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

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

Highways & Autobahns All about automobility



Global Announcement

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old September 1st, 2016, 06:30 PM   #4301
metasmurf
Registered User
 
metasmurf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Umeå, Sweden
Posts: 374
Likes (Received): 555

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathias Olsen View Post
Motorway with 4-lanes from Diseplass junction to Kongsberg is according to the present National Transport Plan. The designers just did fulfill the requirements of the governance guidelines. Nothing unusual.

Four lane construction is till Trollerud Moen (Kongsberg-West) according to the National Transport Plan, but they really saved money on this section by replacing motorway juntions by 4 roundabouts and the river bridge is without emergency lanes and with a very short curve.

According to this article the choice of roundabouts is due to lack of space.
metasmurf no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old September 1st, 2016, 09:25 PM   #4302
Ingenioren
Registered User
 
Ingenioren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oslo
Posts: 5,605
Likes (Received): 584

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattiG View Post
I think that the road over Aurlandfjellet never was E16. Before the tunnel road, the E16 was routed over the ferry Lærdal-Gudvangen and later Kaupanger-Gudvangen. When the tunnels from Gudvangen to Flåm got ready, the Aurland-Gudvangen route got renumbered to Rv50.
For a while there was a ferry from Revsnes to Gudvangen, and then Revsnes was the ferry quay for Rv5 for some time - here is an interesting page with photos from the closed quay:


http://www.ferjebloggen.com/?p=274

Thinking about the pre-lærdalstunnel times really makes one wonder wtf they were thinking putting E16 trough this area.
__________________
I want to see some construction!
Ingenioren no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 1st, 2016, 09:58 PM   #4303
berlinwroclaw
Kamienna
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 139
Likes (Received): 46

Quote:
Originally Posted by metasmurf View Post
According to this article the choice of roundabouts is due to lack of space.
Yes, Evie Kvisberglien of NPRA said “no room for anything else”.



Inspecting the maps and the artist impression doesn’t confirm this. It is not impossible to construct a viaduct to the tunnel and a new bridge over the river. Alternative will be a new tunnel between the Kongsberg tunnel and the other side of the river. Yes, indeed there are buildings, railway line and there is a river. It is possible to remove one of the buildings. No reason to build any roundabout, a 2x2 motorway could have been constructed without even removing any building. Kongsberg doesn’t need 5 motorway junctions, 2 junctions are sufficient.
__________________
Have a safe trip!
berlinwroclaw no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 1st, 2016, 11:47 PM   #4304
Gsus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 148
Likes (Received): 53

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathias Olsen View Post
Kongsberg-Notodden is in the present National Transport Plan. This has been discussed earlier and there has been a latent desire after E134 became main EW road with NPRA predicted AADT > 8000, that Kongsberg-Notodden would be reconstructed as 4-lane motorway:
No, Kongsberg-Notodden is not in the current transport plan. Saggrenda-Elgsjø has been proposed by the road administration tho, for the next transport plan. 2+1 road, or "midtrekkverk og forbikjøringsfelt" does`nt mean it will be continuous throughout the section. Do you have a source I can read about four lanes between Kongsberg and Notodden? Or is this unofficial?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathias Olsen View Post
Motorway with 4-lanes from Diseplass junction to Kongsberg is according to the present National Transport Plan. The designers just did fulfill the requirements of the governance guidelines. Nothing unusual.
The project starts at Damåsen in east. There will be about two kilometers from Damåsen until Diseplass junction is passed. That`s what I´m questioning from what it says in the link from the project page. There it says Damåsen-Diseplass is to be built with two lanes. This is the only place I´ve seen this tho. Every other documents and articles says four lanes all the way from Damåsen from day one. So it might be wrong.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathias Olsen View Post
Four lane construction is till Trollerud Moen (Kongsberg-West) according to the National Transport Plan, but they really saved money on this section by replacing motorway juntions by 4 roundabouts and the river bridge is without emergency lanes and with a very short curve.
Yep! This corridor and alignment for this road was chosen back in 2004, when there was only talks of 8,5 - 10 meters wide road with roundabouts as is constructed now. Really not an optimal solution! I they were to have built a motorway I think they would have had to bypass Kongsberg either further south, og north of the city.

