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

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

Highways & Autobahns All about automobility



Global Announcement

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old August 10th, 2016, 10:03 PM   #4161
ElviS77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 564
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
Interesting thoughts. When I visited Norway, I noticed the large volume of old cars, you can easily spot the pre-2006 license plate format. Also outside the larger urban areas, large pickup trucks and SUVs seemed more common than EL-plated cars.

Electric cars are more environmentally sound in Norway than many other places, given that all electricity is produced through renewable energy. Though the success of the electric car is virtually entirely due to tax incentives, almost nowhere is the market so distorted as in Norway.
For many Norwegians, myself included, a ten-year-old car isn't particularly old. Of course, since cars are expensive even considering our wages, we tend to maintain them reasonably well, and getting a "good" used car with a meticulous service record isn't that hard. Still expensive, though, I thought I got an OK deal when I bought my 2004 S60 (yes, even I'm driving a Volvo these days...) for 145,000 NOK three years ago. However, we're talking more than 15,000 Euros, and even though it hasn't put a foot wrong, "cheap" is not a word I would use. My reasoning was that I needed a new car, and when I wanted something decent to drive long distances, that money for 180 hp, all-leather interior, excellent seats, climate control, towbar, quality stereo etc was reasonable. I almost wouldn't even get a brand new car for that. Again, acceptable power and driveability are more important to me than to most...

Of course, electric cars make more sense in Norway than most places, and they are spectacular in terms of local pollution. However, battery technology is far from sorted - not exactly environmentally friendly when it comes to production, and there's still the nagging charging issue (albeit gradual improvements are made). We will probably see some kind of propulsion revolution (hydrogen, electric, who knows...) in the near or distant future, in the mean time, a variation of solutions is the way forward, I believe. No matter where we'll end, though, the best way forward is to give people the right incentives. And they are rarely if ever exactly the ones politicians think they are...
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old August 10th, 2016, 10:08 PM   #4162
ElviS77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 564
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattiG View Post
A tunnel forbidden to cyclist is not uncommon in Norway. The https://www.vegvesen.no/vegkart/vegkart shows 1166 tunnels. 413 of those are forbidden to cyclist. In addition, there are 118 tunnels having no data.
And even in many of those where cycling is not explicitly banned, it's debatable whether it's very sensible to take your bike...
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 10th, 2016, 10:15 PM   #4163
54°26′S 3°24′E
Registered User
 
54°26′S 3°24′E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 817
Likes (Received): 155

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathias Olsen View Post
This new upgrade on E6 with grade separated 2+1, E6 section saves 11 minutes. Together with other upgrades Lillehammer-Otta and the upcoming upgrade to motorway of Kolomoen-Lillehammer (saves 12 minutes), the E6 may become faster than Rv 3. After the upgrades the E6 will at least be safer because of longer sections with a central barrier and grade separated road.
No. The difference in length between the main alternatives is about 40 km (there are shortcuts in terms of distance with lower road standards for both routes). With regards to driving time, the difference is about 40 minutes according to Google maps tonight , which is likely to be higher during daytime / periods with higher traffic. This is true despite the long section with roadworks on Rv 3,which has made me choose the even shorter alternative via Rendalen (fv 30) lately. In addition, E6 has much larger elevation differences than Rv 3, which is highly undesirable for trucks, and there are also fewer places where it is possible to pass, and higher number of speed cameras. As noted above, there are not many (mostly locals) that strictly follows the speed limit on Rv 3. Hence it is no wonder that Rv 3 is the most popular (and increasingly so) alternative of the two routes, and rv 3 is the completely dominating alternative among the professionals.

Although the long due improvements on E6 are positive, it should be remembered that also Rv 3 is gradually improved. In terms of travel time the next big improvement will be the motorway developments south-west of Elverum. Now also talks have started regarding a tunnel through Lonåsen (highest point), which may save even more time.

