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 April 21st, 2010, 01:35 PM   #1021
katia72
Registered User
 
katia72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Oslo
Posts: 223
Likes (Received): 9

Quote:
Originally Posted by KiwiRob View Post
Ah well I'm n a road trip right now, I looked like I couldn't get to Riga on Monday (turned out to be correct) so I drove to Stockholm and caught the ferry, now I'm sitting in Warsaw contemplating a bloodly long drive to Milano for a meeting on Friday since I'm not going to be able to get back to Molde to catch my Friday flights. So far I've driven about 1900km with another 4000 or so to go before I get home which should be Sunday night or Monday morning.

Looking forward to the Autobahn today will have to see if I can have a go at a top speed run in my Mini. Just have to remember that unless you drive a Bugatti there is always someone faster than you.

I am enjoying being able to drive at a decent 130 - 150kph, certainly makes travel by car a lot more fun, I am not looking forward to driving from Oslo to Molde.

This sounds like fun.
Can you tell me which way you take from Warsaw to Milan and how is the road construction in Poland.
I'll drive to the South Poland in the summer looking forward very much.

Bon voyage to You :-)
katia72 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old April 22nd, 2010, 08:18 AM   #1022
KiwiRob
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,366
Likes (Received): 5

I drove the E30 from Warsaw to Germany, the first part was nasty two lane highway full of trucks and suicidal poles jumping in and out of the traffic to pass, then we hit the new motorway section 130kph, goes on for a hell of a long way, excellent road, really nice, it ends about 50km from the border, the missing section to Germany is under construction. I was advised not to drive south to Italy, the roads are pretty bad and there are little or no motorway, Polish A roads are crowded with trucks, not fun to drive at all.

Driving the autobahn was great fun, Germans have great motorway etiquette, I was driving around 130-140kph any faster and the Mini used way to much diesel.
KiwiRob no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 22nd, 2010, 04:42 PM   #1023
katia72
Registered User
 
katia72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Oslo
Posts: 223
Likes (Received): 9

Quote:
Originally Posted by KiwiRob View Post
I drove the E30 from Warsaw to Germany, the first part was nasty two lane highway full of trucks and suicidal poles jumping in and out of the traffic to pass, then we hit the new motorway section 130kph, goes on for a hell of a long way, excellent road, really nice, it ends about 50km from the border, the missing section to Germany is under construction. I was advised not to drive south to Italy, the roads are pretty bad and there are little or no motorway, Polish A roads are crowded with trucks, not fun to drive at all.

Driving the autobahn was great fun, Germans have great motorway etiquette, I was driving around 130-140kph any faster and the Mini used way to much diesel.

Thanks a lot..
katia72 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2010, 04:50 PM   #1024
JeremyCastle
Registered User
 
JeremyCastle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 169
Likes (Received): 2

Does anyone on this thread know of any good websites that explain about the widening of the E6 from Gardermoen to Hamar? The language doesn't matter.
JeremyCastle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2010, 05:56 PM   #1025
Grauthue
Registered User
 
Grauthue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Oslo
Posts: 273
Likes (Received): 72

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeremyCastle View Post
Does anyone on this thread know of any good websites that explain about the widening of the E6 from Gardermoen to Hamar? The language doesn't matter.
Don't know if it's good, but here is the official project website from the Norwegian road authorities (in norwegian).
Grauthue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 27th, 2010, 06:49 PM   #1026
KiwiRob
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,366
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeremyCastle View Post
Does anyone on this thread know of any good websites that explain about the widening of the E6 from Gardermoen to Hamar? The language doesn't matter.
I drove through it yesterday, it's quite impressive for a Norwegian roading project. Hopefully the next stage is Hamar to Lilliehamar, about 10-15km north of Lilliehamar near Otta it looks like another roading project is being undertaken, hopefully they will be double laning it or at least adding some passing lanes.

Last edited by KiwiRob; April 27th, 2010 at 06:54 PM.
KiwiRob no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 27th, 2010, 07:05 PM   #1027
Grauthue
Registered User
 
Grauthue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Oslo
Posts: 273
Likes (Received): 72

Quote:
Originally Posted by KiwiRob View Post
I drove through it yesterday, it's quite impressive for a Norwegian roading project. Hopefully the next stage is Hamar to Lilliehamar, about 10-15km north of Lilliehamar near Otta it looks like another roading project is being undertaken, hopefully they will be double laning it or at least adding some passing lanes.
The plan is to build 4 lanes up to Øyer, north of Lillehammer. Further up they are also going to build a new road, but it will be 2 lanes with passing lanes here and there.

