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 June 4th, 2014, 09:02 AM   #2601
Gsus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 148
Likes (Received): 53

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kjello0 View Post
Actually, this kind of road isn't included in the new Håndbok N100. So I guess they are history.

The new H5 now only includes the 12.5 meter 1+1 road. And the 14.75 meter 2+1 road.

Perhaps they discovered that the 2+2 roads save very little money compared to the 20 meter motorway.
What I tried to say is that Slomarka-Konsvinger is built as an S5 road. But with continous passeing lanes in both directions. A four-laner with a width of 16 meters has never been a standard in 017, for speedlimits more than 60km/h (class S6, that still excist in the new 017/n100)
Gsus no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old June 4th, 2014, 04:36 PM   #2602
Kjello0
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Trondheim
Posts: 394
Likes (Received): 70

I understood what you were saying. I was only pointing out the news of the former narrow 4 lane road being dropped from the new Håndbok N100.

The old S5-standard of the old Håndbok 17 included these three cross sections.
S5 standard. AaDT 8-12.000. 90 km/h.


S5 with passing lane in one direction.


S5 with passing lanes in both directions.


The new H5-standard in the new Håndbok N100 however, only includes these two.

H5 standard. AaDT 6-12.000. 90 km/h.


H5 with passing lane in one direction.


A H5 with passing lanes in both directions don't exist.
Kjello0 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 4th, 2014, 06:31 PM   #2603
Gsus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 148
Likes (Received): 53

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kjello0 View Post
I understood what you were saying. I was only pointing out the news of the former narrow 4 lane road being dropped from the new Håndbok N100.

The old S5-standard of the old Håndbok 17 included these three cross sections.
S5 standard. AaDT 8-12.000. 90 km/h.


S5 with passing lane in one direction.


S5 with passing lanes in both directions.


The new H5-standard in the new Håndbok N100 however, only includes these two.

H5 standard. AaDT 6-12.000. 90 km/h.


H5 with passing lane in one direction.


A H5 with passing lanes in both directions don't exist.
Ahh good! Thats right about the 16,5m cross section! Passing lanes is not to be located on both sides at the same time on H5-roads where making of reg-plan was started after october last year, when the revised 017 (N100 from 1. june this year apparently) was released.
Gsus no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 5th, 2014, 05:04 PM   #2604
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,572
Likes (Received): 19366

Ryfylke Tunnel

The Ryfylke Tunnel progress:
__________________

my clinched highways / travel mapping • highway photography @ Flickr and Youtube

Stafangr, devo, Victorinus liked this post
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 6th, 2014, 07:58 PM   #2605
devo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 221
Likes (Received): 41

First of all, thanks for all the agreement over how bad the "16 m" solution for E 16 is. Yes, the road would probably never been built as a four lane road on the continent.
But, as we are re-building the road as we speak, there is a lot of money being spent on building it sub-standard. They should have built 20 m, or nothing. When will they widen it? Probably never. Even if AADT crosses 20.000.

Back to my original point and mathematical wizardry:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent 006 View Post
(...) But they didn't choose the 16 m standard primarily to save fertile land. (...)
Not primarily. But this point about saving fertile land is constantly clogging the system, not only for roads, but other constructions. New IKEA, other shopping malls, and so on.

Now, I'm not against protecting fertile land. I actually think this is really important, especially in Norway, where the fertile land is around 3% of land mass.
I just think the debate is simplified and, in the case of road construction, really derails the whole process.
devo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 6th, 2014, 08:01 PM   #2606
devo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 221
Likes (Received): 41

E 18 in Vestfold coming along nicely:


E 18 at Gjennestadmyra bridge today at noon. Traffic has been divided between the north and southbound carriageways between Tassebekk and Gjennestadmyra bridge.
Photo: Unn Una Johansen, Norwegian Public Roads Administration
devo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 7th, 2014, 01:22 AM   #2607
Spearman
NWO Henchman
 
Spearman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Oslo
Posts: 1,018
Likes (Received): 638

We all want wider and better roads, but I seriously don't get how you'd pick a 2+1 over a 2+2. 2+1 seems like a way to pay almost as much as a 2+2 to get half capacity and less speed.
__________________
politics n.pl. [From Gr. poly-, many and ticks, degenerate, blood-sucking parasites that transmit disease]

A bureaucrat is a device for turning coffee into frustration.
Spearman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 7th, 2014, 02:12 PM   #2608
MichiH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Lower Franconia
Posts: 4,403
Likes (Received): 2081

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gsus View Post
Everything except for the 2,3km Korslund tunnel will open according to the original plan in november, while the tunnel and short sections near both end of the tunnel will open during spring next year.
Are the section boundaries correct?

