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 July 14th, 2016, 08:13 PM   #4001
metasmurf
Registered User
 
metasmurf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Umeå, Sweden
Posts: 374
Likes (Received): 555

Quote:
Originally Posted by berlinwroclaw View Post
Photo is great and the view is very nice. However for a foreign tourist there are more awesome mountain areas in the Alps, easier to reach by motorway and much better affordable.
The unique tourist attraction is not high mountains with snow, but fjords, silent areas and the relaxed and high developed culture.
Another thing is that most tourists have a wife and kids, and they not always want to follow steep hills and long distance narrow roads.
To improve this, some infrastructure is necessary, including motorways in the direction of Trondheim, Haukeli (E134), and some additional improvements: better infrastructure to the fjords, especially Geiranger and Sognefjorden.
You overestimate the amount of long distance traffic in Norway. Let's break it down.

Here's the AADT on E4 in Sweden around Hudiksvall. It's the main road between north Sweden and the Stockholm area. It's the best alternative by far on this stretch, and the road standard is divided 2+1/2+2.



So between 7-10K AADT

Now, let's look at a population density map.



The E4 stretch, with higher population density, more local traffic and more long distance than most of the majority of the Oslo - Bergen stretch outside the cities urban regions has 7-10K AADT. So, what kind of traffic do you expect on a long distance motorway stretch running in mountains and wilderness with a population density of less than one to 3 people per km2?

Thus, an Oslo - Bergen motorway is just unrealistic. A good quality, winter safe 2-lane road on the shortest alternative between the cities should be more than enough, with 2+1/motorway closer to Bergen/Oslo.
__________________

riiga, ElviS77, Gsus liked this post
metasmurf no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old July 14th, 2016, 09:01 PM   #4002
berlinwroclaw
Kamienna
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 139
Likes (Received): 46

Quote:
Originally Posted by metasmurf View Post
You overestimate the amount of long distance traffic in Norway.
The feasibility study of E134 motorway Bergen-Olso has been discussed earlier:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpo...postcount=3941

Note that Olso has 1.8 M and Bergen-Stavanger 0.8 M+ inhabitants. This map will tackle all your arguments:

__________________
Have a safe trip!
berlinwroclaw no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 14th, 2016, 09:10 PM   #4003
berlinwroclaw
Kamienna
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 139
Likes (Received): 46

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
The Alps are not that affordable. For example many mountain roads in Austria charge hefty fees, the Großglockner Hochalpenstraße in Austria will cost you € 35 to drive. The Silvretta-Hochalpenstraße costs € 15 and Timmelsjoch € 16.
True. I don't want to downplay Norway here, -I 've a special place in my heart for Norway- but most mountain tourists prefer the north side of the Alps, including Chamonix (F), Interlaken (CH) and Innsbruck (A). You don't need to pay those high fees and you have superior mountain overview with fast and easy motorway connection. When you go for low-buget e.g. Zakopane (PL) can be interesting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
People go to Norway with a different tourist-mindset than those going to Italy or France. Tourists driving to Norway tend to move around from place to place, as opposed to people staying 2-3 weeks in a mobile home on the Riviera or Dordogne. Then the lack of motorways isn't much of a problem for tourists. In fact, it's an asset, you'll see much more when driving on two-lane roads, the tunnels already deprive motorists of some of the view.

So the lack of motorways shouldn't be a concern for tourist purposes. In Norway, travelling is part of the tourist experience, as opposed to France or Italy where travel is just a way to get to your destination as fast as possible.
True and I agree with you that Norway has many challenging mountain roads But Norway wants also to attract those people who want to stay a few weeks in a hotel or mobile home, because it generates income to the economy. An argument that will be come more and more important when the oil is over in 2015.
__________________
Have a safe trip!

Last edited by berlinwroclaw; July 14th, 2016 at 09:20 PM.
berlinwroclaw no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 14th, 2016, 09:59 PM   #4004
Rob73
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 558
Likes (Received): 175

Quote:
Originally Posted by devo View Post
If you're not on a priority road you must yield to the right. Now most roads also have a name, so you're sure that it's a proper road. (I.e., you don't have to yield to an access road coming from a field.)
It's one of the more ridiculous road rules which confuses many people, even locals, it's also an impediment to smooth traffic flow, it should be stopped.
Rob73 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 14th, 2016, 10:27 PM   #4005
OulaL
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Jämsä
Posts: 635
Likes (Received): 121

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob73 View Post
It's one of the more ridiculous road rules which confuses many people, even locals, it's also an impediment to smooth traffic flow, it should be stopped.
Why so? Then who should have priority, if not the one coming from the right?

