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 13th, 2016, 11:06 AM   #4181
Mathias Olsen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 125
Likes (Received): 149

Quote:
Originally Posted by metasmurf View Post
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.
The KS2 report was external quality assurance, done by Holte Consulting and Vista Analysis commissioned by the Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Transport. The report is an advice to Stortinget, not a mandatory request. Stortinget has the right to overrule the advice. Of course they should have valid reasons. It may go a bit too far to call them corrupt when they don't follow the advice of the external quality assurance. Norway has a democratic system and Stortinget represents the choice of the people. One of the arguments to go for Ryfast was to stimulate tourism and to bring more variation in economy. IMO that are sensible arguments and I see no reason to distrust the process of decision making.

However, you still have a point as it is always good to be alert on egoistic behavior of decision makers. In case with the Rv 7 Hardanger bridge we cannot say that this is a masterpiece of good decision making. It smells to selfish behavior of local and national politicians. They preferred to support a road to their second house in the Hardanger area over regional responsibility, a good East-West road. This phenomenon has been analysed in Norwegian newspapers and they used words like "corrupt" or even stronger terms. It is still actual, because next month will be the decision between Rv 7 or Rv 52 as second East-West road. Rv 52 has superior arguments, but Rv 7 may have "powerful" politicians.
Mathias Olsen no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old August 14th, 2016, 03:43 PM   #4182
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%....
Motorway upgrade Kristiansand-Sandnes (188 km) costs 17.2 billion.
We may estimate the costs for a motorway upgrade Rv 3 Ulsberg-Kolomoen (287 km) to 26 billion.

A cheaper option will be a motorway upgrade Rv3 Ulsberg-Rv 3 Stugusjoen - Rv29-Rv27- E6 Ringebu- E6 Lillehammer (184 km), costs 17 billion. The Rv27-Rv29 option has a length Kolomoen-Ulsberg of 310 km, still more than the 295 km of Rv 3, but with a speed limit of 130 km/h, it will be faster and safer.


There are no tunnels or viaducts and the only new section is from Rv 29 to Rv 3 Stugusjoen.



The rest of the motorway to the south is already operational or in construction. This upgrade can be ready in 2023 when they start now, just like the motorway upgrade of E39 Kristiansand-Sandnes. The advantage of the Rv27-Rv29 option over an all Rv 3 motorway upgrade is that it is 9 billion cheaper, can be ready at least 4 years early and avoids complex negotiations with municipalities on Rv 3.
__________________
Mathias Olsen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 14th, 2016, 09:24 PM   #4183
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,624
Likes (Received): 19413

Rv. 5 Fjærland

Some photos of riksvei 5 in the Fjærland area (Sogn og Fjordane). There is a good view of Bøyabreen, a subglacier of the larger Jostedalsbreen.

Interesting factoid: the Fjærland Tunnel opened in 1986 in the presence of former U.S. vice president Walter Mondale. His family was from Fjærland.


Riksvei 5 Fjærland-1 by European Roads, on Flickr


Riksvei 5 Fjærland-3 by European Roads, on Flickr


Riksvei 5 Fjærland-4 by European Roads, on Flickr


Riksvei 5 Fjærland-5 by European Roads, on Flickr


Riksvei 5 Fjærland-8 by European Roads, on Flickr


Riksvei 5 Fjærland-10 by European Roads, on Flickr


Riksvei 5 Fjærland-11 by European Roads, on Flickr


Riksvei 5 Fjærland-12 by European Roads, on Flickr
ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old August 15th, 2016, 09:18 AM   #4184
Heico-M
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Flensburg, DE
Posts: 290
Likes (Received): 115

There used to be a toll station in Fjaerland charging like 150 NOK for the passage of the Fjaerland tunnel. If I remember correctly, it was removed last year because the tunnel was payed down.
Heico-M no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 15th, 2016, 11:08 AM   #4185
berlinwroclaw
Kamienna
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 139
Likes (Received): 46

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathias Olsen View Post
A cheaper option will be a motorway upgrade Rv3 Ulsberg-Rv 3 Stugusjoen - Rv29-Rv27- E6 Ringebu- E6 Lillehammer (184 km), costs 17 billion.