Sensible enough. The AADT is less than 6000 at Otta.

With the current pace they'll probably be finished by the year 2350 or something

BTW: Otta is 113,8 km north of Lillehammer
Grauthue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 27th, 2010, 11:20 PM   #1028
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

There is afaik no concrete motorway funding in place north of Kolomoen (which is at the Rv 3 / E6 junction). Both Kolomoen - Lillehammer as well as Kolomoen-Trondheim (rv 3 / E6) should IMO become motorway ASAP, but we have to wait at least 3 1 /2 years before even thinking about that again...
__________________
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 April 28th, 2010, 03:03 AM   #1029
IceCheese
Scandi-friendly
 
IceCheese's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Canada is my city
Posts: 7,226
Likes (Received): 919

Well, Kolomoen - Biri is already mentioned in NTP, so probably it's just a matter of time till the local politicans are forced to accept yet another toll booth.
__________________
Oslo/Copenhagen - The True Capital of Scandinavia.


Take a look at my Photo Mess!
IceCheese no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2010, 01:40 PM   #1030
KiwiRob
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,366
Likes (Received): 5

I would consider the E6 as a route of national importance it should not be tolled on any part of it, it should be 4 lane highway from Oslo to Trondheim.
KiwiRob no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2010, 02:12 PM   #1031
Ingenioren
Registered User
 
Ingenioren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oslo
Posts: 5,605
Likes (Received): 584

Last time i checked it wasn't certain that any part north of Mjøsbridge would be motorway standard, maybe it will just be widened to narrow 4 laner with some 2 lane parts in between (Like "Nullvisjonsvegen" past Hunderfossen.)

About the Tretten - Øyer part of E6 that is starting construction now, it will also follow this formula:

"Trafikkmengden på strekningen E6 Øyer-Tretten tilsier at tunnelen i
første omgang bygges med ett løp. Øyertunnelens andre løp skal være ferdig
bygd når den gjennomsnittlige døgntrafikken passerer 8 000 kjøretøy. Ifølge
dagens prognoser kommer trafikken til å komme opp i 8000 per døgn 13-14
år etter åpningen av den nye Øyertunnelen."
__________________
I want to see some construction!
Ingenioren no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2010, 01:21 AM   #1032
IceCheese
Scandi-friendly
 
IceCheese's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Canada is my city
Posts: 7,226
Likes (Received): 919

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingenioren View Post
Last time i checked it wasn't certain that any part north of Mjøsbridge would be motorway standard, maybe it will just be widened to narrow 4 laner with some 2 lane parts in between (Like "Nullvisjonsvegen" past Hunderfossen.)

About the Tretten - Øyer part of E6 that is starting construction now, it will also follow this formula:

"Trafikkmengden på strekningen E6 Øyer-Tretten tilsier at tunnelen i
første omgang bygges med ett løp. Øyertunnelens andre løp skal være ferdig
bygd når den gjennomsnittlige døgntrafikken passerer 8 000 kjøretøy. Ifølge
dagens prognoser kommer trafikken til å komme opp i 8000 per døgn 13-14
år etter åpningen av den nye Øyertunnelen."
Luckily, Statens Vegvesen has so good tools for traffic projections!
__________________
Oslo/Copenhagen - The True Capital of Scandinavia.


Take a look at my Photo Mess!
IceCheese no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2010, 08:09 PM   #1033
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

As if they actually (by magic) intend to build that second tunnel when traffic passes 8000. There are currently quite a few tunnels with more than 8000 AADT. Trondheim-Stjørdal had 15 000 last time I checked with three tunnels (the longest one more than 4 km), and there is not even talk in the public about dualing The Gudbrandsdal people should hope (or rather vote) for a change of government...
__________________
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 April 29th, 2010, 09:27 PM   #1034
Hansadyret
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Bergen
Posts: 783
Likes (Received): 622

Quote:
Originally Posted by KiwiRob View Post
I would consider the E6 as a route of national importance it should not be tolled on any part of it, it should be 4 lane highway from Oslo to Trondheim.
At least to Dombås where the road parts to Sunnmøre and Trondheim should be possible sometime. Over Dovre i don't think it's necessary(maybe it's enough with 2+1), 4 lanes again when you come down from Dovre nearing Trondheim and all the way to Steinkjer.

