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 16th, 2009, 02:58 AM   #761
Olekristian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Hamar
Posts: 3
Likes (Received): 0

4 felt opp til Mjøsbrua

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingenioren View Post
I made a map of motorway development in Norway - sorry i only choose the area with the most going on, but i can just add that there has been some and will be more motorway building in other regions, but shorter stretches than this - I also choose to add all 4 lane or more roads that have some motorway qualities.

2000:


2010:


2020 (NTP):
In 2020, there will be a highway up to Mjøsbrua Near Moelv(today Motortrafikkvei), about 35 km north of Hamar, so your map for 2020 is not entirely correct. I know since I live in Hamar. 435000000 NOK is already allocated for this purpose so the works can start ca 2014.

There is however plans to build the highway all the way up to Øyer, but that vil be after 2020.

Last edited by Olekristian; June 16th, 2009 at 03:11 AM.
Olekristian no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old June 17th, 2009, 11:41 AM   #762
Red-Lion
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Stavanger
Posts: 98
Likes (Received): 0

One of the best ideas i have seen:
http://www.sognavis.no/lokale_nyhend...cle4398444.ece

They want to allow power companies to remove some of the mountain close to the road, since they need rocks to improve the dams.

They will need 6000 truck loads of rock, and will improve the safety on 500 meters of the road.

And it will not cost the municipality or road authorities anything, as local companies finance the planning, and Statkraft pays for the work.
Red-Lion no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 18th, 2009, 05:17 PM   #763
Olekristian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Hamar
Posts: 3
Likes (Received): 0

A little update: Today's Hamar Arbeiderblad (18/6-2009) states that the E6 between Kolomoen and Moelv can be finished as early as 2015.
Olekristian no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 18th, 2009, 11:28 PM   #764
54°26′S 3°24′E
Registered User
 
54°26′S 3°24′E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 812
Likes (Received): 155

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kjello0 View Post
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.
Good to see that there are some people out there that are even more amitious (and optimistic?) than me.

A few comments:
  1. I very much agree that the main Oslo-Trondheim road should (and in any case will) continue to be along Rv3. With some relatively inexpensive moves this road can even be shorter and hence more favorable than it is today.
  2. Regarding E6 Gudbrandsdalen/Dovre: Motorway is certainly needed up to somewhere north of Lillehammer, perhaps up to Otta or even Dombås. However, I do not see the need for a motorway across Dovre or through Oppdal. In fact, I would probably oppose it unless a rather long tunnel is bored. Would it not be more natural to direct the motorway roughly along the E136 of today so that it connect to E39 somewhere south of the Romsdalsfjord? However, both along Gudbrandsdalen, Romsdalen a motorway would be very dominating as these valleys are rather narrow as well as beautiful, so some of these projects are doomed to be very controversial. The same goes for a motorway along the Hallingdalen, probably.
  3. It looks like you have bypassed Storfjorden with your chosen road to Volda/Ørsta. This may very well be the only solution here.
  4. The Oslo-Stavanger road looks very ambitious, I look forward to details here! If Haukeli should not be used for Stavanger, perhaps a motorway Geilo-Bergen should be considered instead of Haukeli for Bergen as well. It would at least avoid another Hardangerfjord crossing, but I have no clue where such a motorway should go, other than it will probably involve quite a few tunnels! (Finse?)
  5. I agree that a motorway is probably not needed the whole way from Volda to Bergen, as this is a rather sparsely populated area, and the traffic from Sunnmøre towards the continent will probably never go via Stavanger/Kristiansand to the continent. However, despite my somewhat negative comment earlier I infact support a "Autostrasse"/"Motortrafikkveg" along the coast in the long run.
  6. You forgot to put in a decent Trondheim-Bergen road!
  7. Northern Norway, any ideas?
  8. Costs: I landed, in a very unscientific way and with a less ambitious network on a sum of 153-230 billion for 2 770 km of new motorway. In any case, a rather small sum for an investment for the eternity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kjello0 View Post
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+.
More detailed numbers can be found by zooming in on NVDB, however, I am not sure how updated the numbers are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Olekristian View Post
In 2020, there will be a highway up to Mjøsbrua Near Moelv(today Motortrafikkvei), about 35 km north of Hamar, so your map for 2020 is not entirely correct. I know since I live in Hamar. 435000000 NOK is already allocated for this purpose so the works can start ca 2014.