The rest of the motorway to the south is already operational or in construction. This upgrade can be ready in 2023 when they start now, just like the motorway upgrade of E39 Kristiansand-Sandnes. The advantage of the Rv27-Rv29 option over an all Rv 3 motorway upgrade is that it is 9 billion cheaper, can be ready at least 4 years early and avoids complex negotiations with municipalities on Rv 3.


Motorway Ulsberg-Kolomoen is part of the "Double Y" core motorway network plan that connects 90% of the population.

First Y is Bergen/Stanvanger - Oslo - Ørje.
Second Y is Mandal / Svinesund - Oslo - Trondheim - Steinkjer

Note that the E39 ferry free motorway -costs 200+ billion- is NOT part of this plan. The Double Y plan can be realised for only 100 billion. E.g. Missing East-West Axis Bergen-Oslo (E134) is 60 billion, Missing North - South Axis Ringebu - Trondheim (Rv3/E6) 17 billion, then we have 23 billion for the remaining motorways, still with a higher impact and 50% cheaper than ferry-free E39.

It is strange that there is not much desire for people in Trondheim and the North for a North-South motorway. There is much more enthusiasm for an East-West motorway. Because the West Coast has oil industry?
__________________
Have a safe trip!

Mathias Olsen liked this post

Last edited by berlinwroclaw; August 15th, 2016 at 11:14 AM.
berlinwroclaw no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 15th, 2016, 11:55 AM   #4186
devo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 221
Likes (Received): 41

Quote:
Originally Posted by berlinwroclaw View Post
[...] Because the West Coast has oil industry?
Maybe because the west coast has lots of dead fish that needs to move quickly.
__________________

berlinwroclaw liked this post
devo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 15th, 2016, 01:35 PM   #4187
Rob73
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 570
Likes (Received): 181

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
The slope of 'Mannen' in Romsdalen near Åndalsnes is being evacuated again. It's one of the most unstable mountains of Norway.

I drove by it in June. I stayed on the campsite Trollveggen which is located below the highest vertical overhanging wall in Europe (1100 m). There were small avalanches every few hours. Luckily there was a river between the wall and the campsite. Trollveggen and Mannen are very close to each other.


E136 Mannen by European Roads, on Flickr
I had a car accident right by this church in 2008, not my fault I was sideswipped by a Polish guy passing cars in the middle of the night just after Christmas, it was snowing, bloody cold and luckily could have been much worse than what it was.
Rob73 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 15th, 2016, 01:54 PM   #4188
berlinwroclaw
Kamienna
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 139
Likes (Received): 46

Quote:
Originally Posted by devo View Post
Maybe because the west coast has lots of dead fish that needs to move quickly.
That is a good reason. Fish is the biggest export product after oil and gas. It needs to be transported quickly. The main reason why Norway is such an expensive country is because of high transport costs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econom...c_developments

Many trucks import all sorts of goods from Denmark to Northern Norway, and then transporting fresh fish back south again.

__________________
Have a safe trip!
berlinwroclaw no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 15th, 2016, 01:54 PM   #4189
Rob73
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 570
Likes (Received): 181

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
Walking through Oslo's streets, I started thinking about another interesting aspect of Norway's traffic policies over the years. Not only is the road network in need of a serious makeover, our cars are fairly old as well, and these things are at least in part connected. Cars were seen as a luxury item even after regular sales were permitted in 1960, and therefore they have been taxed fairly heavily ever since. Even in the last couple of decades, when the average Norwegian's economy has gone from not just being fairly good to being top of the world, cars are still expensive compared to most Western countries, particularly so when it comes to more powerful car models.