Quote:
Originally Posted by berlinwroclaw View Post
Yes, Evie Kvisberglien of NPRA said “no room for anything else”.

Inspecting the maps and the artist impression doesn’t confirm this. It is not impossible to construct a viaduct to the tunnel and a new bridge over the river. Alternative will be a new tunnel between the Kongsberg tunnel and the other side of the river. Yes, indeed there are buildings, railway line and there is a river. It is possible to remove one of the buildings. No reason to build any roundabout, a 2x2 motorway could have been constructed without even removing any building. Kongsberg doesn’t need 5 motorway junctions, 2 junctions are sufficient.
Nothing is impossible, but as I write further up here, this corridor was chosen long before there was any plans of such dimensions. Building grade separated intersections here would certainly be expensive and need a lot of space. Another bridge over the river for a local road and complicated ramps (maybe on bridges aswell). A more straight line between the two tunnels might not even give a long enough section for a grade separated junction. Just not a suitable place for a large intersection.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingenioren View Post
For a while there was a ferry from Revsnes to Gudvangen, and then Revsnes was the ferry quay for Rv5 for some time - here is an interesting page with photos from the closed quay:

Thinking about the pre-lærdalstunnel times really makes one wonder wtf they were thinking putting E16 trough this area.
AFAIK there was only ferries to and from Kaupanger going from Revsnes. The E16-ferry went all the way into Lærdal, departing/arriving every third hour during daytime for as long as I remember.

Remember this road well tho. My uncle knew exactly where it was possible to pass a slower vehicle Road a bike out there a few years ago. Lots of fallen rocks lying in the road.
Gsus no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 2nd, 2016, 08:03 AM   #4305
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
For a while there was a ferry from Revsnes to Gudvangen, and then Revsnes was the ferry quay for Rv5 for some time
That era lasted for 27 years. The road to Revsnes was problematic because of repeating landslides and snowslides. The road got closed 99 times, and the ferry company had a crisis timetable for closures. The exception routes were Årdalstangen-Kaupanger, Gudvangen-Kaupanger and Kaupanger-Lærdal.

People got quite happy when the Fodnes tunnel and quay got opened, and the traffic was diverted to the route Fodnes-Kaupanger. The Manneller-Fodnes route was opened a couple years later.

Quote:
Thinking about the pre-lærdalstunnel times really makes one wonder wtf they were thinking putting E16 trough this area.
It is the most traditional trade route between Oslo and Bergen. Despite its length and long ferry crossing, it was the only (almost) reliable route for the winter travel. The winter-safe Hardangervidda and Haukeli are quite recent investments.

Last edited by MattiG; September 2nd, 2016 at 11:25 AM.
MattiG no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 2nd, 2016, 11:40 AM   #4306
Mathias Olsen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 125
Likes (Received): 149

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gsus View Post
No, Kongsberg-Notodden is not in the current transport plan. Saggrenda-Elgsjø has been proposed by the road administration tho, for the next transport plan. 2+1 road, or "midtrekkverk og forbikjøringsfelt" does`nt mean it will be continuous throughout the section. Do you have a source I can read about four lanes between Kongsberg and Notodden? Or is this unofficial?
Sorry, but I didn’t write that Kongsberg-Notodden is in the current NTP planned as 4-lane motorway, but 2+1. However, there are sources that Ministry of Transport and Ministry of Finance at least want to evaluate such a 4-lane motorway between Kongsberg and Notodden, and even further to the West, here are their alternatives for Kongsberg-Notodden:

Quote:
Concept E134 Kongsberg- Gvammen, Dovre Group, Commissioned by Ministry of Transport and Ministry of Finance, 2012

https://www.ntnu.no/documents/126186...I%20100312.pdf

Concept 1 - less measures, mainly associated with road safety
Concept 2 - general rearmament. Gentler curvature and wider roads with median
Concept 3 - the full development of motorway standard throughout and under Notodden
Concept 4 - full development of motorway standard outside Notodden

