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

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

Highways & Autobahns All about automobility



Global Announcement

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old June 12th, 2016, 10:32 PM   #3741
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,525
Likes (Received): 21227

So there is no appetite to connect even Trondheim and Mo'I Rana to Oslo via freeways in the future? I realize a freeway to Trømso is too much, but Trondheim isn't that far.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old June 12th, 2016, 10:34 PM   #3742
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,572
Likes (Received): 19365

Why Mo i Rana? There probably isn't much traffic beyond Steinkjer.
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 12th, 2016, 10:41 PM   #3743
ElviS77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 564
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
Why Mo i Rana? There probably isn't much traffic beyond Steinkjer.
Apart from around places like Bodø and Tromsø, you're dead right.
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 12th, 2016, 10:56 PM   #3744
ElviS77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 564
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
Trondheim isn't that far.
An Oslo-Trondheim motorway is a distant possibility, certainly more likely than Oslo-Bergen. This is due to geography, demography, and the way national transport works. The north-south link is the spine of Norway and it catches traffic from many branch roads, there aren't that many alternatives, and the road also carries traffic from north of Trondheim.
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 12th, 2016, 10:57 PM   #3745
berlinwroclaw
Kamienna
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 139
Likes (Received): 46

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
with less traffic
In the present situation traffic is limited, many people prefer to fly. Slovak motorway D1 is already in use, while the Norwegian data are about old 2 lane roads. Not comparable. A new motorway always generates more traffic, see previous post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
resulting in a low cost-benefit ratio.
You have forgotten to show the netto social benefit of the D1 compared with E134, before drawing a conclusion. Social benefit is the total benefit to society from producing or consuming a service (here a motorway). Costs and benefits of E134 with northern road Rv52 have been calculated by Multiconsult and Norconsult, respected consulting company, widely used by Road Administration and other government agencies. There is a netto social benefit of 19 billion NOK, far superior over any other Bergen-Oslo road alternative. That is not a low value. http://"http://www.aftenposten.no/me...-197563b.html"

__________________
Have a safe trip!

Mathias Olsen liked this post
berlinwroclaw no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 12th, 2016, 10:59 PM   #3746
berlinwroclaw
Kamienna
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 139
Likes (Received): 46

Quote:
Originally Posted by italystf View Post
Population density:
Norway: 14
E134 is in Southern Norway where most people live. Therefore and because it is about traffic between two agglomerations, population density is not relevant here. Map below shows the population density in Southern Norway. We can recognise two agglomerations: Oslo (1.7 million inhabitants) and Stavanger-Haugesund-Bergen (1.0 million inhabitants), the connected areas are much bigger than in Slovakia. Bratislava agglomeration = 0.7 million; Košice = 0.6 million. Something similar for Croatia, but this country was to show that there can be a motorway with low AADT in a country not as rich as Norway (a fraction of GDP per capita).

Quote:
Originally Posted by italystf View Post
Not that is an issue; of course, it means that someone appreciated it.
Thanks for appreciation; I forgot to check the legal owner. Now you are famous in Norway
__________________
Have a safe trip!
berlinwroclaw no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 12th, 2016, 11:10 PM   #3747
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 italystf View Post
Population density:
Norway: 14
Croatia: 79
Slovakia: 112

Moreover, Croatia and Sloakia attract transit traffic between different European countries, while Norway obviously doesn't.
That doesn't mean that Norway doesn't deserve good infrastructure, though.
Two additional factors have to be taken into account, though :
*The population of Norway is very unevenly populated. Southern Norway, where most of the people live, is far denser. Furthermore, of these again, almost all live along the coast and among a few valleys. Of these again, a great majority live in a handful urban areas. What this means is that most of Norway's 5 million growing population can be covered by around 2000 km of motorways.
*Norwegians travel far more than the European average, both caused by wealth, that Norwegians tend to have family in other parts of the country than they live, and in fact that a lot of urban Norwegians have holiday homes /cabins that can be hours away from their home.
__________________

Mathias Olsen, berlinwroclaw liked this post
54°26′S 3°24′E no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 12th, 2016, 11:15 PM   #3748
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,525
Likes (Received): 21227