As a consequence, Norwegians have in general leaned towards buying less powerful versions of a particular make and model, but back when I grew up in the 70s and 80s, the impact wasn't particularly significant. People didn't necessarily buy the 90 hp 1.6 instead of the 100 hp 2.0 "top of the range" model - prices weren't that different. Some bought smaller 50-60 hp models, some went for Golf-style 75 hp hatchbacks, and if you were a little bit better off, you bought a Volvo 240 turning out a massive 100+ hp.... Of course, we had our share of upper-middle-class people as well who, depending on their age, went mad with BMWs and Mercedeses (or GTI models)... but even those weren't that powerful back in the day - leaving M5s, S classes and such aside, there were few models in the 200 hp class. And only Porsches and Italian supercars turned out more than that, and those were off limits even for most non-Norwegians...

So, what am I getting at? Well, back in the day, before oil wealth had turned us into mini sheiks, even car engines were fairly social democratic. Oh, how things have changed... Today, no car maker dares not to go for POWER, even on regular family car alternatives. Nothing wrong with that, but it completely changed the game for the average Norwegian motorist - engine capacity and power outpur are both heavily taxed. Thus, the current "1.6" (its actual size has probably decreased...) is not that different from the 80s - 110-140 hp, perhaps, and given the fact that the current model is almost twice as heavy, there's nothing wrong with that slight bump. However, the top-range thingy is most likely a 300+ hp beast, and even the typical mid-range model that most Europeans are likely to choose has 160-200 hp. Suddenly, horsepower matters, since the top-range thing is twice, possibly three times as expensive as the (already expensive) base model. GTI cars are even worse, now closing in on 300 hp...

How on earth, then, can an average, now more affluent, Norwegian show his (yes, we're still talking a "he", even in our reasonably equal society...) status without breaking the bank? The answer has traditionally been fairly straightforward: he buys the entry level model and specks it to the max... In the past, you either bought a GL or a GLT (this is still Volvo land...), getting extra engine power as a part of the package. Today, you buy a D2 instead of a D5, fill it up with all extras you can imagine and off you go.

As a keen - albeit sensible - driver, I've never fully understood this. Engine power and car setup are more important than fancy gadgets, and if you can't afford a V70, you need to get a different car, not the diet version! Personally, I've solved this by buying used cars, but other people have started thinking in a different way: they have become "environmentalists". I'm not making fun here, environmental protection, combating climate change, improving urban living, recycling etc are of course the most important challenges of our age, I'm merely suggesting that the rise of the eco-friendly car sales in Norway has little to do with actual environmental concern.

What happened? First of all, CO2 emissions became an important factor when taxing cars. First, hybrids came, and since they - according to manufacturer's data - were far kinder on the environment than their petrol- or diesel-powered cousins (the fact that many similarly Powered, yet frugal, diesel - and later even petrol - engines were as good or better in real life, didn't matter...). For most of the world, though, Priuses and their like were fashion statements - "oh, I'm such an environmentalist champion" - and even when more interesting models arrived, it took some time for them to get market shares. Well-known facts, but still bringing different consequenses up here. Because of the high taxes, these cars were considerably less expensive than their oil-burning counterparts - and the Norwegian driver could suddenly get both power and gadgets when showing his new riches to the world.

So what about all the Teslas? To begin with, electric cars weren't very popular here either. Since they were useless, small pieces of sh*t with no range at all, even money issues didn't really make that much of a difference. Tesla was a game-changer. Suddenly, you could buy a powerful, big luxury saloon for not much more than midsize car money - for a decent-spec Volvo S60 D4, you're looking at north of 500,000 NOK. A Tesla Model S 60 is yours if you add not much more than 100,000. Of course, that's an entry-level Tesla and it's certainly more money, but you're still in the same ballpark... The results have been spectacular, of course, Tesla sales are through the roof.