Concept North - composed of development outside Notodden and general rearmament
Concept South - composed of development outside Notodden, general upgrading and
Linked to Tuven at Notodden
Already in 2012, when E16, Rv 7 and Rv 52 were the authorised EW main roads, there were serious government plans to construct a full 4-lane motorway between Kongsberg and Notodden. Since 2015 we have seen a revolution in EW roads. E134 has become the main road between East and West. It is expected that the parliament will select Rv 52 as second road, that will make possible more traffic will go over the E134 to the East.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gsus View Post
There it says Damåsen-Diseplass is to be built with two lanes. This is the only place I´ve seen this tho. Every other documents and articles says four lanes all the way from Damåsen from day one. So it might be wrong.
Yes, we have to look at the construction. AFAIK there is only new wide motorway under construction. See photo below. Excuses for the bad photo resolution.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Gsus View Post
Another bridge over the river for a local road and complicated ramps (maybe on bridges aswell). A more straight line between the two tunnels might not even give a long enough section for a grade separated junction. Just not a suitable place for a large intersection.
The alternative will be to construct a new motorway bypass, that will be even more expensive. It may be cheaper to remove some buildings. A junction between the tunnels can be skipped. Aren't two junctions enough for a city of 25000 inhabitants? Most traffic will go to in the direction of Drammen and will use the junction at Diseplass. The other junction will be Kongsgårdmoen.
__________________

berlinwroclaw liked this post

Last edited by Mathias Olsen; September 2nd, 2016 at 02:25 PM.
Mathias Olsen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 2nd, 2016, 06:32 PM   #4307
berlinwroclaw
Kamienna
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 139
Likes (Received): 46

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gsus View Post
Nothing is impossible, but as I write further up here, this corridor was chosen long before there was any plans of such dimensions. Building grade separated intersections here would certainly be expensive and need a lot of space. Another bridge over the river for a local road and complicated ramps (maybe on bridges aswell). A more straight line between the two tunnels might not even give a long enough section for a grade separated junction. Just not a suitable place for a large intersection.
Who told us that there is no space? It was Evie Kvisberglien who received her master degree in ecology in 2012. She studied at Høgskolen i Telemark (HiT) in Porsgrunn. Perhaps the new E134 at Kongsberg was her first job at NPRA. Her background explains very much of the new section through Kongsberg with not less than 4 roundabouts where the governmental guidelines require a 2x2 grade separated motorway. There has been so much irritation from the government that they wanted to stop the construction of the complete new E134 near Kongsberg. However designing a new motorway section far from Kongsberg would take too much time. The present upgrade is seen as a quick-win to increase traffic capacity and speed. “It is not certain it solves all challenges. It is certainly the feedback I get from professional drivers who live on the road”, says Hoksrud, Secretary of State. That means the government may expect claims from professional drivers and business men. On the map below we see, coming from the East that after the first tunnel a motorway section ends in the first roundabout. Two other roundabouts have to be passed. Then the second tunnel and then the fourth and last roundabout.



From the words of Hoksrud we may expect a new upgrade with the removal of the roundabouts in future.
__________________
Have a safe trip!

Mathias Olsen liked this post

Last edited by berlinwroclaw; September 2nd, 2016 at 06:45 PM.
berlinwroclaw no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 2nd, 2016, 06:47 PM   #4308
Gsus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 148
Likes (Received): 53

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathias Olsen View Post
Sorry, but I didn’t write that Kongsberg-Notodden is in the current NTP planned as 4-lane motorway, but 2+1. However, there are sources that Ministry of Transport and Ministry of Finance at least want to evaluate such a 4-lane motorway between Kongsberg and Notodden, and even further to the West, here are their alternatives for Kongsberg-Notodden

Already in 2012, when E16, Rv 7 and Rv 52 were the authorised EW main roads, there were serious government plans to construct a full 4-lane motorway between Kongsberg and Notodden. Since 2015 we have seen a revolution in EW roads. E134 has become the main road between East and West. It is expected that the parliament will select Rv 52 as second road, that will make possible more traffic will go over the E134 to the East.
Did`nt know that. Guess we`ll just wait and see. Road authorities is expecting quite a rise in traffic, even on the high-mountain sections. But a lot of this is quite far into the future anyway. Definatly a road that might be built with too low capacity!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathias Olsen View Post
Yes, we have to look at the construction. AFAIK there is only new wide motorway under construction. See photo below. Excuses for the bad photo resolution.

