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 21st, 2016, 09:17 PM   #3901
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,591
Likes (Received): 19378

Ryfylke Tunnel

The Ryfylke Tunnel progress, as of 15 June. It's a twin-tube tunnel, but these schematics don't show it as such. I assume they're being dug / blasted at the same rate.

__________________

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

pai nosso, ukraroad liked this post
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old June 21st, 2016, 09:36 PM   #3902
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,591
Likes (Received): 19378

Fylkesvei 64, Molde

Some photos of Fylkesvei 64 near Molde in Møre og Romsdal.

1. We're driving on Skålavegen, the road connection between the Skåla Peninsula and the city of Molde.

Fylkesvei 64 Molde-1 by European Roads, on Flickr

2. The Bolsøy Bridge shows in the distance.

Fylkesvei 64 Molde-2 by European Roads, on Flickr

3. The Bolsøy Bridge is 555 meters long and opened in 1991. It is toll-free since 2005.

Fylkesvei 64 Molde Bolsøy Bridge-3 by European Roads, on Flickr

4. The Fannefjord Tunnel is located 3 kilometers after the Bolsøy Bridge. The tunnel reaches 101 meters below sea level.

Fylkesvei 64 Molde Fannefjord Tunnel-4 by European Roads, on Flickr

5. The tunnel has steep grades, like many undersea tunnels. They don't like to build such steep tunnels any more, due to the fact that most tunnel fires occur in the small amount of steep tunnels.

Fylkesvei 64 Molde Fannefjord Tunnel-5 by European Roads, on Flickr

6. The Fannefjord is visible on the right. The city of Molde is behind it. The Fannefjord Tunnel also goes under the airport of Molde.

Fylkesvei 64 Molde Fannefjord Tunnel-6 by European Roads, on Flickr

7. North of Molde.

Fylkesvei 64 Molde-7 by European Roads, on Flickr

8. The Tussen Tunnel, opened in 1990 and toll-free since 2015.

Fylkesvei 64 Molde-8 by European Roads, on Flickr
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 22nd, 2016, 10:01 AM   #3903
Heico-M
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Flensburg, DE
Posts: 290
Likes (Received): 115

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post

5. The tunnel has steep grades, like many undersea tunnels. They don't like to build such steep tunnels any more, due to the fact that most tunnel fires occur in the small amount of steep tunnels.

Fylkesvei 64 Molde Fannefjord Tunnel-5 by European Roads, on Flickr
I wonder why they use a variable sign to indicate the slope. There is nothing on the signage that ever varies ...
__________________

ChrisZwolle liked this post
Heico-M no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 22nd, 2016, 10:20 AM   #3904
hammersklavier
Feral
 
hammersklavier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 597
Likes (Received): 423

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
Norway is also low on the statistics for fatalities per driven km, although not all countries are recording that number. Regardless, more motorways and other divided highways would undoubtedly reduce fatality numbers further.
Actually my point was kind of the opposite. Even if the per driven km rate is low, an expansion of roads such that they capture a significant proportion of intercity traffic can only make the rate go up, as -- even in the safest driving countries -- there is a minimal correlation between how much driving one does and the accident rate.

In other words, Norway's inadequate ground transportation infrastructure itself plays a role in depressing the accident rate and so improving the perception of safety. This only works, however, because the Norwegians are wealthy enough that they can use other options.

Of course, this is also why per driven km is the most relevant metric for evaluating relative road safety, at least when the infrastructure is comparable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
Was it built for the sake of the houses, or was it a tunnel serving the hydro power plant that incidentally served the houses? Will the population of the hamlet grow to couple hundreds with better access?
I think I'll let you figure this out for yourself.
__________________

berlinwroclaw liked this post
hammersklavier no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 22nd, 2016, 11:03 AM   #3905
berlinwroclaw
Kamienna
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 139
Likes (Received): 46

Quote:
Originally Posted by hammersklavier View Post
Even if the per driven km rate is low, an expansion of roads such that they capture a significant proportion of intercity traffic can only make the rate go up
When you want to improve existing 1x2 roads you will get (like you said) significant proportion of intercity traffic that will make the rate go up.

Statistics show (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpo...postcount=3871) that a replacement of 1x2 roads by 2x2 motorways will reduce deadly accidents. This is a key argument to replace 1x2 roads by a motorway.

So, the only way to capture a significant proportion of intercity traffic and keeping low deadly accident rate per driven km is motorway construction. Like you said, Norway can afford this solution.
__________________
Have a safe trip!

Mathias Olsen liked this post
berlinwroclaw no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 22nd, 2016, 03:34 PM   #3906
Heico-M
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Flensburg, DE
Posts: 290
Likes (Received): 115

Cone on, guys, be realistic.

A full 2+2 motorway across the mountains is far too expensive in relation to the expected traffic volume, population growing or not. Period.