There is however plans to build the highway all the way up to Øyer, but that vil be after 2020.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Olekristian View Post
A little update: Today's Hamar Arbeiderblad (18/6-2009) states that the E6 between Kolomoen and Moelv can be finished as early as 2015.
I was temped to say that you should never trust the transport plan for the latter 6 year period, remember that the plan is put forward in an election year and that historically many projects have been in the "next" time period for decades... However, in this case, I rembered that not even a word is mentioned in the national traffic plan just passed by the parliament about the E6 between Kolomoen and Øyer, so where does your 435 MNOK come from? Don' always trust your local paper, in particular if it is called "Arbeiderblad" just before an election (but it may of course be that I have missed something.)

Edit: I actually found a few words regarding Kolomoen-Lillehammer in the transport plan after some search:
Quote:
I siste seksårsperiode legges det til grunn fullføring av prosjektene E6 Minnesund – Skaberud, Ringebu – Otta og Jaktøya – Tonstad. I tillegg er det aktuelt å prioritere statlige midler til følgende større prosjekter:
--
  • Oppstart på videre utbygging av E6 på strekningen Kolomoen – Lillehammer i Hedmark og Oppland. Strekningen er ulykkesbelastet, og trafikken er stor, spesielt mellom Hamar og Brumunddal. Prioriteringen er betinget av at det blir tilslutning til et opplegg for delvis bompengefinansiering av utbyggingen".
I.e., they say they have an "intention" to start one something from 2015 onwards, dependent on tolls...

According to the project page of the vegvesenet, there are objections to the plans around Hamar, so I would not be to optimistic. Remember that they are not even yet sure that the motorway along Mjøsa (Minnesund-Skaberud) will be finnished by 2014, after years of delays to due to protests.
__________________
Norway needs a new transport infrastructure network, let's start now!

Last edited by 54°26′S 3°24′E; June 20th, 2009 at 02:09 AM.
54°26′S 3°24′E no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 18th, 2009, 11:46 PM   #765
Ingenioren
Registered User
 
Ingenioren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oslo
Posts: 5,605
Likes (Received): 584

New part of E18 from Larvik to Sandefjord opens this monday, see pictures and videos:
http://www.op.no/e18/article4408595.ece
__________________
I want to see some construction!
Ingenioren no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 19th, 2009, 12:03 AM   #766
Red-Lion
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Stavanger
Posts: 98
Likes (Received): 0

I heard rumours you could use bicycle on it on sunday :P would be fun, but i'm unfortunately not in the area!

the traffic data site was cool, and it proves my point that RV44 from sandnes past Bryne should be considered being built a four-line road.
Red-Lion no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 19th, 2009, 06:16 AM   #767
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
Good to see that there are some people out there that are even more amitious (and optimistic?) than me.

A few comments:
  1. I very much agree that the main Oslo-Trondheim road should (and in any case will) continue to be along Rv3. With some relatively inexpensive moves this road can even be shorter and hence more favorable than it is today.
  2. Regarding E6 Gudbrandsdalen/Dovre: Motorway is certainly needed up to somewhere north of Lillehammer, perhaps up to Otta or even Dombås. However, I do not see the need for a motorway across Dovre or through Oppdal. In fact, I would probably oppose it unless a rather long tunnel is bored. Would it not be more natural to direct the motorway roughly along the E136 of today so that it connect to E39 somewhere south of the Romsdalsfjord? However, both along Gudbrandsdalen, Romsdalen a motorway would be very dominating as these valleys are rather narrow as well as beautiful, so some of these projects are doomed to be very controversial. The same goes for a motorway along the Hallingdalen, probably.
  3. It looks like you have bypassed Storfjorden with your chosen road to Volda/Ørsta. This may very well be the only solution here.
  4. The Oslo-Stavanger road looks very ambitious, I look forward to details here! If Haukeli should not be used for Stavanger, perhaps a motorway Geilo-Bergen should be considered instead of Haukeli for Bergen as well. It would at least avoid another Hardangerfjord crossing, but I have no clue where such a motorway should go, other than it will probably involve quite a few tunnels! (Finse?)
  5. I agree that a motorway is probably not needed the whole way from Volda to Bergen, as this is a rather sparsely populated area, and the traffic from Sunnmøre towards the continent will probably never go via Stavanger/Kristiansand to the continent. However, despite my somewhat negative comment earlier I infact support a "Autostrasse"/"Motortrafikkveg" along the coast in the long run.
  6. You forgot to put in a decent Trondheim-Bergen road!
  7. Northern Norway, any ideas?
  8. Costs: I landed, in a very unscientific way and with a less ambitious network on a sum of 153-230 billion for 2 770 km of new motorway. In any case, a rather small sum for an investment for the eternity.