I don't think its a big problem with a little bit of roadtolls on E6. It's a cheap road to drive compared to many others an especially E39.
Hansadyret no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 1st, 2010, 03:14 AM   #1035
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 KiwiRob View Post
I would consider the E6 as a route of national importance it should not be tolled on any part of it, it should be 4 lane highway from Oslo to Trondheim.
I support this, when E6 goes through Østerdalen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hansadyret View Post
At least to Dombås where the road parts to Sunnmøre and Trondheim should be possible sometime. Over Dovre i don't think it's necessary(maybe it's enough with 2+1), 4 lanes again when you come down from Dovre nearing Trondheim and all the way to Steinkjer.
I agree. As much as the Gudbrandsdalen people are branding the E6 as the "national highway of Norway", and even the main Oslo-Trondheim highway, at Dombås the road is more of a regional road mainly serving the valley itself and Møre og Romsdal between Molde and Ålesund. I think it is probably a good idea to expand the Gudbrandsdal road to a full motorway at some point, but it will be quite expensive, and meet a lot of opposition from environmentalists. There are quite a few roads I would like to see expanded first, including (Oslo-)Kolomoen-Elverum-Trondheim-Steinkjer, Kristiansand-Vestfold(-Oslo), Kolomoen-Lillehammer, Drammen-Haukeli-Bergen, and probably even Stavanger-Bergen.

Not enough people realize that Elverum and Lillehammer are equally close to Trøndelag, and building a motorway through Østerdalen can be done at a fraction of the cost and environmental contriversy compared to Gudbrandsdalen / Dovrefjell.
Quote:
I don't think its a big problem with a little bit of roadtolls on E6. It's a cheap road to drive compared to many others an especially E39.
The Trondheim-Oslo drive (which usually don't include Gudbrandsdalen) is set to be quite expensive, with tolls at Gardermoen-Kolomoen, Løten-Elverum, and the whole E6 in Trøndelag until Åsen north of Stjørdal if all proposals are approved. Personally I can afford it, but the reliance on toll financing is a big problem in Norway because:
  • Tolls are generating a huge amount of opposition, and this it is very difficult to get the required progress in infrastructure development.
  • Tolls are an inefficient way of raising money
  • Tolls are unfair and unsocial, because it is often quite random who is affected. (which is partly why they are so unpopular). Areas with the poorest infrastructure is further punished by having to pay the steepest tolls.
  • National infrastructure planning should not be subject to local whims
  • Tolls sometimes lead to undesirable traffic patterns (the new toll system in Trondheim is a prime example)
__________________
Norway needs a new transport infrastructure network, let's start now!

Last edited by 54°26′S 3°24′E; May 1st, 2010 at 03:20 AM.
54°26′S 3°24′E no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 9th, 2010, 05:53 PM   #1036
Hansadyret
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Bergen
Posts: 783
Likes (Received): 622

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
Not enough people realize that Elverum and Lillehammer are equally close to Trøndelag, and building a motorway through Østerdalen can be done at a fraction of the cost and environmental contriversy compared to Gudbrandsdalen / Dovrefjell.
What are the trafficnumbers if you compare the two valleys? Gudbrandsdalen also serves the north-west and west going north(Dovre) but i guess østerdalen gives a more stable winteroption.
Hansadyret no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 12th, 2010, 04:50 PM   #1037
Kjello0
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Trondheim
Posts: 394
Likes (Received): 70

In the valley it self there is much higher traffic through Gudbrandsdalen compared to Østerdalen. The main reason for this is that Gudbrandsdalen is much more populated than Østerdalen. While Gudbrandsdalen got over 70 000 inhabitans, Østerdalen only got 22 000 inhabitans. Gudbrandsdalen also got much more turists and hut people than Østerdalen does.

So even if we build a motorway up Østerdalen all the way to Trondheim, we still need a motorway up Gudbrandsdalen to Otta. On the other hand, if we build a motorway up Gudbrandsdalen all the way to Trondheim, we probably wouldn't need a motorway longer than to Rena in Østerdalen. Perhaps not even that far.

So if we want the cheapest option for a motorway between Oslo and Trondheim, Gudbrandsdalen will be choosen.

Personally I want a reorganisation of the road network in Norway.
We should stop including European Routes in our road network. All national roads should have an national number.
National roads should be devided into three different classes.

National routes, Rv 1-9
These stretches should go between the regions of Norway.

Regional routes, Rv 10-99
All municipality centers, and villages with at least 1500 inhabitans should be connected by either a regional or national route.

Local routes, Rv 100-999
Simply the rest of the network. All villages should be connected by a national road of some kind.