You might ask yourself what I'm really getting at here, particularly if I add that I'm sceptical about the real environmental value of current electric cars. My main point is, I think, this: If you want people to behave differently, you need to make it seem like a good idea to them. We Norwegians don't buy Teslas, Nissan Leafs etc hand over fist because they get to drive in bus lanes, we don't buy them because they're that much better cars than the alternatives and we certainly don't buy them because we're particularly environmentally friendly: we buy them because it feels like a good deal to get more for less. The result is that we as a people have started believing there are good alternatives to petrol and diesel. That makes a difference when politicians/the world's resources/science eventually put an end to non-renewable energy driving - we're already used to the idea. Not because we liked the environment so much, but because we eventually were fed up with the idea of under-powered family cars!
Then you look at the average HP of a car sold in the US it's about 200, with most V6 family cars having around 250/300hp, the last rental I had in the US was a twin turbo Ford Flex with 350hp, high power isn't really talked about until you cross 400hp.

Frankly it's quite stupid and I would say dangerous when Ole Nordman takes his family on a car holiday in his 1.6 diesel, you see these silly people towing large caravans and others madly overtaking bobils, trucks, buses and lines of cars, reving the shit out of tiny engines and exposing themselves to unnecessary risks. It's madness.

Hopefully the govt will convince all its partners to drop the tax on horsepower and make tax based purely on emissions. Electric cars should be taxed, not sure how but they use the roads and the battery manufacture is an environmental disaster of epic proportions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
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...
I wouldn't put my family into a 10 year old car. 10 year old cars simply aren't as safe as newer cars, crash testing is the proof of this. Also after a decade on the road, especially salted Norwegian roads the cars structure isn't what it was when it came out of the factory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
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...
Electric cars only make sence in big cities, live in a smaller town and do a lot of driving then they make no sence at all. I believe electric cars are a sidestep and will become a footnote in automotive history, like the steam cars from early last centuary.
Rob73 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 15th, 2016, 01:58 PM   #4190
MattiG
Registered User
 
MattiG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Espoo FI
Posts: 1,806
Likes (Received): 618

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heico-M View Post
There used to be a toll station in Fjaerland charging like 150 NOK for the passage of the Fjaerland tunnel. If I remember correctly, it was removed last year because the tunnel was payed down.
The rate was NOK 180 when the tolling ended on November 26, 2010.
__________________

Heico-M liked this post
MattiG no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 15th, 2016, 02:04 PM   #4191
Rob73
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 570
Likes (Received): 181

Quote:
Originally Posted by berlinwroclaw View Post
That is a good reason. Fish is the biggest export product after oil and gas. It needs to be transported quickly. The main reason why Norway is such an expensive country is because of high transport costs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econom...c_developments

Many trucks import all sorts of goods from Denmark to Northern Norway, and then transporting fresh fish back south again.
DSV have around 50 trucks per day leaving Ålesund full of fish, the go out full and come back mostly empty.
Rob73 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 15th, 2016, 02:30 PM   #4192
MattiG
Registered User
 
MattiG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Espoo FI
Posts: 1,806
Likes (Received): 618

Quote:
Originally Posted by berlinwroclaw View Post
Many trucks import all sorts of goods from Denmark to Northern Norway, and then transporting fresh fish back south again.
The value chains might be more complex:

1) Shrimps are caught at the Norwegian seas.
2) They are frozen immediately.
3) The frozen shrimps are sold to companies in Vietnam and other countries where the labor costs are in minimum.
4) The shrimps are thawn, peeled, cooked and re-frozen in Vietnam.
5) The Vietnamese companies sell the shrimps to Danish wholesale companies.
6) The Danish wholesale companies sell the shrimps to Swedish retailers.
7) The shrimps are put on sale in Charlottenburg and other shopping centers close to the Norwegian border.
8) Norwegian families make trips to border trade shopping centers to buy huge amounts of cheap food, like Norwegian shrimps.
__________________

Mathias Olsen liked this post
MattiG no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 15th, 2016, 02:54 PM   #4193
Heico-M
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Flensburg, DE
Posts: 290
Likes (Received): 115

