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 July 21st, 2008, 03:09 PM   #301
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

Nord Trøndelag gets its first 4-lane

Nord-Trøndelag silently opened its first four lane road recently between Vist and Sørlia south of Steinkjer:

Note that north on this map for some reason is to the right!

Here is a video from the 3.4 km stretch. The road is only 16 m wide and hence not of motorway standard. New 16 m roads are no longer projected in Norway, according to the new standards a 4 lane road has to be at least 18 m wide. This is part of a bigger project for a new E6 south of Steinkjer, and coincidentally, just prior to the opening there was a detonation that went wrong during the construction of the part of the project that will open next summer, and both the railway and the current (old) E6 was closed.

Hence the lack of celebration for the new road, but the road authorities should not have been too surprised, because the name of the hill is Løsberga, i.e. Loose Cliffs.... The project has also been a bit controversial since the new highway goes straight through Steinkjer city center, with 7 new roundabouts. The traffic north of Steinkjer is quite low, though.
54°26′S 3°24′E no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old July 21st, 2008, 03:53 PM   #302
ElviS77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 564
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
I think most Norwegians agree that the current route of E16 is NOT the most natural choice between Oslo and Bergen. At the time when the current main road between Oslo and Bergen was selected, and the Lærdal tunnel was approved, the transport minister of Norway, Opseth, was from Sogn og Fjordande, and that says a little bit about how much local politics goes in Norway. In my opinion, the politicians should keep their hands off planning of the national trunk road network, and leave the decisions to the national road authorities like in most other countries.

In the future, I am convinced that the main road between Oslo and Bergen will follow a route similar to either present rv 7 (Hardangervidda) or E136 (Haukelifjell), the latter could be used for a combined route for both Stavanger and Bergen if the 25 km Boknafjord tunnels and a few other fjord crossing projects are developed.

There is BTW a similar situation between Oslo and Trondheim. The official main road is E6, but almost all truck traffic and Norwegian (i.e. non-tourist) through traffic uses rv 3 which is shorter and with easier terrain. Again, local politics is a major factor.
First of all, this is a guide describing the actual situation more than my personal preferences. But to make a few comments: First, both the E16, the rv7/52 combination and the E134 (not E136, that goes from Dombås to Ålesund) has its merits. Anyway, the most important thing is to make a decision, prioritize.

In terms of the alternatives: The E16, although the longest, is by far the best connection in wintertime, the road is almost never closed. The E134 is a short link and it is important anyway, linking northern Rogaland (and even Stavanger, when the Boknafjord crossing is eventually built) to Oslo. However, as a Bergen link it has major weaknesses: The link between Røldal and Trengereid outside Bergen is abysmal in places and the ferry won't go away in decades, if ever. The E134 itself (I'll get back to that road in a guide later) crosses over several hills even before the Haukeli plateau. It will eventually be improved, though, but I see it more as the Oslo-Rogaland link.

The rv7 is out of the question. It crosses the Hardangervidda national park, the pass is at 1250 metres more than 200 metres higher than Filefjell (and thus closed for long periods in the winter), wild reindeer is an issue, not to mention the long and steep climb on the western side. That leaves the rv7/52 through Hemsedal. This makes far more sense, both because it's shorter than the E16 (and becoming even shorter in a few years time as 20 kms will be shaved off due to the new Sokna-Ørgenvika road) and because it's important as a link Between Oslo and the Hallingdal and Hemsedal anyway. The mountain pass is steeper and somewhat higher than Filefjell, but it's relatively short and managable.

Nonetheless, the important thing is to decide, to choose either option and stick by it. Yes, Opseth was from Sogn og Fjordane, but Filefjell has always carried the European route Oslo-Bergen, way before him. Besides, he actually made decisions and stuck by them (Gardermoen airport...), which is exactly what Norwegian infrastructure needs. Ok, you and I disagree with his choices, but he got things done.

The E6/rv3 is a very different story. Yes, the rv 3 is 40 kms shorter and has a far lower mountain pass, but it runs through a virtually uninhabited area. The AADT isn't much more than 3,000 north of Rena, and across the Kvikne plateau it's lower. The E6, however, has an AADT in excess of 10,000 to north of Lillehammer, and through Gudbrandsdalen, we see an AADT of between 5,000 and 10,000. The same is true (albeit with lower numbers) north of the mountain. In short, the E6 corridor sees more traffic than the rv 3 corridor, even if every single vehicle traveling from Oslo to Trondheim were to use the rv 3. Besides, with the volumes of traffic going north-south, two main links makes sense whereas four links Oslo-Bergen do not.
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 21st, 2008, 04:01 PM   #303
ElviS77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 564
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
Nord-Trøndelag silently opened its first four lane road recently between Vist and Sørlia south of Steinkjer:

Note that north on this map for some reason is to the right!

Here is a video from the 3.4 km stretch. The road is only 16 m wide and hence not of motorway standard. New 16 m roads are no longer projected in Norway, according to the new standards a 4 lane road has to be at least 18 m wide. This is part of a bigger project for a new E6 south of Steinkjer, and coincidentally, just prior to the opening there was a detonation that went wrong during the construction of the part of the project that will open next summer, and both the railway and the current (old) E6 was closed.

Hence the lack of celebration for the new road, but the road authorities should not have been too surprised, because the name of the hill is Løsberga, i.e. Loose Cliffs.... The project has also been a bit controversial since the new highway goes straight through Steinkjer city center, with 7 new roundabouts. The traffic north of Steinkjer is quite low, though.
The road through Steinkjer is another example of a useless road in need of replacement already before if was opened, and it's a disgrace that it's a part of the E6 - a new part... In terms of 16.5-metre roads: They are being built and will continue to be built on stretches with an expected AADT in the 8,000-12,000 range (it is in fact a 2+2 version of the 14.5-metre 2+1). The rv 80 project outside Bodø is planned partly as a 16.5, the rv 2 Kløfta-Kongsvinger might see more 16.5 than the 10 kms already in operation, the E18 through Østfold might get it east of Momarken.
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 21st, 2008, 05:21 PM   #304
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
First of all, this is a guide describing the actual situation more than my personal preferences. But to make a few comments: First, both the E16, the rv7/52 combination and the E134 (not E136, that goes from Dombås to Ålesund) has its merits. Anyway, the most important thing is to make a decision, prioritize.

In terms of the alternatives: The E16, although the longest, is by far the best connection in wintertime, the road is almost never closed. The E134 is a short link and it is important anyway, linking northern Rogaland (and even Stavanger, when the Boknafjord crossing is eventually built) to Oslo. However, as a Bergen link it has major weaknesses: The link between Røldal and Trengereid outside Bergen is abysmal in places and the ferry won't go away in decades, if ever. The E134 itself (I'll get back to that road in a guide later) crosses over several hills even before the Haukeli plateau. It will eventually be improved, though, but I see it more as the Oslo-Rogaland link.