European Stretches should come on top of the national network, but only on national or regional routes. At the same time they should only be signposted on national and regional routes. So on Rv 33 you would see signs like "(1)(E6) Oslo", while on Rv 180 you would only see "(1) Oslo"

The 9 national routes should be these stretches.
I can't see any way important routes or destinations not represented here.

Riksvei 1 Svinesund - Trondheim (White)
Riksvei 2 Lørenskog - Ålesund (Light blue)
Riksvei 3 Sandvika - Florø (Red)
Riksvei 4 Kongsvinger - Bergen (Pink)
Riksvei 5 Ørje - Stavanger (Black)
Riksvei 6 Sandvika - Kristiansand (Green)
Riksvei 7 Kritstiansand - Bergen (White)
Riksvei 8 Bergen - Storlien (Black)
Riksvei 9 Trondheim - Kirkenes (Red)


Within 2040 they should all have modern roads with preferably at least a 11,5 meter wide expressway. But a 9,5 meter wide regular road signposted with 90 km/h is accepted on certain stretches, especially on Riksvei 9 Trondheim - Kirkenes. They should of course also be ferry free.

As you might understand, I also want a new speed limit system. Today we got 8 speed limits from 30 km/h to 100 km/h. We should reduce this number to 6 speed limits from 30 km/h to 130 km/h in 20 km/h steps.

30 km/h, as today the speed limit in residential areas and streets.
50 km/h, as today the general speed limit within built up areas.
70 km/h, all rural roads that don't qualify for higher speed limits. Will be the new general speed limit on rural roads.
90 km/h, high quality rural roads. Criterias regarding curves, number of exits and road width. No roads more narrow than 7,5 meters should be allowed. So called "City motorways" will also have this speed limit. This is roads like Ring 3 in Oslo, the current E6 through Trondheim or E39 in Bergen.
110 km/h, expressways, minimum 11,5 meters.
130 km/h, rural motorways. Norway should stop using the term "narrow motorways". All motorways should be minimum 24 meters wide. Lanes 3,75 meters, outer shoulders 3 meters, inner shoulders 1 meter and a concrete barrier of 1 meter. The minimum width of 24 meters also counts for city motorways.

The last two is summer speed limits. During winter they are reduced with 20 km/h so expressways are signposted with 90 km/h and motorways 110 km/h. Becouse of this they should mostly have electric signs, so Vegvesenet can reduce/raise the speed limit easier.

This give the speed limits a bit more common sense. They will seem more logical to people. Therefor more people will obay them, and number of accidents will be reduced.

Third I want new road profiles. Today we got 9 different profiles regarding width on rural roads. If we include other criterias like curves we got 11 different profiles for rural roads. This is to much, and lead to way to many changes in standard.

All future rural roads should be built according to five different profiles.

7,5 meter rural road. Minimum standard for local routes. Lanes 3 meters, shoulders 75 cm.


9,5 meter rural road. Prefered minimum standard on regional routes. Lanes 3,75 meters, shoulders 1 meter.


11,5 meter expressway. Prefered minimum standard on national routes. Lanes 3,75 meters, shoulder 1,5 meters, median with "rumble felt" 1 meter.


2x11,5 meter motorway. Lanes 3,75 meters, inner shoulders 1 meter, outer shoulder 3 meters.
Minimum 24 meter with a 1 meter wide concrete barrier,


or minimum 27 meter with a 4 meter wide grass median.


As you understand I want no kind of 1+1, 1+2 or 2+2 expressways. In my opinion they are only expensive short term solutions. All roads that now is built as 1+1, 1+2 or 2+2 expressways will soon show need for motorways. Some of them already does so. The time from a regular two lane expressway becomes unmodern, to the time the need for motorway comes is really short. Often not more than 15 years. As new roads should be planed with minimum a 30 year perspective, this means that the need for motorway will come in the same period as a two lane expressway becomes unmodern. This means that when a two lane expressway starts to be unmodern, the need for motorway will be there within 30 years. So becouse of this, we should drop 1+1, 1+2 and 2+2 expressways.