Of course, I think the whole Rv 3 should be expanded to a motorway, cutting nominal travel time by at least 30%....
__________________

Last edited by 54°26′S 3°24′E; August 10th, 2016 at 10:21 PM.
54°26′S 3°24′E no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 10th, 2016, 10:36 PM   #4164
ElviS77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 564
Likes (Received): 54



The rv 3 is undoubtably faster and will remain so even with motorway and expressway standard on the E6 to Otta (the only reason I didn't do Rendalen last week was that I forgot about the road works going north and was concerned about my cargo coming back down again...). However, the E6 will become a more viable alternative when it's slightly shortened and made far safer and quicker. Not so much for HGVs, though, because as you mention, the Dovre plateau remains, and that's not going to go anywhere anytime soon...
__________________

Mathias Olsen, coolstuff liked this post
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 11th, 2016, 02:46 AM   #4165
metasmurf
Registered User
 
metasmurf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Umeå, Sweden
Posts: 374
Likes (Received): 555

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
No. The difference in length between the main alternatives is about 40 km (there are shortcuts in terms of distance with lower road standards for both routes). With regards to driving time, the difference is about 40 minutes according to Google maps tonight , which is likely to be higher during daytime / periods with higher traffic. This is true despite the long section with roadworks on Rv 3,which has made me choose the even shorter alternative via Rendalen (fv 30) lately. In addition, E6 has much larger elevation differences than Rv 3, which is highly undesirable for trucks, and there are also fewer places where it is possible to pass, and higher number of speed cameras. As noted above, there are not many (mostly locals) that strictly follows the speed limit on Rv 3. Hence it is no wonder that Rv 3 is the most popular (and increasingly so) alternative of the two routes, and rv 3 is the completely dominating alternative among the professionals.

Although the long due improvements on E6 are positive, it should be remembered that also Rv 3 is gradually improved. In terms of travel time the next big improvement will be the motorway developments south-west of Elverum. Now also talks have started regarding a tunnel through Lonåsen (highest point), which may save even more time.

But hey, if a project like Ryfast got approved there's always hope

But hey, if a project like Ryfast could make it there's always hope

Of course, I think the whole Rv 3 should be expanded to a motorway, cutting nominal travel time by at least 30%....
Motorway? Really?

I found these numbers from 2011.



Source: http://www.vegvesen.no/_attachment/263393/binary/467328

Even if we assume 500 more vehicles per day have been added since 2011, and let's assume 500 additional vehicles who will choose RV 3 to avoid tolls on the new E6 in Gudbrandsdalen you still don't even get numbers justifying building anything with midtrekkverk north of Rena according to Vegvesenets guidlines for roadstandards.

A slightly more realistic approach would be building a divided 2+1 without grade separated intersections, like E4 in north Sweden where some sections have as low as 4000 AADT. This would work very well in Österdalen where the population density is similar (or lower), thus building grade separated intersections there would be a waste of money . However, E4 in north Sweden already had 13m wide sections where you basically could just re-paint the road and put up a barrier.

Taking numbers from a widening project on E4 the cost of widening a stretch of 9km from 9m to 14m is 133 million SEK. With that in mind, the price of widening the ~230km from Ulbserg to Rena would be pretty significant. Making calculations where that would make sense economically would be a challenge, but way easier than justifying a motorway.
__________________

Mathias Olsen liked this post
metasmurf no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 11th, 2016, 11:54 AM   #4166
Mathias Olsen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 125
Likes (Received): 149