The rv7 is out of the question. It crosses the Hardangervidda national park, the pass is at 1250 metres more than 200 metres higher than Filefjell (and thus closed for long periods in the winter), wild reindeer is an issue, not to mention the long and steep climb on the western side. That leaves the rv7/52 through Hemsedal. This makes far more sense, both because it's shorter than the E16 (and becoming even shorter in a few years time as 20 kms will be shaved off due to the new Sokna-Ørgenvika road) and because it's important as a link Between Oslo and the Hallingdal and Hemsedal anyway. The mountain pass is steeper and somewhat higher than Filefjell, but it's relatively short and managable.
I agree on most of this, but I am talking in long term, where new tunnels could make the mountain crossings considerably easier. Also, there is a great push to make Stavanger-Bergen ferry-free, at which point Haukeli is viable also for Bergen. This is in fact in line with what both bilaksjonen (road) and some high speed train proposals call for, a T-connection between Oslo and Bergen/Stavanger.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
The E6/rv3 is a very different story. Yes, the rv 3 is 40 kms shorter and has a far lower mountain pass, but it runs through a virtually uninhabited area. The AADT isn't much more than 3,000 north of Rena, and across the Kvikne plateau it's lower. The E6, however, has an AADT in excess of 10,000 to north of Lillehammer, and through Gudbrandsdalen, we see an AADT of between 5,000 and 10,000. The same is true (albeit with lower numbers) north of the mountain. In short, the E6 corridor sees more traffic than the rv 3 corridor, even if every single vehicle traveling from Oslo to Trondheim were to use the rv 3. Besides, with the volumes of traffic going north-south, two main links makes sense whereas four links Oslo-Bergen do not.
[/quote]
Of course the current E6 running through Gudbrandsdalen is an important road, but it is not the through road connecting central and Northern Norway to the rest of the country and Europe, that would be Rv 3. E6 north of the split with the rv 3 at Kolomoen serves the inland cities Hamar and Lillehammer, the North-Western county of Møre og Romsdal and partly Sogn og Fjordande. Hence, the Gudbrandsdalen road should in my opinion be marked E-136, and the current rv 3 should be marked E6. Of course we need both routes, and both need heavy investments, although it would be much easier to expand rv 3 to a proper motorway. Btw, although rv 3 has lower traffic numbers on some spots than the E6, it carries 90% of the truck traffic between Oslo and Trondheim, and the truck traffic on this road in fact corresponds to what you find on a 10 000 AADT average Norwegian road.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
The road through Steinkjer is another example of a useless road in need of replacement already before if was opened, and it's a disgrace that it's a part of the E6 - a new part... In terms of 16.5-metre roads: They are being built and will continue to be built on stretches with an expected AADT in the 8,000-12,000 range (it is in fact a 2+2 version of the 14.5-metre 2+1). The rv 80 project outside Bodø is planned partly as a 16.5, the rv 2 Kløfta-Kongsvinger might see more 16.5 than the 10 kms already in operation, the E18 through Østfold might get it east of Momarken.
Probably I should not trust the media on this so I checked the standards. Actually, the standard calls for 12.5 m divided two-lane road in this AADT range (S5) with three passing lanes in each direction per 10 km. If these passing lanes coincide, the road becomes 16.5 m. I guess some local politicians and road builders push this a bit to build 16.5 m all the way....Anyway, a problem with these standards is that the projected AADT numbers always are too low, and they make our road network look like a patchwork, with a new standard every few kms. There does not seem to be a coherent strategy to actually bind the country together. The Germans planned to build a motorway network in Norway, I wonder if it will take another 60-70 years before it materializes....
54°26′S 3°24′E no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 22nd, 2008, 02:01 PM   #305
ElviS77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 564
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
I agree on most of this, but I am talking in long term, where new tunnels could make the mountain crossings considerably easier. Also, there is a great push to make Stavanger-Bergen ferry-free, at which point Haukeli is viable also for Bergen. This is in fact in line with what both bilaksjonen (road) and some high speed train proposals call for, a T-connection between Oslo and Bergen/Stavanger.
Yes, but even with new tunnels, a shorter Haukeli link to bergen would require a new road through Hardanger, including a second Hardangerfjord crossing. Very unlikely. Linking the E134 to a future ferry-free E39 would not cut current travel time Oslo-Bergen by much, if at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
Of course the current E6 running through Gudbrandsdalen is an important road, but it is not the through road connecting central and Northern Norway to the rest of the country and Europe, that would be Rv 3. E6 north of the split with the rv 3 at Kolomoen serves the inland cities Hamar and Lillehammer, the North-Western county of Møre og Romsdal and partly Sogn og Fjordande. Hence, the Gudbrandsdalen road should in my opinion be marked E-136, and the current rv 3 should be marked E6. Of course we need both routes, and both need heavy investments, although it would be much easier to expand rv 3 to a proper motorway. Btw, although rv 3 has lower traffic numbers on some spots than the E6, it carries 90% of the truck traffic between Oslo and Trondheim, and the truck traffic on this road in fact corresponds to what you find on a 10 000 AADT average Norwegian road.
It will never happen. Mostly because the entire E6 has more traffic than the rv 3 (for most of the stretch, the difference is significant and will, as stated, stay that way even if all north-south traffic were to use the rv 3). In addition, a new part motorway, part 2+1 expressway through Gudbrandsdalen (which will happen in a few years) will steal traffic from the rv 3. Finally, afaik, lorries constitute some 20-25% of the traffic along the rv 3. Although this is a lot and considerably more than the 10-15% on average trunk roads, it's still no more than what you find on a 5,000 AADT (not 10,000) road.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of improving the rv 3, but it'll never become the main north-south artery.
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 22nd, 2008, 03:08 PM   #306
Norsko
Urban Citizen
 
Norsko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Drammen
Posts: 418
Likes (Received): 6

What kind of road is that new 2+2 up there. Expressroad or "smal 4 feltsmotorvei"? Looks really nice, but the lack of emergency lines made me wonder about this.
__________________
_________
Norsko no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 22nd, 2008, 03:28 PM   #307
ElviS77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 564
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by Norsko View Post
What kind of road is that new 2+2 up there. Expressroad or "smal 4 feltsmotorvei"? Looks really nice, but the lack of emergency lines made me wonder about this.
"Motortrafikkvei" (expressway), not motorway. 2+2 version of the 2+1/1+1. Profile width 16.5, vs 14.5 for the 2+1 and 12.5 for the 1+1.
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 22nd, 2008, 07:56 PM   #308
Norsko
Urban Citizen
 
Norsko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Drammen
Posts: 418
Likes (Received): 6

Ok Thanks. Yellow signs and less than 100 km/h then?
__________________
_________
Norsko no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 22nd, 2008, 08:35 PM   #309
khoojyh
No more world war !!!
 
khoojyh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Eastern Garden,City of Twins, Merlion City, Good Little Bay
Posts: 1,635
Likes (Received): 51

Norway looks very green and comfortable.
khoojyh no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 23rd, 2008, 01:01 AM   #310
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
Yes, but even with new tunnels, a shorter Haukeli link to bergen would require a new road through Hardanger, including a second Hardangerfjord crossing. Very unlikely. Linking the E134 to a future ferry-free E39 would not cut current travel time Oslo-Bergen by much, if at all.
Bruk Odda!
I guess with a map everything should be clearer (also for me).....

I am guessing you are aware of the suggestions from the "Haukelifjellets venner" group? (link only in Norwegian)
As you rightly points out, another Hardangerfjord crossing (to me the currently approved crossing does not seem very smart), would really be an advantage for the Haukeliroad. Even if the ferry is maintained at the Jondal-Tørrvikbukt crossing, however, Haukeli would be a much better alternative since it is 130 km shorter than the current E16. The Jondal-Rosendal tunnel is as far as I know already approved (only one tube, of course). At the same time they should also build new tunnels accross Haukelifjell which seriously would ease the pain for the trucks:
(check this Norwegian article for a discussion of these tunnels)

What I like about the Haukeli proposal is that it would cut short to both Bergen and Stavanger with more than 100 km, saving a lot of fuel, time and money each year. However, I think we should complete the considerably less ambitious project of building a decent road Oslo-Trondheim and Oslo-Kristiansand first.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
It will never happen. Mostly because the entire E6 has more traffic than the rv 3 (for most of the stretch, the difference is significant and will, as stated, stay that way even if all north-south traffic were to use the rv 3).
You might be right about the conclusion, but I think the reason we most likely would have status quo is opportunistic local politics and not national rationality. The politicians from both Oppland (which the current E6 runs through) and Møre og Romsdal (which the current E6 currently connects in the North-Western corner of Southern Norway) would strongly oppose a renumbering because that may mean a reduction of status and hence funding of "their" road. In addition Oppland probably fear a reduction of visiting tourist who currently "blindly" follow the E6 on their way to Northern Norway. In fact, a renumbering has ben suggested many times already, but always met strong opposition from exactly these counties.

