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 September 7th, 2008, 12:15 AM   #361
54°26′S 3°24′E
Registered User
 
54°26′S 3°24′E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 812
Likes (Received): 155

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
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.
You are really something, my friend, driving 100 in an 80-zone on a Norwegian country road, but less than the speed of 120 on a motorway. I don't think many people make lots of stops on a four hour drive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
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.
I think global warming is a very serios issue. However, if you want to reduce CO2-emissions from transport despite our record population growth, what you should do is to transfer traffic from air and fast ferries to ground transport. As I have already have said, 1 air passanger corresponds to 10 bus passengers, and down to 5 people in private cars. However, it wont do much regarding the emissions of Norway. Despite what media and SV tell you, traffic generates a very small par of the green house emissions in Norway. The pollution from industry and energy waste in Norwegian buildings are far more serious, and actually much easier reduce. Just thinking about the senseless indirect subsidies of natural gas power plants make me sick

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
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.
1+1 and 1+2 mostly increase safety, not so much speed and emissions

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
I've never said it isn't possible. I've only said it's never going to happen.



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...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
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.
1. Once again, you do your best to derail a meaningful discussion. Whether FrP can be regarded populist or not, or whether right wing or left wing populist governements is most long-lived is really beside the point. All other industrialized countries, and many developing countries think building a national motorway network is a good idea due to similar reasons and calculations I provided above., whether they are rich or poor, sparsely populated or densely populated, hilly or flat, small or big, or their government is communist, religious, social democratic, conservative, nationalistic or populistic. They are not all wrong, and all the roads are not built by private companies and financed by toll, you just have too look at our Nordic neighbors or the rest of northern Europe. The fact that you, and some other people, regard building a motorway network as populistic just shows how screwed, inwardlooking and irrational Norwegian politics can be sometimes. Making the economy more efficient has unfortunately never had high priority in Norway, neither when we are talking about infrastructure or science. Lucky thing that we have the oil.....

2. Again, not that it matter here, but I don't see much compelling evidence internationally that right-wing populist governements last shorter than left wing populist governments. The most famous right wing populist, Silvio Berlusconi, has been in and out as a prime minister for 14 years now. Thatcher was certainly represented a radical change that many would call populist when voted into office, her Thacher+Major area lasted 18 years. Reagan+Busch I lasted 12 years. In many eastern Europe there are also quite a few right wing governments which I would call populist. What examples of long lasting left-wing populist governments are there, except Chavez (who does not tax, but hand out services). It does not count how you present tax increases, they will always be unpopular.

3. You argued that Norway never will (and should not) get a motorway network like other countries. I just argue that:
a. The current governement has steadily been behind the opposition for almost the whole period since the election 3 years ago.
b. The largest opposition party, the Progress party, which has had polling results around 30 % for a long time argued for a motorway network.
c. Some of the policies of FrP are quite controversial, like their environmental policies, parts of their immigration policies, and general economic policies. Building proper roads, especially if combined with HSRs to please the enviromentalist of the other opposition, is probably be a very welcome issue the other parties on the right side of the Norwegian political spectrum can agree on.
d. I think, once the decision is made to build a motorway network has been done, it would be difficult to turn around, perhaps due to contractual issues, but more likely because it will be a very unpopular move.
Again, I don't say that a network necessarily will be built in our lifetime, but I seriously believe there is a historic chance for it now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grauthue View Post
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
We can always hope, but unfortunately the labor party has said similar things in the past. It is only one year to the next election, remember...

Last edited by 54°26′S 3°24′E; September 7th, 2008 at 12:24 AM.
54°26′S 3°24′E no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old September 13th, 2008, 12:49 PM   #362
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 are really something, my friend, driving 100 in an 80-zone on a Norwegian country road, but less than the speed of 120 on a motorway. I don't think many people make lots of stops on a four hour drive.
Yes. For 30 mins-1 hour I don't think an 100 kph average is a problem. For 4 hours, 120 is not going to happen for the average driver with the average modern car.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
1. Once again, you do your best to derail a meaningful discussion. Whether FrP can be regarded populist or not, or whether right wing or left wing populist governements is most long-lived is really beside the point. All other industrialized countries, and many developing countries think building a national motorway network is a good idea due to similar reasons and calculations I provided above., whether they are rich or poor, sparsely populated or densely populated, hilly or flat, small or big, or their government is communist, religious, social democratic, conservative, nationalistic or populistic. They are not all wrong, and all the roads are not built by private companies and financed by toll, you just have too look at our Nordic neighbors or the rest of northern Europe. The fact that you, and some other people, regard building a motorway network as populistic just shows how screwed, inwardlooking and irrational Norwegian politics can be sometimes. Making the economy more efficient has unfortunately never had high priority in Norway, neither when we are talking about infrastructure or science. Lucky thing that we have the oil.....
I think we're very through. But the point is that our Nordic neigbours, for instance, haven't started developing or building their motorway networks overnight: The E6 Malmö-Svinesund motorway will eventually take about 60 years to finish, the same for the E4 Hälsingborg-Stockholm. The E45 (former E3) through Denmark was some 40 years in the making. Derailing which debate, please..?
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2008, 02:05 PM   #363
ElviS77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 564
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
2. Again, not that it matter here, but I don't see much compelling evidence internationally that right-wing populist governements last shorter than left wing populist governments. The most famous right wing populist, Silvio Berlusconi, has been in and out as a prime minister for 14 years now. Thatcher was certainly represented a radical change that many would call populist when voted into office, her Thacher+Major area lasted 18 years. Reagan+Busch I lasted 12 years. In many eastern Europe there are also quite a few right wing governments which I would call populist. What examples of long lasting left-wing populist governments are there, except Chavez (who does not tax, but hand out services). It does not count how you present tax increases, they will always be unpopular.
Reagan(omics) and Thatcher(ism) were anything but populist, even though their policies were quite popular amongst the middle classes, they represented an attempt (and were rather successful at it...) at a liberalist revolution against classic Keynesian thinking. Their main idea was presicely the opposite of FrP's - they wanted to cut government spending and privatise as much as possible. The past 15-20 years, that kind of thinking has influenceed most western and many other economies. The FrP (and Chavez, for that matter...) are in many ways rebelling against these liberalist ideas. Popularity and populism aren't the same thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
3. You argued that Norway never will (and should not) get a motorway network like other countries.
Again: What truly ticks me off is that you argue against your personal version of my position, not against what I actually say. If we were to have a similar motorway network to that of Sweden, it would be about 1000 kms. That's fair, and I don't oppose that. I did, however, say that advocating 2000+ kms is pure stupidity.
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 14th, 2008, 03:10 AM   #364
54°26′S 3°24′E
Registered User
 