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
Of course, I think the whole Rv 3 should be expanded to a motorway, cutting nominal travel time by at least 30%....
Yes, Trondheim and the whole North should require Rv 3 as the main road from Oslo to Trondheim, which means that all motorway upgrades should be on Rv 3 and not on E6.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
However, the E6 will become a more viable alternative when it's slightly shortened and made far safer and quicker. Not so much for HGVs, though, because as you mention, the Dovre plateau remains, and that's not going to go anywhere anytime soon...
Indeed, what we see is an upgrade from year to year on E6. Will it really end at Otta? Truck road traffic to Dombås is almost the same as to Otta, see: http://www.vegvesen.no/_attachment/263393/binary/467328 (thanks to metasmurf). So it is not impossible that E6 will be improved till Dombås, serving Alesund and Molde. It is also likely there will be a motorway Trondheim-Ulsberg within a decade, serving both E6 and Rv 3. But then we have on the E6 only a missing motorway link of 80 km. A temptation to close this link and not to upgrade complete Rv 3 for a much higher budget.
__________________

berlinwroclaw, coolstuff liked this post
Mathias Olsen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 11th, 2016, 03:42 PM   #4167
MattiG
Registered User
 
MattiG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Espoo FI
Posts: 1,803
Likes (Received): 616

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
And even in many of those where cycling is not explicitly banned, it's debatable whether it's very sensible to take your bike...
Agree. For example, some on the tunnels on E69 to Nordkapp are pretty frightening to even passenger cars drivers. Narrow, without shoulders and shelter space, not very well illuminated. But permitted to cyclists.
MattiG no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 11th, 2016, 08:00 PM   #4168
54°26′S 3°24′E
Registered User
 
54°26′S 3°24′E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 817
Likes (Received): 155

Quote:
Originally Posted by metasmurf View Post
Motorway? Really?

I found these numbers from 2011.



Source: http://www.vegvesen.no/_attachment/263393/binary/467328

Even if we assume 500 more vehicles per day have been added since 2011, and let's assume 500 additional vehicles who will choose RV 3 to avoid tolls on the new E6 in Gudbrandsdalen you still don't even get numbers justifying building anything with midtrekkverk north of Rena according to Vegvesenets guidlines for roadstandards.

A slightly more realistic approach would be building a divided 2+1 without grade separated intersections, like E4 in north Sweden where some sections have as low as 4000 AADT. This would work very well in Österdalen where the population density is similar (or lower), thus building grade separated intersections there would be a waste of money . However, E4 in north Sweden already had 13m wide sections where you basically could just re-paint the road and put up a barrier.

Taking numbers from a widening project on E4 the cost of widening a stretch of 9km from 9m to 14m is 133 million SEK. With that in mind, the price of widening the ~230km from Ulbserg to Rena would be pretty significant. Making calculations where that would make sense economically would be a challenge, but way easier than justifying a motorway.
I wrote nothing about Ryfast ;-)

Closer to the real topic:
I strongly disagree with you. The traffic increase would be far higher than 500 cars if a motorway is built. Most of the traffic across E6-Dovre will probably be transferred (currently close to 2000 AADT), in addition a significant part of the air traffic (5 500 Pax per day) and rail traffic will be transferred. In addition some additional traffic most likely will be generated due to drastically shortened travel time. To me, 7000 in total AADT at the least trafficated sections sounds like a conservative estimate, even if general traffic growth is not taken into account. However, this topic has been discussed here time and again for many years now, and I do not feel like opening that can of worms tonight more than I already have. If you really feel like it, you can revisit the 8 year old discussion over multiple pages on this topic. Nothing has substantially changed since then except that the traffic has increased:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showth...3#post24700306

Updated traffic numbers can btw be found here:
https://www.vegvesen.no/vegkart/vegkart/

With regards to the cost, by using the Swedish numbers the total cost for widening to 14 m will be 133*230/9=3 300 millions. If this scales to Norwegian narrow motorway width (20 m) and taking into account that Rv3 still is somewhat narrower than 9 m, the cost will be 133*230/9*(20-8)/(14-9) MSEK=8.2 BSEK. I actually think that is a small cost for such a huge improvement in national infrastructure. Of course, with a motorway, the alignment may have to be improved which will add costs, but on long sections geometry is already pretty decent on Rv 3. The number of intersections and additional local roads needed is also low due the moderate population density. On the other hand, the cost for the widening itself is likely to scale less than proportionally to the width.