More detailed numbers can be found by zooming in on NVDB, however, I am not sure how updated the numbers are.
First of all, I don't believe a bit that we ever will see a such network in Norway. Unless I become dictator of course.
  1. -
  2. A motorway is needed all the way to Dombås. Especially since the Summer Average Daily Traffic (SADT) is already 8000 at Dombås south and 10 000 at Otta south. A motorway the last 25 km from Ulsberg (Rv 3 exit) to Oppdal is also needed. And I've never said that a motorway over Dovrefjell will be needed in its proper sense. I've just said it's stupid not to upgrade the last 80 km from Oppdal to Dombås. I just hate gaps. I actually hate gaps so much that I rather see the future motorway from Trondheim to Oslo go over Dovre and no motorway up Østerdalen than a motorway up Østerdalen and a gap between Dombås and Oppdal. I don't see the need for a tunnel at Dovrefjell. Compared to other passes in southern Norway Dovrefjell is rarely closed. And some shorter tunnels at the most risky places will be more than enough. I've considered a motorway from Dombås along the E 136 to Vestnes. But I don't think it may be defended to build a motorway all the way. We must also remember that some of the traffic at E 136 is actually traffic that would use E 39 if that road was good and cheaper.
  3. Storfjorden is crossed between Sula and Hareid/Ulsteinvik and use the Eiksund tunnel to reach Ørsta and Volda. From Ulsteinvik the future E 39 should mostly follow the current Rv 61 before it follow a completly new route to east of Bergen.
  4. It is very ambitious. It actually follows a very good route which mostly is under 900 meters. But a shorter stretch goes up to just above 1000 meters. The same as Dovrefjell. Probably the most ambitious part of this route is a 2 km long bridge 300 meters above Dalen valley in Tokke municipality Telemark. The bridge can be made only 1,6 km long, but would then go almost 400 meters above the valley and will demand some other bridges aswell. It would however be one amazing peice of engineering and a great landmark. In my opinion we need another Hardangerfjord crossing even if a motorway won't go there. Even with the planed Hardangerfjord bridge the distance from Odda to Bergen will be 200 km. A second Hardangerfjord crossing would make it under 100 km. And as you say, where should a motorway from Bergen to Geilo go? Finse I don't see as a option as the altitude is over 1200 meters there. And a tunnel under the whole thing would be about 60 km long. Then it's in my eyes better to use Haukeli which also connects the Haugesund region to eastern Norway.
  5. -
  6. The new E 39 is of course the main route between Trondheim and Bergen and will be more than good enough. A better route than this E 39 would have to go over Dovrefjell and demand tunnels over 40 km long.
  7. Not plans that are so fun as in southern Norway. The closest is probably a new E 6/E 8 from Målselv to Tromsø. But I havn't agreed with myself yet. I've mainly focused on southern Norway.
  8. Sintef states that narrow motorways costs 25 000 NOK pr meter to build and normal motorways 35 000 NOK pr meter excluding buying properties. I've used 50 000 NOK becouse there will be alot of bridges and tunnels. When it comes to financing it I think 40% should be paid by the goverment using oil money. 30% should be paid by the users by fuel taxes (which we actually already pay) and some toll roads. And the last 30% should be paid by the private sector.

That's where I found the numbers from. Only some points decided be Vegvesenet shows monthly and exact stats. Those are found in seperate PDF's for each county.

Another part of my ambition is to have two links (main and reserve) if the main one has to go over mountain passes. That's why we have both Østerdalen and Dovrefjell for Trondheim - Oslo even tough Østerdalen never gets closed. Atleast as far as I can remember. That's why we have both E 136 and Rv 15 over Strynfjellet for Ålesund - Oslo even though Strynfjellet gets alot more closed than E 136. And that's why we should have both the new Stavanger - Oslo link and a link along the current E 134 over Haukeli.
Kjello0 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 19th, 2009, 03:46 PM   #768
Red-Lion
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Stavanger
Posts: 98
Likes (Received): 0

35 000 is that for upgrading pre-existing 2-line to 4-line road on flat ground?
Red-Lion no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 19th, 2009, 06:04 PM   #769
Kjello0
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Trondheim
Posts: 394
Likes (Received): 70

No, it's for building new roads. But on flat ground i guess, it doesn't say.