Of course the answer is often "the one on the road with priority", but here we are discussing roads that are not ones with priority in the first place.
__________________
Countries visited, driven in, (not independent), former:
A B CH CZ D DK E EST F FIN GB (+GBZ) GR H I L LT LV MAL MC N NL PL RUS S SGP SK SLO T TR YU
OulaL no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 14th, 2016, 10:33 PM   #4006
metasmurf
Registered User
 
metasmurf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Umeå, Sweden
Posts: 374
Likes (Received): 555

Quote:
Originally Posted by berlinwroclaw View Post
The feasibility study of E134 motorway Bergen-Olso has been discussed earlier:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpo...postcount=3941

Note that Olso has 1.8 M and Bergen-Stavanger 0.8 M+ inhabitants. This map will tackle all your arguments:

I see little value in information from political organisations such as Hordalandsdiagonalen headed by local politicians along the proposed stretch.

In reality, when you read the investigation from Statens Vegvesen:



8000 AADT in 2050 on E134 over Haukeli with the arm built to Bergen via Odda. Such an AADT on a 2-lane road is nothing extraordinary, especially since long distance traffic is more spread out during the day. The 2-lane alternative would cost 37 billion NOK. What a motorway, requiring more tunnels, more space and vastly more ground work due to motorways having lower curve radius and less steep slopes would cost? A hell of a lot more.

I can think of a lot of road projects in Norway that would make more sense than building a motorway over a mountain plateau for 8000 AADT in 35 years, that's for sure.
__________________

riiga, Gsus liked this post
metasmurf no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 14th, 2016, 10:37 PM   #4007
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,572
Likes (Received): 19366

A six-fold increase of traffic also seems to be quite high. Especially because such a growth could not be generated regionally, as there is low population density, it would all have to come from long-distance traffic.
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2016, 12:58 AM   #4008
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

As the numbers from SVV clearly shows, though, there is also considerable transfer from competing routes, and hence not all traffic is "generated". With a motorway, we also might expect transfer from other means of travel. Generally, the same arguments apply for eg. Trondheim - Oslo.

But no, the mountain crossings of Norway are not going to be clogged in the foreseeable future, but increasing the speed of travel from the current ~60-70 to say 120 kn/h on the main national routes would nevertheless have large positive economic benefits. Notice also that AADT is not everything. The transit links typically have a much higher share of heavy vehicle traffic than roads dominated by local traffic. Finally, four lanes make remote links far more robust for closures due to eg accidents involving trucks, as it will almost always be possible to keep one carriage way open. This is very important since alternative routes in remote areas often means hours of delay. On Norwegian winter roads, especially foreign trucks out of control is unfortunately rather common.

I agree that highly trafficated routes should be improved first, but we should have a national plan with clear and committed milestones for a national motorway network as soon as possible.

Last edited by 54°26′S 3°24′E; July 15th, 2016 at 01:08 AM.
54°26′S 3°24′E no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2016, 01:48 AM   #4009
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 OulaL View Post
Why so? Then who should have priority, if not the one coming from the right?

Of course the answer is often "the one on the road with priority", but here we are discussing roads that are not ones with priority in the first place.
Similar rules apply in most countries, AFAIK. The silliest version I have encountered was perhaps Australia. They drive on the left, but traffic coming from the right generally still has priority unless otherwise signed. To make matters even more confusing, they have a particular rule for T-junctions, where the through road has priority. Norway has been special regarding the high number of unregulated junction (ie low number of priority roads). The philosophy was, I believe, that this would make the drivers more alert. We are slowly migrating away from this, but too slow IMO, particular in urban areas where people often behave as if major roads have the right of way over minor roads even when this is not legally true.
54°26′S 3°24′E no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2016, 03:47 PM   #4010
Heico-M
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Flensburg, DE
Posts: 290
Likes (Received): 115

In my view, the pro-motorway arguments are a bit from the wish list. Almost pathetic.

But we can agree on the following: Although not economically sensible, it would be sexy to have it.

And here is where politics starts. Politics is about making decisions, it can also be deciding to want something, even if it is not sensible by itself. If the people and the politics in Norway decide to want the motorway, they will have, if not, they won't.

If yes, you have to convince the people in the north why they should pay taxes for a motorway, they are never going to use.

You can do like the Danish do. Politicians from Nordjylland gave their Yes to build Storebæltsbroen under the condition that Nordjyske motorvej will be built.
Heico-M no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2016, 08:36 PM   #4011
devo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 221
Likes (Received): 41

Some reasons for the motorway-dreams is the fact that many of the tunnels on a east-west connected should be constructed as twin tunnels, either with a smaller, secondary emergency tube or a full standard tube. This is due to the fact that if or when the traffic excedes 8000 AADT a second tube should be constructed. And even below this I believe there is some pressure from EU for building an emergency tube?