However, that some of us think that a Norwegian national motorway network would be a good idea does not make it happen tomorrow....


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathias Olsen View Post
Yes, Trondheim and the whole North should require Rv 3 as the main road from Oslo to Trondheim, which means that all motorway upgrades should be on Rv 3 and not on E6.



Indeed, what we see is an upgrade from year to year on E6. Will it really end at Otta? Truck road traffic to Dombås is almost the same as to Otta, see: http://www.vegvesen.no/_attachment/263393/binary/467328 (thanks to metasmurf). So it is not impossible that E6 will be improved till Dombås, serving Alesund and Molde. It is also likely there will be a motorway Trondheim-Ulsberg within a decade, serving both E6 and Rv 3. But then we have on the E6 only a missing motorway link of 80 km. A temptation to close this link and not to upgrade complete Rv 3 for a much higher budget.
No motorway is planned to Dombås AFAIK (not yet Trondheim-Ulsberg, either, unfortunately, only 2+1 separated road from Støren-Ulsberg). The Dovre Plateau is not a good alternative for a motorway as it is weather exposed, and as already mentioned has steep and long hills in both ends. IN addition, it is an environmental sensitive area with wild reindeer. Eliminating these issues will require a very expensive tunnel. Hence it makes much more sense to close the 225-230 km gap (depending on routes) rather than the 110 km Dombås/Ulsberg gap, when and if motorways are built to either Dombås or Rena from the south. And as discussed, the total travel time Trondheim-Oslo is shorter if the detour to Dombås is avoided.
__________________
Norway needs a new transport infrastructure network, let's start now!

berlinwroclaw liked this post
54°26′S 3°24′E no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 11th, 2016, 10:18 PM   #4169
ElviS77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 564
Likes (Received): 54



Quite interesting to reread what we stated all those years ago, actually, and even more interesting to see the predictions I was right about (not so much fun to see the many more which haven't become reality, though...). I'm certainly not revisiting those days, but my main point still stands: we need and will see improvements along both corridors, but any full-profile Oslo-Trondheim motorway is highly unlikely - even far into the future. The more important thing, in my book, is how good and how much improvement we will actually see...

There's nothing wrong with the current widening of the rv 3, apart from the fact that it'll put real improvement (both in terms of travel speed and safety) even further into the future. If they'd gone for a 1+1/2+1 solution, I'd be cheering all the way to Alvdal, but - as I suggested a few days ago - the current program only invites speeding on a still not very safe road. An AADT of less than 3000 isn't that high, certainly not to foreigners, but when HGVs make up 20% of the traffic, it's a slightly different story. But that's what we're going to get, I'm afraid...

Those of you who time-traveled back to 2008 will have noticed my scepticism for some Swedish non-expressway divided roads. You may ask yourselves, then, why I support similar on-the-cheap solutions along current alignments in Norway... The main reason is that even if I was and still am sceptical to busy (AADT 10000+) roads with a relatively high number of intersections, I approve of and applaud them in more rural scenarios. I still question farming and forestry exits, though, and major intersections do require lowered speed limits - or roundabouts.

To sum up, I still fear we'll see gradual improvements along most main roads in Norway. In most places, that kind of development makes sense, at least if we speed it up, but along the most important corridors, that, too, is counterproductive and leads to less safe and efficient roads...
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 12th, 2016, 12:48 AM   #4170
italystf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,457
Likes (Received): 2185