It does also say the cost of upgrading from different 2 lane roads to narrow motorway.

6,5 m -> 20 m = 20 000 pr meter
7,5 m -> 20 m = 19 500 pr meter
10 m -> 20 m = 18 400 pr meter

It does also explane why AADT is so important when new roads is given their standard. It seems like the target is the lowest costs in total. User costs and maintenance costs. They've used AADT 1000 to give an example.

AADT 1000

Road width 6,5 meter
User costs 13 939 kr
Maintenance costs 7 397 kr
Total costs 21 336 kr

Road width 7,5 meter
User costs 13 652 kr
Maintenance costs 7 950 kr
Total costs 21 602 kr

Road width 8,5 meter
User costs 13 495 kr
Maintenance costs 8 704 kr
Total costs 22 100 kr

Road width 10 meter
User costs 13 096 kr
Maintenance costs 9 806 kr
Total costs 22 902 kr

So even though the user costs goes down with 843 from 13 939 to 13 096 the maintenance costs goes up with 2 409 from 7 397 to 9 806. Making the total cost 1 566 higher with a 10 wide road compared to a 6,5 meter one at AADT 1000. That's why we wont see a motorway network like this.

For AADT 3000 the optimal standard is 8,5 meters.
For AADT 8000 the optimal standard is 10 meters.
And for AADT 15 000 the optimal standard is 20 meters.
Kjello0 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 19th, 2009, 07:02 PM   #770
IceCheese
Scandi-friendly
 
IceCheese's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Canada is my city
Posts: 7,228
Likes (Received): 925

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kjello0 View Post
First of all, I don't believe a bit that we ever will see a such network in Norway. Unless I become dictator of course.
You have my vote. Personally I would like to start a party called "Fornuftspartiet" where every political decision was based on common sense, instead of pleasing some few voters here and there in a desperate attempt to stay in power, while neglecting the cases that really matters. My party would also prohibit any processing of any kind in Stortinget last 6 months before elections, to ensure that also the other parties are "fornuftige".
__________________
Oslo/Copenhagen - The True Capital of Scandinavia.


Take a look at my Photo Mess!
IceCheese no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 19th, 2009, 08:31 PM   #771
Red-Lion
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Stavanger
Posts: 98
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kjello0 View Post
No, it's for building new roads. But on flat ground i guess, it doesn't say.

It does also say the cost of upgrading from different 2 lane roads to narrow motorway.

6,5 m -> 20 m = 20 000 pr meter
7,5 m -> 20 m = 19 500 pr meter
10 m -> 20 m = 18 400 pr meter

It does also explane why AADT is so important when new roads is given their standard. It seems like the target is the lowest costs in total. User costs and maintenance costs. They've used AADT 1000 to give an example.

AADT 1000

Road width 6,5 meter
User costs 13 939 kr
Maintenance costs 7 397 kr
Total costs 21 336 kr

Road width 7,5 meter
User costs 13 652 kr
Maintenance costs 7 950 kr
Total costs 21 602 kr

Road width 8,5 meter
User costs 13 495 kr
Maintenance costs 8 704 kr
Total costs 22 100 kr

Road width 10 meter
User costs 13 096 kr
Maintenance costs 9 806 kr
Total costs 22 902 kr

So even though the user costs goes down with 843 from 13 939 to 13 096 the maintenance costs goes up with 2 409 from 7 397 to 9 806. Making the total cost 1 566 higher with a 10 wide road compared to a 6,5 meter one at AADT 1000. That's why we wont see a motorway network like this.

For AADT 3000 the optimal standard is 8,5 meters.
For AADT 8000 the optimal standard is 10 meters.
And for AADT 15 000 the optimal standard is 20 meters.
That doesn't take into account safety! :P
Red-Lion no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 19th, 2009, 09:01 PM   #772
Red-Lion
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Stavanger
Posts: 98
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by IceCheese View Post
You have my vote. Personally I would like to start a party called "Fornuftspartiet" where every political decision was based on common sense, instead of pleasing some few voters here and there in a desperate attempt to stay in power, while neglecting the cases that really matters. My party would also prohibit any processing of any kind in Stortinget last 6 months before elections, to ensure that also the other parties are "fornuftige".
I guess It's okay for me to join in on the political debate here, when I'm gonna trash talk all parties! You definitly see the election coming up. Parties are lying, denying responsibilities, promising, arguing, whining... But elections are fun, atleast in Norway. Makes my sad life a little bit more interesting for a few months!