However, I maintain that the rational thing to do would be to put the E6 along Østerdalen where the Germans planned to build their Autobahn 65 years ago. That Gudbrandsdalen has more traffic is really not an argument, the E6 is for transit traffic, not local or regional traffic, and the transit traffic to Molde/Ålesund could be covered by extending the E136 down to Kolomoen.

The traffic across the Dovre mountain pass (current E6) is BTW almost identical to what you have across Kvikne (rv 3), the same is true where the roads meet at the northern end of rv 3 in Ulsberg. However, the rv 3 has many times higher truck traffic as the E6 both across Dovre and south of Ulsberg is mainly for local/regional/recreational traffic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
In addition, a new part motorway, part 2+1 expressway through Gudbrandsdalen (which will happen in a few years) will steal traffic from the rv 3.
Hardly. It currently takes about an hour more to drive the E6 than rv 3 under good circumstances, and the E6 is packed with local traffic, speed cameras and tight turns, goes 300 m higher than rv 3, and is sometimes closed during winter. During summer traffic is often slowed down by continental RVs with drivers looking at the scenery rather than their rear mirror. It would take a lot of construction, including a long and expensive Dovre tunnel before E6 becomes the preferred route for other than tourists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
Finally, afaik, lorries constitute some 20-25% of the traffic along the rv 3. Although this is a lot and considerably more than the 10-15% on average trunk roads, it's still no more than what you find on a 5,000 AADT (not 10,000) road.
It might be a matter of definition what "heavy traffic" is. The fact is that rv 3 has a very high percentage of the longest trucks (>16 m). According to the road authorities "stamvegutredning"-report a few years back rv 3 has a traffic level of the longest truck which you find on other main roads with 4-5 times higher AADT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of improving the rv 3, but it'll never become the main north-south artery.
But IT HAS already for a long time been the main artery, and is increasingly so. The transit traffic is much larger on the rv 3 than E6, so what we are talking about changing the map so it fits the facts on the ground. In addition, it is hardly any place in Norway where you can get more road for your money. Østerdalen is relatively flat, and environmental and area conflicts is almost absent. Along E6 in Gudbrandsdalen and not at least Dovre there are potential conflicts everywhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
"Motortrafikkvei" (expressway), not motorway. 2+2 version of the 2+1/1+1. Profile width 16.5, vs 14.5 for the 2+1 and 12.5 for the 1+1.
Actually, I think this road is built after an obsolete "very narrow" four lane standard, and I am not sure whether it is "motortrafikkvei".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Norsko View Post
Ok Thanks. Yellow signs and less than 100 km/h then?
80 km/h

Last edited by 54°26′S 3°24′E; July 23rd, 2008 at 10:57 AM.
54°26′S 3°24′E no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 23rd, 2008, 01:33 PM   #311
ElviS77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 564
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
You might be right about the conclusion, but I think the reason we most likely would have status quo is opportunistic local politics and not national rationality. The politicians from both Oppland (which the current E6 runs through) and Møre og Romsdal (which the current E6 currently connects in the North-Western corner of Southern Norway) would strongly oppose a renumbering because that may mean a reduction of status and hence funding of "their" road. In addition Oppland probably fear a reduction of visiting tourist who currently "blindly" follow the E6 on their way to Northern Norway. In fact, a renumbering has ben suggested many times already, but always met strong opposition from exactly these counties.
Two things: Here, the politicians actually made their choice (a good thing!), and for many good reasons, chief among which the fact that it's a far busier stretch of road. Of course, the rv 3 is shorter and lower, but again: It will never happen. In my opinion, it's better to keep one's wishes within the realms of reality, thus things might actually happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
However, I maintain that the rational thing to do would be to put the E6 along Østerdalen where the Germans planned to build their Autobahn 65 years ago. That Gudbrandsdalen has more traffic is really not an argument, the E6 is for transit traffic, not local or regional traffic, and the transit traffic to Molde/Ålesund could be covered by extending the E136 down to Kolomoen.
There are arguments for both options, but - as I've said - the choice is made, and messing with that will only lead to even less funding of projects in both corridors. And that we don't need. Transit traffic is important, but total traffic volume also has to be taken into consideration.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
The traffic across the Dovre mountain pass (current E6) is BTW almost identical to what you have across Kvikne (rv 3), the same is true where the roads meet at the northern end of rv 3 in Ulsberg. However, the rv 3 has many times higher truck traffic as the E6 both across Dovre and south of Ulsberg is mainly for local/regional/recreational traffic.
True. Apart for the "many times higher" conclusion", it's about double. For the rest of the roads (about 75%, Kolomoen-Lillehammer vs Kolomoen-Tynset plus Oppdal-Ulsberg vs Kvikne-Ulsberg), the situation is very different.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
Hardly. It currently takes about an hour more to drive the E6 than rv 3 under good circumstances, and the E6 is packed with local traffic, speed cameras and tight turns, goes 300 m higher than rv 3, and is sometimes closed during winter. During summer traffic is often slowed down by continental RVs with drivers looking at the scenery rather than their rear mirror. It would take a lot of construction, including a long and expensive Dovre tunnel before E6 becomes the preferred route for other than tourists.
First: I've driven both roads on a regular basis. I've never, ever (summer, winter, autumn, spring, night or day, busy or quiet) been able to save more than 40 mins, normally we're talking +/- 30 mins. Second: With a motorway along Mjøsa, a 2+1 through the entire Gudbrandsdal (even shortening the stretch by 5-10 kms), the average travel speed will increase considerably. Even without a new Dovre climb or top tunnel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
It might be a matter of definition what "heavy traffic" is. The fact is that rv 3 has a very high percentage of the longest trucks (>16 m). According to the road authorities "stamvegutredning"-report a few years back rv 3 has a traffic level of the longest truck which you find on other main roads with 4-5 times higher AADT..
It's higher, yes, but when you're talking 4-5 times higher, it suggests a HGV percentage of some 50%...