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattiG View Post
Agree. For example, some on the tunnels on E69 to Nordkapp are pretty frightening to even passenger cars drivers. Narrow, without shoulders and shelter space, not very well illuminated. But permitted to cyclists.
I don't think that AADT on E69 is so high, if compared to main roads in the South, like Oslo-Trondheim, Oslo-Bergen, Oslo-Stavanger, Oslo-Alesund, etc...
__________________
“The transponder’s personalised signal would be picked up when the car passed through an intersection, and then relayed to a central computer which would calculate the charge according to the intersection and the time of day and add it to the car’s bill” - Nobel Economics Prize winner William Vickrey, proposing a system of electronic tolling for the Washington metropolitan area, 1959
In real life, electronic toll collection was first introduced in Bergen, Norway in 1986, and well into the 21th century many countries still struggle to implement it.
italystf no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 12th, 2016, 06:29 AM   #4171
metasmurf
Registered User
 
metasmurf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Umeå, Sweden
Posts: 374
Likes (Received): 555

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
Closer to the real topic:
I strongly disagree with you. The traffic increase would be far higher than 500 cars if a motorway is built. Most of the traffic across E6-Dovre will probably be transferred (currently close to 2000 AADT)
Most trucks Trondheim - Oslo already drive on RV3 and probably most cars as well. So, since a majority of the traffic has already moved over from E6, making the assumption that most of the 2000 AADT from E6 can be added to RV 3 is invalid. Traffic on E6 Dovrefjell have other destinations than just Trondheim - Oslo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
, in addition a significant part of the air traffic (5 500 Pax per day) and rail traffic will be transferred. In addition some additional traffic most likely will be generated due to drastically shortened travel time. To me, 7000 in total AADT at the least trafficated sections sounds like a conservative estimate, even if general traffic growth is not taken into account. However, this topic has been discussed here time and again for many years now, and I do not feel like opening that can of worms tonight more than I already have. If you really feel like it, you can revisit the 8 year old discussion over multiple pages on this topic. Nothing has substantially changed since then except that the traffic has increased:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showth...3#post24700306
Let's compare Stockholm - Gothenburg with Oslo - Trondheim

Population city / region

Stockholm 1 372 565 / 2 239 217

Gothenburg 549 789 / 984 761

-------------------------------------

Oslo 958 378 / 1 442 318

Trondheim 187 353 / 279 234

--------------------------------------

Driving distance

Stockholm - Gothenburg E4/RV40 469km
Oslo - Trondheim RV3 494km

---------------------------------------

Out of the 469km on E4/RV40, 429km have motorway standard. The remaining 40km stretch is a divided 2+1 with 100km/h. According to Google Maps, it takes 4h 47min (4h 23min with no traffic) to drive the whole stretch.



Source: http://www.trafikverket.se/contentas...tighetstag.pdf

This shows a couple of things.

- Most importantly, only 4400 people travel by car between the two cities even though the majority of the road has motorway standard. Between Oslo - Trondheim the numbers would obviously be lower, probably less than half.

- Even when the travel time for trains between the cities is only 3:30 and the road is almost entirely motorway , air travel still has a significant market share.

- Another factor is that outside of the congestion charge fees, (the amount varies depending on the time of the day, but 57 SEK is the sum of the highest fees in both cities combined), there are no additional fees. E6 on both ends of RV3 is a different story. Already today the toll fees driving E6/RV3/E6 add up to 178 NOK, and once the projects E6 Melhus - Ulsberg and Rv. 3 /rv. 25 Løten–Elverum gets finished the situation will get even worse.

I found this in the KS2 report for Ryfast. A KS2 report is made for all road projects over 750 million NOK in Norway by independent consultants before getting passed in Stortinget. Basically the report said Ryfast should not be built, but somehow (corruption?) it got the go ahead from Stortinget. The main argument for not building Ryfast in the report was the high toll fees needed for the project to be economically sustainable.



Source: http://docplayer.me/14286227-Ks2-end...en-pakken.html

With that in mind, the scope for adding additional tolls on Rv3 to finance a motorway I would assume to be pretty much non-existent. Additional tolls would logically push even more people towards flying, or not making the trip at all. 100% state funding is extremely unlikely, given how unprofitable this project would be.