54°26′S 3°24′E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 812
Likes (Received): 155

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
I think we're very through. But the point is that our Nordic neigbours, for instance, haven't started developing or building their motorway networks overnight: The E6 Malmö-Svinesund motorway will eventually take about 60 years to finish, the same for the E4 Hälsingborg-Stockholm. The E45 (former E3) through Denmark was some 40 years in the making. Derailing which debate, please..?
The fact that Sweden and Denmark has been building up their system gradually, does not diminish the need for Norway to catch up. The cost per km will also be lower if we build our highways with larger projects rather than the ad-hoc way we are doing it today. Our unique position also means that we have the resources to do it: According to SSB, the National statistics bureau and authority on national ecomics of Norway, we can spend 30 billion NOK extra on infrastructure per year in Norway without harming the economy. 30 billion per year will give us a complete motorway network in less than a 10 years, and HSR+motorway network in about 15 years. It seems like this reality is sinking in with more and more politicians.

It should perhaps be mentioned that the current offshore investments is 127 billion per year, corresponding to a complete motorway network in 1-2 years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
Again: What truly ticks me off is that you argue against your personal version of my position, not against what I actually say. If we were to have a similar motorway network to that of Sweden, it would be about 1000 kms. That's fair, and I don't oppose that.
Calm down, 1000 km would be a motorway network only connecting half the Norwegian population, Sweden is approaching 1700 km, and is constructing quite a bit at the moment, although their population is far more centralized. As you know, Sweden also has a lot of other high-standard highways to complement their motorways. In Norway, almost all trunk roads are really sub-standards, and needs to be rebuilt. It would be really silly to rebuild the roads using yesterday's standards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
I did, however, say that advocating 2000+ kms is pure stupidity.
More retoric. It would look better if you could come up with some facts that could prove that my arguments in previous posts (economy, safety and environment) were false.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
Yes. For 30 mins-1 hour I don't think an 100 kph average is a problem. For 4 hours, 120 is not going to happen for the average driver with the average modern car.
Because??


(That politics discussion is really OT, but it is well known that Reagen cut taxes AND built a lot of roads and increased for instance military spending.)
54°26′S 3°24′E no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 14th, 2008, 03:46 AM   #365
54°26′S 3°24′E
Registered User
 
54°26′S 3°24′E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 812
Likes (Received): 155

Grand Norwegian Motorway Plan....

I have been playing around with how a motorway network in Norway ideally should be and how we should prioritize. This would be my plan if i were to decide


Phase 1 is shown in red, phase 2 in orange (rv 80 not shown), and phase 3 in grey. The details of the various streches that has to be constructed are given below, assuming that Kløfta-Kongsvinger (rv 4) and Sandvika-Sollihøgda (E14) are already completed as currently planned. Note that the road lengths mostly follow current roads, were they exists. The actual length will probably usually be a bit shorter with modern motorways, as today's roads often are really winding. I have also made some rather unscientific and rough cost estimates based on recent costs from three recent motorway construction projects in Norway:
  • In Østfold (E6 south of Oslo), which includes some tunnels as well as a major bridge, the price was (30 000-40 000 kr/m).
  • On E18 between Grimstad and Kristiansand the price seems to be around 85 kr/m, with 60 bridges and 10 grade separated intersecions in less than 40 km, and a tunnel fraction of 16 %.
  • On E6, Skaberud-Kolomoen, the price tag has been sat to roughly 50 000 kr/m.
Hence, it seems reasonably to set the price tag between 30 - 85 000 kr/m for ordinary roads.

However, for stretches with very long tunnels the price would be higher, but very dependent on the local rock quality.
  • The Lærdal-tunnel (two lane) did not cost more than 38 000 kr/m, or roughly 100 000 kr/m translated to a dual tube tunnel and adjusted for inflation.
  • The world's deepest tunnel project came at a price tag of 970 million. Roughly 10 of the 15 dual lane road was tunnels/bridges, so I estimate the price for the tunnels/bridges part of roughly 90 000 kr/m, or 180 000 kr/m for a corresponding dual-tube project.
  • The u/c jondal tunnel has price tag of 60 000/m (single tube)
  • The neighboring Folgefonn tunnel costed 36 000 kr/m (single tube), roughly 42 000 kr/m adjusted for inflation.
  • The 25 km rather deep Bokna-fjord motorway subsea project is estimated to have a cost between 4.8-6.8 billion, or 190 - 270 000 kr/m
The cost estimates does not take into account any possibly advantages of scale and decrease of cost when using foreign firms or workers, or future increases, or as it may seem more likely in todays economic turmoil, decreases in raw material costs.

Phase 1 (Highly important routes with reasonable construction costs per km)
  • Kolomoen-Elverum-Trondheim-Steinkjer (current rv 3/E6):502 km (1)
  • Kolomoen-Lillehammer (current E6): 75 km
  • Sandvika-Hønefoss (current E14):27.5 km
  • Drammen-Notodden (current E134):70 km
  • Bommestad-Mandal (E18/E39): 200 km (2)
  • Sandnes-Ålgård (E39): 14 km
  • Bergen-Arsvågen (E39): 179 km (3)
  • Ålesund - Skodje (E39): 32 km
Costs:
1 015 of these km are expected to have a meter cost in the lower end of the scale, i.e. 30 - 60 000 kr/m. However, Os-Stord-Sveio will have a higher meter-price as it includes multiple fjord crossings. Os-Stord probably around 15 billion kr for a complete motorway standard, whereas dualing of the already existing Stord-Sveio connection will cost probably around 1.2 billion, using the costs of the existing project adjusted for inflation.
In total
Phase 1: ~1 100 km, 30 to 61 + 16 billion=46 to 77 billion (~3 billion extra with Trondheim-Frosta-tunnel)