So, given the fact that the tunnels are the most expensive part of the road (both to build and maintain); if the difference in price is low, why not build a proper road?

In my view, this stretch can be compared to the M 62 in England. Obviously almost no-one lives in the middle but at each end there are big cities.

Also, Norway has a ridiculous amount of inland air traffic (Oslo-Bergen), which could be done by planet-friendly electric vehicles charged from hydro-power. Or a high-speed rail. But we need either IMHO.
__________________

berlinwroclaw, Mathias Olsen, Bjørne liked this post
devo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2016, 09:58 PM   #4012
Ingenioren
Registered User
 
Ingenioren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oslo
Posts: 5,605
Likes (Received): 584

It's likely to be suggested long tunnels over 20km in length, they will have to be twin-tube.
__________________

berlinwroclaw, Mathias Olsen liked this post
Ingenioren no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2016, 10:21 PM   #4013
berlinwroclaw
Kamienna
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 139
Likes (Received): 46

Quote:
Originally Posted by metasmurf View Post
8000 AADT in 2050 on E134 over Haukeli with the arm built to Bergen via Odda. Such an AADT on a 2-lane road is nothing extraordinary
- There are examples in Europe with an AADT of much less than that.
For example S1(S69) Katowice - D3 Zilnia. At the Polish-Slovak border at Zwardon it has an AADT of less than 1000. A motorway Katowice- Zilnia is under construction, although border area with mountains will be half-profile 1x2. There is a huge transport potential. The same with Bergen/Haugesund/Stavanger to Oslo on E134.

- AADT predictions for 34 years are always uncertain. It is not impossible the AADT will be 12000 in 2050.

- High AADT is not the only reason to construct a motorway.
Most important are the net social benefits. “net social benefits”: impact for the society minus costs. Net social benefits for a motorway Bergen-Oslo, with some half-profile sections areas are + 19 billion NOK.



- Safety is another argument to construct a motorway when AADT is below 12000.

- Motorway construction helps to stimulate economic activity.
Norway's west coast relies on oil now. Economic survival is needed in 2040 when the oil is over. The counties of Stavanger and Bergen will then have an estimated population of 1.2 million inhabitants an need fast export connections and easy road connections to invite more tourists.

As you can see it are rational considerations to use the state budget and to invest in high benefits for the complete country. The E134 motorway Bergen-Oslo will make Norway stronger.
__________________
Have a safe trip!

Mathias Olsen liked this post
berlinwroclaw no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2016, 10:38 PM   #4014
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,572
Likes (Received): 19366

Yes, but these arguments have been repeated time and time again
__________________

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

devo liked this post
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2016, 11:25 PM   #4015
Mathias Olsen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 125
Likes (Received): 149

E134 motorway Bergen-Oslo (380 km) has passed the discussion stage, since the government decision that the E134 will be the main road from East to West.
E18 x E134 Motorway interchange at Drammen.





The E134 has today already an AADT of 18000 at Drammen. Construction starts in 2019 to upgrade to full 4-lane motorway profile with a second tube Strømsåstunnelen (4 km). Planned to be completed in 2023.
Sections of the E134 motorway Bergen/Haugesund-Oslo are already planned by the government in the present Transport Plan. Transport Plan Map: Planned E134 4-lane motorway Drammen-Kongsberg (39 km).



That was BEFORE the government selected the E134 as main road from East of West. We may expect more 4-lane motorway sections. One section, the Kongsberg bypass, is already under construction and will be completed in 2019 with 8,5 km 4-lane motorway sections. It will save 30 minutes to pass Kongsberg in rush hours. There are studies for Notodden-Gvammen, the Rauland section and the Haukeli mountain sections.

__________________

berlinwroclaw liked this post
Mathias Olsen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 16th, 2016, 07:10 AM   #4016
Agent 006
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Oslo/Trondheim
Posts: 152
Likes (Received): 180

E39 Hordfast

Statens vegvesen has decided to recommend option B (green line in the map) as solution for the planned Stord-Os motorway. It's now up to the government to make a final decision. The last cost estimate is NOK 43 billions, up from NOK 39 billions earlier this year. One third of the costs (NOK 14,4 billions) is due to the planned Bjørnafjord bridge. The plan is 4 lanes all the way, and a speed limit of 110 km/h.

http://www.bt.no/nyheter/lokalt/Ny-k...tml?xtor=RSS-2

__________________

Last edited by Agent 006; July 16th, 2016 at 08:47 AM.
Agent 006 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 16th, 2016, 07:37 AM   #4017
MattiG
Registered User
 
MattiG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Espoo FI
Posts: 1,794
Likes (Received): 613

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingenioren View Post
It's likely to be suggested long tunnels over 20km in length, they will have to be twin-tube.
The EU tunnel directive (in effect in Norway, too) does not include such a statement.