E6: Labbdalen – Korslund 12 17km (2012 to November 2014) – projectmap
E6: Langset – Minnesund 12 2km (2012 to November 2014) – projectmap
E6: Korslund – Langset 12 3km (2012 to Spring 2015) – projectmap
MichiH no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 7th, 2014, 03:36 PM   #2609
Kiweh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Christchurch
Posts: 702
Likes (Received): 175

Quote:
Originally Posted by devo View Post
E 18 in Vestfold coming along nicely:


E 18 at Gjennestadmyra bridge today at noon. Traffic has been divided between the north and southbound carriageways between Tassebekk and Gjennestadmyra bridge.
Photo: Unn Una Johansen, Norwegian Public Roads Administration
I'm going to be random and say that I'm somewhat amused by how we in New Zealand have the same street lighting. Also, Hello from kiwiland. I'm here to admire your highways.
__________________

devo liked this post
Kiweh no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 7th, 2014, 04:00 PM   #2610
devo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 221
Likes (Received): 41

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spearman View Post
We all want wider and better roads, but I seriously don't get how you'd pick a 2+1 over a 2+2. 2+1 seems like a way to pay almost as much as a 2+2 to get half capacity and less speed.
Well, I wouldn't pick 2+1 over 2+2. I would pick a motorway standard.
This obviously depends on the route. A national route, between regions, cities, should have a more liberal threshold for choosing continuous motorway standard. To avoid a piece here and a piece there, even if parts have too little traffic.

But no road should ever be built as 2+2. In fact, the latest road standards in Norway actually removed this option. (two lane road with continuous passing lanes). Also, the threshold for motorway standard is low, at only 12000 AADT.

One should ask, will this (any) road ever have traffic demanding motorway standards? If the answer is yes, even if it is 40 years in the future, then it should be built as motorway. Or at least half motorway, such that future widening can be done with no interruption of current traffic.
Interrupting current traffic while widening is expensive and unnecessary, if you just plan ahead, you can avoid it. Total cost will be lower.

So to conclude:
E 16 (previous Rv. 2) should have been built as a motorway between Kløfta and Kongsvinger. OR as half a motorway, a 2+1 road with central barrier that could have 2 extra carriageways added in the future without touching anything other than intersecting ramps.
__________________

Agent 006 liked this post
devo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 8th, 2014, 02:28 AM   #2611
Galro
Humanity through Urbanity
 
Galro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,340
Likes (Received): 10026

Retro footage of Norwegian car usage and culture.

__________________

Natomasken liked this post
Galro no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 9th, 2014, 12:54 AM   #2612
Fargo Wolf
Resident Smartass.
 
Fargo Wolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Port Kepler, Galilei Continent, Chakona
Posts: 685
Likes (Received): 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by Galro View Post
Retro footage of Norwegian car usage and culture.

FREAKING AWESOME FIND!!!!!

I would LOVE to see more vids like this from outside of the UK, not that there's anything wrong with those vids, but it's nice to see what the Continent was up to, especially with trucking.
__________________
Resident Rouge/Assasin who is a flag wolfess on the side and would love to live in the Netherlands.
Fargo Wolf no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 9th, 2014, 12:15 PM   #2613
Gsus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 148
Likes (Received): 53

Quote:
Originally Posted by MichiH View Post
Are the section boundaries correct?

E6: Labbdalen – Korslund 12 17km (2012 to November 2014) – projectmap
E6: Langset – Minnesund 12 2km (2012 to November 2014) – projectmap
E6: Korslund – Langset 12 3km (2012 to Spring 2015) – projectmap
That´s pretty correct I guess!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent 006 View Post
But they didn't choose the 16 m standard primarily to save fertile land.
I don´t think SVV was against building the narrower cross section, but it was actually a demand from Fylkesmannen (because of fertile land), resulting in this being the standard. Slomarka-Kongsvinger was actually regulated as a 19 meter wide road (class S8).
__________________

MichiH liked this post
Gsus no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 9th, 2014, 01:21 PM   #2614
devo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 221
Likes (Received): 41