Phase 2
Highly important and expensive or environmental problematic, or important and reasonably costly per km
  • Mysen-Swedish border (E18): 30 km
  • E6-Moss-Horten-E18 (subsea):~ 20 km (10 subsea)
  • Mandal-Ålgård (E39):179 km
  • Boknafjord crossing (subsea, E39): 20 km
  • Haugesund-Odda: 125 km (
  • Notodden-Eikelandsosen: ~310 km (4)
  • Skodje-Molde-Gjemnes(-Kristiansund) (E39):~100 km (5)
  • Fannrem-Klett (Trondheim, E39): 32 km
  • Bodø-Fauske (rv 80):62 km
  • Lillehammer-Otta: 114 km (6)
  • Mjøsbrua-Roa (rv 4): 83 km
  • Gardermoen-Roa-Hønefoss (rv 35): 65 km
Costs:
Boknafjord, 5-7 billion, Skodje-Molde ~7 billion, Oslo-fjord ~ 4 billion, tunnels Notodden-Bergen 4.5 billion, Hardangerfjord crossing ~3 billion. Remaining 890 km reasonably normal standard, but on average perhaps a bit more challenging than phase 1, km-cost set to 55-85 000 kr/m.
In total
Phase 2: 1 140 km , 72 billion - 101 billion NOK
Phase 1+2: 2 240 km, 118-178 billion NOK

Phase 2 will be considerably more expensive than phase 1, but the major cities of Norway will now be connected, and Oslo bypassed in the north, west, and south.

Phase 3
Important but expensive or somewhat important and fairly straight forward to build.
  • Nyborg (Bergen)-Gjerdviki (E39): 16 km (7)
  • Volda - Spjelkavik (E39): ~60 km (8)
  • Gjemnes-Fannrem (E39); 128 km (8)
  • Otta-Skodje (current E6/E136): 240 km (9)
  • Eastern bypass Oslo: ~90 km
Costs:
Storfjorden or Sulfjord crossing (Volda-Spjelkavik) 3-4 billion, Halsafjorden (Gjemnes-Fannrem) 2 billion, dualing of crossings north of Bergen, 1 billion. The rest of the roads probably are in the upper cost range, 55-85 000 kr/m
In total
Phase 3: 534, 35-52 billion NOK
Phase 1+2+3: 2 770 km, 153-230 billion

(1) One fascinating way of shortening this road by 20 km is to dig a Trondheim-Frosta tunnel. As discussed previously in the thread, this is also the first (and biggest) leg in a Trondheim-Fosen crossing of the Trondheim fjord, of great regional importance. Motorway Trondheim-Stjørdal (E6/E14) will be needed anyway.
(2) In addition 40 km is currently u/c
(3) Includes one new fjord crossing and an a dualing of an existing connection
(4) Via Odda and including new Hardanger fjord crossing. Long tunnels, 25 km Haukeli, 12 km Røldal-Seljestad and dualing of u/c 8 km Jondal tunnel and existing 11 km Foglefonn tunnel
(5) Includes new subsea crossing Romsdalfjord, a few alternatives are currently under investigation. If Kristiansund is included, an expansion of the current subsea tunnel is needed, but that would really not be a part of E39.
(6) Guardrail 1+2 and or extensive use of tunnels should be considered to preserve unique valley landscapes
(7) Expansion of two current fjord crossings needed.
(8) New fjord-crossing

Some people even argue that the whole coastal road (E39) should be motorway, but most of the remaining gap in the plan above would have little traffic. However, the remaining trunk roads, and in particular the rest of E39 (western Norway) and E6 (northern Norway and Dovre), and some internal trunk roads (for instance rv 7, rv 15, rv 70, and E14) really need to be upgraded, perhaps some places to 1+2 standard or similar, but not to motorway standard. It is not realistic that neither E6 nor E39 should become ferry-free, as both Tysfjord (E6) and Sognefjorden (E39) both would be very expensive to cross and has very little traffic.

The usefulness of most of the phase 3 roads can also be questioned, and these roads should only be considered constructed after phase 2 is completed. In particular, I am worried about the environmental effects of building motorways along Gudbrandsdalen and Romsdalen (i.e. Lillehammer-Otta-Åndalsnes), both very beautiful, but also quite narrow, valleys. Perhaps other options are better here. Also some of the fjord crossings of phase 2 can have a questionable benefit/cost ratio.

There is currently study going on regarding HSR in Norway, considering the following lines:

So far, the study has concluded that the eastern Oslo-Trondheim line, as well as the Oslo-Gothenburg line, are the most feasible ones. The plans have support among some parties, notably the conservative party, and the two "green" parties in Norway, one to the left and one in the center of the political spectrum. If ever built, the Oslo-Trondheim line should be coordinated with phase 1 of the motorway plan described above, to ripe both environmental as well as economic benefits.

Unfortunately, regarding road buiding this is what we will get with the current funding for the next 50 years:


But as mentioned in the previous posts, things may change a little to the better, but phase 3 in my plan is fairly far fetched at the moment....
__________________

Spearman liked this post

Last edited by 54°26′S 3°24′E; June 20th, 2009 at 12:46 AM. Reason: Costs estimates added/HSR map added.
54°26′S 3°24′E no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2008, 05:11 PM   #366
ElviS77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 564
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
Calm down, 1000 km would be a motorway network only connecting half the Norwegian population, Sweden is approaching 1700 km, and is constructing quite a bit at the moment, although their population is far more centralized. As you know, Sweden also has a lot of other high-standard highways to complement their motorways. In Norway, almost all trunk roads are really sub-standards, and needs to be rebuilt. It would be really silly to rebuild the roads using yesterday's standards.
I'm very calm, thanks. How are you feeling?

BTW, Sweden: 9+ million people - 2000 kms of motorway, Norway 4.7 million people, 1000 kms of motorway makes good sense to me. In terms of centralisation, about 40% of Norway's population live within a 90 minute drive from Oslo, 30% are within an hour, and both figures are likely to increase. I don't oppose improving the excisting highway network, but I do oppose project suggestions which not only are unnecessary but also, due to their lack of realism, are counterproductive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
That politics discussion is really OT, but it is well known that Reagen cut taxes AND built a lot of roads and increased for instance military spending.
But it's also well known and way more important that he reduced government spending as a whole considerably - Big Government was to him a really bad thing. This is classic anti-Keynesian liberalism. The result was a few more roads (most of the Interstate system was already in place, though) and a lot more military hardware. The flip side was the fact that an already considerable class divide grew wider: a few people got much richer, many people got poorer.

