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 August 3rd, 2008, 10:02 PM   #341
ElviS77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 564
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
1. "without providing a shred of evidence to support this" I believe was a fairly strong statement after all that I have written on the subject, particularly since you still have not been able to support your own claim (30 minutes) in any way.
Still it's true. I said that 30 mins is what can be expected, but to be nice I showed that even when not driving to the E6's capacity, the difference is about 40-45 mins.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
2. "because total traffic volumes, history and population density easily trumps distance and travel time for a tiny minority of the road's users"
I believe I have clearly demonstrated that the transit traffic is NOT a tiny minority for a large part of the road, say 50 %.
Sorry, but you've either not read the texts, not understood what they say or are deliberatly misrepresenting them. All very annoying:

AADT below 2800 E6 Dombås-Mjøen. 22% (about 70 kms)
AADT below 2800 rv 3 Rena-Ulsberg. 74% (about 210 kms)

AADT above 10000 E6 Kolomoen-Lillehammer. 24% (about 80 kms)
AADT above 10000 rv 3 Løten N-Elverum. 3% (about 10 kms)

AADT above 5000 E6 Kolomoen-Otta. 55% (about 190 kms)
AADT above 5000 rv 3 Kolomoen-Elverum (not even the entire section...) 11% (about 30 kms).

Also: The weight of goods transported is par or up to 2.5 times higher on 70% of the E6, on 55% it's at least 1.5 times higher. Sources?
Rv 3: http://www.vegvesen.no/stamvegutredn...vegrute_6b.pdf
E6: http://www.vegvesen.no/stamvegutredn...vegrute_6a.pdf

Until you accept these simple facts, I'm even more done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
Exactly where is the misrepresentation of facts?.
See above. 75-80% isn't "approximately" 50.
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old August 3rd, 2008, 10:10 PM   #342
ElviS77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 564
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
Of course I read latitude, but who cares about that? Only the length of the road matters when you drive, and given that E6 is 40 km longer, using latitude is clearly a misrepresentation of relevant facts. Since we are talking about road sections with little traffic, both agreeing that the highly trafficated parts needs an upgrade anyway, going from the south does not make any sense either.
This is just stupid. If you're going to make a sensible comparison between roads of different distance, you'll have to divide into percentage sections. Otherwise, the end you start counting becomes an issue. 80 kms from Kolomoen is 15 kms north of Rena. Better to compare Lillehammer to that?
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 3rd, 2008, 10:32 PM   #343
ElviS77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 564
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
Personally, I do not have time to go into detail of each leg, which you actually have to do in order to calculate precise by the minute estimates of the in total probably 50 - 100 speed zones on the two routes (wild guess). Have you? Also, Remember, a short 50-zone will lower the average speed a lot..
What's your point? I'm talking about the average speed I'm able to maintain, not speed limits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
If I should dear to comment on a specific section, it would be the relatively easy to calculate Alvdal-Kvikne vs Dombås-Kongsvoll. They both have the same speed limit and have relatively few curves, Dombås-Kongsvoll have a larger ascent and descent, nevertheless you claim that Dombås-Kongsvoll is faster. .
No. The limit Alvdal-Tynset is now 80 (as the rest of Østerdalen), across the Dovre plateau it's still 90, afaik (and I would do 100+ anyway...). As you also mentioned, the Alvdal-Tynset section is slightly busier than the rest of Østerdalen, with fewer overtaking possibilities than both the rest of Østerdalen and Dovre.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
My general comment would be that still if we accepted your assertion regarding passing possibilities (which I really don't), you do not anywhere, as far as I can see, take into account the higher traffic on the E6 and which in practice is quite important for both the average travel speed, need for passing, and for actual passing opportunities (and hence for comfortable travel, although this is not an issue here.).
Since we both agree that the Dovre plateau isn't all that busy, I don't see the problem there. For the Gudbrandsdal section with poor quality road I stated a 70 average, a speed I normally maintain with ease even between Ulsberg and Sokndal, which I think you'll agree is both truly bad and quite busy. For further comment on the speed on the 10-15 metre-wide section Kolomoen-Ringebu: This afternoon I drove Minnesund-Jessheim, basically the same road type, but far busier and with construction works with 50 and 70 zones. Still, I averaged just short of 80. Without stress, yes, even without a single overtaking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
In conclusion, I still stick to experienced travel time rather than a theoretical model that does not seem to be detailed or accurate enough. And my experience, and it seems, in the experience of the truck drivers (for somewhat different reasons), the difference is 1 hour.
I've never talked about lorries. And again, instead of commenting on my model, you discard it offhand, still without anything resembling evidence. Apart from your experience, that is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
Well, these periods are quite important for the total AADT, especially for Gudbrandsdalen, so I see no point in disregarding them here. Besides, the only times you can disregard the traffic in the E6 vs rv 3 would be late at night.
But it's ok to disregard the fact that most of the E6 is far busier when you make the case for the rv 3? Nonetheless, I have taken it into consideration, my model is valid 11 months (plus change) a year.
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 3rd, 2008, 10:51 PM   #344
ElviS77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 564
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
If I indeed accepted your 41 minute calculation, please tell me, how would that change anything in our basic discussion?
It probably won't move you an inch. Which doesn't matter to me, really, since it's the other reasons which I insist makes "E6 through Østerdalen" an illusion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
Well, it would not exactly be a moon landing. When a four-lane road is completed to Lillehammer and/or Elverum and Trøndelag also get much needed improvements on the E6 from the northern side, there will not be that many km left. Norway has 91 000 km of public roads already, mostly built in far poorer times, and mostly with a lot less traffic than we are discussing here. The 2000 km of motorways which is needed in order to connect the population centers of southern Norway should not be that hard, and will pay off in the long term. The cost would be less than one year of oil revenues.

I am not a supporter of FrP, the right-wing progress party, but just now it seems that we will get a new government including FrP next fall. They will need to make a lot of compromizes with their potential and more responsible partners in order to form a basis of government. Especially after this summer's debate where infrastructure has been an issue, I am starting to believe that a general motorway plan is a bone which the other parties can throw to FrP, after all not many really disagrees on the fact that Norwegian infrastructure needs an upgrade. If the ball starts to roll on this, it will be hard to stop, I believe....
We don't need a motorway Oslo-Trondheim. We need to spend money on sensible projects, not on motorways for 2000 cars a day. If we were to get the proposed standards on both the rv 3 and the E6 in 15-25 years, that'd make a lot of sense and me happy. As for Frp's prospects in government, they're not very smart, and thus, they'll be eaten alive by bureucrats. That is, if they ever get into government, which I seriously doubt. Polls aren't elections.

So what are sensible projects? First, motorways where they're actually needed (for instance where AADTs are expected beyond 10000 in the next 25-30 years). Second, 2+1 expressways with central barrier on a considerable proportion of international, trunk and regional roads. Third, safer local roads with bike and pedestrian paths.
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 13th, 2008, 06:14 PM   #345
Þróndeimr
Adventurous!
 
Þróndeimr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Posts: 12,216
Likes (Received): 2267

Quote:
In Norwegian Aftenposten: Kan fullføre 17 flere veiprosjekter før 2020

Hvis fylkespolitikerne får det som de vil, kan veinettet se slik ut på Østlandet i 2020: Firefelts motorveier i fem retninger ut av Oslo, og bedre veier mot Trondheim og Bergen.
Regional politicians vs. National politicians on the road matter. If the regional politicians win the fight we might see much better highways and motorways around Oslo.

But the conditions is a big increase in the budged. The national plan suggest 13.9 billion NOK withinn 2019, while the regional plan need ta least 50.4 billion NOK withinn 2020.
Þróndeimr no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 15th, 2008, 01:31 AM   #346
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

More on the Trondheim-Oslo debate....

