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

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

Highways & Autobahns All about automobility



Global Announcement

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old June 11th, 2009, 12:08 PM   #741
Kjello0
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Trondheim
Posts: 394
Likes (Received): 70

New motortrafikkveier have been given yellow signs since 2005 when they became motortrafikkveier and not Motorway class B. However, the blue motortrafikkvei mark next to the green E 18 mark means that the following E 18 stretch is signposted as a motortrafikkvei.
Kjello0 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old June 11th, 2009, 02:33 PM   #742
Red-Lion
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Stavanger
Posts: 98
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Þróndeimr View Post
of course, but with todays technology, building a bridge with a 6-7km span require 600m tall towers! If we Norwegians made nicer bridges i would be very positive! P
I don't think it's feasible to put pillars on 500m depth, and with that high towers on top. I guess one could buy the Troll-platform in 50 years or whenever it's done operating. Allthough it is only designed to operate in about 300m deep sea with total hight of 472 meters.

main span could possibly be "only" 5km, but that is still way to long i'm afraid :<



Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
I would be a bit surprised if Rogfast actually materialize as the NTP predicts. Remember that the 6 last year of the plan is not committing at all, and my guess was unfortunately that the government just wanted some cheap Rogaland votes....
That would be horrible, I think Rogfast would be alot better than the "stupid" Ryfast project :S

Last edited by Red-Lion; June 11th, 2009 at 02:49 PM.
Red-Lion no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2009, 03:04 PM   #743
Red-Lion
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Stavanger
Posts: 98
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingenioren View Post
I love those Midtbyen intersections where there is an all-pedestrian green instead, maybe that could be a solution elsewhere aswell? (We don't have them in Oslo.)
I don't think this is a good solution, as it will totally stop the traffic in all directions, and there aren't that many pedestrians around.

I think the "Elgseter street"/E6 city route needs to improve traffic flow and not decrease it. Alltho this particular intersection would probably not make the flow worse as it's closer to the cit centre the worst jams are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Þróndeimr View Post
Gråkallen is 550m something, while those hills at Rørvik is some 450m. Btw, welcome back to the right place of living! :P

And by your reply its easy to see that a bridge is unthinkable (remember they think HSR is too expencive, that bridge would cost both HSR Oslo-Trondheim and Oslo-Bergen).
So, we can just move the whole "bymarka" into the fjord making an unprecedented landfill!



On the E134 subject, it will improve summer route from Stavanger to Oslo if the road between Seljord and Oslo became better.

Last edited by Red-Lion; June 11th, 2009 at 03:18 PM.
Red-Lion no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2009, 03:11 PM   #744
Þróndeimr
Adventurous!
 
Þróndeimr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Posts: 12,216
Likes (Received): 2268

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red-Lion View Post
I don't think it's feasible to put pillars on 500m depth, and with that high towers on top. I guess one could buy the Troll-platform in 50 years or whenever it's done operating. Allthough it is only designed to operate in about 300m deep sea with total hight of 472 meters.

main span could possibly be "only" 5km, but that is still way to long i'm afraid :<
True, btw i ment that the towers must be 500-600m above ground to suport a span between 5-7km (Strait of Messina Bridge towers will be 380m tall). Its even more impossible to build a smaller span with towers attached to the sea bottom, since its 500m deep, extremly steep and the ground is very poor.

The shortest distance between Flakk and Rørvik is 6.8km, looking at this maps we might get a span down to 6km. The distance from sea level and -500m is so short it almost goes strait down on both sides of the fjord. Putting huge bridge towers near the edge is way too dangerous, so you can't put the towers much out from the shoreline.




Last edited by Þróndeimr; June 11th, 2009 at 04:31 PM.
Þróndeimr no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2009, 03:12 PM   #745
Þróndeimr
Adventurous!
 
Þróndeimr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Posts: 12,216
Likes (Received): 2268

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red-Lion View Post
So, we can just move the whole "bymarka" into the fjord making an unprecedented landfill!
yeah, i actually think thats easier than building a bridge as it is now!
Þróndeimr no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 12th, 2009, 09:04 AM   #746
Red-Lion
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Stavanger
Posts: 98
Likes (Received): 0

What does people think of Kvivsvegen? The new E39 between Sogn og Fjordane and Møre og Romsdal?
http://www.vegvesen.no/Vegprosjekter/e39kvivsvegen


Photo from vegvesen.no

Some positive stuff about it:
1. Very good for the local people connecting making a bigger work/living region.
2. Potential of becoming a nice alternative for E39.
3. Ferry free E39 on that stretch. Removing 2 ferry stretches.
4. YIMBYism

Some negative stuff:
1. No other plans to improve RV60 which will be part of the new E39. This looks more curved and worse than current E39 in my eyes from looking on the map. But I have no local knowledge about this road.
2. People from Nordfjordseid will have to drive 30km longer to get to Volda and other places north of it. (However will not use more time due to ferry removal).