The Norwegian FrP, on the other hand, wows to increase government spending AND reduce taxes. Even in an oil-fueled economy as ours, this is a bit of a challenge... But this is what right-wing populism is all about and why this political debate isn't far OT, at least: such rather simplistic ideas find symphatisers throughout the Norwegian political landscape. Particularly in infrastructure-related discussions. Thus, my point is that there won't be a massive (say, 100-200 bn NOK over 10 years) extra increase in motorway spendings in Norway, no matter who's in charge.
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2008, 05:45 PM   #367
ElviS77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 564
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
Because??
Because most people don't drive that fast for that long without taking a break or two. In fact, a considerable percentage wouldn't drive that fast at all. Some people will, but they're a minority.

An example: This summer I drove Malmö-Oslo. For the first two hours (where the limit is either 110 or 120), I averaged exactly 125 kph (rain for 30-40 kms took me down from about 130). That made me among the fastest 10% on the road, not many overtook me, even though you could easily go faster if you wanted to. Of course, it might be that holiday motoring in Sweden is considerably slower than the rest of the year, but I really don't think so. In addition, just because it's a bit curious: Just south of Helsingborg, I was overtaken by a Dane. A bit north of Gothenburg, the same Dane left a petrol station two cars ahead of me, even though I had made one fuel and one food stop on the way, totalling at least 30 mins. The reason why I know it was the same Dane? His rather strange skibox...

I know this has nothing to do with science, but you don't need to be an expert in driving patterns, speed averages on motorways or human physiology to understand that long-distance driving is somewhat tiresome. It isn't difficult for anyone to maintain a 120-kph average for an hour or two on a motorway, but to keep going for four hours or more, you need a bit of experience and motivation to do just that. That combination is rare in most drivers.
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2008, 06:08 PM   #368
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,591
Likes (Received): 19378

I think Norway should focus on more overtaking possibilities, and make busy intersections grade-separated instead of building entire highways to motorways. Thats prohibitively expensive, and a safe overtaking possibility every now and then should do the job imo.
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2008, 06:41 PM   #369
ElviS77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 564
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
I think Norway should focus on more overtaking possibilities, and make busy intersections grade-separated instead of building entire highways to motorways. Thats prohibitively expensive, and a safe overtaking possibility every now and then should do the job imo.
I wholeheartedly agree.
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 16th, 2008, 12:34 AM   #370
Verso
Islander
 
Verso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ljubljana
Posts: 22,087
Likes (Received): 4749

Sth like the Moscow-St. Petersburg highway?
Verso no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2008, 12:30 AM   #371
54°26′S 3°24′E
Registered User
 
54°26′S 3°24′E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 812
Likes (Received): 155

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
I'm very calm, thanks. How are you feeling?
Good, to hear, really, and yeah, I'm fine, thank you, although I wish I spent a bit less time on this...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
BTW, Sweden: 9+ million people - 2000 kms of motorway, Norway 4.7 million people, 1000 kms of motorway makes good sense to me. In terms of centralisation, about 40% of Norway's population live within a 90 minute drive from Oslo, 30% are within an hour, and both figures are likely to increase. I don't oppose improving the excisting highway network, but I do oppose project suggestions which not only are unnecessary but also, due to their lack of realism, are counterproductive.
  1. My main point that I would like to see a motorway network, as well as HSR, is that I believe these are wise investments for our country, economywise, environmentalwise and for the quality of life, not because almost all other developed and semi-developed countries have or are planning to develop motorway networks.
  2. Sweden has 1700 km of motorways, but also in sharp contrast to Norway, has 1500 km of other separated roads, in total 3 200 km of separated roads. Now, I know that separated roads and motorways are not the same, but in practice, these roads have qualities in terms of curvature and traveling speed that only motorways in Norway can match.
  3. Sweden is not idle, they are of course extending their network continously. Just look at the map below for the status at 2007, and the planned expansion in 2015 (right).

    Quite an improvement, don't you think, particularly comparing with Norway? Even remote Happaranda will be connected. I would be very surprised if not most of this red lines are true motorways in a few decades.
  4. In Norway, as you know, almost all the trunk roads outside a bit outside Oslo is simply to narrow to just put up a guardrail in the middle. Furthermore, they are in most cases too winding and hilly, and need to be rebuilt anyway. I do not call for 25 m wide roads anywhere. As I have mentioned before, the difference in width between 1+2 divided road and the narrowest motorway standard is little more than 25 %, and much less than this in cost. To me it would be utterly sillyness to build 1+2 for a road that should last for our lifetime just to save a few percent in cost.
  5. It is true that Norway now have a population of 4.7 whereas Sweden has 9.2. However, you do not plan roads for the present but for the future. The population of Norway is increasing faster than Sweden, and has done so for some time. According to the middle trajectories of official population predictions of Norway and Sweden, the populations of Norway will be close to 7 million in 2050 (see figure below), whereas it will be 10.5 million in Sweden.

    Hence, assuming that the Swedes do not build any more, we need at least 3200x7/10.5=2 100 km of divided highways to be on the level of the Swedes population wise. However, as I said, the Swedes are steadily extending their network.
  6. In reality, we need more divided highways than Sweden, partly because the topography makes close to straight roads an impossibility in many places, but more importantly, because the population of Norway mostly live along the coast from the Swedish border to Steinkjer, encompassing a far larger area than the similar Stockholm-Gothenburg-Malmø triangle of Sweden. To add to the misery, the Norwegian secondary roads are in much worse shape than the Swedish ones, and the railway has much less coverage. It is a reason that most Norwegians currently choose to fly on intercity travel rather than using other forms of transport as in Sweden.
  7. Your Oslo-area population numbers are probably correct (and I live in the Oslo-area myself), but that means 60-70 % live elsewhere. Furthermore, it is along the coast that virtually all export industries are located. In my view, it would be "pure stupidity" to continue to confine decent roads only to the Oslo-area. Except for Northern Norway, the population fractions between the regions of Norway have been remarkably stable for several decades, btw, and all regions currently experience population growth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
But it's also well known and way more important that he reduced government spending as a whole considerably - Big Government was to him a really bad thing. This is classic anti-Keynesian liberalism. The result was a few more roads (most of the Interstate system was already in place, though) and a lot more military hardware. The flip side was the fact that an already considerable class divide grew wider: a few people got much richer, many people got poorer.