I travelled the E6 from Malmö to Oslo on Wednesday, July 27.
Svinesund Köpcenter (Swedish side) was swarming with Norwegian customers.
I filled up my car with diesel, because everybody says that it is cheaper in S than in N (which was wrong )
The remaining drive from the Norwegian border to Oslo was really slow because of very dense traffic, including a legitimate traffic jam at the Follotunnelen construction site. It was almost only Norwegian number plates. Are there so many people going to Sweden that it results in such extreme traffic on a weekday?
Heico-M no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 15th, 2016, 03:37 PM   #4194
metasmurf
Registered User
 
metasmurf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Umeå, Sweden
Posts: 374
Likes (Received): 555

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heico-M View Post
I travelled the E6 from Malmö to Oslo on Wednesday, July 27.
Svinesund Köpcenter (Swedish side) was swarming with Norwegian customers.
I filled up my car with diesel, because everybody says that it is cheaper in S than in N (which was wrong )
The remaining drive from the Norwegian border to Oslo was really slow because of very dense traffic, including a legitimate traffic jam at the Follotunnelen construction site. It was almost only Norwegian number plates. Are there so many people going to Sweden that it results in such extreme traffic on a weekday?

Halden (24 895 inhabitants) Fredrikstad/Sarpsborg (108 636 inhabitants) within 20-40 minutes from Svinesund might be the reason.
metasmurf no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 15th, 2016, 03:42 PM   #4195
54°26′S 3°24′E
Registered User
 
54°26′S 3°24′E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 820
Likes (Received): 155

Quote:
Originally Posted by devo View Post
Maybe because the west coast has lots of dead fish that needs to move quickly.
No, because people from Bergen are the noisiest and most whiny of the country

Seriously, though, the politicians of Trøndelag are currently most focused on improving Steinkjer-Ulsberg. Especially Trondheim-Ulsberg is generally in far worse shape than anything further south on either Rv3 or E6. Even this has been at snail-pace so far, however, although the plan (motorway to Støren, divided 2+1 Støren-Ulsberg) has been ready for quite some time now. The prospect now is perhaps to have a new road ready by 2023 or thereabouts, and personally I think the 2+1 solution is not a good long-term plan.

Btw, significantly more fish is exported from central and northern Norway than western Norway (from SSB in MNOK):

Rogaland 2 630
Hordaland 11 991
Sogn og Fjordane 2 462
Sum Western Norway 17 083


Møre og Romsdal 16 634
Sør-Trøndelag 10 273
Nord-Trøndelag 2 385
Nordland 10 682
Troms Romsa 5 314
Finnmark Finnmárku 4 063
Total central & northern Norway 49 351

(Here I have used the most common regional borders of the road authorities and many other government institutions. Geographically at least the southern part of Møre og Romsdal is often included in Western Norway though, but the most land based communication link to the continent is the E6 including various routes branching off to the coast: Rv 16, E136 and Rv 70 in particular)
__________________
Norway needs a new transport infrastructure network, let's start now!

Last edited by 54°26′S 3°24′E; August 15th, 2016 at 04:21 PM.
54°26′S 3°24′E no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 15th, 2016, 03:53 PM   #4196
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,624
Likes (Received): 19413

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattiG View Post
The rate was NOK 180 when the tolling ended on November 26, 2010.
Expensive. Was Fjærland ever connected by ferry to the Balestrand area? Otherwise a trip from Fjærland to Skei would take you all the way via Sogndal, Balestrand and Vik, which turns a 20 minute trip into a 3.5 - 4 hour journey.
ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old August 15th, 2016, 05:45 PM   #4197
54°26′S 3°24′E
Registered User
 
54°26′S 3°24′E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 820
Likes (Received): 155

as
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathias Olsen View Post
Motorway upgrade Kristiansand-Sandnes (188 km) costs 17.2 billion.
We may estimate the costs for a motorway upgrade Rv 3 Ulsberg-Kolomoen (287 km) to 26 billion.