For me it looks like there might be about 12 meters from the center of the central-drain and out to the side-drain. With 10 meters from the from the central point in the cross-section out to the edge of the road shoulder, and 2 meters horizontal out to the ditch-bottom it might look like it`s built for four lanes. But it`s quite hard to tell. Might be built as a two-laner with a 2-meter central divider for future expanding. One never knows...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathias Olsen View Post
The alternative will be to construct a new motorway bypass, that will be even more expensive. It may be cheaper to remove some buildings. A junction between the tunnels can be skipped. Aren't two junctions enough for a city of 25000 inhabitants? Most traffic will go to in the direction of Drammen and will use the junction at Diseplass. The other junction will be Kongsgårdmoen.
Two junctions would be enough in a lot of countries. But not always up here I think Diseplass in the east, and Saggrenda junction in the west would have been the most suitable with the current alignment if it was to be grade separated (quite short distances between the tunnels, but Kongsgårmoen might be long enough).
__________________

Mathias Olsen, coolstuff liked this post
Gsus no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 2nd, 2016, 07:41 PM   #4309
Mathias Olsen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 125
Likes (Received): 149

NPRA recommends new road E134 Gvammen-Vågsli via Rauland



Today at Seljord has been decided that E134 will go in future via Rauland and no longer via Seljord. This will make the E134 East West road 35 km shorter, and may shorten the travel time by more than 50 minutes. A major improvement of the E134. NPRA plans are in line with the plans of university profs and business men for an expressway Haugesund/Bergen – Oslo. Compared with them, NPRA reduced the number of tunnels form 9 to 6, see below:

__________________
Mathias Olsen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 3rd, 2016, 12:54 PM   #4310
coolstuff
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 38
Likes (Received): 46

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathias Olsen View Post
NPRA recommends Rv 52 as second East-West main road

Today, NPRA has advised the government to take Rv 52 over RV. 7, because it is better for economics and effectiveness and ability to serve drivers who cannot use the E134 via Haukeli.
Storting is the final authority to make the decision for Rv. 7 or Rv. 52. Till that moment, nothing can be sure. Storting may overrule the recommendation of NPRA for Rv. 52. We have seen this in the past.
However, NPRA has learned their lessons. They know that the last business argument for Rv. 7 is the fastest and shortest road in summer. Therefore some truckers take Rv. 7 as favorite. But yesterday, NPRA arranged a decision for the new E134 road from Gvammen to Vågsli via Rauland.

An incredible reduction of the travel time of 51 minutes, that will make E134 the fastest and shortest road in summer. NPRA predictions show that in 2050 the AADT E134 Haukeli will be 9200, while Rv. 7 Hardangervidda will have 1100. The new decision of NPRA for the stretch via Rauland will a true Rv. 7 killer! See “Stor konkurranse mellom E134 og rv. 7 over Hardangervidda”: http://www.vegvesen.no/_attachment/1...tkast+E134.pdf

For Rv. 7 is nothing left. A number of members of the Conservative Party want to go for Rv. 7, but they will get a hard job. Perhaps all they can do is to ask for some improvements of Rv. 7.