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
Why Mo i Rana? There probably isn't much traffic beyond Steinkjer.
IT's a major mining center so I expect a lot of truck traffic on E16 to/from there?
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 12th, 2016, 11:16 PM   #3749
Sunfuns
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Basel
Posts: 2,426
Likes (Received): 361

How about building a coastal motorway since there are many towns in between and going for a railway instead through mountains between Oslo and Bergen? It could easily be under 3 h and for replacing airplanes would work great. Of course also very expensive...
Sunfuns no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 12th, 2016, 11:27 PM   #3750
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 berlinwroclaw View Post
This map is exaggerating a bit as Rv 52 is of little importance north of Sognefjorden. I otherwise agree with your general argument, but is convinced that completing Oslo - Trondheim will have a better benefit /cost ratio than E134 with a new Bergen arm.
54°26′S 3°24′E no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2016, 12:08 AM   #3751
MattiG
Registered User
 
MattiG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Espoo FI
Posts: 1,794
Likes (Received): 613

Quote:
Originally Posted by berlinwroclaw View Post
E134 is in Southern Norway where most people live.
Who are you trying to convince by all this?

Even if most of the population of Norway lies in the South, it does not live close to the Haukeli alternative. There are zero number of significant cities between Bergen and Drammen on the proposed route of the E134.

Haugesund can be served by the E39/E18.
MattiG no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2016, 12:55 AM   #3752
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,542

Here's my two cents.

1) Oslo - Bergen traffic should be encouraged to go via the shorter E134-cut off route.
1a) Therefore the cut off ought to be built to route more traffic that way
2) This route would need additional improvements for safety and journey time
3) A motorway all the way would be overkill.
4) Getting the E39 south from Bergen to a higher standard (and ferry-free) probably ought to be a higher priority for the West Coast than a motorway across the mountains.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2016, 10:46 AM   #3753
Mathias Olsen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 125
Likes (Received): 149

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
The huge domestic air traffic in Norway is senseless and unsustainable, and much of the leisure travel could be transferred to the roads if the travel times between the greater cities are reduced to 4 hours or so.
You made a very, very good point here.
Unsustainable airtraffic with dirty aircraft



OR sustainable motorway traffic with electric cars



Reduction of traveling time by car below 4 hours is only possible with the E134 motorway Bergen-Oslo.
Minister of Transport promised a limit of 130 km/h. http://www.tv2.no/a/4133600

We can do Bergen-Oslo in less than 3,5 hours! According to the law, only electric cars are allowed in 2025 in Norway. Time for an environment motorway Bergen-Oslo, as green as possible with 100% electric cars on the road.

Why should we allow flying with dirty airplanes, while an environment friendly solution is within hand reach, the preferred solution for all people in developed countries: a motorway? Norway can have a big mouth about sustainably, but it will be seen as hypocrite, because it doesn’t want to create a fast main transport backbone Bergen-Oslo powered with 100% sustainable energy. Other areas with a big mouth about sustainability have heavy investments on electric car friendly motorways, see California and the Netherlands.

There are more reasons to limit the extreme busy air traffic of Stavanger (4.5 million passengers/year) and Bergen (6 million passengers/year). Comparable regional airports in Europe have only a fraction of that. E.g. Košice (Slovakia) has 0.8 million passengers/year. The Stavanger and Bergen airports are relative close to the city, and it is a public secret over the whole world that cancer is much higher around airports, because aircraft fuel kerosene causes cancer. Also more noise around airports. Oslo doesn’t have those disadvantages, because Gardermoen is 50 km from Oslo city.

Travelling by plane on a short trip of 400 km is not so fast and comfortable as many people may think. The seats in the plane are always too small and the videos and internet is always not good enough. Then you need to go to the airport. In Oslo, it is a long way of 50 km to the city. You need to check in at least 30 minutes before the start. Also after the landing you need to check out for 30 minutes. Safety procedures with X-rays scans are unhealthy and security officers may even touch your intimate parts, not a pleasant experience. People prefer a private way with all comfort, and the way out is going from A to B by motorway. The motorway is a winner against airtraffic and people will switch from airlines to the motorway E134 Bergen-Oslo when it is ready. The choice of the people!