The Norwegian FrP, on the other hand, wows to increase government spending AND reduce taxes. Even in an oil-fueled economy as ours, this is a bit of a challenge... But this is what right-wing populism is all about and why this political debate isn't far OT, at least: such rather simplistic ideas find symphatisers throughout the Norwegian political landscape. Particularly in infrastructure-related discussions. Thus, my point is that there won't be a massive (say, 100-200 bn NOK over 10 years) extra increase in motorway spendings in Norway, no matter who's in charge.
Well, Reagen/Bush Sr. left a huge depth, remember, exactly because they were cutting taxes and hoping that the growth would generate enough funds for his spending. He certainly cut in some areas (health care and social benefits, etc), but as far as I remember he increased spending even more in his favoured areas.

Even if Reagen apparantly does not fit your idea of a populistic governement, you still have not provided me with the example of the populist left who were reelected by increasing taxes....whereas I have dear Silvio who apparantly is acceptable...

In any case, this is OT. I do not support FrP exactly because they want to spend on everything, and otherwise seem to shift agenda according to the latest opinion poll or journalistic whim. I simply don't trust them, but trust (or rather hope) that the other parties are able to contain them, but that they can throw them a bone on areas like infrastructure.

The main issue that restrain responsible politicians in Norway to spend more, is not the fear that Norway will go bankrupt, nor is it the thought of future pensions, but it is the fear of inflation (Dutch sickness, if you like). You don't need to be very smart to understand that spending a buck on roads or for instance scientific instruments, has a very different effect on inflation than pumping the money into areas like into hospital (administrations), tax cut (espc. for the poor btw), schools and other social benefits. In the former case, the money mostly goes to capital goods, and it could also be arranged in such a way that most of the money actually goes abroad (actually a good idea from the Progress party, and an idea the labor party all of a sudden supports). In the latter case, the money goes into the hands of the Norwegian people, who immediately starts to spend them on services and hence cause labor shortages.

This is exactly why Statistics Norway say that it probably will not harm the economy to invest 30 billion NOK extra on infrastructure per year, and why more an more politicians, from the labor party to the centrist party to the conservative party to the progress party now in smaller and larger degree says that investing a small fraction of our funds in our own roads would be a very good idea. With the slack in the economy we may expect during the next few years investing would be an even better idea. Sorry, I choose to trust the leading economists of the country rather than you on this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
Because most people don't drive that fast for that long without taking a break or two. In fact, a considerable percentage wouldn't drive that fast at all. Some people will, but they're a minority.

An example: This summer I drove Malmö-Oslo. For the first two hours (where the limit is either 110 or 120), I averaged exactly 125 kph (rain for 30-40 kms took me down from about 130). That made me among the fastest 10% on the road, not many overtook me, even though you could easily go faster if you wanted to. Of course, it might be that holiday motoring in Sweden is considerably slower than the rest of the year, but I really don't think so. In addition, just because it's a bit curious: Just south of Helsingborg, I was overtaken by a Dane. A bit north of Gothenburg, the same Dane left a petrol station two cars ahead of me, even though I had made one fuel and one food stop on the way, totalling at least 30 mins. The reason why I know it was the same Dane? His rather strange skibox...

I know this has nothing to do with science, but you don't need to be an expert in driving patterns, speed averages on motorways or human physiology to understand that long-distance driving is somewhat tiresome. It isn't difficult for anyone to maintain a 120-kph average for an hour or two on a motorway, but to keep going for four hours or more, you need a bit of experience and motivation to do just that. That combination is rare in most drivers.
Well, it seems like you were speeding, and that may explain why you were in the upper 10 %... I think very few people more than one break Trondheim-Oslo today (I usually just stop to fill gas when traveling alone myself). Of course, although I do not follow this practice myself, I remember campaigns like "two hours on the road gets deadly boring", but according to these campaigns, a 15 minute power nap is sufficient and neither gas or food is required on a four hour trip, but OK, let say 4 hours and 15 minutes Trondheim-Oslo, then. However, the fact that such campaigns keep going tells me that not many people follow such advices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
I think Norway should focus on more overtaking possibilities, and make busy intersections grade-separated instead of building entire highways to motorways. Thats prohibitively expensive, and a safe overtaking possibility every now and then should do the job imo.
Well, the situation is a bit different in Norway and Netherlands, you know. The main issue on transit between the regions in Norway is usually not to pass other cars or traffic jams, but to get safely, faster, and more environmently friendly from A to B.

Broadly speaking, you can classify Norwegian non-motorway major highways into three classes:
  1. Highly trafficated, from 7 500-30 000 AADT.

    These are sometimes expressways built during the last 20 years, with separate grade intersections, but without crash barrier between the directions. Here there of course may be some delays from time to time, but the major problem is the meeting accidents. Typically these roads have a speed limits as low a 70-80 km/h even outside built-up areas. E18 Tønsberg-Mandal, E6 Lillehammer-Oslo airport, and Støren-Steinkjer, and rv 3 (Kolomoen-Elverum), and rv 4 broadly falls into this category, along with many other roads in Norway. I guess nobody objects that these roads should be motorways.
  2. Less trafficated arterial highways below ~7 500 AADT.
    These often goes through more desolate areas, but nevertheless head on meeting accidents are a problem. Furthermore, these roads have seldom had a major revamp since they were built, which could be anything from way back to the 1930s to early 1970s (typically), so motorists often has to deal with terribly curvature, very narrow road, steep hills, trees or large rocks right down to the ditch hiding moose and other animals, etc. etc. During winter the roads often gets even narrower, and at the same time they are trafficated with lots of heavy trucks, often foreign with limited winter driving experience.

    Needless to say, these transit stretches are among the more dangerous in Norway, trucks and other vehicles also us a lot more fuel (often many times) on such roads, and finally, driving on such roads takes up to twice as long as on good roads. Needless to say, this adds immensly to the transportation costs of Norway, and this is the reason that economists that have studied the transportation network advocates a major revamp. Adding a few passing lanes simply will not be of much help. True, there are a few passing accidents, but they are relatively rare compared with accidents caused by drivers loosing control of their vehicles from other reasons (falling asleep, drunk driving, slippery road etc. etc.). The same goes for fixing busy or important intersections, there are simply so few of them on for instance the Trondheim-Oslo or Bergen-Oslo road that they are of very little importance.