But even Sweden has good experience with 2+1 roads (aka "swedish motorways" ), i.e. 1+1 with alternating passing lanes. So why not do that in Norway, too?
__________________

ChrisZwolle liked this post
Heico-M no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 22nd, 2016, 04:01 PM   #3907
berlinwroclaw
Kamienna
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 139
Likes (Received): 46

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heico-M View Post
A full 2+2 motorway across the mountains is far too expensive in relation to the expected traffic volume
How do you calculate the expected traffic volume? Note that the cry for sustainability will be louder every year and the extraordinary air-traffic will be limited by offering good alternatives. You can calculate that a move from air traffic to road traffic will give an extra of > 6000 AADT for the relation E134 Odda-Drammen. Oil will be over in 2040 and Bergen/Stavanger need good export infrastructure in 2030 with an alternative economy. The cry for a E134 motorway Odda-Drammen will be louder and louder. Travelling speed by car is the lowest in Europe, while Norway is rich. This motorway will come and will be in the new Motorway Plan 2017. The only question is: when?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heico-M View Post
But even Sweden has good experience with 2+1 roads (aka "swedish motorways" ), i.e. 1+1 with alternating passing lanes. So why not do that in Norway, too?
Very good suggestion ..... and realistic as well For the time being we can implement a solution like on E6 Hamar-Lillehammer with grade separated 1+2 road.


1+1 with alternating 1+2 passing lanes on E6 Hamar-Lillehammer

__________________
Have a safe trip!
berlinwroclaw no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 22nd, 2016, 04:25 PM   #3908
Mathias Olsen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 125
Likes (Received): 149

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heico-M View Post
Cone on, guys, be realistic.
Yes, being realistic is including the safety dimension. A motorway is safer than any a road with alternating passing lanes. On June 11, 2016, we had another head-on collision on the E39 Stavanger-Krisitansand in Bjerkreim, this time 6 people were involved.



Safety was an important argument to upgrade E39 to Stavanger to motorway, without alternating passing lanes. How many accidents on long distance roads have to follow until there is a motorway? Bjerkreim has to wait for not less than 6 years until the safer motorway is ready and head-on collisions like this will be over.
https://www.nrk.no/rogaland/front-mo...e39-1.12993363
__________________

berlinwroclaw, ukraroad liked this post
Mathias Olsen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 22nd, 2016, 04:34 PM   #3909
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,591
Likes (Received): 19378

2+1 roads with grade-separation and a median barrier (cable barrier or otherwise) attain nearly the same safety level as a motorway, because it eliminates head-on collisions, crossover incidents and at-grade crashes. But at a lower cost.

I think it's better to invest in a good cost-efficient 2+1 road across E134 than wait for a full-standard motorway that likely never comes.
__________________

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

OnTheNorthRoad, ukraroad liked this post
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 22nd, 2016, 04:37 PM   #3910
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,591
Likes (Received): 19378

Atlantic Ocean Road

I filmed the Atlantic Ocean Road last week.

ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 22nd, 2016, 07:23 PM   #3911
Mathias Olsen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 125
Likes (Received): 149

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
2+1 roads with grade-separation and a median barrier (cable barrier or otherwise)
Outside the speed, safety and capacity argument, in case of an accident all traffic of one direction is blocked on the 1-lane side of the alternating passing lane. They also cannot go back. In winter, a serious issue in Norway.
__________________

berlinwroclaw liked this post
Mathias Olsen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 22nd, 2016, 08:08 PM   #3912
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

Yes, stranded trucks are already the main cause of closures on eg Rv 3 during winter, although there the road is significantly wider since the directions are not physically separated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hammersklavier View Post
Actually my point was kind of the opposite. Even if the per driven km rate is low, an expansion of roads such that they capture a significant proportion of intercity traffic can only make the rate go up, as -- even in the safest driving countries -- there is a minimal correlation between how much driving one does and the accident rate.

In other words, Norway's inadequate ground transportation infrastructure itself plays a role in depressing the accident rate and so improving the perception of safety. This only works, however, because the Norwegians are wealthy enough that they can use other options.

Of course, this is also why per driven km is the most relevant metric for evaluating relative road safety, at least when the infrastructure is comparable.

I think I'll let you figure this out for yourself.
You are missing my point. Yes, there is correlation between traffic volume and accident rates, but at least from recent Norwegian experience, this correlation is far outweighed by the discrete improvement of safety which a motorway represents. It is not like Norwegians are not driving today, either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heico-M View Post
Cone on, guys, be realistic.

A full 2+2 motorway across the mountains is far too expensive in relation to the expected traffic volume, population growing or not. Period.

But even Sweden has good experience with 2+1 roads (aka "swedish motorways" ), i.e. 1+1 with alternating passing lanes. So why not do that in Norway, too?
The difference between Norway and Sweden is that the latter historically has built very wide 2-lane highways (where driving was allowed on the shoulders to let others pass). These roads could be very inexpensively be converted to divided 2+1. In Norway, similar routes are narrow and winding. Hence, a new road in most cases have to be built anyway. According to the norms, a 2+1 is 14.5 meters wide (H5, 90 km/h, 6000-12000 AADT), whereas the narrowest motorway (H8, 100 or 110 km/h, < 20 000 AADT) is 20 m wide. Hence, the difference in width is in fact not that large, and for the foundation even less. There is also some differences in geometry requirements, but at least in my head, the increase in costs is far outweight by the increase of benefits in the case of eg Trondheim-Oslo when it comes to speed of travel, reliability (considering when the single lane is obstructed) and safety, especially if you have to rebuild the road anyway a few decades ahead (or if the curvature is wrong, build a whole new road again a few decades "down the road".)