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
But IT HAS already for a long time been the main artery, and is increasingly so. The transit traffic is much larger on the rv 3 than E6, so what we are talking about changing the map so it fits the facts on the ground. In addition, it is hardly any place in Norway where you can get more road for your money. Østerdalen is relatively flat, and environmental and area conflicts is almost absent. Along E6 in Gudbrandsdalen and not at least Dovre there are potential conflicts everywhere.
The total traffic volume is, as I've said a few times, heavier on 75% of the E6 (the remainder is about the same), most of it even considerably heavier. That makes a difference, no matter which route most of the transit traffic use. I realise that you'd like to see an expressway through Østerdalen, and your arguments are sensible. But there are good arguments supporting the Gudbrandsdalen link as well, and - most importantly - those have been heard. The alternatives are to support a proper E6 and work for a decent rv 3 or to promote idealistic projects that won't be realised. Ever.
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 23rd, 2008, 02:47 PM   #312
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
In my opinion, it's better to keep one's wishes within the realms of reality, thus things might actually happen.
Road numbers aren't exactly written in stone, and has been changed several times in the past. Regarding this particular discussion, the issue is publicly discussed quite frequently. If Norway adopted the model of most other countries, where national roads are not decided by local politics but the national road authority with the task of making a trunk way system binding the country together, things could turn out very differently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
There are arguments for both options, but - as I've said - the choice is made, and messing with that will only lead to even less funding of projects in both corridors. And that we don't need. Transit traffic is important, but total traffic volume also has to be taken into consideration.
I don't see how changing road numbers would decrease funding, the competition between the two roads is a real issue in any case, and almost led to a breakdown of the road alliance between Hedmark and Oppland.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
True. Apart for the "many times higher" conclusion", it's about double.
It's higher, yes, but when you're talking 4-5 times higher, it suggests a HGV percentage of some 50%...
Check the link, I did not make up the 4-5 times higher claim. The confusion may be caused by different definitions of what heavy traffic is, more than 3.5 t or more than 16 m? (And at night it feels very much like every second car is a truck on rv 3, BTW)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
First: I've driven both roads on a regular basis. I've never, ever (summer, winter, autumn, spring, night or day, busy or quiet) been able to save more than 40 mins, normally we're talking +/- 30 mins.
I don't understand this. 40 km should take at least 30 minutes alone. In addition, the speed limits are still considerably higher on the rv 3, and the traffic is much more likely to slow you down on the E6, because the traffic is higher, there are fewer passing possibilities and curves and hills slow heavy vehicles down on the E6. I have driven between Oslo and Trondheim far too many times, and in my experience, it is at least one hour difference (OK, it is also a bit more tempting to have a slightly heavy right foot on the rv 3...)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
Second: With a motorway along Mjøsa, a 2+1 through the entire Gudbrandsdal (even shortening the stretch by 5-10 kms), the average travel speed will increase considerably. Even without a new Dovre climb or top tunnel.
We are probably talking about minutes of saved time here. Whatever you do,
the time difference won't be less than 30 minutes, and unless you make a very long tunnel, the trucks will also still use considerable more gas on E6. By digging a couple of much shorter tunnels, it is BTW also possible to make the Kvikne passage of rv 3 even lower.

Another factor is that nobody actually wants the traffic from rv 3 transferred to Gudbrandsdalen, it would create even greater problems there, and as you might know, the E6 passes through a very vulnerable ecosystem across Dovre, and nobody wants to see a doubling of the traffic there.

Perhaps if you build a continous motorway Oslo- Dombås and expressway Dombås-Ulsberg and at the same time freezes any development in Østerdalen the alternatives can perhaps become similar on a time budget, but not on a fuel budget. The only way you can get an improvement on the Oslo-Trondheim travel time and emissions compared with the current situation is however to develop the Østerdalen road.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
The total traffic volume is, as I've said a few times, heavier on 75% of the E6 (the remainder is about the same), most of it even considerably heavier. That makes a difference, no matter which route most of the transit traffic use. I realise that you'd like to see an expressway through Østerdalen, and your arguments are sensible. But there are good arguments supporting the Gudbrandsdalen link as well, and - most importantly - those have been heard. The alternatives are to support a proper E6 and work for a decent rv 3 or to promote idealistic projects that won't be realised. Ever.
It does not seem that we will agree on this, "ever". Of course traffic volumes matter when you decide what road standard you should have, and undoubtly, we will have a motorway to Lillehammer and an upgrade further north in a few years, both measures that have my full support. However, when deciding on what should be the future road network that binds the country together we should select the shortest and most environmental sound alternatives for transit between the main regional centers of Norway, and not follow routes that coincidentally have a lot of traffic already. The latter solution would be equivalent to putting all new highways directly through the city centers, which after all have the heaviest traffic. I think most would agree that is a very backward approach.

For the Oslo - Trondheim corridor it is no doubt that transit road used today by most, and which by far is both the shortest and most enviromently friendly is the rv 3 between Kolomoen and Ulsberg. The proffesionals (trucks and express buses) already uses this route almost exlusively, and whenever the Norwegian government decides that it wants to build a real trunk road network they should follow the truck's lead on this, as well developing Haukeli as the main east/west connection.

Last edited by 54°26′S 3°24′E; July 23rd, 2008 at 03:48 PM.
54°26′S 3°24′E no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 23rd, 2008, 04:30 PM   #313
ElviS77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 564
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
Road numbers aren't exactly written in stone, and has been changed several times in the past. Regarding this particular discussion, the issue is publicly discussed quite frequently. If Norway adopted the model of most other countries, where national roads are not decided by local politics but the national road authority with the task of making a trunk way system binding the country together, things could turn out very differently.

I don't see how changing road numbers would decrease funding, the competition between the two roads is a real issue in any case, and almost led to a breakdown of the road alliance between Hedmark and Oppland.
1. Changing the E6 from Gudbrandsdalen to Østerdalen is not just about changing road numbers, as I suspect you know... 2. Having two competing links has a tendency to result in indecision rather than action, see the Oslo-Bergen debacle. 3. The length of road isn't the only issue in other countries either, and the only ones truly lobbying for a change, are people from Trøndelag.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
Check the link, I did not make up the 4-5 times higher claim. The confusion may be caused by different definitions of what heavy traffic is, more than 3.5 t or more than 16 m? (And at night it feels very much like every second car is a truck on rv 3, BTW).
I suggest you check the link a little more carefully yourself, also making a detour onto the 6a route (E6). First, they're stating that the level is 4 to 5 times higher than certain other trunk routes - without naming names. When compared to the E6, the difference in >16m vehichles over the mountains is about 2.5-1 (294-117). As suspected. The total HGV traffic in Gudbrandsdalen is at least doble Østerdalen's. According to exactly the same Vegvesen study.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
I don't understand this. 40 km should take at least 30 minutes alone. In addition, the speed limits are still considerably higher on the rv 3, and the traffic is much more likely to slow you down on the E6, because the traffic is higher, there are fewer passing possibilities and curves and hills slow heavy vehicles down on the E6. I have driven between Oslo and Trondheim far too many times, and in my experience, it is at least one hour difference (OK, it is also a bit more tempting to have a slightly heavy right foot on the rv 3...).

We are probably talking about minutes of saved time here. Whatever you do,
the time difference won't be less than 30 minutes, and unless you make a very long tunnel, the trucks will also still use considerable more gas on E6. By digging a couple of much shorter tunnels, it is BTW also possible to make the Kvikne passage of rv 3 even lower.
I'm not going to take this much further, but I find it easy to keep a similar average speed both places: I've tested it several times. And that goes for both fastish stints (typically, 6 hours travel time through Østerdalen) or when taking it slower (7-8 hours). The road quality is par or better (excluding Ringebu-Otta), and the lorries you continuously mention, tend to slow you down just like the Gudbrandsdal traffic. And by the way, if the average speed were to increase from 80 to 90 in Gudbrandsdalen - with a new motorway and 2+1 road, that's a more than likely minimum - and cut 5 kms off the stretch, you'd save 25 mins. And now we're only talking about the approved projects.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
Another factor is that nobody actually wants the traffic from rv 3 transferred to Gudbrandsdalen, it would create even greater problems there, and as you might know, the E6 passes through a very vulnerable ecosystem across Dovre, and nobody wants to see a doubling of the traffic there.