A cheaper option will be a motorway upgrade Rv3 Ulsberg-Rv 3 Stugusjoen - Rv29-Rv27- E6 Ringebu- E6 Lillehammer (184 km), costs 17 billion. The Rv27-Rv29 option has a length Kolomoen-Ulsberg of 310 km, still more than the 295 km of Rv 3, but with a speed limit of 130 km/h, it will be faster and safer.


There are no tunnels or viaducts and the only new section is from Rv 29 to Rv 3 Stugusjoen.



The rest of the motorway to the south is already operational or in construction. This upgrade can be ready in 2023 when they start now, just like the motorway upgrade of E39 Kristiansand-Sandnes. The advantage of the Rv27-Rv29 option over an all Rv 3 motorway upgrade is that it is 9 billion cheaper, can be ready at least 4 years early and avoids complex negotiations with municipalities on Rv 3.
Interesting idea, but you have to take the topography into consideration. The climb from Ringebu to Venabygdsfjellet (Rv 27) is of the order of 800 m in 10 km or so, this climb is not easily avoided (as Folldalen itself is at a similar altitude, but a long tunnel will be required in any case to adhere to motorway standards. This will of course boost the costs. Making a short-cut via via Savalen to Stugusjøen further north is an interesting idea also with the Rv 3-alignment, but I would instead believe that a tunnel in the Lonåsen-area (highest point of current Rv 3) would be a better idea to cut the climb (and distance) further. This can also possibly be combined with an realignment of Rv3 via Rendalen (Rv 30) with would save more kms, but at the cost of an additional tunnel.

With regards to the costs, I believe that a motorway through Østerdalen would be significantly cheaper per km than E39 Sandnes-Kristiansand due to the much lower population density and easier topograpy. For the Rv 27/29 alternative you describe the situation is probably the opposite.
__________________
Norway needs a new transport infrastructure network, let's start now!

Mathias Olsen liked this post
54°26′S 3°24′E no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 15th, 2016, 09:10 PM   #4198
54°26′S 3°24′E
Registered User
 
54°26′S 3°24′E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 820
Likes (Received): 155

Quote:
Originally Posted by metasmurf View Post
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.
E6 is the signposted road, and you will be surprised how many Norwegians are driving are unaware that there are other routes, not to mention tourists. Many also drive E6 because it is seen as more exciting, but if the driving time difference is hours rather than 40 minutes, that will no longer matter so much. Hence, I am pretty sure that the majority of those 2000 cars across Dovre is en route Oslo - Trondheim. Some of it, like south-eastern Norway - Oppdal (and Nord-Møre/Kristiansund) will transfer to a Rv3 motorway as well. The fraction going from (Trondheim) Oppdal to Lillehammer /Gudbrandsdalen, Hordaland, and Sogn og Fjordane, where E6 Dovrefjell would be a good choice, is rather small.
Quote:
Originally Posted by metasmurf View Post
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.
I cannot claim to know all details of the Swedish society as I have never lived there. However, there are some clear difference apart from the urban population figures for the two cases.
  1. Sweden has a functioning (close to) HSR. In Norway the train pax is rather small, and the plans for HSR is most likely permanently shelved. That makes the road more attractive.
  2. Oslo is far more centrally located in Norway than Stockholm is in Sweden. Except if you go from Østfold or the far north, Oslo is hard to miss if you want to get out of the country by car. The same is often true if you want to get around the country as Oslo is fairly close to the geographical population center of Norway and the Oslofjord is a natural bottleneck. If you go from Trondheim, the fastest way by car to most of Norway south of Oslo is via Oslo,with a population much larger than that of Oslo alone. In comparison, Stockholm is located in the north - eastern corner of the most populated areas of Sweden.
  3. Trondheim is also in some ways centrally located. The catchment area of a Trondheim-Oslo motorway will in its northern end be far larger than Trondheim alone, as at least Nordland and the whole of Trøndelag and parts of Møre should be included. Of course also Gøteborg will have larger catchment as well, but it has its back against the sea.
.