Trivia: A special rare toad species are living in the area, and can make the construction cost higher due to special precautions/handling of water run off.

Last edited by Red-Lion; June 12th, 2009 at 09:16 AM.
Red-Lion no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 12th, 2009, 07:19 PM   #747
Ingenioren
Registered User
 
Ingenioren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oslo
Posts: 5,605
Likes (Received): 584

I'm all for putting a lot of money into E39, it's the E6 of the west-coast

I can see parts of Rv60 here: -It was voted the worst road in the country sometime back by a popular poll...

It's definatly a typical no-priority vestlandsroad! So there needs to be done some improvements or else this will be a trap for truckers believing it's ok to drive...
__________________
I want to see some construction!
Ingenioren no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 12th, 2009, 09:26 PM   #748
Kjello0
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Trondheim
Posts: 394
Likes (Received): 70

I think it's too far east. If we want a ferry free highway along the west coast we need to cross Sognefjorden. And Sognefjorden will only be crossable almost all the way out on coast at the island Losna where the fjord is only 250 meters deep. Further in it's usually 1000 -1400 meters deep and even 700 - 1000 in the very end of the fjord. Also Storfjorden south of Ålesund will be hard to cross as it's 440 meters deep, but still possible. The alternative is a bridge with a span of 3,5 km.

I want a new route for the whole stretch from Halsa at Nordmøre and to Kristiansand. However, it will cost alot as it will have alot of tunnels and bridges. Several suspension bridges, some over 1 km long.
Kjello0 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 12th, 2009, 10:18 PM   #749
Red-Lion
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Stavanger
Posts: 98
Likes (Received): 0

E6 of the west coast is really air traffic, E39 more used for local traffic, and inter-county on limited stretches, and for the goods transtransport. It can change, let's hope! I guess you can cross sognefjorden with a span of 3-4km somewhere in the inner parts.
Red-Lion no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2009, 02:29 AM   #750
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 Þróndeimr View Post
yeah, i actually think thats easier than building a bridge as it is now!
Does anyone except Svein Otto Nilsen, former loose cannon of the progress party (and as all other expelled members now member of "Demomkratene) believe in a bridge?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kjello0 View Post
I think it's too far east. If we want a ferry free highway along the west coast we need to cross Sognefjorden. And Sognefjorden will only be crossable almost all the way out on coast at the island Losna where the fjord is only 250 meters deep. Further in it's usually 1000 -1400 meters deep and even 700 - 1000 in the very end of the fjord. Also Storfjorden south of Ålesund will be hard to cross as it's 440 meters deep, but still possible. The alternative is a bridge with a span of 3,5 km.

I want a new route for the whole stretch from Halsa at Nordmøre and to Kristiansand. However, it will cost alot as it will have alot of tunnels and bridges. Several suspension bridges, some over 1 km long.
What would be the most realistic alternative for a ferry-free Trondheim-Kristiansund, do you think, Halsafjorden or Talgsjøen tunnel?? Personally I believe Halsafjorden, but for E39 an alternative could also be going further inland via a new tunnel between Surnadal and Sunndal , and hence skip Kristiansund. For the rest of the route to Stavanger/Kristiandsand, see below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red-Lion View Post
E6 of the west coast is really air traffic, E39 more used for local traffic, and inter-county on limited stretches, and for the goods transtransport. It can change, let's hope! I guess you can cross sognefjorden with a span of 3-4km somewhere in the inner parts.
Before a Sognefjord crossing, I would prioritize (from north to south)
  • Rombakfjorden crossing
  • Tysfjord crossing (although almost in the same class as Sognefjorden, it is probably easier to cross)
  • Trondheimsfjord crossing (Trondheim-Frosta-Fosen
  • Agdenes-Brekstad-Rissa (another Trondheim fjord crossing)
  • Halsafjord crossing
  • Romsdalsfjord crossing
  • Storfjord crossing (this one is probably quite difficult, tube tunnel has been suggested)
  • Nordfjord crossing
  • Another Hardangerfjord crossing (from Jondal)
  • Fusa-crossing
  • Ryfast
  • Rogfast
  • Moss-Horten
  • New Mjøsa-bridge
  • Motorway Oslo-Steinkjer-Ålesund-Oslo, Oslo-Kristiansand-Stavanger-Bergen-Oslo and a few other places:


    Did I forget something?

    Perhaps when the other fjord crossings of E39 is fixed, and the traffic on E39 picks up, we can start talking about a Sognefjord crossing. Until then, the traffic is way too low, and the expense way too high.
__________________
Norway needs a new transport infrastructure network, let's start now!