Elvis77 and other that may have made an attempt to follow the rv 3/E6 debate: I feel this discussion has seriously derailed, and I am really starting to get fed up, hence the delay in responding. However, the latest massive response of ElviS77 I believe deserves an (unfortunately no less massive) correction from me. For those who are not particularly interested in AADT or by the minute travel times in interior Norway, I suggest you go directly to my “Concluding remarks” at the end of this post which summarizes what I think is important in this debate. Whether Norway should construct a national motorway network or not I think is another and more interesting debate, and this issue is thus replied to in a separate post.

The big Trondheim-Oslo traffic number debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
This is just stupid. If you're going to make a sensible comparison between roads of different distance, you'll have to divide into percentage sections. Otherwise, the end you start counting becomes an issue. 80 kms from Kolomoen is 15 kms north of Rena. Better to compare Lillehammer to that?
So, how many percentages or degrees latitude have you driven lately? Most people spend real time driving real km/miles which consumes real fuel.

Once again, the fact that the Gudbrandsdalen road is longer can never be used as an argument in favour for the road. The fallacy of your argument can best be illustrated using a simple example: City A and B has two road links: One direct link and one link via the smaller town C. Links C-B and A-B has equal traffic and length, but A-C has more traffic. What you are arguing is that since A-C-B has a higher percentage of heavy traffic, it should be used as the preferred link between A and B, even though the high traffic leg A-C does not bring you any closer to B. It simply does not make any sense!

Applied for the question at hand. When arriving from Kolomoen to Lillehammer/Otta (current E6) it is true that you have travelled further along a highly trafficated road than when you arrive at Elverum/Rena. But you are not any closer to your destination at Ulsberg!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
Sorry, but you've either not read the texts, not understood what they say or are deliberatly misrepresenting them. All very annoying:
I simply don’t see why you have to be so negative in your replies. What about keeping to the issues? In a debate, you can hardly expect that your opponent share your view, and represent things the way you would do, then there would not be a debate. However, what I expect from other forum members is that when they present something as a fact, it should be true. Unfortunately, already many times during this debate I have had check your so called facts only to realize that they are wrong, and unfortunately your latest replies were no better. I am not perfect, but I do not believe that you have been able to arrest me on a serious factual error.

But what were we actually discussing?

Elvis77: ”I say that it will never happen, because total traffic volumes, history and population density easily trumps distance and travel time for a tiny minority of the road's users.”
54°26′S 3°24′E: ”I believe I have clearly demonstrated that the transit traffic is NOT a tiny minority for a large part of the road, say 50 %.”

Now, almost all traffic between Kvikne and Innset at the county border Hedmark-S-Trøndelag is transit traffic Kolomoen-Ulsberg, AADT around 1800 according to viskart. The transit traffic of E6 is harder to calculate, but lets assume that the transit traffic is equal to the traffic across Dovre (1750) minus the lowest traffic on rv 70 Oppdal-Sunndalsøra (1170), i.e. 550. This is probably a slight underestimation, as some rv 70-traffic ends in Oppdal and some goes on to Trondheim. On the other hand, some of the E6 traffic from the south stops in Oppdal as well. So, in order not to start a row with you regarding this issue as well, let’s say the total transit traffic Ulsberg-Kolomoen is around AADT 2350. Again going from the north, we have the following total traffic numbers, ignoring local traffic increase when the road goes through towns:
  1. Ulsberg-Dombås/Ulsberg-Somewhere south of Alvdal: 103 km, 35% of route, approx 4000 AADT, transit traffic ratio 59 %.
  2. Dombås-Otta/South of Alvdal - Atna: 47 km, 16 % of route, approx 3800 (somewhere it’s down to 3300)+2200=6000 AADT, transit traffic ratio 39 %
  3. Otta-Lillehammer/Atna-Elverum:113 km, 38 % of route, approx 6500 (mostly below 6000)+2900=9400 AADT, transit traffic ratio 25 %.
  4. Lillehammer/Elverum-Kolomoen: 33 km, 11 % of route, approx 11 000 (somewhere below 10 000)+8000=19 000 AADT, transit traffic ratio 12.4 %


Hence, on 51 % of the route, the transit traffic is 39 % or higher, on 35 % of the route, the transit traffic is dominating. Even if you probably still argue that a longer road somehow is an advantage, I still cannot see how 25 % or even 12.4 % is “tiny”. Using these numbers, it is also possible to calculate total traffic work (AADT-km):

Real traffic work:
Transit: 2350*296 km=696 000 AADT-km
Total:103*4000+47*6000+113*9400+33*19000=2 383 000 AADT-km
Transit-ratio: 29 %
Transit ratio with relative road lengths (hence a detour as useful as a shortcut):
(Transit AADT)/(Total work E6/length E6+Tot work rv 3/length rv3)=
2350/((103*2000+47*3800+113*6500+77*11000)/340+(103*2000+47*2200+113*2900+33*8000)/296)=27 %
Transit ratio favouring long routes (your alternative, I bet):
(Transit work E6+transit work rv 3)/(Total work E6+Tot work rv 3)=
(1800*296+550*340)/(103*2000+47*3800+113*6500+77*11000)+(103*2000+47*2200+113*2900+33*8000))=25 %
For the goods, using the somewhat outdated (2002) figure on page 10 of http://www.vegvesen.no/stamvegutredn...vegrute_6a.pdf, and still assuming that around 50 % of the goods go to rv 70 at Oppdal, we get a total of 1.9 M tonns of transit goods:
  1. Ulsberg-Dombås/Ulsberg-Somewhere south of Alvdal: 103 km, 35% of route, 1.6+0.6=2.2 Mt, transit goods ratio 86 %.
  2. Dombås-Otta/South of Alvdal - Atna: 47 km, 16 % of route, 1.6+1.6=3.2 Mt, transit goods ratio 59 %
  3. Otta-Lillehammer/Atna-Elverum:113 km, 38 % of route, 2.2+approx 1.75=3.95Mt, transit goods ratio 48 %.
  4. Lillehammer/Elverum-Kolomoen: 33 km, 11 % of route, approx 3.9+1.8=5.7Mt, , transit goods ratio 33 %
Total goods-km:

Real traffic work:

Transit: 1.9*296 km=562 Mt-km
Total:103*2.2+47*3.2+113*3.95+33*5.7=1000 Mt-km
Transit-ratio: 56 %
Transit ratio with relative road lengths Transit ratio with relative road lengths (hence a detour as useful as a shortcut):
(Transit Goods)/(Total goods km E6/length E6+Tot goods km rv 3/length rv3)=
1.9/((103*0.6+47*1.6+113*2.2+77*3.9)/340+(103*1.6+47*1.6+113*1.75+33*1.8)/296)=51 %
Transit ratio favouring long routes (your alternative?):
(Transit goods km E6+transit goods km rv 3)/(Total goods km E6+Tot goods km rv 3)=
(1.6*296+0.3*340)/((103*0.6+47*1.6+113*2.2+77*3.9)+(103*1.6+47*1.6+113*1.75+33*1.8))=48.7 %
Surely, the goods traffic is many times as important as the average AADT in an economic sense. As I will come back to, the truck traffic has increased dramatically on rv 3 lately.

In conclusion, I cannot possibly see how the transit traffic can be regarded as a tiny fraction of the traffic between Ulsberg and Kolomoen, so if anybody is misrepresenting, it must be you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
AADT below 2800 E6 Dombås-Mjøen. 22% (about 70 kms)
AADT below 2800 rv 3 Rena-Ulsberg. 74% (about 210 kms)

AADT above 10000 E6 Kolomoen-Lillehammer. 24% (about 80 kms)
AADT above 10000 rv 3 Løten N-Elverum. 3% (about 10 kms)

AADT above 5000 E6 Kolomoen-Otta. 55% (about 190 kms)
AADT above 5000 rv 3 Kolomoen-Elverum (not even the entire section...) 11% (about 30 kms).