I would vote for "common sense"-party, but since there are none, i'm gonna vote FrP. Yes they got a bunch of tards in their party, and a bunch of great people. But their politic is often based on objective view, and using money where it's benefits the most etc. I don't like the left parties, since they argue for worse roads just to make people use the car less, instead it creates traffic jams and more pollution. They wanna spend money on strange things, without giving real argumentation for it, and they don't wanna build up the income potential of norwegian business.

Maybe I should vote for the christian party in Norway, they believe that God told them to delay oil drilling in the North for 5 years.

What we need in norway is more common sense, and I think this can be more easily done if there were more direct elections of persons in power. Now with our semi-democracy we can only elect parties, not people.

Also there should be IQ testing of politicians and publications of the numbers!
Red-Lion no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 20th, 2009, 01:57 AM   #773
54°26′S 3°24′E
Registered User
 
54°26′S 3°24′E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 812
Likes (Received): 155

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kjello0 View Post
First of all, I don't believe a bit that we ever will see a such network in Norway. Unless I become dictator of course.
Give me the army and you will have my wholehearted support!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kjello0 View Post
A motorway is needed all the way to Dombås. Especially since the Summer Average Daily Traffic (SADT) is already 8000 at Dombås south and 10 000 at Otta south. A motorway the last 25 km from Ulsberg (Rv 3 exit) to Oppdal is also needed. And I've never said that a motorway over Dovrefjell will be needed in its proper sense. I've just said it's stupid not to upgrade the last 80 km from Oppdal to Dombås. I just hate gaps. I actually hate gaps so much that I rather see the future motorway from Trondheim to Oslo go over Dovre and no motorway up Østerdalen than a motorway up Østerdalen and a gap between Dombås and Oppdal. I don't see the need for a tunnel at Dovrefjell. Compared to other passes in southern Norway Dovrefjell is rarely closed. And some shorter tunnels at the most risky places will be more than enough. I've considered a motorway from Dombås along the E 136 to Vestnes. But I don't think it may be defended to build a motorway all the way. We must also remember that some of the traffic at E 136 is actually traffic that would use E 39 if that road was good and cheaper.

Another part of my ambition is to have two links (main and reserve) if the main one has to go over mountain passes. That's why we have both Østerdalen and Dovrefjell for Trondheim - Oslo even tough Østerdalen never gets closed. Atleast as far as I can remember. That's why we have both E 136 and Rv 15 over Strynfjellet for Ålesund - Oslo even though Strynfjellet gets alot more closed than E 136. And that's why we should have both the new Stavanger - Oslo link and a link along the current E 134 over Haukeli.
The reason I am against motorway across Dovre and through Oppdal is in fact more of an environmental argument. I simply do not think benefit is worth the the environmental cost (for the fauna, view, and the added "climate" cost of climbing the hill). Also, with a motorway Kolomoen-Ulsberg and upgrad Ulsberg-Oppdal, Østerdalen would probably be a good choise also for traffic Oslo-Nordmøre/Oppdal.

RV3 Kolomoen-Ulsberg does not really have a mountain pass, and would be even less so with a short tunnel. The only time it is closed are due to traffic accidents, and before you manage to reroute to Dovre the road will be cleared again. Hence, IMO it is no need for an two links Trondheim-Oslo.

(The average AADT is btw below 4000 on most of Otta-Dombås, and below 8000 (downto below 5000) on Hafjell-Otta according to the vegvesen service I linked above. However, as you pointed out, traffic on most roads are higher in summer, and E6 seems to have a high affinity for RVs....)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kjello0 View Post
Storfjorden is crossed between Sula and Hareid/Ulsteinvik and use the Eiksund tunnel to reach Ørsta and Volda. From Ulsteinvik the future E 39 should mostly follow the current Rv 61 before it follow a completly new route to east of Bergen.
Slightly off topic: The fjord between Sula and Hareid is called Sulfjorden. Storfjorden is between Sula and the mainland, where the current ferry on E39, Solevågen-Festøy. I think Storfjorden is quite deep, but have no clue regarding Sulfjorden.