I could also make arguments for what a waste of money it would be to build a motorway through Østerdalen with a population of 50 906 but that's enough for one post.
__________________

ElviS77, riiga liked this post

Last edited by metasmurf; August 13th, 2016 at 02:31 AM. Reason: Changed what was poined out by Nikolaj
metasmurf no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 12th, 2016, 10:39 AM   #4172
Nikolaj
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 288
Likes (Received): 77

Just a small comment to the table on various travel modes between Gothenburg and Stockholm. I guess the number of cars travelling from Gothenburg to Stockholm is even smaller than you indicate. The table talks of 4400"resor" a day, which you translate into 4400 cars a day. That is not correct since you probably will find an average of 1,3-1,4 passenger per car, and maybe even higher on such a long distance trip. A more correct number of cars, when you have 4400 resor/trips per day by car is probably around 3000 cars/day. But it only underlines you point of relatively few cars between 2 relatively big cities, when you have a distance of 400-500 km.
__________________

metasmurf, Mathias Olsen, ElviS77 liked this post
Nikolaj no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 12th, 2016, 11:20 AM   #4173
berlinwroclaw
Kamienna
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 139
Likes (Received): 46

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
However, that some of us think that a Norwegian national motorway network would be a good idea does not make it happen tomorrow....
Therefore it is good to see that a motorway Kolomoen-Elverum is in the current National Transport Plan and also some upgrades south of Trondheim. However it is sad there are no online studies, websites, blog who promote a motorway Trondheim-Oslo. For an East-West motorway or something close to that, dozens of such resources are online.

Best hope will be plans for as many 2+1 grade separated by-passes of villages and towns on Rv 3 and then finally complete a full 2+1 road. When traffic increases finally an upgrade to motorway will be possible.

When Norway comes closer to 2040, the end of the oil times, the need will grow for fast import and export roads, they may abandon toll to compete with other European countries.
__________________
Have a safe trip!
berlinwroclaw no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 12th, 2016, 11:35 AM   #4174
metasmurf
Registered User
 
metasmurf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Umeå, Sweden
Posts: 374
Likes (Received): 555

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikolaj View Post
Just a small comment to the table on various travel modes between Gothenburg and Stockholm. I guess the number of cars travelling from Gothenburg to Stockholm is even smaller than you indicate. The table talks of 4400"resor" a day, which you translate into 4400 cars a day. That is not correct since you probably will find an average of 1,3-1,4 passenger per car, and maybe even higher on such a long distance trip. A more correct number of cars, when you have 4400 resor/trips per day by car is probably around 3000 cars/day. But it only underlines you point of relatively few cars between 2 relatively big cities, when you have a distance of 400-500 km.
Yeah you're right, thanks for pointing this out. Was too early in the morning when I wrote the post
__________________

Nikolaj liked this post
metasmurf no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 12th, 2016, 12:40 PM   #4175
coolstuff
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 38
Likes (Received): 46

When the Ministry of Transport is not willing to speed up motorway construction on Rv 3, we have to look for other sponsors, such as the Ministry of Defense. Norway is the military superpower within the Nordic, because it has F35 stealth fighters. When Rv 3 sections close to the Swedish border will become a motorway with removable barriers, it will be ideal landing strips for the F35’s to protect our Nordic neighbors.



Of course the new Rv 3 motorway sections will be sponsored by the Ministry of Defense and that will help to fill the motorway gap Rv 3 Trondheim-Oslo.
coolstuff no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 12th, 2016, 01:56 PM   #4176
MattiG
Registered User
 
MattiG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Espoo FI
Posts: 1,803
Likes (Received): 616

Quote:
Originally Posted by italystf View Post
I don't think that AADT on E69 is so high, if compared to main roads in the South, like Oslo-Trondheim, Oslo-Bergen, Oslo-Stavanger, Oslo-Alesund, etc...
AADT of 3 is enough to make trouble if two trucks happen to meet at the same spot as the poor cyclist is.