This will lead to the same standard over longer stretches, insted of a change in standard every 20 km like today. Becouse of this the whole network will give an better impression than the mess of roads that we are building today.
Kjello0 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 12th, 2010, 06:33 PM   #1038
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 Hansadyret View Post
What are the trafficnumbers if you compare the two valleys? Gudbrandsdalen also serves the north-west and west going north(Dovre) but i guess østerdalen gives a more stable winteroption.
Short story:
  • Transit traffic (i.e. Kolomoen (Stange)-Ulsberg) is higher on RV3, particularly trucks, of which there are more than 700 per day in total
  • Traffic across Dovre is lower than at the least trafficated point on Rv3
  • Local traffic is higher on E6 than on Rv3, which Kjello0 already has pointed out
  • From a Bergen perspective: Total traffic at the least trafficated points of E6 and Rv3 combined is a bit higher than similar number for E134, Rv 7 , Rv52, Rv50, and E16 combined. However, total traffic work (including local traffic) on E6+Rv3 is much higher.
__________________
Norway needs a new transport infrastructure network, let's start now!

Last edited by 54°26′S 3°24′E; May 13th, 2010 at 11:24 AM.
54°26′S 3°24′E no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 12th, 2010, 06:35 PM   #1039
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

Kjello0

Interesting system you propose here! I agree to most of what you are writing, but I think that a fence or barrier is required even with 4 m median. Also, I think that a narrow motorway could be a fairly good solution on low-traffic motorways, at least if the width of bridges, overpasses, tunnels etc. is large enough for inexpensive expansion of road surface width once the traffic numbers call for it? What would be your criteria for the different standards? And why not making rv 1 continous to Kirkenes?

Regarding the speedlimit, I think perhaps 110 is too much. In any case, speed limits should be controlled according to the road surface (i.e. whether it is dry, wet, soaking wet or icy) rather than the calendar.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kjello0 View Post
In the valley it self there is much higher traffic through Gudbrandsdalen compared to Østerdalen. The main reason for this is that Gudbrandsdalen is much more populated than Østerdalen. While Gudbrandsdalen got over 70 000 inhabitans, Østerdalen only got 22 000 inhabitans. Gudbrandsdalen also got much more turists and hut people than Østerdalen does.

So even if we build a motorway up Østerdalen all the way to Trondheim, we still need a motorway up Gudbrandsdalen to Otta. On the other hand, if we build a motorway up Gudbrandsdalen all the way to Trondheim, we probably wouldn't need a motorway longer than to Rena in Østerdalen. Perhaps not even that far.

So if we want the cheapest option for a motorway between Oslo and Trondheim, Gudbrandsdalen will be choosen.
This is not really coherent with route 1 on your map, and I certainly disagree. I had a rather long and sometimes heated debate about this very issue a couple of years ago , which I am not very inclined to repeat (for one reason, I do not have the time, I you feeel the urge, check here). My summary from back then follows, but my main four points are that:
  • Dovre will never be the chosen transit road Trondheim-Oslo. That is especially true for the trucks, who cannot drive much faster on a motorway than they do today in Østerdalen, and do not want to make the climb up to the Dovre plateau.
  • I want to see a drastic reduction in domestic air traffic in Norway, which is not currently environmental sustainable. My scenario would be railway for bussiness Trondheim-Oslo point-2-point travel, motorway for the rest. In such a scenario, the transit road traffic could easily increase to 8000 AADT, but not with Gudbrandsdalen: it is too long a detour to be a viable alternative to air.
  • Gudbrandsdalen / Dovre would IMO be destroyed if a motorway was pushed through, many others are of the same opinion. Hence, unless you go to extremely expensive solutions, it will be politically impossible. Remember that Dovre mountain is a national park with one of the last remaining wild reindeer populations in Europe.
  • Even if you do not go to extreme measures in Dovre / Gudbrandsdalen, I strongly believe that the 230 km Rena-Ulsberg (Rv 3)can be made significantly cheaper than the 160 km Otta-Ulsberg (E6). Østerdalen is as good as it gets in Norway regarding road building: Mostly moraine, fairly flat, a limited number of interchanges required. Long sections of the current road have so good curvature that as a first cut it would be sufficient to build a new carriage way beside the old one. This is certainly not the case in Gudbrandsdalen.

OK, before I get carried away, here is my summary from the last row on the subject (with some corrections).....