Perhaps if you build a continous motorway Oslo- Dombås and expressway Dombås-Ulsberg and at the same time freezes any development in Østerdalen the alternatives can perhaps become similar on a time budget, but not on a fuel budget. The only way you can get an improvement on the Oslo-Trondheim travel time and emissions compared with the current situation is however to develop the Østerdalen road..
See above. The simple point is that noone will move the E6 for the sake of 300 lorries.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
I does not seem that we will agree on this, "ever". Of course traffic volumes matter when you decide what road standard you should have, and undoubtly, we will have a motorway to Lillehammer and an upgrade further north in a few years, both measures that have my full support. However, when deciding on what should be the future road network that binds the country together we should select the shortest and most environmental sound alternatives for transit between the main regional centers of Norway, and not follow routes that coincidentally have a lot of traffic already. The latter solution would be equivalent to putting all new highways directly through the city centers, which after all have the heaviest traffic. I think most would agree that is a very backward approach.

For the Oslo - Trondheim corridor it is no doubt that transit road used today by most, and which by far is both the shortest and most enviromently friendly is the rv 3 between Kolomoen and Ulsberg. The proffesionals (trucks and express buses) already uses this route almost exlusively, and whenever the Norwegian government decides that it wants to build a real trunk road network they should follow the truck's lead on this, as well developing Haukeli as the main east/west connection.
If, if, if... No matter what the most roadbuilding friendly lobbies want, it's always sensible to make a reality check. I'm not talking about what might happen if Norway suddenly started to spend three, four or five times more on road building - even then they wouldn't move the "mother road"... - but about the current situation. It's got very little to do with disagreement, really.
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 23rd, 2008, 05:24 PM   #314
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
1. Changing the E6 from Gudbrandsdalen to Østerdalen is not just about changing road numbers, as I suspect you know... 2. Having two competing links has a tendency to result in indecision rather than action, see the Oslo-Bergen debacle. 3. The length of road isn't the only issue in other countries either, and the only ones truly lobbying for a change, are people from Trøndelag.
It seems now that you actually defend that local politics have a say

There are already two "competing" links, as they both are trunk (i.e. green) roads, but competing only in terms of money, in traffic. As discussed previously, improvements in Gudbrandsdalen won't be to any benefit for traffic to Hedmark, Trøndelag and further north, conversely, investment in Rv 3 wont be beneficial for Oppland, Møre and south-western Trøndelag. And it is forces in Hedmark as well as the truck drivers that lobby the hardest for rv 3. Trøndelag, Hedmark and Nordland combined is btw far more populous and have more votes in the parliament than Oppland and Møre og Romsdal, if that should matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
When compared to the E6, the difference in >16m vehichles over the mountains is about 2.5-1 (294-117). As suspected. The total HGV traffic in Gudbrandsdalen is at least doble Østerdalen's. According to exactly the same Vegvesen study.
Actually, the >16 m numbers in Gudbrandsdalen are around 420, only about 40 % higher, and we both agree that the Gudbrandsdalen as well as the road south of Lillehammer should be upgraded to be able to carry the traffic. About half the trucks across Dovre continues to Rv 70 (to load salmon?, see corridoor 6e). Thus, the fraction between the transit vehicles on Rv 3 and E6 is in fact at least 5-1 as some of the remaining trucks does not originate from Oslo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
See above. The simple point is that noone will move the E6 for the sake of 300 lorries.
It is certainly not only 300 trucks anymore, the traffic has been increasing dramatically lately, and will continue to increase whatever they call the road.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
I'm not going to take this much further, but I find it easy to keep a similar average speed both places: I've tested it several times. And that goes for both fastish stints (typically, 6 hours travel time through Østerdalen) or when taking it slower (7-8 hours). The road quality is par or better (excluding Ringebu-Otta), and the lorries you continuously mention, tend to slow you down just like the Gudbrandsdal traffic. And by the way, if the average speed were to increase from 80 to 90 in Gudbrandsdalen - with a new motorway and 2+1 road, that's a more than likely minimum - and cut 5 kms off the stretch, you'd save 25 mins. And now we're only talking about the approved projects.
In my experience it is only private cars that slow you down in Østerdalen, trucks usually drive at the speed limit or above, otherwise it is clearly pointless to discuss this issue further


Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
If, if, if... No matter what the most roadbuilding friendly lobbies want, it's always sensible to make a reality check. I'm not talking about what might happen if Norway suddenly started to spend three, four or five times more on road building - even then they wouldn't move the "mother road"... - but about the current situation. It's got very little to do with disagreement, really.
The reality is that it is quite a few people, parties and organization that lobby for the rv 3, like for many other bad roads in Norway, and lately they seem to have been at least partially successful. What will happen in the decade to come is purely speculations anyway, but I am only trying to point out that the road in Gudbrandsdalen is not, and will never be, the main Oslo-Trondheim road.

Last edited by 54°26′S 3°24′E; July 23rd, 2008 at 05:32 PM.
54°26′S 3°24′E no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 23rd, 2008, 05:56 PM   #315
ElviS77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 564
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
It seems now that you actually defend that local politics have a say
No. I'm only saying that the choice has been made.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
There are already two "competing" links, as they both are trunk (i.e. green) roads, but competing only in terms of money, in traffic. As discussed previously, improvements in Gudbrandsdalen won't be to any benefit for traffic to Hedmark, Trøndelag and further north, conversely, investment in Rv 3 wont be beneficial for Oppland, Møre and south-western Trøndelag. And it is forces in Hedmark as well as the truck drivers that lobby the hardest for rv 3. Trøndelag, Hedmark and Norland combined is btw far more populous than Oppland and Møre og Romsdal, if that should matter..
I know. But they're not both international roads. And the traffic is still way heavier along the E6 corridor, leaving the mountain plateau aside.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
Actually, the >16 m numbers in Gudbrandsdalen is around 420 in Gudbrandsdalen, only about 40 % higher, and we agree that the Gudbrandsdalen should be upgraded to be able to carry this traffic. About half the trucks across Dovre continues to Rv 70 (to load salmon?, see corridoor 6e). Thus, the fraction between the transit vehicles on Rv 3 and E6 is in fact at least 5-1...
Difference between transit traffic and other traffic isn't all that interesting... The point is simple: Yes, main routes are planned for more than local traffic, but since the Oslo-Trondheim traffic always will remain a marginal part of the traffic load on the link, it's only a part of the equation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
It is certainly not only 300 trucks anymore, the traffic has been increasing dramatically lately, and will continue to increase whatever they call the road..
Source? Your link said 294.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
In my experience it is only private cars that slow you down in Østerdalen, trucks usually drive at the speed limit or above, otherwise it is clearly pointless to discuss this issue further..
Let's use maths instead, then: If you average 80 kph Ulsberg-Tynset, 90 Tynset-Koppang (which, incidently, is no longer allowed) and 80 Koppang-Kolomoen, it'd take approx 3 h 15 mins. If you average 75 kph Ulsberg-Dovre plateau, 90 across the plateau, 70 Dombås-Ringebu, 80 Ringebu-Kolomoen, it'd take about 4 hours. A 45 min difference with current roads and limits, and I haven't excactly favoured the travel speeds in Gudbrandsdalen here...