Also: The weight of goods transported is par or up to 2.5 times higher on 70% of the E6, on 55% it's at least 1.5 times higher. Sources?
Rv 3: http://www.vegvesen.no/stamvegutredn...vegrute_6b.pdf
E6: http://www.vegvesen.no/stamvegutredn...vegrute_6a.pdf
Considering the AADT numbers, your claims are not documented in your ”sources”. The tables only show traffic at selected points not on continuous stretches, and the maps only show traffic in intervals that does not equal the once you have given above. The only source that in fact gives AADT accurately on legs is the viskart engine from Vegvesenet (Norw. road auth.). The numbers you have provided are however not that far off, except that Kolomoen-Elverum indeed is above 5000 everywhere, E6 north of Kolomoen is slightly below 10 000, and most importantly, E6 is more or less below 2800 all the way to Ulsberg. However, to prove my point, I prefer to present the data a bit differently, just like you ignoring short stints of slightly higher traffic through small towns:

AADT below 2800 E6 Dombås-Ulsberg, 103 km
AADT below 2800 rv 3 Rena-Ulsberg, 230 km

AADT below 4000 E6 Nord-Sel-Ulsberg 137 km
AADT below 5000 rv 3 Rena-Ulsberg: 230 km

AADT below 5000 E6 Otta-Ulsberg 150 km
AADT below 5000 rv 3 Grundseth (Elverum N)-Ulsberg: 261 km

I.e., the traffic on E6 is relatively small for 150 km, which is a bit more than half the Kolomoen-Ulsberg distance. 103 km of the current E6 (35 %) has similar traffic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
Also: The weight of goods transported is par or up to 2.5 times higher on 70% of the E6, on 55% it's at least 1.5 times higher. Sources?

Until you accept these simple facts, I'm even more done.
Simple facts, huh? Why don’t you recheck the stamvegutredninger-document that you claim is your source. It clearly says (figure on page 10):

Rv 3:
Ulsberg-Koppang, 173 km (58%), 1.6 Mt
Koppang-Kolomoen, 123 km (42 %), 1.8 Mt

E6:
Ulsberg-Dombås: 103 km (35 % of Kolomoen-Ulsberg, 30% Kolomoen-Dombås-Ulsberg), less or equal to 0.6 Mt (38 % of Ulsberg-Koppang (rv 3))
Dombås- Otta:47 km (16 % of Kolomoen-Ulsberg,14 % of Kolomoen-Dombås-Ulsberg), 1.6 Mt (Equal to Ulsberg-Koppang (rv 3))
Otta-Lillehammer: 113 km (38% of Kolomoen-Ulsberg, 33 % of K-D-U), 2.2 Mt (122 % of Koppang-Kolomoen (rv 3))
Lillehammer-Moelv: 31 km (10 % of Kolomoen-Ulsberg, 9 % of K-D-U), 3.4 Mt (189 % Koppang-Kolomoen (rv 3))
Moelv-Kolomoen: 49 km (17 % of Kolomoen-Ulsberg, 14 % of K-D-U), 44 km of it is simply a detour, 4.4 Mt (244 % Koppang-Kolomoen (rv 3))

I.e: E6 has length corresponding to HALF the rv 3 with EQUAL or (SIGNIFICANT) LOWER goods traffic than rv 3. Of the useful transit length of E6, only 29% has more traffic than 125 % the goods traffic of rv 3. NOWHERE is the goods traffic on E6 more than 2.5 times the traffic of rv 3. Maybe it’s about time to scale down your arrogance a few notches, or at least verify your “facts” before you blurt out your comments?

(And as discussed above, transit traffic represents at least 50 % of the goods traffic, of which 90 % uses rv 3)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post

See above. 75-80% isn't "approximately" 50.
First of all, see above, 75-80% are hardly the relevant numbers. You obviously need to get things repeated several times, so I just quote my former post, on which my “approximately” statement were based:
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 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.
Since the these studies were done, rv 3 has had very high growth in heavy traffic, however, up 33 % only in 2007. The reason for this growth may be that NSB is working on capacity limit. The growth in traffic north of Otta has hardly been that high, so with high probability the heavy traffic in Østerdalen is now higher, and mostly significantly higher, than all points at E6 Otta-Ulsberg.

The “great” debate about Kolomoen-Ulsberg driving times:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
What's your point? I'm talking about the average speed I'm able to maintain, not speed limits.
So speed limits do not matter when you drive? When it comes to Østerdalen, speed limits are certainly what limits the speed for most people, either you drive on the limit, at roughly 20 km/h above (which some do to keep their licence). Even if you do not care about the limit, as unfortunately quite a lot people in Østerdalen, most of it can be driven quite comfortable at 130 km/h or so, at least that is what all the people passing me there seems to think. There IS a big difference with Gudbrandsdalen, which has:
  • More speed cameras (soon average speed cameras)
  • More cops
  • More towns/local traffic/tractors/RVs
  • Significantly worse curvature:
Curvature E6/rv 3


If you keep to the speed limit, and are driving at night with little traffic, the difference Dovre/Gudbrandsdalen is 41 min according to the vegvesenet engine, which may not take into account the recent speed reduction across Dovre (see below). Other than that, if you don’t care about speed limits or there is other traffic on the road, the difference is larger. Everybody that has been driving the two roads a few times knows this, I don’t understand why you keep denying the obvious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
No. The limit Alvdal-Tynset is now 80 (as the rest of Østerdalen), across the Dovre plateau it's still 90, afaik
As I have said earlier, it is quite surprising that you on your “regular trips” have not discovered that the 90-zone across Dovre has been history since last fall...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
(and I would do 100+ anyway...).
But in Østerdalen you were not going faster than 95 with the new 80-limit....
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
As you also mentioned, the Alvdal-Tynset section is slightly busier than the rest of Østerdalen, with fewer overtaking possibilities than both the rest of Østerdalen and Dovre.
Don’t be ridiculous. Alvdal-Tynset mostly consists of several km long straight sections. There are not many two-lane roads in Norway with better passing opportunities.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
I've never talked about lorries.
Well, you claim that Gudbrandsdalen somehow can become the main North-South transit route after future road improvements. The trucks are certainly the part of the traffic that is most important economically.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
And again, instead of commenting on my model, you discard it offhand, still without anything resembling evidence. Apart from your experience, that is.
What have you offered, except for your “personal” (and apparantly not terribly updated) experience? You have divided it up in sections, yes, but still what you have given is personal, and from the sections I have bothered to check, rather biased opinions. I have on the other hand offered:
1. Travel times from the road authorities (41 minutes)
2. Reasons why the difference usually is larger (and certainly not smaller) in practice (se above)
3. Statements from truck drivers (1 hour difference)
4. And yes, my own experience, which is similar to what all other people I have discussed this with (1 hour by car)

And if you did not notice it, Ingeniøren claimed even two hours above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
But it's ok to disregard the fact that most of the E6 is far busier when you make the case for the rv 3? Nonetheless, I have taken it into consideration, my model is valid 11 months (plus change) a year.
I have not disregarded anything, see above. I can’t see that you have taken into consideration anywhere, and by the way, traffic on E6 in Gudbrandsdalen is dominated higher than normal due to recreation traffic during summer season (at least 2 months), Christmas-, Easter-,winter- and fall breaks (another month), all weekends (2/7x9 remaining months), in total 4.5 months.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
Still it's true. I said that 30 mins is what can be expected, but to be nice I showed that even when not driving to the E6's capacity, the difference is about 40-45 mins.
Yeah, right....
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
It probably won't move you an inch. Which doesn't matter to me, really, since it's the other reasons which I insist makes "E6 through Østerdalen" an illusion.
But you started this by claiming that traffic somehow would be transferred to Gudbrandsdalen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
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.
You seem to put a very high importance on AADT on the E6 issue, why is it not at all important Oslo-Bergen?