Yes, it is still possible Storting will overrule NPRA, but this time certainly not on business arguments.
__________________
coolstuff no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 3rd, 2016, 07:47 PM   #4311
Mathias Olsen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 125
Likes (Received): 149

Construction of E6 Ulvsvågskaret tunnel in the North postponed till after 2029



In the draft National Transport Plan (NTP) 2018-2029, the new E6 tunnel, just south of Narvik, that connects Northern Norway with the rest of the country, is not included. The reason to postpone this project may be budget problems, because NPRA has to focus budget to at least 3 new huge road projects in Southern Norway: E39 ferry-free motorway (Haugesund-Bergen), Ring motorways Oslo and East-West roads.
E6 over Ulvsvågskaret in Hamarøy has been a problem for decades, especially for heavy traffic. It will be ever harder in future. http://www.an.no/e6-tunnel-utsatt-ti...9/s/5-4-320674
http://www.nord-salten.no/no/nyheter...-gamle-e6.9131

Mathias Olsen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 3rd, 2016, 08:13 PM   #4312
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,572
Likes (Received): 19366

The new route of E134 makes the under construction Mjælefjell Tunnel near Gvammen less useful?
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 3rd, 2016, 08:30 PM   #4313
Bjørne
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Ås/Oslo
Posts: 59
Likes (Received): 49

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
The new route of E134 makes the under construction Mjælefjell Tunnel near Gvammen less useful?
For the EW connection yes, but not for local areas like Seljord.
__________________

berlinwroclaw liked this post
Bjørne no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 4th, 2016, 06:50 PM   #4314
ElviS77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 564
Likes (Received): 54

In my opinion, prioritizing Haukeli and Hemsedal as the main east-west links makes sense. Geography makes it difficult bordering on the impossible to focus on a single link, and thus, one northern (either Filefjell or Hemsedalsfjellet) and one southern (Haukeli or Hardangervidda) seemed like the most useful idea. With Haukeli clearly better than Hardangervidda, and Hemsedal equally better than Filefjell, that should be the end of that... but I'm not willing to place my bets just yet... Why? Well, mainly because of the inner workings of Norwegian politics... Filefjell is gradually improved as we speak, and Hardangervidda will continue to have its proponents - and the Hardanger bridge... Additionally, particularly Haukeli, but also Hemsedal, need considerable investments over several years in order to outperform the alternatives, and it's nigh on impossible to imagine full speed ahead in one valley and no investments at all in the neighbouring one...

So, what will happen? I believe we'll see considerable investments along the E134, but I'm more sceptical when it comes to a new Bergen-Odda link - which of course is required to make Haukeli the "one and only" Oslo-Bergen route. Further north I think we'll see a continued dogfight over funds. Hemsedal will get official political backing, but will it get all the required funds..? I'm not sure, all three roads will remain somewhat important, with a moderate traffic load according to the road administration's models...

My predictions:
1. Haukeli will become a quality long-distance road in the not too distant future (motorway+divided expressway+10-m-highway), but the Bergen-Odda part is problematic.
2. Oslo-Hønefoss and Bergen-Voss will be made proper motorway/expressway, Hønefoss-Gol and possibly Voss-Lærdal will get priority status, but crossing the Hemsedal mountain may very well be done on the cheap - shorter tunnels, bigger climbs, slower road alignment...
3. Lærdal-Filefjell is reasonable already, and I don't really see them halting the improvement of the Valdres road. 8.5/10 metre width, though, not divided expressway.
4. Some tunnels will be built on Hardangervidda, the climb on the western side may be replaced by a new tunnel further into the future, and with a relatively high AADT Gol-Geilo, that section will eventually be realigned.
__________________

Mathias Olsen, berlinwroclaw liked this post
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 5th, 2016, 12:02 PM   #4315
Mathias Olsen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 125
Likes (Received): 149

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
My predictions:
1. Haukeli will become a quality long-distance road in the not too distant future (motorway+divided expressway+10-m-highway), but the Bergen-Odda part is problematic.
Yes, it is likely such a road will be ready next decade. For Bergen-Odda we first have to wait for the government decision between Rv 7 and Rv 52. When Rv 52 is chosen, NPRA says, the Bergen-Odda will be studied.

There has been made some progress for the political side in creating a “quality long-distance road” for the E134 last weeks. Minister Ketil Solvik-Olsen collected enough political support to use the power of the central government to overrule local decisions as with the E134 Kongsberg bypass. The first result is the upgrade of E134 Gvammen- Vågsli. Seljord wanted the E134 via their village, but the central government overruled them with a stretch via Rauland. That will fill hope that similar hard local issues, like at Notodden will also result to a high quality long distance road, and not another narrow road near the city with many junctions.