Remember also that for tunnels the 4 lane threshold is reach at lower AADT even with todays rules, actually at 8000 AADT for tunnels above 10 km. Tunnels above 10 km and with traffic above 4000 AADT shall also normally be built with separate emergency exits. which again lowers the marginal cost for a full second tube.
__________________
Norway needs a new transport infrastructure network, let's start now!

berlinwroclaw, Mathias Olsen liked this post

Last edited by 54°26′S 3°24′E; June 22nd, 2016 at 08:28 PM.
54°26′S 3°24′E no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 22nd, 2016, 09:11 PM   #3913
Ingenioren
Registered User
 
Ingenioren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oslo
Posts: 5,605
Likes (Received): 584

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heico-M View Post
I wonder why they use a variable sign to indicate the slope. There is nothing on the signage that ever varies ...
Yes, it can be changed to tunnel closed. These tunnels get closed for example if a car has engine trouble inside.
__________________
I want to see some construction!

Heico-M, Mathias Olsen liked this post
Ingenioren no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 22nd, 2016, 10:47 PM   #3914
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

Or more regularly : Due to cleaning and other maintenance.
__________________

Mathias Olsen liked this post
54°26′S 3°24′E no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 22nd, 2016, 10:57 PM   #3915
berlinwroclaw
Kamienna
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 139
Likes (Received): 46

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
I think it's better to invest in a good cost-efficient 2+1 road across E134 than wait for a full-standard motorway that likely never comes.
Norway's west coast has to survive in 2040 when the oil is over. The counties of Stavanger and Bergen will then have an estimated population of 1.2 million inhabitants. Economy has to switch from oil sector to agriculture, industry and business services and competive export connections are necessary for economic survival of the west coast. There are signals that the government is aware that the west coast needs competive road infrastructure between east and west.
Fact is that soon a 4 lane section at Drammen will be constructed.



and also a bypass at Kongsberg with 4 lane sections and 2 motorway interchanges.



Before 2023 there will be E134 motorway sections and other sections in half profile, no signs for a 2+1 end solution, but only signs for motorway end solution.
__________________
Have a safe trip!

Mathias Olsen liked this post

Last edited by berlinwroclaw; June 22nd, 2016 at 11:21 PM.
berlinwroclaw no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 23rd, 2016, 01:28 AM   #3916
Ingenioren
Registered User
 
Ingenioren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oslo
Posts: 5,605
Likes (Received): 584

It's not that far fetched, the current ntp recommends motorway untill Kongsberg, then 2+1 untill Notodden, but after the standard of southern section of E39 was switched to motorway i would not be surpriced by such a twist, however there is some politics getting in the way of the Haukeli - Bergen shortcut.

__________________
I want to see some construction!

berlinwroclaw, Mathias Olsen liked this post
Ingenioren no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 23rd, 2016, 10:13 AM   #3917
berlinwroclaw
Kamienna
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 139
Likes (Received): 46

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingenioren View Post
but after the standard of southern section of E39 was switched to motorway i would not be surpriced by such a twist, however there is some politics getting in the way of the Haukeli - Bergen shortcut.
Some politics getting in the way may indeed be a showstopper for motorway sections in near future. However, when E134 Haukeli will get enough momentum from ex-airline passengers and cargo from trains, the traffic flow will increase more and more year after years because of the huge traffic potential. That will make finally possible upgrades to motorway standard before 2040.
__________________
Have a safe trip!
berlinwroclaw no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 23rd, 2016, 10:35 AM   #3918
Heico-M
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Flensburg, DE
Posts: 290
Likes (Received): 115

I think that moving goods transport from rail to road is not a realistic scenario, is it? Quite on the contrary, more and more goods have to be transported by rail. In case of Bergen and Stavanger, railways are existing.

I don't believe either, that air traffic will be moved to road traffic. Taking into account, that all mobility in Norway is supposed to be Emission-free, i.e. electric, it will in 2040 be more comfortable to go by e-plane from Bergen to Oslo than by e-car.

Speking of e-mobility: I am looking forward to see the e-Hurtigruten one day.
Heico-M no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 23rd, 2016, 12:47 PM   #3919
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

Electric airplanes will not be feasible in the foreseeable future due to the battery weight. Hydrogen is better, but the efficiency is very low.

At least Norway is capable of constructing tourist roads:
__________________
Norway needs a new transport infrastructure network, let's start now!

berlinwroclaw, Mathias Olsen liked this post
54°26′S 3°24′E no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 23rd, 2016, 04:12 PM   #3920
Heico-M
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Flensburg, DE
Posts: 290
Likes (Received): 115

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
At least Norway is capable of constructing tourist roads:
Being a Norway tourist, I appreciate that very much.

Last edited by Heico-M; June 23rd, 2016 at 04:38 PM.
Heico-M 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