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gsus View Post
(...)
I don´t think SVV was against building the narrower cross section, but it was actually a demand from Fylkesmannen (because of fertile land), resulting in this being the standard. Slomarka-Kongsvinger was actually regulated as a 19 meter wide road (class S8).
Fylkesmannen (the county govenor) should have brought some real data to the table, to point out how much fertile land was actually saved.
19 m vs. 16 m is even more ridiculous. The difference is a 300x100 m rectangle (per 10 km).
This is obiously not counting verges and embankments, which in reality could have made the difference even smaller. Also, this implies that every part of the new road went over some field/fertile land.

This makes me think that politics is just a display of power, not knowledge. It's pretty clear, it should be the other way round.
devo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2014, 01:23 AM   #2615
Agent 006
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Oslo/Trondheim
Posts: 152
Likes (Received): 180

Yes, SVV got requests, but as far as I know, this was primarily their own stupid decision.

Either Fylkesmannen or Miljøverndepartementet decides which road-standard to choose. SVVs own "stamvegnormaler" does, and should be followed. Only Vegdirektoratet permits departures (lower standard) from this minimums. In this case they did.

Estimated future AADT was a bit less than 12.000, but this was old estimates, so they had to choose a 20 m road (H8-standard) to keep up with the traffic-growth. But since Miljøverndepartementet requested SVV to consider environment, SVV elucidated two new options, a 12,5 m and a 16,5 m road, in addition to a 19/20 m road.

The following hearing statements did vary. Different authorites and groups wanted different solutions. Norsk Bondelag actually wanted a 19 m standard! The elucidation report ascertains; There are marginal differences between the alternatives according to environment and agriculture effects. Still a cowardly Vegdirektorat chosed the middle course (16,5 m road), and thus permited departures from the standards.

If estimated AADT was significantly much higher than 12.000, SVV would probably have chosen H8-standard in any case.

Departures from "vegnormalen" - E16 Nybakk - Kongsvinger:
http://www.vegvesen.no/_attachment/6...ongsvinger.pdf

Last edited by Agent 006; June 10th, 2014 at 08:54 AM.
Agent 006 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2014, 05:48 PM   #2616
devo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 221
Likes (Received): 41

If I'm reading this right, the motorway standard would result in over 6000 tons more CO2 emissions compared with the other options? Who calculates this? 10 km/h difference equals 6000 tons?
(The other options were appr. 800 and 600 tonns)

I must be missing something.

Also, note that statistically, less people will die and get serious injuries with the motorway standard. And, that they acknowledge that the traffic estimates might be way too low. When even Bondelaget agrees that 19 m is OK... It makes me wonder what really happened here. Avoiding a year in the Ministry of Environment following opposition from a couple of Fylkesmann? This stinks.
devo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2014, 08:34 PM   #2617
Kjello0
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Trondheim
Posts: 394
Likes (Received): 70

Other news, the government has decided that the E39 between Volda in Møre og Romsdal, and Skei in Sogn og Fjordane will follow the inner route via Stryn.

The correct choice as long as Kvivsvegen has been built and as long as E39 is supposed to go via Volda and Skei.

But with this choice, dropping Fefast is favour of Hafast is a mistake.

But I would still prefer my E39 that goes via a brand new route all the way from Ålesund to Bergen. Dropping both Volda and Skei.
Kjello0 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2014, 08:50 PM   #2618
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,572
Likes (Received): 19366

I'm on a road trip in Norway.

This is a preview Riksvei 7 across Hardangervidda this morning.


Riksvei 7 Hardangervidda by Chriszwolle, on Flickr
__________________

my clinched highways / travel mapping • highway photography @ Flickr and Youtube

devo liked this post
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2014, 09:14 PM   #2619
Kjello0
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Trondheim
Posts: 394
Likes (Received): 70

Went there last summer. Took Riksvei 7 from Granvin to Bergen as well. Beautiful route.
Kjello0 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2014, 09:24 PM   #2620
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,572
Likes (Received): 19366

I also took (old) riksvei 7 along the Hardangerfjord. There's a great waterfall just west of Norheimsund. It's a slow route though, narrow at stretches, but little traffic. E16 is faster, but has so many tunnels it's not very scenic, despite running next to a fjord as well.
ChrisZwolle 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 07:47 AM.


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