BTW: I notice now that your new E39 north of Kristiansund crosses Talgsjøen?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kjello0 View Post
It is very ambitious. It actually follows a very good route which mostly is under 900 meters. But a shorter stretch goes up to just above 1000 meters. The same as Dovrefjell. Probably the most ambitious part of this route is a 2 km long bridge 300 meters above Dalen valley in Tokke municipality Telemark. The bridge can be made only 1,6 km long, but would then go almost 400 meters above the valley and will demand some other bridges aswell. It would however be one amazing peice of engineering and a great landmark.
Not all people would regard such a bridge in this way...I just remember the slightly more southern route (across Suleskard) as extremely hilly, but the route you drew is probably better, at least (?) if Ryfast is built.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kjello0 View Post
In my opinion we need another Hardangerfjord crossing even if a motorway won't go there. Even with the planed Hardangerfjord bridge the distance from Odda to Bergen will be 200 km. A second Hardangerfjord crossing would make it under 100 km. And as you say, where should a motorway from Bergen to Geilo go? Finse I don't see as a option as the altitude is over 1200 meters there. And a tunnel under the whole thing would be about 60 km long. Then it's in my eyes better to use Haukeli which also connects the Haugesund region to eastern Norway.
Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kjello0 View Post
The new E 39 is of course the main route between Trondheim and Bergen and will be more than good enough. A better route than this E 39 would have to go over Dovrefjell and demand tunnels over 40 km long.
E39 is too long, we want a tunnel

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kjello0 View Post
Sintef states that narrow motorways costs 25 000 NOK pr meter to build and normal motorways 35 000 NOK pr meter excluding buying properties. I've used 50 000 NOK becouse there will be alot of bridges and tunnels. When it comes to financing it I think 40% should be paid by the goverment using oil money. 30% should be paid by the users by fuel taxes (which we actually already pay) and some toll roads. And the last 30% should be paid by the private sector.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kjello0 View Post
No, it's for building new roads. But on flat ground i guess, it doesn't say.

It does also say the cost of upgrading from different 2 lane roads to narrow motorway.

6,5 m -> 20 m = 20 000 pr meter
7,5 m -> 20 m = 19 500 pr meter
10 m -> 20 m = 18 400 pr meter

It does also explane why AADT is so important when new roads is given their standard. It seems like the target is the lowest costs in total. User costs and maintenance costs. They've used AADT 1000 to give an example.

AADT 1000

Road width 6,5 meter
User costs 13 939 kr
Maintenance costs 7 397 kr
Total costs 21 336 kr

Road width 7,5 meter
User costs 13 652 kr
Maintenance costs 7 950 kr
Total costs 21 602 kr

Road width 8,5 meter
User costs 13 495 kr
Maintenance costs 8 704 kr
Total costs 22 100 kr

Road width 10 meter
User costs 13 096 kr
Maintenance costs 9 806 kr
Total costs 22 902 kr

So even though the user costs goes down with 843 from 13 939 to 13 096 the maintenance costs goes up with 2 409 from 7 397 to 9 806. Making the total cost 1 566 higher with a 10 wide road compared to a 6,5 meter one at AADT 1000. That's why we wont see a motorway network like this.