    The only viable option in most cases is to build a completely new road, which is flatter, less winding, and not at least wider, with traffic in opposit directions separated, and with no direct access from neighboring properties etc.. However, in this case, usually 1+2 is needed in order to provide passing opportunities, and as most of the cost of the road often is to flatten and straightening it and to get the right equipment in place, not in concrete or asphalt, the added cost of one more lane is quite small.
  3. Ferry!
    Yes, still there are ferries operating along Norwegian main highways. Some of them has little traffic, others have AADT in the thousands. Common to all of them, however, is that they are a social and logistic barrier for the surrounding area. Of course, in this case, an ordinary two-lane road is far better than a ferry, but usually the traffic increases quite a bit because people that formerly were divided all of a sudden lives a few minutes from each other. New EU regulations require two tubes at quite a low AADT in tunnels for instance, so voila, you sometimes need to construct a motorway or nothing. This is the case for instance regarding the 25 km Boknafjord project, and would also be the case for the proposed (but far from approved) Moss-Horten and Trondheim-Frosta tunnels.

Finally, one important reason that I have no faith in the incremental approach in Norway is however that Norwegian politicians traditionally have had such a hands-on approach to road building. That means that more often or not, the least sensible projects are approved, typically near the electorate of some politicians. Where there are no people living, very little happens, hence no trunk road fixes.

In addition, the transit traffic between the Norwegian cities is quite a lot higher than you may expect. Oslo-Trondheim/Bergen/Stavanger, and are for instance all among top 10 busiest air routes in Europe, and also Stavanger-Bergen is very busy. See earlier in the thread for more details on the traffic potential.

Regarding the cost, I have now, rather unprofessionally, estimated the costs in my previous post. As you can see, I believe that phase 2, which will connect most of Southern Norway except the North-Western corner, will cost between 120 and 180 billion NOK, or roughly 14 to 22 billion Euro. The slightly more extensive phase 3, which add also the north-western corner and adds an eastern bypass to Oslo, will increase the total cost to perhaps 150 to 230 billion NOK, or roughly 19 to 28 billion Euro. By constructing in phases, nasty surprises can be avoided. For some of the most expensive tunnels, it may also make sense to construct a single tube until real the traffic load can be evaluated.

The main treath for any public spending in Norway is inflation, but as discussed in various posts above, I think this can be handled, especially if we are approacing a longer economical downturn. In any case, Norway is not exactly about to get broke, just an illustration:
  • The annual investments in Norwegian oil sector are currently at 127 billion
  • From July to July Norway invested 270 billion NOK through its international investement fund abroad, which now is close to 2000 billion
  • However, it lost 230 of these billions due to currency, stock and bond fluctuations, so the net gain was only 43 billion. Of course, this was before the last stock market crash, Norway have been exposed in most of the failed banks so far....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Verso View Post
Sth like the Moscow-St. Petersburg highway?
Lol, I think 2+2 is sufficient most places rather than 3+3 and above, and a road suited for 160 km/h will be quite difficult in Norway.....

Last edited by 54°26′S 3°24′E; September 17th, 2008 at 12:43 AM.
54°26′S 3°24′E no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2008, 12:37 AM   #372
Verso
Islander
 
Verso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ljubljana
Posts: 22,087
Likes (Received): 4749

^ Moscow-St. Petersburg highway is mostly 2+1 or 1+2, not 3+3 (except short parts).
Verso no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2008, 12:53 AM   #373
54°26′S 3°24′E
Registered User
 
54°26′S 3°24′E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 812
Likes (Received): 155

OK, I thought you were referring to this plan
54°26′S 3°24′E no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2008, 02:05 AM   #374
Verso
Islander
 
Verso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ljubljana
Posts: 22,087
Likes (Received): 4749

^ Oh, the future highway.
Verso no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2008, 02:42 PM   #375
ElviS77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 564
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
Good, to hear, really, and yeah, I'm fine, thank you, although I wish I spent a bit less time on this...
You don't have to, you know...


Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
However, you do not plan roads for the present but for the future. The population of Norway is increasing faster than Sweden, and has done so for some time.
But where will these people live? Almost every single one will settle in or around the Greater Oslo area, the remainder will settle in other urban areas like Stavanger/Sandnes, Bergen and Trondheim. And again, my argument isn't that it's impossible to do what you suggest, but that - even if Keynesian ideas are to make a comeback - isn't going to happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
Well, Reagen/Bush Sr. left a huge depth, remember, exactly because they were cutting taxes and hoping that the growth would generate enough funds for his spending. He certainly cut in some areas (health care and social benefits, etc), but as far as I remember he increased spending even more in his favoured areas.
This is way OT, but the main point is that the liberalist ideals he - and his successor - put into action, didn't generate the growth they were looking for, and with the end of the Cold War, the massive military spendings were more of a liability than a benefit to the economy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
Even if Reagen apparantly does not fit your idea of a populistic governement, you still have not provided me with the example of the populist left who were reelected by increasing taxes....whereas I have dear Silvio who apparantly is acceptable...
Actually, he's not... Italy is a special scenario, which I didn't want to comment on, since that's even further OT. As for left-wing populism, it is basically what lead to every first social democratic government on the planet. They developed, of course, but the basic idea of government spending as a good thing weren't truly challenged in the labour movement until the 1990s.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
In any case, this is OT. I do not support FrP exactly because they want to spend on everything, and otherwise seem to shift agenda according to the latest opinion poll or journalistic whim.
This is exactly what right-wing populism is all about. The Austrians tried and rejected it, and true Italian populists (for instance the Lega Nord) have been anything but stable government partners. Even the French seems to have second thoughts, even though their right-wingers are more traditional nationalists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
Well, it seems like you were speeding, and that may explain why you were in the upper 10 %... I think very few people more than one break Trondheim-Oslo today (I usually just stop to fill gas when traveling alone myself). Of course, although I do not follow this practice myself, I remember campaigns like "two hours on the road gets deadly boring", but according to these campaigns, a 15 minute power nap is sufficient and neither gas or food is required on a four hour trip, but OK, let say 4 hours and 15 minutes Trondheim-Oslo, then. However, the fact that such campaigns keep going tells me that not many people follow such advices.
My point is that most people weren't even close to speeding... Also, most people I know take far more than a single, 15-minute break when driving 4 hours or more. I don't think they're exceptional drivers in any way, and I must say that most driving I've ever done seems to support this.
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2008, 06:52 PM   #376
ElviS77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 564
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
My main point that I would like to see a motorway network, as well as HSR, is that I believe these are wise investments for our country, economywise, environmentalwise and for the quality of life, not because almost all other developed and semi-developed countries have or are planning to develop motorway networks.
I don't completely disagree, I'm only saying that currently, no country on the face of the earth (with a partial exception for China...) are developing massive new government-funded motorway networks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
Sweden has 1700 km of motorways, but also in sharp contrast to Norway, has 1500 km of other separated roads, in total 3 200 km of separated roads. Now, I know that separated roads and motorways are not the same, but in practice, these roads have qualities in terms of curvature and traveling speed that only motorways in Norway can match.
I know, and I really believe that we should build/expand more roads to a similar standard. I'll get back to this further down...