Even more serious is the connection between airliners and politicians. Airliners welcome motorways, but only around cities to the airport as in Stavanger and Bergen, not between big cities like Bergen and Oslo. Time for a change. How can politicians have peace with environment, peace with the health and freedom of the people when they don’t want to invest in the enviroment friendly motorway Bergen-Oslo?
__________________

berlinwroclaw liked this post

Last edited by Mathias Olsen; June 13th, 2016 at 10:54 AM.
Mathias Olsen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2016, 10:51 AM   #3754
Mathias Olsen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 125
Likes (Received): 149

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattiG View Post
Even if most of the population of Norway lies in the South, it does not live close to the Haukeli alternative. There are zero number of significant cities between Bergen and Drammen on the proposed route of the E134.
What counts is the direct connection Stavanger-Haugesund-Bergen area with Oslo, the rest is not relevant here.

__________________

berlinwroclaw liked this post
Mathias Olsen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2016, 11:11 AM   #3755
hammersklavier
Feral
 
hammersklavier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 597
Likes (Received): 423

This debate has two clear sides: either you build to meet demand (in which case expressways outside of the major cities are adequate) or you build to create it (in which case you need motorways).

The point about fast road connections being more efficient than airlines is a good one: a 4-hour road connection is able to draw a lot more traffic than a 6-hour one between the same two cities. But then, so is the point that -- outside of the major cities -- Norwegian highways are more-or-less empty. And besides, with the challenging topography, prioritizing a ferry-free coastal road adds more connectivity to the system than increasing (questionably needed) capacity and reducing travel times between Oslo and the west coast's major cities.

It's a choice that has benefits and drawbacks either way.

But here is something that is underappreciated: Norway has a tremendous advantage in its sealanes. That is, since the cheapest method of shipping cargo in Norway is over the sea, the motorways wouldn't necessarily need to be built to handle truck traffic, or (more accurately) be built to handle far less truck traffic than the heart of the continent. This, in turn, means that the roads can be built to lighter standards than their cousins in Germany or France or whatever, and that would be perfectly adequate for Norwegian conditions. Since the terrain is so challenging, the fact that the roads can be built lighter also means that better roads can be built more cheaply in Norway: that is, the engineering work can be poured into getting up, down, through, and around the mountains, period, instead of worrying about doing so to, say, an Autobahn's roadbed standard.

...Of course, one could counter by saying the same should be true of Britain, and look how many trucks ply their motorways.
__________________

berlinwroclaw, Stafangr liked this post
hammersklavier no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2016, 05:49 PM   #3756
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,572
Likes (Received): 19365

Yep, there is almost no truck traffic in Norway compared to the rest of Europe. Even on major routes outside the Oslo region you'll encounter very few trucks.

Off topic: is electricity generated and distributed locally? I noticed there aren't many high voltage transmission towers in Norway.
__________________

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

berlinwroclaw liked this post
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2016, 06:26 PM   #3757
berlinwroclaw
Kamienna
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 139
Likes (Received): 46

Quote:
Originally Posted by hammersklavier View Post
... motorways wouldn't necessarily need to be built to handle truck traffic, or (more accurately) be built to handle far less truck traffic than the heart of the continent.
You mentioned a very interesting fact, and that's good news for building new motorways in Norway. Indeed present cargo percentage of ships for traffic to Oslo is very high in Bergen, but cities with ferry-free roads or motorways, such as Stavanger and Kristiansand have a dominance of cargo by the road.

__________________
Have a safe trip!
berlinwroclaw no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2016, 06:38 PM   #3758
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

While light compared with eg German and Dutch transit routes, truck traffic has a significant share of traffic on the loneliest sections of the main Norwegian domestic transit routes.