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
Concluding Remarks
  • E6 is supposed to be the road that runs through Norway and connect the south to the north in the 2500 km long country caller Norway
  • Today, however, most car traffic and 90 % of the truck traffic between the main population centers on the route, Trondheim-area and Oslo, is using another road, rv 3 further to the east, on approximately 300 km of the route. Rv 3 is drawn in blue on the map above. The reason is that rv 3 is 44 km shorter, is flatter (with highest point roughly 300 m lower), and has better curvature than E6 (hopefully not disputed), and is 40-60 minutes faster (disputed by Elvis77), a situation that is not likely to change in the future
  • Rv 3 today connects the main population center of the country, the greater Oslo area, everything south of Oslo, as well as Akershus and Hedmark counties to central and Northern Norway (at least the two Trøndelag counties, Nordland and small parts of Møre og Romsdal), with a total population of at least 650 000, including the third biggest city in Norway, Trondheim, which currently has the second largest population growth in absolute numbers. With a significant improvement of the road, rv 3 may also serve some of the traffic between southern Norway and the two northernmost counties with additional 225 000 people, which today mostly goes through Sweden, as well as the northern part of Møre and Romsdal (roughly 120 000). Potentially the rv 3 can thus serve as the southern transit route for the whole roughly 1 M people of northern and central Norway. The traffic growth on rv 3 has been very high lately.
  • E6, following the current route is also an important road. It connects Oslo and southern Hedmark/Oppland with the North-Western part of South Norway as well as the upper part of the interior county of Oppland, with a total population estimated to 380 000. These regions have a population growth lower than the national average. In addition it connects central Norway (Trondheim) with upper Oppland and parts of central western Norway, at least during summer, but this generate relatively little traffic. Also E6 has had quite high growth during the last few years, in part due to recreational traffic between the Oslo-area and the ski-resorts established in Gudbrandsdalen due to the Lillehammer Olympics 1994.
  • According to the Norwegian road authorities, the functions of rv 3 vs E6 is not likely to change even if the current E6 is improved. The advantages of rv 3 is simply too large for the transit traffic.
  • The E6 goes through a quite narrow, winding valley with many towns and beautiful cultural landscape, and the mountain pass is through a national park with threatened species like mountain fox and wild reindeer. Significant improvements for transit traffic will thus be quite expensive and controversial. On the other hand, rv 3 goes through a much less steep, and mainly forested (and rather boring) valley, mostly with moraine gravel ground, and is, on a Norwegian scale, a very easy place to build roads.
  • Between 51 and 56 % (depending on how you calculate) of the total goods tonnage-km is today transit traffic based on 2005 numbers. The split between rv 3 and E6 is similar, with between 45-49 % on rv 3. Since 2005 goods traffic at least on rv 3 has increased dramatically, 33 % only from 2006 to 2007. Correspondingly, the transit AADT-km is at least between 27 and 29 %. Rv 3 carries between 35 and 38 % of the total AADT-km, but most of the AADT km of E6 comes on the southern leg of E6 which essentially is a detour for the transit traffic.
In conclusion:
I think that many aspects favours to move the E6 to where rv 3 goes today. This is after all where the north-south traffic goes and will go for the foreseeable future. The current E6 between Kolomoen (split rv 3/E6) and Dombås is also an important road, but with more of a regional character, and it is essentially a dead end (i.e. little transit traffic). I think it would be a good idea to extending E136 through Gudbrandsdalen to Kolomoen, since this road is already serving the North-western corner of Southern Norway.

Renumbering the roads are however not the most important issue. What bugs me incredible is however when people, mostly from the district where the current E6 runs, argue that this is the “main north-south route” or even “the main Oslo-Trondheim highway”. It is neither, and will never be again. It is complete mysterious that rv 3 is not the signposted Trondheim-Oslo road, well, I guess it leaves the average tourist with a better impression of Norway as E6 is without doubt the most pittoresque of the two roads!

Like many roads in Norway, both roads need improvement, very badly, considering the amount of traffic and importance of the two roads. However, Rv 3 I believe has the largest potential on a cost/benefit basis for a possible future national motorway network.
__________________
Norway needs a new transport infrastructure network, let's start now!

Last edited by 54°26′S 3°24′E; May 13th, 2010 at 11:20 AM.
54°26′S 3°24′E no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2010, 04:42 PM   #1040
KiwiRob
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,366
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
[*]I want to see a drastic reduction in domestic air traffic in Norway, which is not currently environmental sustainable.
How do you propose stopping people flying when

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post

Regarding the speedlimit, I think perhaps 110 is too much.
you think that 110km is too high. On a decent motorway 110-130 should be safe and easy to achieve, with electronic signs it will be easy to adjust the speed limit to weather conditions.

People won't stop flying when there is no decent alternative on offer, at the moment the proposed high speed rail network is pretty pathetic and certainly wouldn't stop me flying, unless the motorways are improved and the speed limits raised to a sensible level I wouldn't take my car either.
KiwiRob 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 04:06 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