I am not sure if it would make a significant impact on the Oslo traffic volumes. After all, the greater part of the traffic in Oslo is local, and probably most of the traffic coming in from region around Oslo today has its final destination somewhere in the Oslo-area. And besides, with the current funding the "double Y" won't happen in our lifetime.....
We can sadly forget about 4 lane in that Y-proposal with today's fundings. But 2+1 lanes is possible with speed limits on 90km/h, as its very irritating when they make really good roads such as Steinkjer new E6 North and Steinkjer new E6 South where everything is 4 lane and 2+1 lane roads, much better than many 90km/h roads in Norway, and they put some 80km/h signs instead.

Also, last year they fixed some 6km of E6 between Levanger and Stjørdal into 90km/h divided with mid-parts. But they had to make it cheaper than estimated, and made the road into 2+1 for about 300m on each sides, so everytime you drive on the new road the traffic goes 70km/h because of some 80 year old lady which doesn't dare to drive that fast. So the result with the new road is negative, the traffic goes slower then before, since its impossible to drive past any cars anymore. This stretch also had 90km/h before, and was a really good stretch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingenioren View Post
Edit: How do i delete this reply?
Impossible, give the moderator of this sections a PM message, but you don't need to bother about it as we easilly scroll over your reply.
Þróndeimr no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 19th, 2008, 11:49 PM   #192
Pavlov's Dog
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oslo/Portland OR
Posts: 172
Likes (Received): 0

What I'd like to see is a Haukeli connection that kills two birds with one stone.

The three track rail connection would run Oslo-Drammen-Kongsberg-and in the West branch into 3. Bergen, Haugesund. Stavanger.

High-speed passenger rail between Oslo and all three cities as well as HSR between Stavanger and Drammen.

Car-trains/truck-trains using the same right of way. Make it faster and subsidize it to make it cheaper than driving the same stretch. Make it mandatory for all truck traffic not stopping locally during the stretch.

It would have to be subsidized but of coures building a slightly beefed up rail connection would be a lot cheaper than building the rail connection and greatly improved roads.
Pavlov's Dog no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 20th, 2008, 09:33 AM   #193
NorthStar77
Born to run
 
NorthStar77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Oslo
Posts: 1,683
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Þróndeimr View Post
We can sadly forget about 4 lane in that Y-proposal with today's fundings. But 2+1 lanes is possible with speed limits on 90km/h, as its very irritating when they make really good roads such as Steinkjer new E6 North and Steinkjer new E6 South where everything is 4 lane and 2+1 lane roads, much better than many 90km/h roads in Norway, and they put some 80km/h signs instead.
I agree that with today's funding, a full 4-lane highway like that proposal is impossible. But unfortunately, 3 lanes is not a good option either. Much of E6 between Gardemoen and Hamar is built with 3 lanes, but there is alot of deadly accidents there. Some unconsious drivers will overtake while it is cars in the other direction that is allowed to do it. And more common, dangerous situations arises when that extra lane changes direction, as some stupid aggressive drivers will always try to overtake cars in the last second.

Imagine how many lives that have been saved because of the new E18 Vestfold, what used to be called the death-road. The reduced the speed from 80km/h to 60-70, and even 50km/h some places, and still there were loads of deaths and other serious accidents. After it opened 6 years ago, there has been no deaths on this road afaik.

Building 4-lane motorways on these important roads will pay off(reduced deaths, reduced social costs because of fewer injuries, reduced material costs, and better access to the markets etc.) but ofcourse all on this forum already knows that, but there is little we can do...
__________________
Read about the Fjordcity-project, and other urban developements in Oslo
NorthStar77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 20th, 2008, 10:24 AM   #194
Ingenioren
Registered User
 
Ingenioren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oslo
Posts: 5,604
Likes (Received): 584

A guardrail between the two directions is all you need to get rid of the deadly accidents, in Sweden they have 2+1 lane roads with guardrail on many important highways =) And the last years we have buildt some off these too. 4 lanes are only necessery on heavily traficated stretches. Not Hønefoss - Bergen etc. =) When i drove in Finnmark they had even a piece off one-lane E6 with 90 km/h limit. The Steinkjer road is too short to get 90 km/h i imagine. Btw. In the whole western Norway there's only the motorway Sandnes - Stavanger that has 90 km/h.
Ingenioren no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 20th, 2008, 11:39 AM   #195
54°26′S 3°24′E
Registered User
 
54°26′S 3°24′E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 811
Likes (Received): 155

Of course a four-lane network is just a dream with the current funding. Unfortunately, only the far right Progress Party has supported such a network so far, but they are irresponsible in most other areas. With only 1 1/2 year to the next election, we can only hope for more focus on this area.