The claim that the car traffic between Trondheim and Oslo with motorway would be less than half that of Stockholm - Göteborg today is obviously wrong, as that would mean that the total traffic would be at a comparable level to or less than that of Rv 3 today without a motorway, which is far less than the total current car traffic. See above. The main alternative of the official public prognosis btw predicts a general traffic growth of 100 % Trondheim - Oslo between 2014 and 2050, which I not taken into account in my crude estimate.

Otherwise I have not advocated to build the road using tolls, but I would like to point out that a motorway saving hours of traveling time is not at all comparable to Ryfast.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OulaL View Post
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.
There is no such rule. People with bikes are often supposed to take the bus through tunnels.
__________________

berlinwroclaw, metasmurf liked this post

Last edited by 54°26′S 3°24′E; August 15th, 2016 at 10:07 PM.
54°26′S 3°24′E no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 15th, 2016, 11:12 PM   #4199
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
Interesting idea
Thanks for the study of my proposal. My idea was to make a motorway Ulsberg-Kolomoen as feasible as possible by doing a best-of-breed of E6 and Rv 3.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
but you have to take the topography into consideration. The climb from Ringebu to Venabygdsfjellet (Rv 27) is of the order of 800 m in 10 km or so, this climb is not easily avoided
Some creativity is needed indeed. Here is my idea. In my proposal, there will be a junction with the present E6 to Otta at Pkt.2 at an altitude of 200 m.



Then we climb over 7 km to an altitude at 300 m at the bridge over the Våla river. In next section, we climb to Venabygd over 10 km to 640 m.




Finally we go to the plateau over 4.6 km to 800 m. The slope will be at maximum 4%. Below the European maximum of 6% on a motorway.



Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
With regards to the costs, I believe that a motorway through Østerdalen would be significantly cheaper per km than E39 Sandnes-Kristiansand due to the much lower population density and easier topograpy. For the Rv 27/29 alternative you describe the situation is probably the opposite.
It is true, the Rv 27/29 alternative will be more expensive than the average Rv 3 via Østerdalen. But do you know cheaper data of existing motorway upgrades in Norway? The E6 Gardermoen-Kolomoen motorway upgrade with almost similar topography has final costs 8.2 billion for 62 km. http://www.vegvesen.no/Europaveg/e6g...til-110-kroner This is was not a section with hard topography, but still more expensive than the motorway size estimate of E39 Standnes-Kristiansand. With the E6 upgrade data, we may estimate for the upgrade Rv 3 Ulsberg-Kolomoen at 38 billion. With the E6 upgrade data, the Rv27/29 alternative Rv3 Ulsberg - Rv 3 Stugusjoen - Rv29-Rv27- E6 Ringebu- E6 Lillehammer (184 km) will be 24 billion. Say, we reserve 2 billion extra for a high bridge over the Våla river and additional works, it will be 10 billion cheaper.

All rough estimates. I understand this work may be better done by consultancy companies like Multiconsult or Norconsult. NPRA should come with a proposal for a the missing links of a full motorway Trondheim-Oslo.
__________________

berlinwroclaw liked this post
Mathias Olsen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 16th, 2016, 12:08 AM   #4200
MattiG
Registered User
 
MattiG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Espoo FI
Posts: 1,806
Likes (Received): 618

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
Expensive. Was Fjærland ever connected by ferry to the Balestrand area? Otherwise a trip from Fjærland to Skei would take you all the way via Sogndal, Balestrand and Vik, which turns a 20 minute trip into a 3.5 - 4 hour journey.
The ferry was the only means to reach Fjærland before opening the tunnel road to Skei in 1986. The road Sogndal got opened in 1994.
MattiG 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 11:06 PM.


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