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
[*] Sweden is not idle, they are of course extending their network continously. Just look at the map below for the status at 2007, and the planned expansion in 2015 (right).

Quite an improvement, don't you think, particularly comparing with Norway? Even remote Happaranda will be connected. I would be very surprised if not most of this red lines are true motorways in a few decades.
There are no motorway plans, and since many of the new projects are of a type I'm rather sceptical to (1+1/2+1, even 2+2) with free access even for forestry or agricultural roads plus at-grade junctions, it'll be massively expensive to expand them to motorway standard. The improved E65 in Skåne truly scared me, it's quite busy, straight, with a lot of 16-metre 2+2 sections which invites a driving speed well into the 100s. However, since all junctions are conventional (not even a roundabout in sight), they're all serious accidents waiting to happen. Imho, junctions on such roads should be properly regulated or at least roundabouts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
In Norway, as you know, almost all the trunk roads outside a bit outside Oslo is simply to narrow to just put up a guardrail in the middle. Furthermore, they are in most cases too winding and hilly, and need to be rebuilt anyway. I do not call for 25 m wide roads anywhere. As I have mentioned before, the difference in width between 1+2 divided road and the narrowest motorway standard is little more than 25 %, and much less than this in cost. To me it would be utterly sillyness to build 1+2 for a road that should last for our lifetime just to save a few percent in cost.
First, quite a few roads may quite easily be widened to accomodate a central guard rail, for instance most parts of the aforementioned rv 3. When a new alignment is required, I truly believe that one should spend money wisely. On busy sections (AADT 10000+ and some 5000-10000 bits), a motorway is required. For the typical Norwegian trunk road, 1+1 with 2+1 sections is more than adequate, and even though it may not be half the price of a narrow motorway, a 30-40% cost cut makes a considerable amount of money available for other necessary projects. Since the capacity of a 1+1/2+1 road is way beyond what even the most optimistic (or pessimistic, depending of point of view...) AADT predictions suggest for these roads, I think safe 2+1 roads with a 100-110 design speed will be more than adequate.

It is, however, very important that new roads are built to such standards. I find it apalling that you officially need a 8000+ AADT prediction to include a central barrier on new roads and that quite busy sections of trunk road still are made into 8.5-metre-wide kill zones, without even a parallell road taking care of local traffic (the "new" E6 south of Støren is a disgrace).

Last edited by ElviS77; September 17th, 2008 at 06:57 PM.
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 18th, 2008, 12:57 AM   #377
54°26′S 3°24′E
Registered User
 
54°26′S 3°24′E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 812
Likes (Received): 155

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
But where will these people live? Almost every single one will settle in or around the Greater Oslo area, the remainder will settle in other urban areas like Stavanger/Sandnes, Bergen and Trondheim. And again, my argument isn't that it's impossible to do what you suggest, but that - even if Keynesian ideas are to make a comeback - isn't going to happen.
It is a common misconception that they all will settle in the Oslo-area. In 2007, the population growth of Norway was 1.2 %. With such a steady growth rate, which may not happen, of course, the 2050 population will be 7.7 million. All counties were growing, except that Nordland and Finnmark had a decline of a few hundred people. The growth of the Østlandet region (South-Eastern Norway) was 1.4 % compared with 1.3 % for the counties along the coast from Aust-Agder to Nord-Trøndelag. Comparing the counties surrounding the bigger cities, the counties around Oslo (Oslo, Akershus, Østfold and Buskerud) had a growth of 1.7 % compared with 1.6 for the "big city" counties along the coast (Rogaland, Hordaland and Sør-Trøndelag). Only Oslo had higher growth than Rogaland. Extrapolating these numbers to 2050 again, we see that Østlandet will have a population of 4.1 million, or 54 %, a sligth increase from the current 50 %. The coast counties from Aust-Agder to Sør-Trøndelag will have a population of 3.2 million, or 42 %, up from the current 40 %. Northern Norway (Nordland, Troms and Finnmark) will be the loser in relative numbers, but will roughly keep the current population in absolute numbers.

In conclusion, there is a slight centralization in Norway towards the south-eastern part of the country, but more strongly towards the bigger cities within each region. This is as expected during economic booms like we have had the last couple of years combined with high government spending in the Oslo-area.

However, the far more characteristic trend is that the population in all regions in Norway is increasing, like it has done steadily for a very long time, even though very little has happened in terms of for instance infrastructure development along the coast lately. The transport needs between the regions will without doubt continue to rise during the next decades. Within the urban areas, however, I am a strong believer in PT.

BTW, this spring the growth has been even higher, with an extrapolated 2050 population of 8.2 million, and even the population of Nordland and Finnmark was growing slightly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
I don't completely disagree, I'm only saying that currently, no country on the face of the earth (with a partial exception for China...) are developing massive new government-funded motorway networks.
Well, as you know most countries already have such a network, and not many countries have the economic muscles of Norway either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
There are no motorway plans, and since many of the new projects are of a type I'm rather sceptical to (1+1/2+1, even 2+2) with free access even for forestry or agricultural roads plus at-grade junctions, it'll be massively expensive to expand them to motorway standard.
Of course there are many motorway plans in Sweden. Afaik, the plan for transit motorways in the relatively short term is to complete E4 as a motorway from Helsingborg to Gävle, E6 from Malmö to the Norwegian border, E18 from E45 and eastwards, E20 from Örebro and eastwards and E22 east to Karlskrona. It may be expensive to widen some of their grade separated roads, that's exactly why I believe we should build motorways in the first place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
First, quite a few roads may quite easily be widened to accomodate a central guard rail, for instance most parts of the aforementioned rv 3. When a new alignment is required, I truly believe that one should spend money wisely. On busy sections (AADT 10000+ and some 5000-10000 bits), a motorway is required. For the typical Norwegian trunk road, 1+1 with 2+1 sections is more than adequate, and even though it may not be half the price of a narrow motorway, a 30-40% cost cut makes a considerable amount of money available for other necessary projects. Since the capacity of a 1+1/2+1 road is way beyond what even the most optimistic (or pessimistic, depending of point of view...) AADT predictions suggest for these roads, I think safe 2+1 roads with a 100-110 design speed will be more than adequate.
As I have argued above, I believe 5000 and even 10 000 AADT is realistic on all transit motorways motorways I suggested, with the possible exception of some of the grey stretches I lined out in phase 3 of my suggested plan. This is both due to natural growth (i.e. population increases and more spare time) and transfer of traffic from air if effective motorways indeed finally are built. For reference, here is a curve of the historic traffic growth in Norway:

Since 2002 the traffic growth has increased sharply, and the AADT km has probably more than doubled in the last 25 years.