Of all the major east-west routes (E16, E134, rv7/52), E16 has clearly the lowest transit traffic. Only 500 cars, and 124 trucks, makes rv 3 sound like metro-motorway in comparison. Except the relatively short Oslo-Hønefoss stint, also the local traffic is much lower on the E16 than rv 7/52 and E18/E134. Of course Oslo-Hønefoss will be covered by rv 7/52 if renamed E16. Could it, possibly, be that you simply that your fierce defence of the current E6 is due to a “slight” Oppland-bias, which both E16 and E6 passes through currently, or is it the party book that governs your choices....


Concluding Remarks
  • E6 is supposed to be the road that runs through Norway and connect the south to the north in the 2500 km long country caller Norway
  • Today, however, most car traffic and 90 % of the truck traffic between the main population centers on the route, Trondheim-area and Oslo, is using another road, rv 3 further to the east, on approximately 300 km of the route. Rv 3 is drawn in blue on the map above. The reason is that rv 3 is 44 km shorter, is flatter (with highest point roughly 300 m lower), and has better curvature than E6 (hopefully not disputed), and is 40-60 minutes slower (disputed by Elvis77), a situation that is not likely to change in the future
  • Rv 3 today connects the main population center of the country, the greater Oslo area, everything south of Oslo, as well as Akershus and Hedmark counties to central and Northern Norway (at least the two Trøndelag counties, Norland and small parts of Møre og Romsdal), with a total population of at least 650 000, including the third biggest city in Norway, Trondheim, which currently has the second largest population growth in absolute numbers. With a significant improvement of the road, rv 3 may also serve some of the traffic between southern Norway and the two northernmost counties with additional 225 000 people, which today mostly goes through Sweden, as well as the northern part of Møre and Romsdal (roughly 120 000). Potentially the rv 3 can thus serve as the southern transit route for the whole roughly 1 M people of southern and central Norway. The traffic growth on rv 3 has been very high lately.
  • E6, following the current route is also an important road. It connects Oslo and southern Hedmark/Oppland with the North-Western part of South Norway as well as the upper part of the interior county of Oppland, with a total population estimated to 380 000. These regions have a population growth lower than the national average. In addition it connects central Norway (Trondheim) with upper Hedmark and parts of central western Norway, at least during summer, but this generate relatively little traffic. Also E6 has had quite high growth during the last few years, in part due to recreational traffic between the Oslo-area and the ski-resorts established in Gudbrandsdalen due to the Lillehammer Olympics 1994.
  • According to the Norwegian road authorities, the functions of rv 3 vs E6 is not likely to change even if the current E6 is improved. The advantages of rv 3 is simply too large for the transit traffic.
  • The E6 goes through a quite narrow, winding valley with many towns and beautiful cultural landscape, and the mountain pass is through a national park with threatened species like mountain fox and wild reindeer. Significant improvements for transit traffic will thus be quite expensive and controversial. On the other hand, rv 3 goes through a much less steep, and mainly forested (and rather boring) valley, mostly with moraine gravel ground, and is, on a Norwegian scale, a very easy place to build roads.
  • Between 51 and 56 % (depending on how you calculate) of the total goods tonnage-km is today transit traffic based on 2005 numbers. The split between rv 3 and E6 is similar, with between 45-49 % on rv 3. Since 2005 goods traffic at least on rv 3 has increased dramatically, 33 % only from 2006 to 2007. Correspondingly, the transit AADT-km is at least between 27 and 29 %. Rv 3 carries between 35 and 38 % of the total AADT-km, but most of the AADT km of E6 comes on the southern leg of E6 which essentially is a detour for the transit traffic.
In conclusion:
I think that many aspects favours to move the E6 to where rv 3 goes today. This is after all where the north-south traffic goes and will go for the foreseeable future. The The current E6 between Kolomoen (split rv 3/E6) and Dombås is also an important road, but with more of a regional character, and it is essentially a dead end (i.e. little transit traffic). I think it would be a good idea to extending E136 through Gudbrandsdalen to Kolomoen, since this road is already serving the North-western corner of Southern Norway.

Renumbering the roads are however not the most important issue. What bugs me incredible is however when people, mostly from the district where the current E6 runs, argue that this is the “main north-south route” or even “the main Oslo-Trondheim highway”. It is neither, and will never be again. It is complete mysterious that rv 3 is not the signposted Trondheim-Oslo road, well, I guess it leaves the average tourist with a better impression of Norway as E6 is without doubt the most pittoresque of the two roads!

Like many roads in Norway, both roads need improvement, very badly, considering the amount of traffic and importance of the two roads. However, Rv 3 I believe has the largest potential on a cost/benefit basis for a possible future national motorway network.
54°26′S 3°24′E no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 15th, 2008, 01:34 AM   #347
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

Motorway network in Norway?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
We don't need a motorway Oslo-Trondheim. We need to spend money on sensible projects, not on motorways for 2000 cars a day.
If ever constructed, an Oslo-Trondheim motorway certainly will not have only 2000 cars. If a motorway is constructed the whole way the time benefit would probably be so large that almost all transit traffic will choose the same route, at least if the most sensible route (Østerdalen IMO) is selected. As discussed in the previous post, the transit traffic by car today (rv 3 + Gudbrandsdalen) is at least 2350, probably higher. In addition, a much larger portion of the Møre og Romsdal traffic would probably also select Østerdalen if this route is improved. According to the Norwegian railway authorities, the total number of persons travelling IN EACH DIRECTION Trondheim-Oslo will be 12 000 if high speed HSR is constructed, and 8000 if not. Today, about 50 % of the passengers travel by air, only 30 % (or less) travel by car. With four hours or less travel time, the total time use will be almost the same by car or air for most people. Of course, a motorway will dip into the low-end air market, as well as creating new traffic, as Trondheim becomes almost as close to Oslo by car as Arendal is today. HSR probably will take a lot of the high-end air traffic, if constructed. The total traffic is hard to estimate without going deeper into the subject, but to me an opening transit AADT of 7000-8000 does not seem unrealistic to me at all. The gap up to your 10 000 limit will most likely be filled a few years after opening; Norway being one of the few countries in Europe where both the economy and population is growing steadily. On most of the length there will be local traffic in addition to the transit traffic, of course. In order that the full benefit of the road should be realized, it is however important that also the least trafficated parts are improved. There are BTW quite a few sections on the US interstate system that still has lower than 2000 AADT.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
If we were to get the proposed standards on both the rv 3 and the E6 in 15-25 years, that'd make a lot of sense and me happy. As for Frp's prospects in government, they're not very smart, and thus, they'll be eaten alive by bureucrats. That is, if they ever get into government, which I seriously doubt. Polls aren't elections.
One problem with the current standards is that they will not improve transit travel times substantially compared with what we had 30 years ago, although safety probably will be better. A second problem is that the traffic growth always have been underestimated in the past, and the effect has been that roads have had to be rebuilt with only a few years between, which is a very expensive way of doing it. A third problem is that they do not at all take into account the fact that the cost of building a road, and hence profitability, of a project vary wildly. The cost of building a road in for instance Østerdalen and in an urban area is very different.