Instead, if the 15-year forecast shows the AADT per lane exceeding 10000, twin tubes are mandatory regardless of the length.
__________________

devo liked this post
MattiG está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old July 16th, 2016, 11:04 AM   #4018
berlinwroclaw
Kamienna
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 139
Likes (Received): 46

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent 006 View Post
E39 Hordfast

Statens vegvesen has decided to recommend option B (green line in the map) as solution for the planned Stord-Os motorway. It's now up to the government to make a final decision. The last cost estimate is NOK 43 billions
I hope there will be approval. This project will be a showcase of innovation. But there will be also a high risk because of the long floating constructions in sea. When government has the guts to approve this 43 billion project (4.6 billion euro), there will be no excuse not to approve the new E134 for just 37 billion, a bargain and with more impact on society.
For the relation Bergen – Oslo, the connection via E39 and E18 is less relevant. It takes 4 hours extra compared with the new E134. For a driver Bergen-Kristiansand-Oslo it will cost more because of 2 more expensive toll passages for sea tunnels and bridges. The distance Bergen-Kristiansand-Oslo is 780 km, compared with 380 km for the new E134.

When the government doesn’t approve this 43 billion project, but should approve the motorway Bergen-Oslo with Haugesund-Odda motorway branch, there will be an alternative motorway Bergen-Stavanger via Odda and it will much cheaper, with less risks and higher social impact.

__________________
Have a safe trip!

Mathias Olsen, Agent 006 liked this post

Last edited by berlinwroclaw; July 16th, 2016 at 12:18 PM.
berlinwroclaw no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 16th, 2016, 10:48 PM   #4019
Mathias Olsen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 125
Likes (Received): 149

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingenioren View Post
It's likely to be suggested long tunnels over 20km in length, they will have to be twin-tube.
Indeed, twin-tube tunnels will be cheaper to construct than adding later another tube. Despite a more expensive estimate, the twin-tube option for a tunnel will be because it provides better safety and maintenance conditions. When it comes to safety, quality and the total life cycle costs, studies showed that life cycle costs were almost equal between a single, double track tube and twin tubes, even though the initial investment costs differ.
http://www.tunneltalk.com/Norway-Oct...e-selected.php



The costs of the E39 Bergen-Stavanger motorway are 57 billion (Rogfast costs 14 billion and Hordfast costs 43 billion). Therefore, a twin-tube Haukeli motorway tunnel cannot be considered as expensive, it will cost only 1/3 and will have greater impact for a greater area of Norway.
For the E134 tunnels, there is a proposal for a single tube Seljestad tunnel of 9,8 km and a single tube Haukeli tunnel of 23,7 km for 14 billion. The government has selected an alternative with instead of the Haukeli tunnel of 23,7 km, 3 shorter single tube tunnels for 7 billion. But this alternative will not ensure snow-free roads all winter. Hard to understand why the government should select the bad alternative.
The new E134 tunnels will also help to catalyze tourism in Haukeli and Hovden area.



For drivers who need more challenge and want to enjoy cool snow mountains in spring, here is a great and cool yt vid of the present Haukeli mountain road, enjoy:

__________________

Agent 006, devo, gr_kanev liked this post
Mathias Olsen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 18th, 2016, 12:46 AM   #4020
OulaL
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Jämsä
Posts: 635
Likes (Received): 121

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathias Olsen View Post
E18 x E134 Motorway interchange at Drammen.

This is not a motorway interchange, nor is it too easy to make one in this place. Arriving from the south (as the one taking this picture is) and after exiting E18, one needs to turn left through a roundabout in order to get to E134. Another tunnel begins right after that roundabout going below E18.

The flow from E18 north to E134 (which obviously is more important anyway) is a little more straightforward; even though that involves a turn of 360 degrees, in that direction the roundabout can be bypassed.
__________________
Countries visited, driven in, (not independent), former:
A B CH CZ D DK E EST F FIN GB (+GBZ) GR H I L LT LV MAL MC N NL PL RUS S SGP SK SLO T TR YU

devo liked this post
OulaL 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 07:46 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