AADT in general has less to do with the tunnel safe for cyclists. The quality of air is the key issue. At the lowest point of the submarine tunnels at the depth of 200+ metres, the Carbon Monoxide concentration may turn harmful for cyclists.
MattiG no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 12th, 2016, 02:31 PM   #4177
italystf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,457
Likes (Received): 2185

So a future motorway Oslo-Trondheim will follow Rv3 instead of E6?
At this point, why not to realign E6 along the current Rv3, that is 40km shorter?
__________________
“The transponder’s personalised signal would be picked up when the car passed through an intersection, and then relayed to a central computer which would calculate the charge according to the intersection and the time of day and add it to the car’s bill” - Nobel Economics Prize winner William Vickrey, proposing a system of electronic tolling for the Washington metropolitan area, 1959
In real life, electronic toll collection was first introduced in Bergen, Norway in 1986, and well into the 21th century many countries still struggle to implement it.
italystf no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 12th, 2016, 03:03 PM   #4178
Mathias Olsen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 125
Likes (Received): 149

Quote:
Originally Posted by italystf View Post
So a future motorway Oslo-Trondheim will follow Rv3 instead of E6?

True. When the E6 motorway will go over Dombås and Driva, it has to pass a 71 km plateau at an altitude of 1000 m. Constructing a motorway at 1000 m is considered in Norway as not a best practice, because you cannot guarantee snowfree pass and the trucks have to climb 800 m, an environmental burden. On the steep roads you will be confronted with very slow moving trucks, a safety risk. A tunnel will cost 20+ billion. Consider that Rv 3 will be 40 km shorter from Ulsberg to Kolomoen, and the choice for your favorite motorway upgrade is an easy one: Rv 3.

Quote:
Originally Posted by italystf View Post
At this point, why not to realign E6 along the current Rv3, that is 40km shorter?
Realigning E6 is very, very difficult in Norway. Even the E-numbers organization wasn't able to force Norway to change the E6 number, because it is so deep rooted in Norwegian culture. Maybe Rv 3 will get a new E-number?

Last edited by Mathias Olsen; August 13th, 2016 at 11:13 AM.
Mathias Olsen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 12th, 2016, 03:15 PM   #4179
Mathias Olsen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 125
Likes (Received): 149

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikolaj View Post
Just a small comment to the table on various travel modes between Gothenburg and Stockholm. I guess the number of cars travelling from Gothenburg to Stockholm is even smaller than you indicate. The table talks of 4400"resor" a day, which you translate into 4400 cars a day. That is not correct since you probably will find an average of 1,3-1,4 passenger per car, and maybe even higher on such a long distance trip. A more correct number of cars, when you have 4400 resor/trips per day by car is probably around 3000 cars/day. But it only underlines you point of relatively few cars between 2 relatively big cities, when you have a distance of 400-500 km.
Thanks for this sharp analysis. It will feed hope to all in Norway who are looking forward for improved fast and safe roads. Sweden is an important example. On the already approved new E39 motorway Sandnes-Lyngdal the traffic prediction was 6000-8000 AADT, a minimum record. Your Swedish example opens new perspectives
Mathias Olsen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 12th, 2016, 06:39 PM   #4180
OulaL
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Jämsä
Posts: 641
Likes (Received): 121

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattiG View Post
Agree. For example, some on the tunnels on E69 to Nordkapp are pretty frightening to even passenger cars drivers. Narrow, without shoulders and shelter space, not very well illuminated. But permitted to cyclists.
I assume there is some kind of a philosophy that any given address (with motorway service areas possibly excluded) must be within reach by any given vehicle class; so banning bicycles would require introduction of a ferry service. The demand is probably so small that simply allowing bicycles in the tunnel and assuming they are aware of the risks (and probably forget the idea in the first place) is the least troublesome solution.

Not sure whether that philosophy works in other parts of the country, though.
__________________
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


Reply

Tags
norway

Thread Tools

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

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

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 01:47 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