For AADT 3000 the optimal standard is 8,5 meters.
For AADT 8000 the optimal standard is 10 meters.
And for AADT 15 000 the optimal standard is 20 meters.
I guess you mean this report? It seems like a fairly solid report, although it is now a bit old (both costs and benefits of roads probably have increased a little). However, in my view, the standards should also take into account the fact that:
  1. The actuall cost of building the road should be a part of the standard. It is (mostly) significantly more expensive to build roads in central areas, because land costs are higher, more tunnels are needed in order to avoid residential areas. If not in urban areas, building roads in central low-lands also usually means that you have to spend farm-land, which Norway has preciously little of, and where I in addition imagine it is more expensive to make proper fundaments for modern road than on rocky ground, or like in Østerdalen: moraine.
  2. The composition of AADT is very different. Typically, on the main long distance highways (again like rv3) heavy traffic has a much higher percentage than on urban roads, leading to far higher "user costs" than the AADT number alone indicates.
  3. Alternative forms of transport. In urban and central areas environmental friendly transport alternatives (rail/bus/bicycle/feet!) are available, whereas on long distance transport the alternative is usually the environmental disaster called airplanes (or in some cases, like Stavanger-Bergen or Trondheim-Kristiansund, the even worse alternative of high speed ferries). Hence in order to transfer traffic to the ground both high speed highways (budget alternative) and railways should be developed. However, in order to get short transport times, it is imperative that the whole route on for instance Trondheim-Oslo or Oslo-Bergen/Stavanger is built to motorway standard, such that transport times around 4 hours can be achieved, which is be comparable with the time most people use on air transport (air travel/connecting travel/checkin/baggage claim).
PS: I based my guesstimates on motorway projects in Norway lately, mostly built in rather central areas, and with a varying dose of tunnels/bridges. Since then, the E6 along Mjøsa has become more expensive, mainly because it was decided to build a long tunnel after protests against the original plans. However, Norwegian highway projects are not known to be built in a particular cost effective way, and it is said that Sweden manage to build their motorways for around 33 000 kr/m. In any case, I am pretty confident that the meter price for instance for Rv 3 would be significantly lower than what I indicated above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red-Lion View Post
I guess It's okay for me to join in on the political debate here, when I'm gonna trash talk all parties! You definitly see the election coming up. Parties are lying, denying responsibilities, promising, arguing, whining... But elections are fun, atleast in Norway. Makes my sad life a little bit more interesting for a few months!

I would vote for "common sense"-party, but since there are none, i'm gonna vote FrP. Yes they got a bunch of tards in their party, and a bunch of great people. But their politic is often based on objective view, and using money where it's benefits the most etc. I don't like the left parties, since they argue for worse roads just to make people use the car less, instead it creates traffic jams and more pollution. They wanna spend money on strange things, without giving real argumentation for it, and they don't wanna build up the income potential of norwegian business.

Maybe I should vote for the christian party in Norway, they believe that God told them to delay oil drilling in the North for 5 years.

What we need in norway is more common sense, and I think this can be more easily done if there were more direct elections of persons in power. Now with our semi-democracy we can only elect parties, not people.

Also there should be IQ testing of politicians and publications of the numbers!
[ot]
If I vote with my road brain I vote FrP. If I use my whole brain I rather vote Høyre and hope that they are willing to throw a few bones to FrP on the road issue, and get HSR into the deal....

However, I agree to a switch to single winner voting systems. Not to get rid of the parties as such, but to get rid of all the smaller parties and give clearer and more stable alternatives, and even more important: Someone we can keep accountable. As it is now, every decision is a compromize between different parties, and if things go wrong, or if the final results does not resemble much what they actually said before the elections, they later blame it on the other parties of the compromize.
[/ot]
__________________
Norway needs a new transport infrastructure network, let's start now!

Last edited by 54°26′S 3°24′E; June 20th, 2009 at 02:20 AM.
54°26′S 3°24′E no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 20th, 2009, 02:38 AM   #774
Olekristian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Hamar
Posts: 3
Likes (Received): 0

Hehe .... Do't trust the politicians at all I will say. Whether it is election year or not.

And the 435 million NOK was adopted in the debate about NTP 2010-2019, and is as you say not mentioned with one word in the proposal to the government. The red-green government had not allocated any thing that is actually the most dangerous road in Norway (Kolomoen-Moelv), but after pressure by the Mayor of Lillehammer, Ringsaker, Hamar and Stange and from politicians in the Parliament from Hedmark, these money actually appropriated under debate in Parliament regarding the NTP 2010-2019. So the money is "Øremerket".

And as it stand in HA:

"Hvis bompengeselskapet forskuterer nødvendig med penger er det mulig å bygge firefelts E6 til Moelv ferdig i 2015. Dette opplyser prosjektleder Taale Stensbye i statens vegvesen.
Da stortinget tirsdag sa ja til å bygge ny E6 Skaberud-Labbedalen i Stange og Dal-Minnesund i Akershus, åpnet det også for at bompengeselskapet kan forskutere penger til å planlegge, prosjektere og erverve grunn til vegen fra Kolomoen i Stange til Lillehammer"

Later in the article Stensbye says that as it now seems all plans for new E6 to Moelv is ready in 2012 or 2013. Exception may be, and stresses can be, the stretch in northern Åkersvika if the government stop the plan. Whether the goverment stop the plan for Nordre Åkersvika-something I do not think-the plan veivesnet has is to to make the way to West Åkersvika and from Vien just north of the northern Åkersvika to Moelv. And to wait to build the plots through nordre Åkersvika.