Last edited by 54°26′S 3°24′E; June 13th, 2009 at 02:41 AM.
54°26′S 3°24′E no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 14th, 2009, 09:50 PM   #751
Kjello0
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Trondheim
Posts: 394
Likes (Received): 70

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
What would be the most realistic alternative for a ferry-free Trondheim-Kristiansund, do you think, Halsafjorden or Talgsjøen tunnel?? Personally I believe Halsafjorden, but for E39 an alternative could also be going further inland via a new tunnel between Surnadal and Sunndal , and hence skip Kristiansund. For the rest of the route to Stavanger/Kristiandsand, see below.
With the target a ferry free connection between Trondheim and Kristiansund/Molde the Halsafjord project is the only solution. The Talgsjø project compared to the Halsafjord project will only benefit those who live at the western parts of Tustna. As you can see from the picture below they suggest both a tunnel from Halsa to Tustna, and a tunnel from Tingvold to Frei. Giving most people that live in Aure a better connection to both Trondheim, Molde and Kristiansund. While people living at the western part of Tustna would prefer the Talgsjø project as that's the better connection for them to Kristiansund and Molde.

Talgsjø project will close one ferry. Halsafjord project will close three ferries.
Kjello0 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 14th, 2009, 10:09 PM   #752
Red-Lion
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Stavanger
Posts: 98
Likes (Received): 0

E39 should be designed so it becomes a viable transport for many parties from Trondheim to Bergen/Stavanger, it should not take heavy detours to connect less than 20k people onto the road.
Red-Lion no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 15th, 2009, 01:08 AM   #753
IceCheese
Scandi-friendly
 
IceCheese's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Canada is my city
Posts: 7,226
Likes (Received): 919

The problem is that the government always favour that if it can get them some cheap votes...
__________________
Oslo/Copenhagen - The True Capital of Scandinavia.


Take a look at my Photo Mess!
IceCheese no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 15th, 2009, 01:27 AM   #754
Kjello0
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Trondheim
Posts: 394
Likes (Received): 70

Personally I would like to see this stamvei network in the long therm.
Motorways in black.
Other stamveier in white. Most of them as motortrafikkveier.
All stretches are free of ferries.


The reason I have motorway both up Østerdalen and over Dovre is simple. I want the future motorway between Trondheim and Oslo to go up Østerdalen which is shortest and is lower than Dovre. But even with this motorway we still need a motorway up Gudbrandsdalen to Dombås, and a motorway from the Rv 3 exit at Ulsberg to Oppdal. And with those stretches in place it's just stupid not to upgrade the last 80 km between Oppdal and Dombås to motorway standard.

In total this network of motorways will be about 3700 km. Which we per metercost could get for 185 billion NOK. And then it's not taken into account that we already have many of those stretches finished already. Either already signposted as motorways or stretches that only need minor changes to be signposted as motorway. As an example the new E 6 north of Melhus is just waiting the stretches south of Trondheim and south of Melhus to be finished before it gets classified as motorway. In adition we need some smaller stretches further north like Rv 80 between Fauske and Bodø.

Last edited by Kjello0; June 15th, 2009 at 01:33 AM.
Kjello0 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 15th, 2009, 06:22 AM   #755
Red-Lion
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Stavanger
Posts: 98
Likes (Received): 0

i like the idea, but i think there are some "stamveger" missing from your and the goverments plans, aswell as questionable motorways, but in general it's a good motorway system. I'm unsure if there is a need of motorway to gol/hol/geilo etc..

I also think the motorway should be expanded somewhat north of Bergen.
Red-Lion no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 15th, 2009, 11:24 AM   #756
Kjello0
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Trondheim
Posts: 394
Likes (Received): 70

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red-Lion View Post
i like the idea, but i think there are some "stamveger" missing from your and the goverments plans, aswell as questionable motorways, but in general it's a good motorway system. I'm unsure if there is a need of motorway to gol/hol/geilo etc..

I also think the motorway should be expanded somewhat north of Bergen.
Which stretches are missing?

On Rv 7 from Hønefoss to Gol the traffic is mostly over 4000 AADT already and will demand a motorway in the future. From Gol to Geilo the traffic on some stretches are over 4000 AADT, but with most of the route between 2000 and 4000 AADT. So a motorway from Gol to Geilo may not be needed. But it would be nice to connect the Hallingdal cities together as one region.