Opinion polls are not elections. However, the current government won the narrowest defeat three years ago, in fact they did not even win the popular vote. Since then they have been behind the opposition almost all the time, currently the ratio is 38 to 62 %, and it has been so for a long time. FrP is the biggest party on the opinion polls steadily with more than 30 %, and I would say it is very likely that they will be part of the governing coalition some way or another in one year, like it or not.

Although I do not like their politics on most issues, I actually think that the FrP politicians are extremely professional on a Norwegian scale. In any case, if the parliament actually decides something, things usually progress in Norway. The problem has historically been political indecisiveness, not bureaucrats. Do you seriously think that Vegvesenet would refuse to build roads if they are funded by the parliament to do so?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
So what are sensible projects? First, motorways where they're actually needed (for instance where AADTs are expected beyond 10000 in the next 25-30 years). Second, 2+1 expressways with central barrier on a considerable proportion of international, trunk and regional roads. Third, safer local roads with bike and pedestrian paths.
Basically, I don’t disagree with your priorities. Main highways with AADTs beyond 10000 should be built first. Many of these roads will anyway be a part of a national network, if ever realized. As argued above, however, motorways connecting the big cities would probably reach this AADT level in 25-30 years ahead. Trondheim-Oslo and Oslo-Kristiansand should probably be built before Oslo-Bergen/Stavanger. The former will not necessarily have higher traffic than a east/west-connection, but will certainly be cheaper to build. Also, it would also probably be a good idea, cost-wise and environmentally, to construct new roads in conjunction and concurrent with the proposed HSR lines, if those are every built. As you probably know, the HSR lines require a lot of landscaping, to a much higher degree than a motorway.

Regarding the economics of it, I sometimes find it handy to quote myself:

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
Actually, economists have calculated that a (4-lane) motorway network connecting the population centers in the southern half of Norway would save 62 billion NOK (8.2 billion Euros or 11.5 billion USD) a year, and many lives. The ballpark figure of much it would cost to build the 2000 km double-y-network that would connect 90 % of the population of southern Norway is 100 billion NOK. Even is this estimate, which is based on costs of recent Swedish motorways ++, is off by a factor of two, this would be a very good investment. To illustrate what these figures means in real terms for Norway:

*62 billion NOK is twice the Norwegian defense budget
*The cost of a recent offshore development finnished this year (Ormen Lange) was 66 billion NOK. There are many of these...
*The projected SURPLUS of the Norwegian national budget of 2007 is 375 billion NOK
*At the end of next year, the Norwegian government will have roughly 2 500 billion NOK invested in funds abroad.

New research has also shown that as new roads in the cities usually mean larger emission due to increased traffic, this is not true for interregional roads. Traveling frequency seems relatively unaffected by road standard. Thus, enhanced interregional roads will greatly reduce emissions because fuel efficiency is very low in the often clogged and almost always winding Norwegian roads.

I however also support the development of a high speed train network in Norway, which the current government seems to support, since this will greatly reduce our dependence on air-travel on point-to-point travel between the cities, as discussed by MaxxPower above. The estimated cost of such a network is 200-300 billion NOK for southern Norway. However, these trains can only make a few stops, and cannot serve the whole country, a family on their trip to their cabin, or, most importan, the truck traffic.

I realize that the biggest hurdle is not money, but getting enough hands to build the infrastructure. However, I believe this is a matter of priority, and the use of foreign construction companies would probably ease the inflationary pressure. In any case the projections are that there will be even less hands in the future, so there won't come a "better" time.
54°26′S 3°24′E no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 15th, 2008, 03:20 PM   #348
ElviS77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 564
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
As I have said earlier, it is quite surprising that you on your “regular trips” have not discovered that the 90-zone across Dovre has been history since last fall...

But in Østerdalen you were not going faster than 95 with the new 80-limit....

Don’t be ridiculous. Alvdal-Tynset mostly consists of several km long straight sections. There are not many two-lane roads in Norway with better passing opportunities.
I'm fed up, since this obviously is completely pointless. My only comment, thus, is this.

Afaik, the 80 kph across the Dovre plateau is a winter speed limit. If not, my mistake. And I haven't driven there since last summer, that is absolutely true. Nonetheless, since the section is one of the very best in Norway, with excellent overtaking opportunities throughout, there are few Norwegian highways where I'd go faster. The Østerdal has fewer overtaking opportunities, more police and more lorries, thus 95. Alvdal-Tynset: There is a ban on overtaking for about 5 of 24 kms, quite a few exits and a couple of junctions, a couple of 70 sections and even a speed camera. So I stand by my claim, yes.

The very fastest link is Rendalen, anyway...
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 15th, 2008, 03:57 PM   #349
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 seem to put a very high importance on AADT on the E6 issue, why is it not at all important Oslo-Bergen?


Of all the major east-west routes (E16, E134, rv7/52), E16 has clearly the lowest transit traffic. Only 500 cars, and 124 trucks, makes rv 3 sound like metro-motorway in comparison. Except the relatively short Oslo-Hønefoss stint, also the local traffic is much lower on the E16 than rv 7/52 and E18/E134. Of course Oslo-Hønefoss will be covered by rv 7/52 if renamed E16. Could it, possibly, be that you simply that your fierce defence of the current E6 is due to a “slight” Oppland-bias, which both E16 and E6 passes through currently, or is it the party book that governs your choices.....
Since this is a different story, a second response: Again, I'm not talking about what I want. I'm talking about what is actually going on.

In terms of the east-west link: It seems as though the E16 will remain where it is. Which I DON'T approve of, my chosen corridor would be the rv 7/52. That might even be realistic, mainly because the east-west numbering isn't as set in stone as the E6 (only part of the rv 7 hasn't seen any change in numbering or status over the past decade).

I'll get back to you on the Trondheim-Oslo issue. With some reluctance, however, since I still don't fancy your approach to actual facts and my arguments. But since that debate is important, I'll take the time.
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 15th, 2008, 04:05 PM   #350
Krasnal.
Penspinning
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Kraków
Posts: 6
Likes (Received): 1

I was in Norway ths holiday. The roads are nice, but can someone tell me, why they are so narrow? We were riding by a bus road to Gjovik via Miosa lake, for example, and then when second bus arrived, we've got lot of problems to go forward. It's really anoying ;]
Krasnal. no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 19th, 2008, 03:58 PM   #351
NiceGuy
Freedom will prevail
 
NiceGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 272
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
http://img106.imageshack.us/img106/8424/firefeltsstrategiiq9.jpg
I think that map is completely ridiculous. The most important things that have to be changed are that:

1. The entire Norwegian part of E18 should be motorway (red color), linking Stavanger, Kristansand, Oslo and Ärjang. I know that this is not the shortest way between Stavanger and Oslo, but there are hundreds small cities and towns along E18, and the road already has lots of traffic (and traffic deaths).

2. E6 between Oslo and Trondheim should be motorway (red color), either through Gudbrandsdalen or Østerdalen. E6 should also be improved a lot in Northern Norway - this might be a good place to use the narrow 4-lane concept (yellow color).