A 2+1 with guardail reduces the number of serious accidents, but is not a full alternative to 4-lane roads, which are much safer. Even Norwegian "rocket scientists" have realized this now . Note that the report does not take into account that 4-lane roads typically has much higher traffic, hence, if 1+2 had the same level of traffic they would have far more accidents. A 4-lane road also have big economic and environemental benefits, like higher reliability (it won't be as easily clogged for hours by a foreign truck with summer tires), higher speeds/shorter travel times and less breaking/accelerations (i.e. less emissions). The cost of building a narrow 4-lane (19 m) road is actually only marginally higher than a 1+2 road with guardrail (14.5 m), whereas first building an 1+2 and then later expand it to a 4-lane road is by far the most expensive solution. Sadly, this is the path the Norwegian government has followed so far.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Þróndeimr View Post
We can sadly forget about 4 lane in that Y-proposal with today's fundings. But 2+1 lanes is possible with speed limits on 90km/h, as its very irritating when they make really good roads such as Steinkjer new E6 North and Steinkjer new E6 South where everything is 4 lane and 2+1 lane roads, much better than many 90km/h roads in Norway, and they put some 80km/h signs instead.

Also, last year they fixed some 6km of E6 between Levanger and Stjørdal into 90km/h divided with mid-parts. But they had to make it cheaper than estimated, and made the road into 2+1 for about 300m on each sides, so everytime you drive on the new road the traffic goes 70km/h because of some 80 year old lady which doesn't dare to drive that fast. So the result with the new road is negative, the traffic goes slower then before, since its impossible to drive past any cars anymore. This stretch also had 90km/h before, and was a really good stretch.
The most interesting thing about the Steinkjer roads is that they were built without tolls at all, a rare thing in Norway.....

I think the decrease of the speed limits one some of the best roads in Norway has made people lose respect of the rules, and caused the speed to increase on other roads. To me it seems that the traffic is going at much higher speed relative to the speed limits today than some years ago.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavlov's Dog View Post
What I'd like to see is a Haukeli connection that kills two birds with one stone.

The three track rail connection would run Oslo-Drammen-Kongsberg-and in the West branch into 3. Bergen, Haugesund. Stavanger.

High-speed passenger rail between Oslo and all three cities as well as HSR between Stavanger and Drammen.

Car-trains/truck-trains using the same right of way. Make it faster and subsidize it to make it cheaper than driving the same stretch. Make it mandatory for all truck traffic not stopping locally during the stretch.

It would have to be subsidized but of coures building a slightly beefed up rail connection would be a lot cheaper than building the rail connection and greatly improved roads.
I also fully support the development of a better rail network in Norway, both interregionally (possibly HSR) and in urban areas. The best measure for the environment would be to increase the freight capacity of our railways. They are currently running at full capacity, and this is one of the reasons for the large increase in truck traffic. Railways can never serve the whole country and all transport needs, however.

According to the rail authorities, the HSR proposal with the best potential of becoming economical is Oslo-Trondheim via Østerdalen. Just like other visionary transport plans in Norway, the chance that any of the HSR lines would be realized is very low.

Last edited by 54°26′S 3°24′E; February 20th, 2008 at 11:50 AM.
54°26′S 3°24′E no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 21st, 2008, 05:58 PM   #196
Euklidisk
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 83
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
Of course a four-lane network is just a dream with the current funding. Unfortunately, only the far right Progress Party has supported such a network so far, but they are irresponsible in most other areas. With only 1 1/2 year to the next election, we can only hope for more focus on this area.