Back to our predictions about the quality of E134. The new road Gvammen- Vågsli will have T 10,5 profile tunnels. That means the new E134 Gvammen- Vågsli is in fact a half-profile motorway with space reservations for full 4-lane motorway. Such a road may be necessary, because new NPRA predictions for Gvammen- Vågsli are AADT 6500-13500. http://www.vegvesen.no/_attachment/1...tkast+E134.pdf

There can be reasonable confidence that the E134 will be a mix of motorway+divided expressway+10-m-highway, or even better.
Mathias Olsen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 5th, 2016, 09:19 PM   #4316
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 Mathias Olsen View Post
Back to our predictions about the quality of E134. The new road Gvammen- Vågsli will have T 10,5 profile tunnels. That means the new E134 Gvammen- Vågsli is in fact a half-profile motorway with space reservations for full 4-lane motorway. Such a road may be necessary, because new NPRA predictions for Gvammen- Vågsli are AADT 6500-13500. http://www.vegvesen.no/_attachment/1...tkast+E134.pdf

There can be reasonable confidence that the E134 will be a mix of motorway+divided expressway+10-m-highway, or even better.
In the meantime, in a different part of the country.....

The politicians of Trondheim seriously consider trying to stop expansion of E6 east of the city to 4 lanes. This part of the E6 already has close to 20 000 AADT. Note that we are not even talking about a full motorway here, we are talking about a poor fix to an unacceptable situation, and due to the mediocre geometry and reduced width max speed limit will be 90 km/h even after the expansion. I really detest the leftist rule of Trondheim.......

http://www.mb.no/nyheter/2016/09/02/...t-13271806.ece
__________________
Norway needs a new transport infrastructure network, let's start now!

Mathias Olsen, Bjørne liked this post

Last edited by 54°26′S 3°24′E; September 5th, 2016 at 09:29 PM.
54°26′S 3°24′E no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 6th, 2016, 12:10 AM   #4317
cinxxx
I ♥ Timişoara
 
cinxxx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: München
Posts: 22,234
Likes (Received): 18298

Some more pictures from me

Tresfjordbrua by cinxxx, on Flickr

Norway E39 - Ferry Vestnes to Molde by cinxxx, on Flickr

Norway E39 - Ferry Vestnes to Molde by cinxxx, on Flickr

Norway E39 - Ferry Vestnes to Molde by cinxxx, on Flickr

Norway E39 - Ferry Vestnes to Molde by cinxxx, on Flickr

Norway E39 - Ferry Vestnes to Molde by cinxxx, on Flickr

Norway - Fv663 by cinxxx, on Flickr

Norway - Fv663 by cinxxx, on Flickr

Gjemnessundbrua by cinxxx, on Flickr

Gjemnessundbrua by cinxxx, on Flickr

Norway - Ferry Kanestraum to Halsanaustan by cinxxx, on Flickr
cinxxx no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 6th, 2016, 05:09 AM   #4318
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
In the meantime, in a different part of the country.....

The politicians of Trondheim seriously consider trying to stop expansion of E6 east of the city to 4 lanes. This part of the E6 already has close to 20 000 AADT. Note that we are not even talking about a full motorway here, we are talking about a poor fix to an unacceptable situation, and due to the mediocre geometry and reduced width max speed limit will be 90 km/h even after the expansion. I really detest the leftist rule of Trondheim.......

http://www.mb.no/nyheter/2016/09/02/...t-13271806.ece

" Jeg har snakket med Malvik-Bladet om infrastrukturen i kommunen ved flere anledninger tidligere. Nå er jeg ikke like oppdatert på samferdselsspørsmålene som da jeg satt i Stortinget. Men jeg var i kontakt med samferdselsministeren i går kveld og fikk en klar melding med til dere om E6, sa Per Sandberg til de lokale partitillitsvalgte fra Malvik, Stjørdal og Trondheim som var samlet til felles møte på Vikhammer.