3. There shall be NO MORE bridges or tunnels to uninhabited islands and fjords!

4. There should be a straight road directly from Oslo to Åmotfors, either as motorway (red) or narrow 4-lane (yellow). By doing this, Swedish shopping will be only 20 minutes away from Oslo by car

Last edited by NiceGuy; August 19th, 2008 at 04:03 PM.
NiceGuy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 24th, 2008, 03:14 PM   #352
ElviS77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 564
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
If ever constructed, an Oslo-Trondheim motorway certainly will not have only 2000 cars. If a motorway is constructed the whole way the time benefit would probably be so large that almost all transit traffic will choose the same route, at least if the most sensible route (Østerdalen IMO) is selected. As discussed in the previous post, the transit traffic by car today (rv 3 + Gudbrandsdalen) is at least 2350, probably higher. In addition, a much larger portion of the Møre og Romsdal traffic would probably also select Østerdalen if this route is improved.
I agree. We might even see a transit AADT of more than 3000, perhaps even 4000, in 20-30 years time. Noone needs a motorway to deal with that kind of traffic. A 1+1/2+1 with a guardrail would make sense, however.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
According to the Norwegian railway authorities, the total number of persons travelling IN EACH DIRECTION Trondheim-Oslo will be 12 000 if high speed HSR is constructed, and 8000 if not. Today, about 50 % of the passengers travel by air, only 30 % (or less) travel by car. With four hours or less travel time, the total time use will be almost the same by car or air for most people. Of course, a motorway will dip into the low-end air market, as well as creating new traffic, as Trondheim becomes almost as close to Oslo by car as Arendal is today. HSR probably will take a lot of the high-end air traffic, if constructed. The total traffic is hard to estimate without going deeper into the subject, but to me an opening transit AADT of 7000-8000 does not seem unrealistic to me at all.
It is completely unrealistic. Figures regarding HSR cannot automatically be transfered to road travel, partly because such an animal would cut travel time Oslo-Trondheim to 2-2.5 hours... without the added "bonus" of a tiring 5-hour drive. A 125 kph average for the everyday driver isn't remotely realistic for a 500-km drive - even if a motorway ever came into being. In short: A rail link would make business commuting Oslo-Trondheim a possibility, a motorway wouldn't. Besides, experience from other countries show that HSRs can compete with air travel for medium-distance (400-800 kms) travel. Motorways cannot.

And this is even without touching on the most serious issue here, the environmental one. Making motorways to generate considerably more traffic is in my honest opinion a very bad idea. I don't disapprove of motorways as such, but there ought to be limits - and there are. As stated before, this will never happen. Partly because of local opposition, partly because of environmental opposition, partly because of the expensive nature of such projects and the fact that far cheaper solutions are more than adequate for the forseeable future.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
The gap up to your 10 000 limit will most likely be filled a few years after opening; Norway being one of the few countries in Europe where both the economy and population is growing steadily. On most of the length there will be local traffic in addition to the transit traffic, of course. In order that the full benefit of the road should be realized, it is however important that also the least trafficated parts are improved. There are BTW quite a few sections on the US interstate system that still has lower than 2000 AADT.
The Interstate comparison is pointless, for several reasons. First, it's 50 years old and noone thinks infrastructure that way anymore. Actually, only the US ever did. Why? That's the second reason: The Interstate Highway program was a child of Cold War thinking and a cornerstone of American strategic thinking domestically. Third, the interstates were paid for by the federal government. Public spending on such a level doesn't happen in the current climate of rather extreme neoliberalism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
One problem with the current standards is that they will not improve transit travel times substantially compared with what we had 30 years ago, although safety probably will be better. A second problem is that the traffic growth always have been underestimated in the past, and the effect has been that roads have had to be rebuilt with only a few years between, which is a very expensive way of doing it. A third problem is that they do not at all take into account the fact that the cost of building a road, and hence profitability, of a project vary wildly. The cost of building a road in for instance Østerdalen and in an urban area is very different.
Mostly true, but it doesn't make a Oslo-Trondheim (or Oslo-Bergen) motorway more sensible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
Opinion polls are not elections. However, the current government won the narrowest defeat three years ago, in fact they did not even win the popular vote. Since then they have been behind the opposition almost all the time, currently the ratio is 38 to 62 %, and it has been so for a long time. FrP is the biggest party on the opinion polls steadily with more than 30 %, and I would say it is very likely that they will be part of the governing coalition some way or another in one year, like it or not.
I'm not going to get into the details of Norwegian elections, but the crux of the matter is the word "coalition". FrP won't get a majority of the vote, so they'll either remain in opposition (as a 20-25%-party in elections, 30%+ on polls) or face the terrible notion of cooperation in government, having to rely heavily on the bureaucracy they claim to hate (thus becoming a >10%-party once again...)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
Although I do not like their politics on most issues, I actually think that the FrP politicians are extremely professional on a Norwegian scale. In any case, if the parliament actually decides something, things usually progress in Norway. The problem has historically been political indecisiveness, not bureaucrats. Do you seriously think that Vegvesenet would refuse to build roads if they are funded by the parliament to do so?
Professional? Well, professionally stupid, perhaps... Nonetheless, the most interesting aspect of right-wing populism is that when such groups win power, they are unable to deliver. The reason is simple: Populism requires popularity, obviously, and popular political measures are expensive. For left-wing populism, this isn't too much of a problem, since such groups state from the get-go that they'll fund new projects with public money gotten from taxation, mainly of businesses, the rich and luuxury items. This is basically how social democratic movements all over Europe started out and eventually changed politics fundamentally. Right-wing populism's fundamental problem is that it cannot do this: their entire extistence is founded upon the reduction of taxes and government interference.

All populists eventually face reality - the fact that they need money for their grand schemes. However, right-wing anti-government people like the FrP are in more serious trouble than the leftists who just do as they've promised all along and raise taxes. They'll either have to limit spending on schools, hospitals, infrastructure or commit political suicide by doing exactly what they've promised not to do - increase taxes or introduce tolling stations... This is why right-wing populism never has survived the test of government and why FrP won't build more roads than serious political parties and the Vegvesen won't get more money...

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
Basically, I don’t disagree with your priorities. Main highways with AADTs beyond 10000 should be built first. Many of these roads will anyway be a part of a national network, if ever realized. As argued above, however, motorways connecting the big cities would probably reach this AADT level in 25-30 years ahead. Trondheim-Oslo and Oslo-Kristiansand should probably be built before Oslo-Bergen/Stavanger. The former will not necessarily have higher traffic than a east/west-connection, but will certainly be cheaper to build. Also, it would also probably be a good idea, cost-wise and environmentally, to construct new roads in conjunction and concurrent with the proposed HSR lines, if those are every built. As you probably know, the HSR lines require a lot of landscaping, to a much higher degree than a motorway.
I don't want a motorway network throughout Norway. It's a waste of money and - more seriously - lays waste to the environment. That is not to say we shouldn't improve current roads and even build far more motorways than we currently do. But there has to be a limit. Also: promoting idiotic Interstate-like networks only makes it easier for those who oppose motorways even where they're needed and those who use liberalist rhetoric as a buffer against all forms of government spending. Luckily, the in-built conservativism of the consensus-based Norwegian political system will prevent such ideas from becoming reality. I'm often complaining about the slow and tedious political process, also in terms of major infrastructure projects, but in terms of the more fanciful ideas, such inherent restrictions are a good thing.
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 31st, 2008, 01:03 AM   #353
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

More Trondheim-Oslo stuff....

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
I'm fed up, since this obviously is completely pointless. My only comment, thus, is this.

Afaik, the 80 kph across the Dovre plateau is a winter speed limit. If not, my mistake. And I haven't driven there since last summer, that is absolutely true. Nonetheless, since the section is one of the very best in Norway, with excellent overtaking opportunities throughout, there are few Norwegian highways where I'd go faster. The Østerdal has fewer overtaking opportunities, more police and more lorries, thus 95. Alvdal-Tynset: There is a ban on overtaking for about 5 of 24 kms, quite a few exits and a couple of junctions, a couple of 70 sections and even a speed camera. So I stand by my claim, yes.