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
The reality is that it is quite a few people, parties and organization that lobby for the rv 3, like for many other bad roads in Norway, and lately they seem to have been at least partially successful. What will happens in the decade to come is purely speculations, anyway, but discussing the best way forward is always worthwhile.
Since we do know quite a bit about AADTs, approved projects and the road authorities' priorities, it's safe to assume that the rv 3 lobbyists faces an uphill struggle, to say the least. The road might very well be improved, as it should be, but that's not the point here: It'll never be the E6, and I hope the lobbyists stop dreaming about that. The problem the Progress Party and other road lobbyists face, is that they present their dream world instead of ambitious plans that may actually be realised. Thus, they make the job of discrediting even the sensible core of their ideas far easier than necessary.
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 23rd, 2008, 07:09 PM   #316
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
When compared to the E6, the difference in >16m vehichles over the mountains is about 2.5-1 (294-117). As suspected. The total HGV traffic in Gudbrandsdalen is at least doble Østerdalen's. According to exactly the same Vegvesen study.
I have looked further into this, and actually the counting points for Gudbrandsdalen is south of Otta and hence the Måløy road. Most likely the traffic north of Rena is less or similar to what you find on the least trafficated leg (i.e. Kvikne) on the Østerdalen road. Your claim of "at least double the traffic in Gudbrandsdalen as Østerdalen" becomes increasingly mysterious
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
No. I'm only saying that the choice has been made.
Which choise, the road number, and now that "the choice is made" (40 years ago?) it is impossible to change?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
I know. But they're not both international roads.
You know very well that has no importance in neither practice (facts on the ground) nor theory (admininstrative guidelines) in Norway. Just compare E39, E14 or E10 (according to the numbers all very "important" roads (?), but with long legs of very bady quality, even single lane on E39 and E10) with rv 4, rv 2 (now mostly expressway) or for that matter rv 159 (mostly motorway). And at least 10 % of the trucks on rv 3 are foreign, they have GPS you know....
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
Difference between transit traffic and other traffic isn't all that interesting... The point is simple: Yes, main routes are planned for more than local traffic, but since the Oslo-Trondheim traffic always will remain a marginal part of the traffic load on the link, it's only a part of the equation.

And the traffic is still way heavier along the E6 corridor, leaving the mountain plateau aside.
For people traveling from one point to another the difference between local traffic and other traffic is highly interesting and important. People traveling from one part of the country does not care how much local traffic there is, only to get to their destination as fast and safe as possible. To the contrary, if the road is not up to standard the local traffic is an annoance and hindrance. And that is, after all, why we have trunk roads and not just local roads.

As I have pointed out several times now, the truck traffic is (partly significantly) higher on all points on Rv 3 than on the entire leg between Otta and Ulsberg (that is 147 km of the length, i.e. roughly half the Gudbrandsdal/Dovre road). From Dombås to Ulsberg (roughly 102 km) the total AADT on E6 is similar to what you have at the point of lowest traffic on rv 3 (i.e. Kvikne), and the transit traffic is far from marginal, but dominating on these legs. As pointed out repeatedly, at all points the Oslo-Trondheim transit traffic along rv 3 is massively larger than at E6.



Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
Source? Your link said 294.
The numbers from the link was from around 2005. Since then the national truck traffic increased by roughly 4.4 % in 2006 and roughly 6 % in 2007, and about 4.4 % so far this year (link)approximately twice the increase seen by passenger vehicles. This adds upp to roughly 15.5 % increase, or roughly 350 vehicles. However, this is probably an underestimation, as the traffic growth in Trøndelag and Hedmark has been much higher than the rest of the country according to the same link. I do not have any exact numbers for rv 3, but I think I heard last winter that the "truck" AADT was already then 400-450.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
Let's use maths instead, then: If you average 80 kph Ulsberg-Tynset, 90 Tynset-Koppang (which, incidently, is no longer allowed) and 80 Koppang-Kolomoen, it'd take approx 3 h 15 mins. If you average 75 kph Ulsberg-Dovre plateau, 90 across the plateau, 70 Dombås-Ringebu, 80 Ringebu-Kolomoen, it'd take about 4 hours. A 45 min difference with current roads and limits, and I haven't excactly favoured the travel speeds in Gudbrandsdalen here...
75 km/h Ulsberg-Dovre (Hjerkinn??) haha. Having no time to check your calculation, I choose to trust my own experience rather math in this particular case...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
Since we do know quite a bit about AADTs, approved projects and the road authorities' priorities, it's safe to assume that the rv 3 lobbyists faces an uphill struggle, to say the least. The road might very well be improved, as it should be, but that's not the point here: It'll never be the E6, and I hope the lobbyists stop dreaming about that. The problem the Progress Party and other road lobbyists face, is that they present their dream world instead of ambitious plans that may actually be realised. Thus, they make the job of discrediting even the sensible core of their ideas far easier than necessary.
I do think almost all people could care less what the road is called, as long as they see an improvement in travel time and safety, although it is a bit odd that the fasted way Trondheim-Oslo is not signposted as such.

Who mentioned the progress party? Actually it is local labor and centrist partyists who are now responsible for bringing rv 3 into the official priority list of Oppland and Hedmark ("lottorekka"), and rv 3 is also represented in the National traffic plan. I have no clue what the position of the right wing progress party is on rv 3 vs E6, probably that they both should be developed to superb standard....

Last edited by 54°26′S 3°24′E; July 23rd, 2008 at 07:22 PM.
54°26′S 3°24′E no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 23rd, 2008, 10:34 PM   #317
ElviS77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 564
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
I have looked further into this, and actually the counting points for Gudbrandsdalen is south of Otta and hence the Måløy road. Most likely the traffic north of Rena is less or similar to what you find on the least trafficated leg (i.e. Kvikne) on the Østerdalen road. Your claim of "at least double the traffic in Gudbrandsdalen as Østerdalen" becomes increasingly mysterious
The mystery source is in fact more or less your souce:
http://www.vegvesen.no/stamvegutredn...vegrute_6a.pdf
Page 7. Bottom of page, plus table on that page. Page 10, figure. Plus most of the rest of the 28-page report and the similarly-sized you referred to. Remember, I never said the HGV percentage across the mountains were anything but what you said they were.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
Which choise, the road number, and now that "the choice is made" (40 years ago?) it is impossible to change?
That choice was made much more than 40 years ago, the rv 50 before it crossed Dovre. Face it, it's there to stay, no matter what you, I or anyone else might think about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
You know very well that has no importance in neither practice (facts on the ground) nor theory (admininstrative guidelines) in Norway. Just compare E39, E14 or E10 (according to the numbers all very "important" roads (?), but with long legs of very bady quality, even single lane on E39 and E10) with rv 4, rv 2 (now mostly expressway) or for that matter rv 159 (mostly motorway). And at least 10 % of the trucks on rv 3 are foreign, they have GPS you know....
Yes. So? The E6 is in a class of its own in the Norwegian psyché; we even refused to renumber it some ten years ago, remember?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
For people traveling from one point to another the difference between local traffic and other traffic is highly interesting and important. People traveling from one part of the country does not care how much local traffic there is, only to get to their destination as fast and safe as possible. To the contrary, if the road is not up to standard the local traffic is an annoance and hindrance. And that is, after all, why we have trunk roads and not just local roads.
Yes, but then one might say that since the E6 is the main link between southern Sweden and Kirkenes, it should go through Sweden and Finland... The point is, one needs to be realistic in this respect as well. Besides, a trunk road needs to do more than just carry long-range national and/or international traffic, its interregional functions and in many cases its regional and even local role, is vital.

Some examples:
1. As a part of a trans-European road network, it would make more sense for the E18 to be rerouted along the current rv 23, particularly when the 4-lane section near Drammen is finished. It won't happen, even though the 23 is shorter, because the E18's role as the western (and, to a lesser extent, eastern) route into Oslo is considered far more important.
2. As mentioned earlier, the debate is on whether a new E16 link towards Sweden should run through Oslo (along the excisting E6 and E18) or use a shorter, northern alignment along the current rv 35 to Gardermoen. If the only concern was distance, the choice would be simple. But in reality, the E16 will only be routed to the north with the Hønefoss-Sandvika section as an "arm" of the E16 - it's simply too important not to be a part of that road.
3. In Denmark, the E45 motorway between Aalborg and Vejle is about 10 kms longer than the national route 13. The motorway was completed in the 90s (they started building bits of it the 70s, I believe), but even before the completion, the E45 (earlier E3) was found in that corridor, even though it was considerably faster to use the 13. Why? Because of Århus, plus the ferry links to Sjælland.