But all this of course don't necessarily mean that the road is finished in 2015 like Stensby hope. But the chances of it has increased dramatically in relation to what they were when the government presented its proposal for the NTP 3-4 months ago.

Last edited by Olekristian; June 20th, 2009 at 08:26 PM.
Olekristian no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 20th, 2009, 04:21 AM   #775
Red-Lion
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Stavanger
Posts: 98
Likes (Received): 0

Brokke-suleskar is not too hilly if i remember correctly. But it is a narrow road, on the mountain. The problem is that it's over 1000 meters above sea lvl so you would need to climb like 400 meters in 40 km drive or so (if the road was straight!)... don't know if that is bad for emissions. I don't think it's viable to have an important crossing over there before it gets winter safe! But hey! let's build a 40km long dual motorway tunnel!
Red-Lion no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 20th, 2009, 04:10 PM   #776
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
BTW: I notice now that your new E39 north of Kristiansund crosses Talgsjøen?
No, it use the same route as the Halsafjord project.



Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
E39 is too long, we want a tunnel
You could get your way.


Pricetag is supposed to be 7 billion NOK.

Last edited by Kjello0; June 20th, 2009 at 07:40 PM.
Kjello0 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 21st, 2009, 04:52 PM   #777
Red-Lion
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Stavanger
Posts: 98
Likes (Received): 0

7 billion let's do it!
Red-Lion no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 22nd, 2009, 07:42 PM   #778
Kjello0
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Trondheim
Posts: 394
Likes (Received): 70

Well, I still prefer my proposal of a new E 39. I think my E 39 might do Trondheim - Bergen in about 550 km. And atleast under 600 km.
Kjello0 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 23rd, 2009, 12:53 AM   #779
54°26′S 3°24′E
Registered User
 
54°26′S 3°24′E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 812
Likes (Received): 155




Actually I said this more as a joke originally, as your vision had Norway seemed plastered with motorways and expressways, but no road Trondheim-Bergen. If the E39 indeed was built as you prescribe, KjelloO, there is probably not much point in an interior expressway Trondheim-Bergen in addition. However, it will take something like 40- 50 billion to make E39 completely ferryfree, without motorways. In comparison, we already have a summer ferry free road of about 650 km between Trondheim and Bergen using Valdresflya, but as it 1400 m high and hilly, it is not much use for trucks and closed during winter. ~630-660 km truckable year-round ferryfree road can be made by making a tunnel under Valdresflya, roughly 10 km, and can even be made roughly 30 km shorter if a tunnel of around 12 km is made between the Otta-valley and Dovre (NOT Dovre-mountain). This would be at a fraction of the cost of both the Luster-idea (Liv Signe must love this) and particular E39, but at the moment there are more pressing issues both at the Bergen and Trondheim side, so we might need the fight of the Luster guys . A ferry free E39 still will probably preffered by the trucks, as it probably will be less hilly.

Regarding E39, I of course now see that the current road and your proposal seriously split south-west of Halsa, introducing 3 extra fjord-crossings to Frei/Averøy, making the total number of links from Kristiansund to the mainland/Frei 4....

@Red-Lion: I actually meant the whole strech from Kongsberg to Sandnes, where you in total has to cross something like 5 valleys. In any case, Suleskar is currently very steep and winding on both side of the mountains, as well as over it.

@Olekristian: Good for you (and for the rest of the country). I actually tried to search the parliament discussions also the other day, but did not find any mentioning of E6 in the Hamar area. Probably was not looking at the right place. Hopefully they will also find some money for other considerably more trafficated roads other places in the country (like E6 south of Trondheim (>26 000 AADT) and E39 Sandnes-area)

Logging off for the summer.....
__________________
Norway needs a new transport infrastructure network, let's start now!
54°26′S 3°24′E no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 23rd, 2009, 12:11 PM   #780
Red-Lion
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Stavanger
Posts: 98
Likes (Received): 0

Well, his motorway system might be FrPish, but look at what the danes are building!

I do believe however that before making too much motorways on <8000 AADT roads, that some pre-existing roads should be made wider. Especially the road between RV44/E39 intersection and Stavanger could probably need to be widened to 3 lines on parts of the stretch.
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 08:23 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