When it comes to motorway north of Bergen I'm pretty unsure with the need of that. Traffic going to and from Bergen will mostly use the current E 39. So the traffic going on the new road will only be traffic that bypasses Bergen. And I don't think that will be enough to defend a motorway.
Kjello0 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 15th, 2009, 11:44 AM   #757
Majestic
Systematic Chaos
 
Majestic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: POZnan* (PL)
Posts: 805
Likes (Received): 26

4000 AADT is nothing. Doesn't justify any dual carriageway, let alone a motorway.
Majestic no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 15th, 2009, 12:17 PM   #758
Kjello0
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Trondheim
Posts: 394
Likes (Received): 70

Over time (40-60 years) it will. And new roads in the stamvei network should be planed with atleast 40 years. Today they plan with 20 years. Sweden plans their new motorways with 70 years. It will be damn expensive if we are going to upgrade every road each 20 year. And we will never manage to get a good road network this way either.
And when I say 4000 it's between 4000 and 8000. So it may be all the way up to 8000 AADT already.
They got one color for traffic below 500,
one for 500 - 1000,
one for 1000 - 2000,
one for 2000 - 4000,
one for 4000 - 8000,
one for 8000 - 16000,
one for 16000 - 32000,
one for 32000 - 50000,
and one for 50000+.
Kjello0 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 15th, 2009, 01:16 PM   #759
Red-Lion
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Stavanger
Posts: 98
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kjello0 View Post
Which stretches are missing?

On Rv 7 from Hønefoss to Gol the traffic is mostly over 4000 AADT already and will demand a motorway in the future. From Gol to Geilo the traffic on some stretches are over 4000 AADT, but with most of the route between 2000 and 4000 AADT. So a motorway from Gol to Geilo may not be needed. But it would be nice to connect the Hallingdal cities together as one region.

When it comes to motorway north of Bergen I'm pretty unsure with the need of that. Traffic going to and from Bergen will mostly use the current E 39. So the traffic going on the new road will only be traffic that bypasses Bergen. And I don't think that will be enough to defend a motorway.

Well RV9 is already a stamveg i guess.
I also think RV44 Sandnes-Egersund should be a stamveg.
RV51 Fagernes-Otta could also be a stamveg, but perhaps not needed in the future with new E39 and other roads..?
I also think there should be a stamveg crossing to Sweden in the Trysil area. RV25??
I also think some of the Riksveger around Oslo should be stamveger. Stamveger generally gets a good standard, and I think inter-municipal roads with great traffic numbers needs to be good funded, and a statewide will to develop these roads. Less driven, but yet important regional roads should also be "stamveger". I don't see the point in having a low number of important roads. Reducing the number of "riksveger" and the introduction of the term "stamveger" is just government ways to remove guilt and responsibilities.

The bypass road (RV44) of Kleppekrossen in Rogaland was recommended to be built 4-line road, they built a 2-line road. Bryne soons needs a new bypass road. I think it's sad that they didn't plan a new dual carriage way all the way from Sandnes to past Bryne when they first built the Sandnes/Ganddal bypass.
Red-Lion no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 15th, 2009, 01:48 PM   #760
Red-Lion
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Stavanger
Posts: 98
Likes (Received): 0

http://e24.no/makro-og-politikk/article3122607.ece

Quote:
Fra nyttår overtar norske fylker 17.000 kilometer vei fra staten. Men av ekstramidlene på én milliard kroner går over halvparten til administrasjon og til Statens vegvesen.

Neste år får Statens vegvesen 537 millioner kroner for å administrere veier som fylkene skal overta. Nå reagerer flere fylkesordførere på det de mener er urimelig høye administrasjonsutgifter hos vegvesenet, skriver Nationen.

5,4 mrd. til administrasjon

På ti år regner Tore O. Sandvik (Ap) i Sør-Trøndelag og Roger Ryberg (Ap) i Buskerud med at Vegvesenet vil bruke 5,4 milliarder kroner til administrasjon. Pengene burde i langt større grad vært brukt til å bygge og drifte veier, mener de to.

– Jeg er ikke sikker på at Vegvesenet bruker så mye på administrasjon i dag. Mesteparten av administrasjonskostnadene er prosjektfinansiert i dag, sier Sandvik.

Han får støtte fra Roger Ryberg i Buskerud.

– Jeg synes dette er altfor mye, sier Ryberg.

- Mindre enn de trenger

Statssekretær Geir Pollestad (Sp) i Samferdselsdepartementet sier at Statens vegvesen har fått mindre enn det de mente de trengte.

– De mente den totale summen var 1,1 milliard kroner, og vi har justert denne ned til 1 milliard, sier han.

Norges Automobil-Forbund (NAF) er enig i at Statens vegvesen må dokumentere utgiftene til administrasjon.
So the counties gets less than half a billion NOK like 60-70ish million euros to administrate 17 000 000 meters of road. This is less than half of what was promised since over half is going to pay salaries for old employees which currently "don't have a job and can't be fired". They could of course be hired county-wide but hi, let's face it, norwegian government is ineffective.
Red-Lion no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
norway

Thread Tools

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

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

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 04:05 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