The very fastest link is Rendalen, anyway...
Østerdalen/
  • Former Østerdalen 90 zones versus Dombås-Kongsvoll:
  • 80/90: E6 across Dovre Mts is not 80 permanently (last winter's 80-signs were never removed), IMO, as idiotic as removing the 90-zones in Østerdalen, the real dangerous speeders drive way faster anyway. Afaik, it has never been 90 in the steep Dombås-Fokstua climb on E6.
  • Overtaking poss: Except in the beginning and some short stretches after Atna overtaking poss. flourish along the whole Koppang -Alvdal route. A major difference between Dovre and Østerdalen is the mix of vehicles. As long as there are no steep hills, trucks (Østerdalen) usually drive around 85-90. Cars that usually drive significantly below the limit are either RVs or other private cars (Dovre), which are prevalent across Dovre. In addition, Dovre has both a steep ascent and descent, has worse curvature (see above), and during winter often worse weather.
  • Police: I have heard there is police, but during my approximately 130 drives along rv3, of which roughly 30 has taken place during the last couple of years, I have seen no cops Koppang-Alvdal, and only once (clearly visible in a long distance) Alvdal-Tynset. Across Kvikne (Tynset-Ulsberg) cops have been more common however. I have not driven as often across Dovre, but in any case I don't believe the number of cops is the best political argument.....

Alvdal-Tynset vs entire Dovre mts (Dombås-Kongsvoll):
  • No-passing zone is 2 km, not 5. If you are really unlucky, you will be slowed down 40 sek, as there are excellent passing opportunities both immediately before and after, but this happens only in 1 out of 10 trips.
  • 70-zones: altogether less than 3 km on Alvdal-Tynset, will slow you down 30 seconds, how much town will you loose behind an RV or truck Fokstua-Dombås?
  • Exits/junctions: Plenty of these also on E6, including an national road (rv). That was the exuse for lowering the speed limit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
Since this is a different story, a second response: In terms of the east-west link: It seems as though the E16 will remain where it is. Which I DON'T approve of, my chosen corridor would be the rv 7/52. That might even be realistic, mainly because the east-west numbering isn't as set in stone as the E6 (only part of the rv 7 hasn't seen any change in numbering or status over the past decade).
Sorry, then I misunderstood you. Also rv 7/52 has significantly less traffic than rv 3, however.

BTW: It seems like I underestimated the current truck traffic at rv 3, it is already 500 AADT. Note also from the article that although the VP of the truck owner's association says that E6 is far more hilly and winding than rv 3, it is rv 3 he wants to improve.

Last edited by 54°26′S 3°24′E; August 31st, 2008 at 02:21 AM.
54°26′S 3°24′E no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 31st, 2008, 02:19 AM   #354
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
I agree. We might even see a transit AADT of more than 3000, perhaps even 4000, in 20-30 years time. Noone needs a motorway to deal with that kind of traffic. A 1+1/2+1 with a guardrail would make sense, however.

It is completely unrealistic. Figures regarding HSR cannot automatically be transfered to road travel, partly because such an animal would cut travel time Oslo-Trondheim to 2-2.5 hours... without the added "bonus" of a tiring 5-hour drive. A 125 kph average for the everyday driver isn't remotely realistic for a 500-km drive - even if a motorway ever came into being. In short: A rail link would make business commuting Oslo-Trondheim a possibility, a motorway wouldn't. Besides, experience from other countries show that HSRs can compete with air travel for medium-distance (400-800 kms) travel. Motorways cannot.
Read what I wrote. Without the HSR or motorway, the total traffic pax is estimated to be 16 000, which is quite a significant number. I did not argue that a lot of the high-end market would be transferred to the road, I said low-end. And on Trondheim-Oslo, the bussiness travel is a rather small minority.

I don't see why Trondheim-Oslo cannot have an 120 limit in the future if the entire link has motorway-standard or narrow motorway standard on the least trafficated parts. Countries that beat us in terms of safety (Netherlands, Sweden, and UK) all have, or are in the process of getting, speed limits in this range. With 120 km/h, and the current distance (494 km), the trip will take 4hrs 7 minutes. By cutting a few curves, the trip can easily be done on 4 hours. Believe me, I have been flying a lot Trondheim-Oslo, and even without baggage, I have seldom been able to do the trip (address to address) shorter than 3 hrs, with significantly more hassel than a road trip. For all people living between the two airports, the gain of flying will be even less. In conclusion, yes, I lot of the lower-end market can be transfered to the car if proper roads are built.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
And this is even without touching on the most serious issue here, the environmental one. Making motorways to generate considerably more traffic is in my honest opinion a very bad idea. I don't disapprove of motorways as such, but there ought to be limits - and there are. As stated before, this will never happen. Partly because of local opposition, partly because of environmental opposition, partly because of the expensive nature of such projects and the fact that far cheaper solutions are more than adequate for the forseeable future.
So all of a sudden you, that argue so strongly for transferring traffic to E6 from rv 3, causing a lot of uneccessary emissions and degradation of the local, much more vulnerable environment along the current E6, has become an environmentalist.

In any case, your argument is a shallow, rethoric one. Building proper motorways in rural areas actually reduces the total emissions according to a recent study by the Norwegian research organization Sintef, because the reduction in emissions per car will more than compensate the increase in traffic. Regarding Trondheim-Oslo, or Oslo-Bergen for that matter, you also have to take into account that a lot of the increase in road traffic would be due to traffic transfer from air travel.

Some energy consumption facts for you, recalculated to liter diesel/km (collected by Vegen og vi):
Express bus (20 passengers): 0.013 l/km
Train (not HSR, which have roughly twice the value): 0.017 -0.03 l/km
Car (1.7 people):from .02 l/km
Electric car: 0.011 l/km
Air plane: 0.11 l/km

The train can be very environmently friendly if there is a surplus of renewable energu, which we dont have at the moment, so the latter value (0.03 l/km) is probably more relevant. Also the real energy usage of the electric car has to be increased by a factor of two in this case. Trains are great for local intra-city transport, as they are good for the local environment. However, on long-distance travel routes in Norway there should not live many people, so dust and sooth from traffic is not really an environmental issue.

In conclusion, express bus is the most environmental friendly form of transport on longer travels in Norway, and emission is reduced a factor of almost 10 compared with air travel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
The Interstate comparison is pointless, for several reasons. First, it's 50 years old and noone thinks infrastructure that way anymore. Actually, only the US ever did. Why? That's the second reason: The Interstate Highway program was a child of Cold War thinking and a cornerstone of American strategic thinking domestically. Third, the interstates were paid for by the federal government. Public spending on such a level doesn't happen in the current climate of rather extreme neoliberalism.

Mostly true, but it doesn't make a Oslo-Trondheim (or Oslo-Bergen) motorway more sensible.
We might live in another time than when the interstates were built, but the economic facts remains:

The Swedes have a cost per m of motorway of 33 000. The cost of building a motorway network in Norway of around 2200 km using this meter price would be 72.6 billion NOK. You might argue that things always are more expensive in Norway, so let's increase that number to 200 billion NOK. That means 10 billion per year for 20 years. To put the number in perspective: The current cost side in the Norwegian national budget is around 800 billion NOK. Last quarter the Norwegian government invested 90 billion NOK, but lost 49 of these billions due to the bad market. Now, as I have pointed out before, investments in the mainland should be done using great care so the inflation does not increase too much, but don't tell me it is not possible.

The advantage of building such a network is 62 billion/year, according to bilaksjonen.no. Now, although it is seconded by the only economist who seems to really have been studying this in Norway, you might not trust this number, so assume the third is right, which probably only accounts for the reduced accident costs. Now, if we use the drasticly reduced benefit number (20 billion NOK), and a quite high cost number (2000 billion NOK), this investment will still give 10 % dividends per year. That is roughly the same as the stock market, but without any risk.



Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
I'm not going to get into the details of Norwegian elections, but the crux of the matter is the word "coalition". FrP won't get a majority of the vote, so they'll either remain in opposition (as a 20-25%-party in elections, 30%+ on polls) or face the terrible notion of cooperation in government, having to rely heavily on the bureaucracy they claim to hate (thus becoming a >10%-party once again...)

Professional? Well, professionally stupid, perhaps... Nonetheless, the most interesting aspect of right-wing populism is that when such groups win power, they are unable to deliver. The reason is simple: Populism requires popularity, obviously, and popular political measures are expensive. For left-wing populism, this isn't too much of a problem, since such groups state from the get-go that they'll fund new projects with public money gotten from taxation, mainly of businesses, the rich and luuxury items. This is basically how social democratic movements all over Europe started out and eventually changed politics fundamentally. Right-wing populism's fundamental problem is that it cannot do this: their entire extistence is founded upon the reduction of taxes and government interference.

All populists eventually face reality - the fact that they need money for their grand schemes. However, right-wing anti-government people like the FrP are in more serious trouble than the leftists who just do as they've promised all along and raise taxes. They'll either have to limit spending on schools, hospitals, infrastructure or commit political suicide by doing exactly what they've promised not to do - increase taxes or introduce tolling stations... This is why right-wing populism never has survived the test of government and why FrP won't build more roads than serious political parties and the Vegvesen won't get more money...
Although I don't vote FrP myself, your rambling about FrP is not very relevant for what we are discussing here. I just want to point out that there is internationally no historic backing for your claim that right-wing governments last shorter than left-wing, quite the opposite. The reason is that there also is something called supply, and more importantly, efficiency in economic theory, and both tend to be higher in liberal economies.
54°26′S 3°24′E no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 31st, 2008, 02:22 AM   #355
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 NiceGuy View Post
4. There should be a straight road directly from Oslo to Åmotfors, either as motorway (red) or narrow 4-lane (yellow). By doing this, Swedish shopping will be only 20 minutes away from Oslo by car
Hm, at least 80 km in 20 minutes.....240 km/h
54°26′S 3°24′E no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 31st, 2008, 04:36 PM   #356
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 don't see why Trondheim-Oslo cannot have an 120 limit in the future if the entire link has motorway-standard or narrow motorway standard on the least trafficated parts.
I didn't say that. I said that an average speed of 120 kph for the average driver for a distance of 500 kms is unrealistic. For one, most drivers would take a break or two.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
So all of a sudden you, that argue so strongly for transferring traffic to E6 from rv 3, causing a lot of uneccessary emissions and degradation of the local, much more vulnerable environment along the current E6, has become an environmentalist.
I have never argued for a transfer of traffic from Østerdalen to Gudbrandsdalen. However, I did say that the proposed new motorway and 2+1 E6 would probably steal some of the rv 3 traffic (given that the new road would be safer and the travel time not that much longer anymore), but that is a very different story...

I'm not going to debate your figures. Mostly because it's exceptionally boring, but also because for me to introduce other figures saying different things, won't change anything. I don't think the environmental issues of road construction as such will alter your position much either, nor will my wish for reduced emissions instead of reduced emission increases. Thus, it's far more interesting to look at what we can and can't expect in terms of road construction and why.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
In conclusion, express bus is the most environmental friendly form of transport on longer travels in Norway, and emission is reduced a factor of almost 10 compared with air travel.
And express buses do not need motorways to function properly, 1+1 or 2+1 roads are more than adequate to deal with the traffic volumes we're talking about here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
The Swedes have a cost per m of motorway of 33 000. The cost of building a motorway network in Norway of around 2200 km using this meter price would be 72.6 billion NOK. You might argue that things always are more expensive in Norway, so let's increase that number to 200 billion NOK. That means 10 billion per year for 20 years. To put the number in perspective: The current cost side in the Norwegian national budget is around 800 billion NOK. Last quarter the Norwegian government invested 90 billion NOK, but lost 49 of these billions due to the bad market. Now, as I have pointed out before, investments in the mainland should be done using great care so the inflation does not increase too much, but don't tell me it is not possible.
I've never said it isn't possible. I've only said it's never going to happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
Although I don't vote FrP myself, your rambling about FrP is not very relevant for what we are discussing here. I just want to point out that there is internationally no historic backing for your claim that right-wing governments last shorter than left-wing, quite the opposite. The reason is that there also is something called supply, and more importantly, efficiency in economic theory, and both tend to be higher in liberal economies.
I'm not going to talk economic or political theory here, mainly because I've only stated that POPULIST ideas work better for leftist governments and why they do so. Whenever right-wing populists get power, they tend to lose it rather quickly. More traditional coservative-liberal governments are a different kettle of fish altogether... but they don't promote massive public spending either.

Typically, motorway networks currently developed are built and run by private companies, no matter what kind of government a country has got. These roads are of course tolled, and for toll roads to work, they'll either need high AADT numbers or a high toll with no alternative road link. Neither would apply to a Oslo-Trondheim motorway...
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 1st, 2008, 12:34 AM   #357
NiceGuy
Freedom will prevail
 
NiceGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 272
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
Whenever right-wing populists get power, they tend to lose it rather quickly.
You don't seem to understand how similar Danish Venstre is to Norwegian FrP. I don't consider any of them right-wing "populist", but Danish Venstre has built a lot of motorways in Denmark, and they have been re-elected 3 times since 2001. FrP and Danish Venstre even have the same immigration policy. Let's not discuss politics here though - this is not the right place.

Last edited by NiceGuy; September 1st, 2008 at 12:46 AM.
NiceGuy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 1st, 2008, 12:40 AM   #358
NiceGuy
Freedom will prevail
 
NiceGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 272
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
Hm, at least 80 km in 20 minutes.....240 km/h
Your map must be messed up. The Swedish border is 50 km away. and you will only need 150 kph to get there in 20 minutes if we had a decent straight-line motorway in that direction. My no. 4 was more of a joke though. The real message I wanted to get across is that we should build a real motorway between Oslo-Kristiansand-Stavanger, and between Oslo-Trondheim. Oil revenue should be invested in infrastructure instead of overly generous disability pensions.
NiceGuy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 1st, 2008, 02:58 PM   #359
ElviS77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 564
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by NiceGuy View Post
You don't seem to understand how similar Danish Venstre is to Norwegian FrP. I don't consider any of them right-wing "populist", but Danish Venstre has built a lot of motorways in Denmark, and they have been re-elected 3 times since 2001. FrP and Danish Venstre even have the same immigration policy. Let's not discuss politics here though - this is not the right place.
Venstre in Denmark is a rather traditional conservative party, the "farmer's party" over there. It's also an old party, and not a particularly populist one. And whilst I agree that political discussions as such don't belong here, I think the political reasoning behind infrastructure-related questions do. The Danes have built quite a lot of motorways the past 25 years, under both Social Democratic and Conservative rule. However, they have not at any point instigated a massive, extrabudgetary motorway construction effort, which is what's needed if we're to see 2000+ kms of motorway in Norway. Denmark, like Sweden, has had a more centralised system, and their infrastructure policies have thus been less influenced by the whims of (local) politicians. In my opinion, a far better solution, but it's not the way to "Motorway Norway". And that's a good thing.
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 4th, 2008, 04:51 PM   #360
Grauthue
Registered User
 
Grauthue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Oslo
Posts: 273
Likes (Received): 72

In a Labor party meeting today Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg promised tens of billions of kroner more on development of road and railroad for the period 2010-2019.

http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/ir...cle2635315.ece

I kinda knew this would be coming, but its great to hear the man himself confirm it
Grauthue 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 12:21 PM.


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

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

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

tech management by Sysprosium