The width of 1+2 road is 14.5 m, the width of the narrowest motorway standard is around 20 m, as far as I remember. We certainly do not talk about 30-40% cost increase then; I would guess rather 10 %. This would be worth the money for the main transit roads, so that traffic can be transferred from the air. In additon, we do not have to repeat the sins of the past such that we need to make an expensive rebuilding in just a few decades. For other roads, I believe 1+2 would be more interesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
It is, however, very important that new roads are built to such standards. I find it apalling that you officially need a 8000+ AADT prediction to include a central barrier on new roads and that quite busy sections of trunk road still are made into 8.5-metre-wide kill zones, without even a parallell road taking care of local traffic (the "new" E6 south of Støren is a disgrace).
On this we certainly agree!

Last edited by 54°26′S 3°24′E; September 18th, 2008 at 01:09 AM.
54°26′S 3°24′E no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2008, 05:28 PM   #378
ElviS77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 564
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
It is a common misconception that they all will settle in the Oslo-area. In 2007, the population growth of Norway was 1.2 %. With such a steady growth rate, which may not happen, of course, the 2050 population will be 7.7 million. All counties were growing, except that Nordland and Finnmark had a decline of a few hundred people. The growth of the Østlandet region (South-Eastern Norway) was 1.4 % compared with 1.3 % for the counties along the coast from Aust-Agder to Nord-Trøndelag. Comparing the counties surrounding the bigger cities, the counties around Oslo (Oslo, Akershus, Østfold and Buskerud) had a growth of 1.7 % compared with 1.6 for the "big city" counties along the coast (Rogaland, Hordaland and Sør-Trøndelag). Only Oslo had higher growth than Rogaland. Extrapolating these numbers to 2050 again, we see that Østlandet will have a population of 4.1 million, or 54 %, a sligth increase from the current 50 %. The coast counties from Aust-Agder to Sør-Trøndelag will have a population of 3.2 million, or 42 %, up from the current 40 %. Northern Norway (Nordland, Troms and Finnmark) will be the loser in relative numbers, but will roughly keep the current population in absolute numbers.

In conclusion, there is a slight centralization in Norway towards the south-eastern part of the country, but more strongly towards the bigger cities within each region. This is as expected during economic booms like we have had the last couple of years combined with high government spending in the Oslo-area.
If such a growth were to happen, quite a bit of it will have to come from immigration and higher birth rates in this part of the population. And they live in towns and cities, and the majority in and around Oslo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
Well, as you know most countries already have such a network, and not many countries have the economic muscles of Norway either.
"Most countries" is rather overstated, I'd say. And the problem is that our financial muscle hasn't been translated into much in terms of roads/proper railroads this far, and even though I believe that some improvements will be made, I don't see a massive motorway network anytime soon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
Of course there are many motorway plans in Sweden. Afaik, the plan for transit motorways in the relatively short term is to complete E4 as a motorway from Helsingborg to Gävle, E6 from Malmö to the Norwegian border, E18 from E45 and eastwards, E20 from Örebro and eastwards and E22 east to Karlskrona. It may be expensive to widen some of their grade separated roads, that's exactly why I believe we should build motorways in the first place.
I'm sorry, not precise enough there. Of course, the Swedes have quite a few motorway plans, but the "mötesfri landsväg" roads are not in these plans. They are actually a result of the fact that the Swedes are thinking somewhat more Norwegian (and this isn't always a good thing...): When the 13 m quality roads were built, most of them ran through or close to villages and settlements, and they had at-grade junctions. Thus, they may not easily be expanded to motorways. But they still represent a massive investment and replacing them with new roads - leaving 13-metre roads for local traffic - is something Swedish bureaucrats and politicians aren't very eager to do. Enter guardrail separated 1+1, 2+1 or 2+2 roads.

Of course, these are safer than roads without a guardrail, but the problem with them is twofold: 1. It's even more unlikely that motorways will replace them. 2. The standard invites speeds close to motorway speeds, even though the roads are far less safe than the real thing. Still, it's perhaps fair enough for roads whose AADT are in the +/-5000 bracket, but when far busier roads get the same treatment, it's not as good. Like the E65. Similar approaches are also considered for busy sections of the E20 and the E18.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
The width of 1+2 road is 14.5 m, the width of the narrowest motorway standard is around 20 m, as far as I remember. We certainly do not talk about 30-40% cost increase then; I would guess rather 10 %.
I'm not pretending to be an expert on this, but as far as I understand the Vegvesen's figures, the cost per metre of road corresponds fairly precisely to the road profile. This makes sense to me, both because the cost of land and the work involved increases similarly. An increase from 14.5 to 20 m means approx 35% extra width.
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2008, 09:24 PM   #379
Ingenioren
Registered User
 
Ingenioren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oslo
Posts: 5,605
Likes (Received): 584

A 4 lane road doesn't need to be 20 meters wide tough... The Rv2 east of Kløfta is only 16 meters wide... (No stop-lane)
__________________
I want to see some construction!
Ingenioren no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2008, 09:34 PM   #380
ElviS77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 564
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingenioren View Post
A 4 lane road doesn't need to be 20 meters wide tough... The Rv2 east of Kløfta is only 16 meters wide... (No stop-lane)
That's the 2+2 version of a 1+1/2+1. Afaik, they're not going to use that profile much outside of urban areas anymore, as it - as you say - completely lacks emergency lanes. The 19-metre profile (20-metre with narrower median - 2 replacing 3 metres) is going to be more common, on the other hand.
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
norway

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 04:42 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