I don't know whether there were massive debates about the motorway's alignment in Denmark. Nevertheless, it ended where it did because then, it would perform as many of the wanted tasks as possible in a sensible way, not one or two of them perfectly.

Translated to the E6/rv3 debate: The Southern Norway main north-south link should a) link Oslo and Trondheim/Trøndelag b) link Gjøvik, Hamar and Lillehammer to Oslo c) link Gudbrandsdalen and its tourist resorts with Oslo d) link Sogn og Fjordane and Oslo e) link Møre og Romsdal and Oslo f) link Hedmark and Oslo. The E6 fulfills requirement a, b except Gjøvik in a good way, c, d, e and partly f. The rv 3 fulfills a, partly b and f.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
As I have pointed out several times now, the truck traffic is (partly significantly) higher on all points on Rv 3 than on the entire leg between Otta and Ulsberg (that is 147 km of the length, i.e. roughly half the Gudbrandsdal/Dovre road).
From the table on p 7: Otta sør: 426 >16. Considerably more than 132 HGVs take the rv 15? I think not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
From Dombås to Ulsberg (roughly 102 km) the total AADT on E6 is similar to what you have at the point of lowest traffic on rv 3 (i.e. Kvikne), and the transit traffic is far from marginal, but dominating on these legs. As pointed out repeatedly, at all points the Oslo-Trondheim transit traffic along rv 3 is massively larger than at E6.
Haven't disputed the fact that most of the Oslo-Trondheim traffic uses the rv 3, I've said that it isn't all that important.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
75 km/h Ulsberg-Dovre (Hjerkinn??) haha.
Yes, 80 would be more precise given the 90 kph stretch south of Oppdal, but since you'll need to navigate a few 60 and 70 zones plus Oppdal itself, 75 is more precise for the legal-minded driver... I could have divided the stretches further, I could have clocked a less-legal-minded approach, but it doesn't really matter. Reality is an approx 30-min difference. Bored (other) readers, trust me on this...

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
Having no time to check your calculation, I choose to trust my own experience rather math in this particular case...
It's always a wise choice to reject reality when one's own is wrong... Simply put, the stretch is too short to make an 1-hour impact when the roads aren't that dissimilar.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
Who mentioned the progress party?
I did, because a motorway through Østerdalen is their wet dream.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
Actually it is local labor and centrist partyists who are now responsible for bringing rv 3 into the official priority list of Oppland and Hedmark ("lottorekka"), and rv 3 is also represented in the National traffic plan.
I know. But afaik, noone there has officially suggested to replace Gudbrandsdalen with Østernalen as the main (read E6) artery - those who do are dreamers - nor has anyone demanded to revisit the plans to improve the E6 significantly. The serious rv 3 plans are to widen the current road into an 8.5-metre road. With both in place, the difference in travel time would be much smaller.
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 23rd, 2008, 11:57 PM   #318
berlinwroclaw
Kamienna
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 139
Likes (Received): 46

Motorway E18 Mysen - Spydeberg

19 July 2008 I passed motorway E18, section Mysen - Spydeberg. This section is part of the connection Stockholm-Oslo. My first impression entering Norway was a bad one. I had the opinion the Swedish part was better. After entering the motorway E18, I changed my opinion. Construction is going on to complete the whole road from Oslo to the Swedish border to motorway parameters. I could not find any indication of road construction on the Swedish side.

[IMG]http://i37.************/2v34fmu.jpg[/IMG]
Distance table Oslo 61 km

[IMG]http://i35.************/2hxtuds.jpg[/IMG]
Interchange road 128

[IMG]http://i38.************/2dh9xzo.jpg[/IMG]
Toll station Spydeberg
berlinwroclaw no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 24th, 2008, 01:14 AM   #319
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

Sorry pal, but I feel I finally start to lose interest in this discussion, I assume others have to, if we ever had any followers. Well, what the heck, I can't leave it like this.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
The mystery source is in fact more or less your souce:
http://www.vegvesen.no/stamvegutredn...vegrute_6a.pdf
Page 7. Bottom of page, plus table on that page. Page 10, figure. Plus most of the rest of the 28-page report and the similarly-sized you referred to. Remember, I never said the HGV percentage across the mountains were anything but what you said they were.
Maybe I misunderstood your claim. I thought we were talking about >16 m vehicles (i.e. "20-tonners"), but I think you might be talking about all vehicles above 3.5 t or 5.5 m (i.e. vans and RVs included)??? Otherwise I do not understand what you are referring to here, be more specific please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
That choice was made much more than 40 years ago, the rv 50 before it crossed Dovre. Face it, it's there to stay, no matter what you, I or anyone else might think about it.

Yes. So? The E6 is in a class of its own in the Norwegian psyché; we even refused to renumber it some ten years ago, remember?
Possibly these are the lamest argument in this discussion so far, at least from you Sure, Dovre has historically been the most important land based north-south route for more than a millennium, Østerdalen was simply to dangerous strainous due to the lack of farms and abundance of wild animals, and the Dovre mountain will always be a symbol of our nation, but why the heck should we plan our future road network on this? Personally I am not that nostalgic, and I actually think it was a big mistake of us to clinch to the E6 back a decade or so ago, as we no longer can follow the road all the way to Rome...




Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
Yes, but then one might say that since the E6 is the main link between southern Sweden and Kirkenes, it should go through Sweden and Finland...
Yes, why not? Making continous road numbers along routes where people actually drive (or should have driven to get there ASAP) is a good idea IMO.

[EDIT: I forgot last night, but actually this link exists already, the E45 goes through Italy, via Gothenburg and western/central Sweden (Östersund) and continues to the Finnish/Swedish border fairly close to Norway. Except that it does not go all the way up to Kirkenes, it has more or less taken over the role of the old (long) E6 at a European basis, connecting Sicily with far northern Scandinavia, but using a much straighter route through Scandinavia than the E6. Thus our insistense on keeping the E6 number gave the Swedes a road on the reference grid, wheres we are left with European routes just on the intermediate grid, except the far northern E10 east-west connection (the one lane road...). The E6 has become one of the oddities of the system, if international status of the road mean anything for you.....]


Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
The point is, one needs to be realistic in this respect as well. Besides, a trunk road needs to do more than just carry long-range national and/or international traffic, its interregional functions and in many cases its regional and even local role, is vital.

Some examples:
1. As a part of a trans-European road network, it would make more sense for the E18 to be rerouted along the current rv 23, particularly when the 4-lane section near Drammen is finished. It won't happen, even though the 23 is shorter, because the E18's role as the western (and, to a lesser extent, eastern) route into Oslo is considered far more important.
2. As mentioned earlier, the debate is on whether a new E16 link towards Sweden should run through Oslo (along the excisting E6 and E18) or use a shorter, northern alignment along the current rv 35 to Gardermoen. If the only concern was distance, the choice would be simple. But in reality, the E16 will only be routed to the north with the Hønefoss-Sandvika section as an "arm" of the E16 - it's simply too important not to be a part of that road.
3. In Denmark, the E45 motorway between Aalborg and Vejle is about 10 kms longer than the national route 13. The motorway was completed in the 90s (they started building bits of it the 70s, I believe), but even before the completion, the E45 (earlier E3) was found in that corridor, even though it was considerably faster to use the 13. Why? Because of Århus, plus the ferry links to Sjælland.
I don't know whether there were massive debates about the motorway's alignment in Denmark. Nevertheless, it ended where it did because then, it would perform as many of the wanted tasks as possible in a sensible way, not one or two of them perfectly.
I fail to see why this is relevant. Hamar isn't exactly Oslo, and Lillehammer isn't exactly Århus, many cities of it size do not have a E-road at all, and both cities would be connected by E-136 if E6 is rerouted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
Translated to the E6/rv3 debate: The Southern Norway main north-south link should a) link Oslo and Trondheim/Trøndelag b) link Gjøvik, Hamar and Lillehammer to Oslo c) link Gudbrandsdalen and its tourist resorts with Oslo d) link Sogn og Fjordane and Oslo e) link Møre og Romsdal and Oslo f) link Hedmark and Oslo.