Here are the total traffic and the long vehicle traffic on the sections with lowest traffic on Trondheim-Oslo and Bergen-Oslo (from https://www.vegvesen.no/vegkart/ ):
Trondheim-Oslo
Total Long vehicle
Route AADT % AADT

Rv3 2400 26 % 624
Fv30 375 11 % 41
E6 1790 21 % 376
Sum 4565 1041


Bergen-Oslo
Total Long vehicle
Route AADT % AADT

E16 675 21 % 142
Rv52 1250 29 % 363
Rv7 1090 18 % 196
E134 1450 10 % 145
Sum 4465 845

(Not sure how (or if it possible) to insert tables, so please bear over with me for poor formatting)

I.e., the heavy vehicle AADT is close to 1050 Trondheim-Oslo and 850 Bergen-Oslo (including E-134 where a major portion does not end up in Bergen, but this is of course also relevant for the future catchment of an improved E-134). On Trondheim-Oslo the minor road Fv30 was included because it is the shortest route Trondheim-Oslo overall. On some roads, like Rv 52 and Rv 3, truck traffic has a significant share, almost 30 %. This is particularly evident on weekdays off season. It is otherwise quite interesting that the official main roads (E6 and in particularly E16) has a fairly low share of the total traffic. Note that other sections of these routes have significant higher traffic, and traffic eg Oslo-Molde/Ålesund on E6 is not included in the numbers above as the reference point is at the mountain pass north of the split to E-136.

Sea traffic is an alternative to railways on some destinations in Norway, and for some types of goods, particularly for heavy industries. It is very competetive when large volumes are to be transported over long distances, but is not really an alternative for smaller volumes and shorter (domestic) distances.

Off topic: Chris: No, in Norway almost all electricity is generated from hydropower, whereas wind power is (slowly) on the rise. Neither tend to be produced near urban centers, the hydro power stations of Trondheim being an exception. Norway has a national market on electric power which is integrated with the other Nordic countries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Pool_Spot). In some seasons, the capacity on the national grid is not good enough and there are some regional differences in power prices, though. Remember that Norway is a rugged country, and power lines hence are easier to hide. In some Norwegian cities, power lines are generally buried, but usually not the high voltage ones.

Main power grid of the Nordics:


Fairly visible power line cluster close to one of the otherwise most spectacular roads of Norway (http://www.tindevegen.no/, part of the shortest, but in most instances not fastest, route Trondheim-Bergen ):
__________________
Norway needs a new transport infrastructure network, let's start now!

berlinwroclaw liked this post

Last edited by 54°26′S 3°24′E; June 14th, 2016 at 10:36 AM. Reason: Moved the reference point for Rv3 /Rv 30 further south to include less local traffic
54°26′S 3°24′E no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2016, 06:54 PM   #3759
berlinwroclaw
Kamienna
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 139
Likes (Received): 46

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
While light compared with eg German and Dutch transit routes, truck traffic has a significant share of traffic on the loneliest sections of the main Norwegian domestic transit routes.
Truck traffic has certainly an important share. Like you said, lonely places are impossible to reach by ships or trains. We also see that when motorways are available the preference goes to trucks, see Kristiansand-Oslo and especially Oslo-Swedish border. An indication that cargo by trucks is more competive. In internet society people buy online and need fast delivery to their home address.
__________________
Have a safe trip!

Last edited by berlinwroclaw; June 13th, 2016 at 07:57 PM.
berlinwroclaw no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2016, 09:59 PM   #3760
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 berlinwroclaw View Post
Truck traffic has certainly an important share. Like you said, lonely places are impossible to reach by ships or trains. We also see that when motorways are available the preference goes to trucks, see Kristiansand-Oslo and especially Oslo-Swedish border. An indication that cargo by trucks is more competive. In internet society people buy online and need fast delivery to their home address.
Oh, when I mentioned "the loneliest" sections it is because these have little/no local traffic, and hence most of the traffic is transit/long distance. Train actually can be a fairly efficient (both economic and environmentally wise) way of fulfilling a range of transportation needs, but is in Norway hampered by low capacity and unreliability. Of course, train transport will never be able to compete on direct customer to customer service, and large parts of Norway are simply not serviced by the railway at all.
__________________
Norway needs a new transport infrastructure network, let's start now!
54°26′S 3°24′E 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 01:32 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