A 2+1 with guardail reduces the number of serious accidents, but is not a full alternative to 4-lane roads, which are much safer. Even Norwegian "rocket scientists" have realized this now . Note that the report does not take into account that 4-lane roads typically has much higher traffic, hence, if 1+2 had the same level of traffic they would have far more accidents. A 4-lane road also have big economic and environemental benefits, like higher reliability (it won't be as easily clogged for hours by a foreign truck with summer tires), higher speeds/shorter travel times and less breaking/accelerations (i.e. less emissions). The cost of building a narrow 4-lane (19 m) road is actually only marginally higher than a 1+2 road with guardrail (14.5 m), whereas first building an 1+2 and then later expand it to a 4-lane road is by far the most expensive solution. Sadly, this is the path the Norwegian government has followed so far.
2+1 is a good alternative when there's an existing wide non-separated road. New painting and guardail is really cheap compared with widening or a complete new road. That's the situation in Sweden with it's huge network of 13 m roads, but Norway is of course another case

Typical 13 m 2+1 in Sweden look like:

0,5
3,25, lane
3,25, lane
1,5
3,75, lane
0,5
Euklidisk no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 21st, 2008, 06:15 PM   #197
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,569
Likes (Received): 19355

2+1 is indeed a very good solution for roads which are busy, have little overtaking possibilites, but the traffic volume doesn't justify a motorway. It can also be combined with grade separated intersections at busy intersections.

It's much cheaper than a full-profile motorway.
ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old February 21st, 2008, 11:46 PM   #198
Maxx☢Power
BANNED
 
Maxx☢Power's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 387
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyFromMoss View Post
But we fly between Oslo and Bergen.
Why do you think people fly?

What I don't get about the current government is why they don't seem to realise (or want to realise) that good infrastructure is good "distriktspolitikk". They want people to live in the districts but they don't seem to want to make it any easier for them.. It's no wonder people are abandoning towns and villages when their only connection to the outside world is a 1,5 lane potholed road and they can't get a job because no sensible business would want to establish themselves there. It's a proven fact that good infrastructure brings more people out of the cities (to Suburbia mostly, but still ).

It's sad that the sensible parties are letting the lunatics in FrP snatch so many voters because of these things. Instead of doing anything about it they waste money on HSR feasibility projects that everyone knows will never be realised anyway.
Maxx☢Power no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 25th, 2008, 12:31 PM   #199
54°26′S 3°24′E
Registered User
 
54°26′S 3°24′E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 811
Likes (Received): 155

Agreed!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriszwolle View Post
2+1 is indeed a very good solution for roads which are busy, have little overtaking possibilites, but the traffic volume doesn't justify a motorway. It can also be combined with grade separated intersections at busy intersections.

It's much cheaper than a full-profile motorway.
The 2+1 road (S5) we are talking about according to the latest Norwegian standard has the following profile (speed limit up to 90 km/h):

The standard for the narrowest motorway (S7/S8) has the following profile (speed limit up to 100 km/h)


Both roads has grade separated intersection etc. Although I am not an expert, I would assume that added cost of building S7/S8 is far less than (19/14.5-1)=31 %. The major problem, however, is that the Norwegian authorities always underestimates the traffic growth, so that after only a decade or so after building an 2+1 or 1+1 expressway the accident numbers and congestions reach a level where the road needs to be expanded to a full profile motorway. The added cost is then of course much higher.
54°26′S 3°24′E no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 3rd, 2008, 01:52 PM   #200
ElviS77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 564
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriszwolle View Post
Traffic volumes are not the only reason for motorway construction.

> Traffic volumes
> Traffic safety
> Economic development
> Driving time reducing
> Pollution reduction
> Livability of streets/towns
I wholeheartedly agree, but, unfortunately, Norwegian politicians and bureaucrats do not: Unless traffic volumes are predicted to exceed AADT 10000 on the proposed stretch of road, a motorway will not be built. In addition, as long as the AADT isn't predicted to exceed 20000 in the next 30 years, the road will most likely be built as a narrow profile motorway (i.e. an expressway disguised as a motorway). To add insult to injury, the predictions have been notoriously unreliable.
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
norway

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 04:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium