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

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

Highways & Autobahns All about automobility



Global Announcement

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old January 6th, 2016, 11:13 PM   #3501
devo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 221
Likes (Received): 41

Most modern bridges have design life. The Varodd Bridge here in Kristiansand was designed to last 50 years. It was built in 1956 and is now coming up to its 60th year, thus the cost of repearing it is increasing every year. (It will be replaced by a new bridge in 2019.)

A bridge that will last 200 years is quite unproblomatic to build, but the chances for it being torn down at a quarter of its lifespan is quite high, therefore cheaper options are chosen.
devo no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old January 7th, 2016, 12:39 AM   #3502
Sunfuns
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Basel
Posts: 2,426
Likes (Received): 361

True, unless maybe you build something special. I expect Golden gate bridge gate to still be there 200 years from now.
Sunfuns no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2016, 12:41 AM   #3503
Ingenioren
Registered User
 
Ingenioren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oslo
Posts: 5,605
Likes (Received): 584

It looks quite simular to Fredrikstad bridge that is undergoing heavy rehab this year.
__________________
I want to see some construction!
Ingenioren no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2016, 09:17 AM   #3504
MattiG
Registered User
 
MattiG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Espoo FI
Posts: 1,796
Likes (Received): 614

Quote:
Originally Posted by devo View Post
Most modern bridges have design life. The Varodd Bridge here in Kristiansand was designed to last 50 years. It was built in 1956 and is now coming up to its 60th year, thus the cost of repearing it is increasing every year. (It will be replaced by a new bridge in 2019.)

A bridge that will last 200 years is quite unproblomatic to build, but the chances for it being torn down at a quarter of its lifespan is quite high, therefore cheaper options are chosen.
However, bridges and other infrastructure is not about cost only, but a part of national heritage, too.

Standard (boring) bridges are subject to be replaced every now and then. But Great Design should be saved for the coming generations, even if there are embedded costs. (I do not believe that there is any more a valid business case to have a Royal Palace on the most expensive land of Oslo. Still, AFAIK, it is not planned to be replaced by something more useful.)

The Karmsund bridge is a nice piece of history. Of course, it does not match with the current need for logistics, even if the alternative T-Forbindelsen delivers a parallel route. There are several options to develop the corridors to Karmøy, and most of them will save the existing bridge. The bridge needs reparation, but this a case for all bridges. Great bridges are like cathedrals: always under reparation.
MattiG no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 8th, 2016, 04:09 PM   #3505
Rob73
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 558
Likes (Received): 175

Quote:
Originally Posted by devo View Post
A bridge that will last 200 years is quite unproblomatic to build, but the chances for it being torn down at a quarter of its lifespan is quite high, therefore cheaper options are chosen.
Or not, the Golden Gate and Sydney Harbour Bridges will still be there long after I'm dead. Put them in the right location to start with and they should be able to last as long as needed.
Rob73 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 8th, 2016, 07:39 PM   #3506
Gsus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 148
Likes (Received): 53

http://www.nrk.no/sorlandet/vil-spar...vei-1.12740328

The new government company that is scheduled to plan and construct a lot of the new motorways in Norway the next couple of decades discusses using one cross-section, instead of the two that the road administration uses today (20m and 23m), in an alleged attempt to save money. As an example 21 meters is mentioned as a possibly new norm. If this is told correctly by the journalist, I´m wondering if they`ve checked the expected traffic amount on the section they are now taking over from the road administration, as most of them will fall under the criteas of the 20m cross-section.

Some things in the article is a bit wrong afaik. The cross-section used in Sweden is 21,5 meter, right? But is this the only normal cross-section used in Sweden on motorways these days?... Also, E18 Kristiansand-Grimstad has a normal cross-section of 20 meters, not 21 as mentioned in the article.
Gsus no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 8th, 2016, 10:01 PM   #3507
IceCheese
Scandi-friendly
 
IceCheese's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Canada is my city
Posts: 7,227
Likes (Received): 920

Isn't speed limit a factor here? If they still stand by their promise to build new motorways for 130 km/h, I'd imagine Vegvesenet to require some additional width.
__________________
Oslo/Copenhagen - The True Capital of Scandinavia.


Take a look at my Photo Mess!
IceCheese no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 8th, 2016, 10:06 PM   #3508
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,573
Likes (Received): 19366

Wasn't the plan to build new motorways to 110 km/h standard?
ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old January 8th, 2016, 11:05 PM   #3509
IceCheese
Scandi-friendly
 
IceCheese's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Canada is my city
Posts: 7,227
Likes (Received): 920

They current government had it in their inauguration platform to start planning for 130 km/h. E39 in western Norway has been pointed by Vegvesenet as a possible candidate: http://www.bt.no/nyheter/lokalt/Fore...9-3055759.html
__________________
Oslo/Copenhagen - The True Capital of Scandinavia.


Take a look at my Photo Mess!
IceCheese no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 9th, 2016, 12:37 AM   #3510
Gsus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 148
Likes (Received): 53

Quote:
Originally Posted by IceCheese View Post
They current government had it in their inauguration platform to start planning for 130 km/h. E39 in western Norway has been pointed by Vegvesenet as a possible candidate: http://www.bt.no/nyheter/lokalt/Fore...9-3055759.html
It all depend what minimum curvature and dozing they use. Pretty much up to the what the project management wants, and then whats being planned. But I`ve read statements in newspapers where the project management on E39 between Kristiansand and Ålgård, aswell as Aksdal to Os in the link above has talked about planning for 130. Theres no official documents from the transport department regarding planning for any more than 110km/h tho.
Gsus no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 9th, 2016, 11:13 AM   #3511
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,573
Likes (Received): 19366

It seems a bit pointless to build motorways for 130 km/h in Norway. There will very likely be speed limit reductions at every tunnel. It also drives the cost up considerably. I'd rather have more motorway mileage at 110 km/h than a few stretches at 130 km/h that eat up all the budget.
__________________

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

TrojaA liked this post
ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old January 9th, 2016, 11:32 PM   #3512
devo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 221
Likes (Received): 41

A possible solution for how 21 m could work: 3 | 3,5 · 3,5 |1| 3,5 · 3,5 | 3.
This would give proper hard shoulders but would probably require a concrete median?

But I'm not sure what they mean when they talk about saving money. Is it the width of the cross section or the entire corridor? Because the corridor is basically identical in 20 m and 23 m. Which is why it's really pointless to have all these different standards from an environmental perspective. (as in, a narrower road would use less land, which would probably only be true in a perfectly straight alignment without embankments).
devo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 11th, 2016, 10:08 AM   #3513
Uppsala
Registered User
 
Uppsala's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Uppsala, S, Europe
Posts: 654
Likes (Received): 53

How is it going now with the repair of Skjeggestad bridge? How is it look like now?
Uppsala no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 11th, 2016, 01:35 PM   #3514
OAQP
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 30
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
It seems a bit pointless to build motorways for 130 km/h in Norway. There will very likely be speed limit reductions at every tunnel. It also drives the cost up considerably. I'd rather have more motorway mileage at 110 km/h than a few stretches at 130 km/h that eat up all the budget.
130km/h is a good starting point for bargaining with (local) politicians that want 90km/h or 100km/h standard roads. The result is likely to be to at least a 110km/h standard.
OAQP no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 14th, 2016, 05:40 AM   #3515
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,526
Likes (Received): 21227

Not a new video, but I'm curious where this was done .


Quite impressive flying.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!

Highway89, gr_kanev liked this post
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 14th, 2016, 07:32 AM   #3516
MattiG
Registered User
 
MattiG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Espoo FI
Posts: 1,796
Likes (Received): 614

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
Not a new video, but I'm curious where this was done.


Quite impressive flying.
In Oppdølstranda at the old alignment of the road 70, between two tunnels.

https://www.google.fi/maps/search/Op.../data=!3m1!1e3
__________________

gr_kanev liked this post
MattiG no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 19th, 2016, 06:05 PM   #3517
cinxxx
I ♥ Timişoara
 
cinxxx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: München
Posts: 22,234
Likes (Received): 18298

Hi guys!
Do you know why Google Maps routes like this, which is 1 hour slower, than this?

I'm currently researching a route between Bergen and Trondheim, with stops in Flam, Borgund, Alesund, Geiranger, Trollstigen, Atlantic road, Kristiansund.
Should I consider something else? You have some recommendations?
Before getting there, my plan would be to fly to Oslo, then to Stavanger, then fly to Bergen. Looks much faster than driving and not expensive.

Renting a car in Norway is pretty expensive. I would consider flying to Lofoten and drive 2 days around, then drive to Tromso, but I don't know, just for that, hiring another car is kind of expensive.
Alternative would be to the drive from Trondheim but it's around 9 hours, and the costs I researched for the car would be around 1000€, large extra costs, because I would fly back to Oslo from the North.

This is I don't have more than 2 weeks for this trip
cinxxx no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 19th, 2016, 06:26 PM   #3518
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,573
Likes (Received): 19366

E16 is a pretty fast route, you can do 80 km/h most of the time from Voss to Bergen. However, that northern route is a very low standard and narrow road, where you likely won't get over 60 km/h most of the time.

Don't underestimate the travel time in Norway. In 2014 I drove west to east along E16 from Voss to Torsby and it took me 10.5 hours to cover 550 km including a few brief photo stops and two short side trips (no more than 15 km from E16). I was totally exhausted because the road is never straight. Traffic itself is hardly a problem. The lack of motorways doesn't mean you'll get stuck behind trucks all the time like in central and western Europe.
ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old January 19th, 2016, 06:40 PM   #3519
cinxxx
I ♥ Timişoara
 
cinxxx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: München
Posts: 22,234
Likes (Received): 18298

The other option would be to fly from Bergen to Alesund, rent a car there, and miss out on the Flam-Myrdal attraction.
cinxxx no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 19th, 2016, 11:20 PM   #3520
MattiG
Registered User
 
MattiG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Espoo FI
Posts: 1,796
Likes (Received): 614

Quote:
Originally Posted by cinxxx View Post
Hi guys!
Do you know why Google Maps routes like this, which is 1 hour slower, than this?

I'm currently researching a route between Bergen and Trondheim, with stops in Flam, Borgund, Alesund, Geiranger, Trollstigen, Atlantic road, Kristiansund.
Should I consider something else? You have some recommendations?
Before getting there, my plan would be to fly to Oslo, then to Stavanger, then fly to Bergen. Looks much faster than driving and not expensive.

Renting a car in Norway is pretty expensive. I would consider flying to Lofoten and drive 2 days around, then drive to Tromso, but I don't know, just for that, hiring another car is kind of expensive.
Alternative would be to the drive from Trondheim but it's around 9 hours, and the costs I researched for the car would be around 1000€, large extra costs, because I would fly back to Oslo from the North.

This is I don't have more than 2 weeks for this trip
Well...

Rule 1: Do not try too much. Especially on Norway. 200 km a day is much.

Rule 2: Do not try too much. Norway will probably stay where it is now. If you want to make yourself familiar with several areas of Norway, then make several trips over years.

Rule 3: Do not try too much. The slower the road is the more scenic it typically is. There nothing sexy on driving the E16 from Voss to Bergen. The Hardagerfjord option over 7 creates more adrenaline as it is more dangerous. The old road 13 over Hamlagrø is not dangerous, but it has a scenic hairpin descent to Dale. My absolute favorite is the slowest one: road 569 over Stamneshella and Eidslandet. Narrow road carved into rock, and the one-lane exciting Modalstunnelen.

https://www.google.fi/maps/@60.66093...7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.fi/maps/@60.78470...7i13312!8i6656
__________________

cinxxx, tomPunk liked this post
MattiG 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 11:56 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