- Når det gjelder infrastrukturen inn og ut av Trondheim skal det bygges doble tunneler og fire felt på E6 uansett hva bystyret i Trondheim måtte finne på å vedta, var beskjeden Per Sandberg kunne gi på vegne av samferdselsministeren."


Source: http://www.mb.no/nyheter/2016/08/15/...t-13179992.ece


I don't know whether this is true or not but at least it's promising. At any rate it's pretty bizarre that a single municipality can have a say in detailed questions in road projects on national roads such at this and potentially sink a whole project, but I guess that's Norwegian road politics in a nutshell.
__________________

Mathias Olsen, Bjørne liked this post

Last edited by metasmurf; September 6th, 2016 at 05:25 AM.
metasmurf no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 6th, 2016, 11:31 AM   #4319
Mathias Olsen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 125
Likes (Received): 149

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
one northern (either Filefjell or Hemsedalsfjellet) and one southern (Haukeli or Hardangervidda) seemed like the most useful idea. With Haukeli clearly better than Hardangervidda, and Hemsedal equally better than Filefjell, that should be the end of that... but I'm not willing to place my bets just yet... Why? Well, mainly because of the inner workings of Norwegian politics... Filefjell is gradually improved as we speak, and Hardangervidda will continue to have its proponents - and the Hardanger bridge... Additionally, particularly Haukeli, but also Hemsedal, need considerable investments over several years in order to outperform the alternatives, and it's nigh on impossible to imagine full speed ahead in one valley and no investments at all in the neighbouring one...
I agree with you. And yes, we don’t know the final outcome of the government decision. The only thing we know is that NPRA is also aware about what you have written and they suggested a “Caribou-tunnel” on Rv 7 Hardangervidda, and some other minor improvements as “change money” in case the Conservative Party want to block the decision for Rv 52. A compromise, business as usual…
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
I'm more sceptical when it comes to a new Bergen-Odda link
Yes, we have reasons to be skeptical. Bergen Arm can be realized when Rv 52 is the second EW main road, it takes time before it can be realised. But for a better EW connection, for now other projects are more important than the Bergen Arm:
1. New Røldal and Haukeli tunnels – to get a snow free road
2. Upgrade E134 Ølen – Etne (part of Haugesund Arm) - to get a fast road to Haugesund/Stavanger

http://www.h-avis.no/e-134/politikk/.../s/5-62-264279

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
This part of the E6 already has close to 20 000 AADT, and we are not even talking about a full motorway here. I really detest the leftist rule of Trondheim.......
E6 Malvik – Stjørdal deserves to be a motorway, very far above 12 000 AADT and Stanvanger managed it even with a predicted 6000-8000 AADT to get a motorway for E39. It is everywhere a green dream to limit cars and to get an oversized public transport network. But I am also not against new railways. Why can’t they combine a second track railroad and a motorway upgrade? At least it will save budget.

Quote:
Originally Posted by metasmurf View Post
I don't know whether this is true or not but at least it's promising.
Quote:
Når det gjelder infrastrukturen inn og ut av Trondheim skal det bygges doble tunneler og fire felt på E6 uansett hva bystyret i Trondheim måtte finne på å vedta, var beskjeden Per Sandberg kunne gi på vegne av samferdselsministeren."
Can be no other indication than that Minister Ketil Solvik-Olsen has dediced to upgrade E6 to motorway. But we need formal confirmation.
Mathias Olsen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 6th, 2016, 11:47 AM   #4320
devo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 221
Likes (Received): 41

They could engage "statlig arealplan" (state plan) which would leave Trondheim (and Stjørdal) municipality to only having a consulting role. (høringsinstans)

But it is as you assume metasmurf, by default every single municipality vote over their respective part of a new road. Which means that in theory one municipality can effectively block a road (this has happened). This is one of the reasons for the slow planning process of Norwegian roads. But the current legal framework (Plan- og bygningsloven) was implemented at a time when national construction schemes (rail or road) were few and far apart.

As mentioned though, the government can decide that a road project is to be implemented using a "state plan" rather than a "municipality plan." E 39 from Søgne to Ålgård is going to be built using the framework of a "state plan."
devo 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 05:54 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