The E6 fulfills requirement a, b except Gjøvik in a good way, c, d, e and partly f. The rv 3 fulfills a, partly b and f.
No, as I have repeated again and again: The E6 does not link up, and will never link up Trondheim and Oslo, neither does it link up Gjøvik (that would be Rv 4). E6 fulfills only c), partly b) and f) (with the exception of Gjøvik and northern/eastern Hedmark), and with help from E136 and the other western roads d) and e), rv 3 fulfills a), partly b) (Hamar) and f). My point is, that your imaginative requirements for the main south-north road link of Norway is impossible to fulfill for a single road, and the longest road serving the largest part of the country (i.e. rv 3) should have the primary E-number, and as minimum rv 3 should be the signposted road to Trondheim.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
From the table on p 7: Otta sør: 426 >16. Considerably more than 132 HGVs take the rv 15? I think not.
I said the heavy truck traffic was similar between Otta and Dombås. 190 takes E136. A few of those orignates from the north 120, so the total number is a little but less than 120+190=310, its fairly realistic. Remember that the rv 15 road also covers southern Møre og Romsdal, and the area has quite a lot of metal, furniture, oil, aquaculture and fishing industry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
Haven't disputed the fact that most of the Oslo-Trondheim traffic uses the rv 3, I've said that it isn't all that important.
Because the current E6 has higher local traffic for approximately half its length? Of course this should be reflected in the road standards, otherwise I simply fail to follow your argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post

Yes, 80 would be more precise given the 90 kph stretch south of Oppdal, but since you'll need to navigate a few 60 and 70 zones plus Oppdal itself, 75 is more precise for the legal-minded driver... I could have divided the stretches further, I could have clocked a less-legal-minded approach, but it doesn't really matter. Reality is an approx 30-min difference. Bored (other) readers, trust me on this...
I said haha because 75 km/h was unrealistically high on this road, as most of the leg has reduced speed limits, and I hardly believe we have any readers left....
[edit: btw: In case you have not noticed it on your "regular trips", the 90 zone across the Dovre mountains are also permanently gone now, since last fall. I do not understand the downwriting from 90 to 80 neither at the Dovre pass nor Østerdalen. Neither the trucks nor reckless drivers will pose any less danger because of this]
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
It's always a wise choice to reject reality when one's own is wrong... Simply put, the stretch is too short to make an 1-hour impact when the roads aren't that dissimilar.
Starting to run out of arguments since you start to get personal? Just because I do not buy your sketch calculations does not exactly put me out of touch with reality.

As I said, 30 minutes is only for the length difference, then you have to add for all the other hassles with E6, including all the reduced speed zones. With an improved road this could be changed, but not much below 30 minutes. I have driven both roads zillion times, and know this, but in any case 30 minutes or 60 minutes does not change our basic discussion.

If you are really eager, you are welcome to perform a detailed study using the "viskart" engine, but you still have to add some minutes to Gudbrandsdalen due to the traffic slow down discussed in previous posts.

[edit: Alternatively, you could be lazy as me and use www.visveg.no, the road authorities online road guide, it says Østerdalen (rv 3) is 40 minutes shorter than Gudbrandsdalen (E6) (quite close to your estimate, actually), BUT pressumably calculated on the basis of speed limits and not including the traffic issues, so in total you will in practice end up at about one hour, not 30 minutes difference. (I am usually able to drive rv 3 about 1 hour faster than visveg withouth excessive speeding, though, I think they must have included some pit stops.) The conclusion stands, even with heavy investments, Gudbrandsdalen cannot compete with rv 3 on the Oslo-Trondheim link]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
I did, because a motorway through Østerdalen is their wet dream.
Actually, I read a center-party guy also suggest this, afaik, the Progress party has only said they want to build motorway Trondheim - Oslo, not specifying where.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
I know. But afaik, noone there has officially suggested to replace Gudbrandsdalen with Østernalen as the main (read E6) artery - those who do are dreamers - nor has anyone demanded to revisit the plans to improve the E6 significantly. The serious rv 3 plans are to widen the current road into an 8.5-metre road. With both in place, the difference in travel time would be much smaller.
1. It does not matter how many times you repeat that the current E6 is the main north-south artery when it is not true except perhaps in the (E6) name only, a fact that most people that travel to Trondheim know and vegvesenet aknowledges. E6 is perhaps the main north-west distributor, but an artery should pump some fresh blood from the heart to the head from time to time, and not only to its shoulder, don't you think (replace either Oslo or Trondheim with the heart or head as you please...). (See zillion arguments for this above)
2. That Gudbrandsdalen should be improved, is no argument for not improving rv 3 which serves a completely different market. So far, only the tollroad project Tingberg-Tretten is in the national transport plan regarding Gudbrandsdalen.
3. There are concrete plans for extending the expressway on rv 3 to north of Elverum with another toll road, a plan which now has local backing. The common leg with rv 25 will be four lanes. Also in other places there are plans to remove trouble spots, and this is part of the Hedmark/Oppland road compromize. In short, I do not see the relation between the two roads in terms of "market shares" change any time soon, but in both places, investments really has to increase from the current level.
4. Improving rv 3 is the only way of shortening the north-south travel distance, as well as saving lives on this very dangerous road, and probably reducing the need for the current millions of air travels per year between the two cities.
5. In order to really save time, Ulsberg-Trondheim really needs a makeover, however it will be more complicated and expensive than rv 3. So far, little have been done, although the traffic is quiet high in Norwegian terms and there are no competing routes on this last leg.

[Edit:
Some maps (from wikipedia):
The e45:

The E6 (notice the kink)

(Notice the kink in Southern Norway)

And just so that other people than a certain Leksviking should have a chance to understand what we are talking about, here is a
map of alternative Trondheim routes, with rv 3 painted in blue and E6 in yellow where these split:

]



Seriously, I think I am logging off this discussion now, I can't think of anything that has not been said already several times.

Last edited by 54°26′S 3°24′E; July 25th, 2008 at 06:24 PM.
54°26′S 3°24′E no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 24th, 2008, 01:23 AM   #320
Þróndeimr
Adventurous!
 
Þróndeimr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Posts: 12,216
Likes (Received): 2268

Been reading through most of it, wanted to do a reply, but everything have been said so far i think! And not that it made much of an conclusion either!

Nice pics berlinwroclaw, hope you enjoyed your trip. E18 looks like a dream to drive on compared to what we have up here.

But i drove the new E6 south of Steinkjer yesterday, a dream to drive on, but please, give it some 90 signs!, as goes for Dovre and Østerdalen as well. Drove Østerdalen three weeks back, and traffic were really slow compared to last autumn when i also drove Østerdalen down and up. Took me 45min extra this time due to longer lines of slower traffic. Reminded me too much about Gudbrandsdalen. But of course, i mught just have been unlucky on timing.

Last edited by Þróndeimr; July 24th, 2008 at 01:28 AM.
Þróndeimr 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 04:06 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