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 May 28th, 2011, 04:40 PM   #1401
Kjello0
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Trondheim
Posts: 394
Likes (Received): 70

I bet they save so much money by not building a motorway on the well 90 km between Egersund and Vigeland.

And will we see this? 2060 perhaps...
Kjello0 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old May 29th, 2011, 03:08 PM   #1402
Ingenioren
Registered User
 
Ingenioren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oslo
Posts: 5,605
Likes (Received): 584

Prices in 10^9 NOK

Traffic safety concept 2,7
Upgrade concept 4,3
Road normal concept 13,0
Center barrier concept 14,2 Recommended
Motorway concept 25,8

http://www.vegvesen.no/_attachment/223675/binary/423511
__________________
I want to see some construction!
Ingenioren no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 29th, 2011, 09:34 PM   #1403
Kjello0
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Trondheim
Posts: 394
Likes (Received): 70

Just wondering, where do you have it from that Stavanger - Egersund will be motorway when the map clearly shows 2(3) lanes?

Because, if Stavanger - Egersund will be motorway I can't understand how it will be such a big difference.
Kjello0 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 29th, 2011, 10:09 PM   #1404
Ingenioren
Registered User
 
Ingenioren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oslo
Posts: 5,605
Likes (Received): 584

You're absolutly right, there will be no motorway between Ålgård and Vigeland after all(!)
__________________
I want to see some construction!
Ingenioren no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 29th, 2011, 11:58 PM   #1405
Kjello0
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Trondheim
Posts: 394
Likes (Received): 70

I can't get my eyes of these sentences.

"Midtrekkverkkonseptet ventes å få i størrelsesorden rundt 35 kilometer tunneler mellom Søgne og Ålgård. Dette innebærer at anslagsvis 40-50 km av strekningen uansett blir uten midtrekkverk, når en inkluderer overgangssonene utenfor tunnelene."

Gladly this is only a KVU, and not a Konsekvensutredning, Planprogram, Kommunedelplan or something like that.

When they come closer to building the plans will be different.
I also notice that the prediction year for AaDT is 2040.
Road standard is supposed to be planed after the predicted AaDT 20 years after the opening. This road is nowhere near to be finished by 2020. My guess is that the building alone will take over 10 years.

Hence the prediction year will be wrong. I guess the building may start in 2020, finished in 2030, outdated in 2025, and upgraded in 2040...
Cost, at least twice as much as building motorway right away.
Kjello0 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 30th, 2011, 12:23 AM   #1406
Ingenioren
Registered User
 
Ingenioren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oslo
Posts: 5,605
Likes (Received): 584

I guess i was fouled by the term "2-lane motorway" in the document. It's been a while since this term should no longer be used.

It's more of a guideline for current projects along E39 than a continously built project - sadly this makes serious re-routing impossible, if the E39 followed a more populated coastal route north of Egersund a real motorway could be built also here without such negative "society economics value". Actually it's quite a positive surprice that center barrier is suggested at all for the least trafficated stretches. But at some point road authorities must understand that tunnels need to be twin-tubed for this kind of road, or reduce the use of tunnels for rural areas.
__________________
I want to see some construction!
Ingenioren no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 2nd, 2011, 12:15 AM   #1407
Ingenioren
Registered User
 
Ingenioren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oslo
Posts: 5,605
Likes (Received): 584

Statens Vegvesen suggests a new norm for center-barriers. Currently they are added to roads with 8000+ aadt, Vegvesen suggests to lower this limit to 6000+ aadt

http://www.vegvesen.no/Om+Statens+ve...Vis?key=225113
__________________
I want to see some construction!
Ingenioren no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 3rd, 2011, 01:10 AM   #1408
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 Ingenioren View Post
Statens Vegvesen suggests a new norm for center-barriers. Currently they are added to roads with 8000+ aadt, Vegvesen suggests to lower this limit to 6000+ aadt

http://www.vegvesen.no/Om+Statens+ve...Vis?key=225113
Vegvesenet deserves some credit for having pushed the norms a bit during the last years. However, they should make the norm rules a bit more sophisticated, for instance by:
  • Have a larger weight on truck / heavy / large vehicles than cars as these takes more space, make larger damages in accidents, and often cause a lot of dangerous passing.
  • Introduce a cost element such that roads going through areas with low construction costs can be built to higher standard. E.g., there should be a equal safety benefit / cost ratio for new projects.
  • Have higher standard for the most important national routes dominated by long distance travel (=> many drowsy drivers)

There is no excuse for building roads without central barriers today on the most important national routes, like E6 / Rv3, Oslo-Bergen, E18 and E39.
__________________
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 3rd, 2011, 01:48 AM   #1409
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

Vegvesenet / SINTEF has made some new animations the new highway going into Trondheim from the east, i.e. the Strindheim intersection and tunnels / Rv 706:

The Strindheim intersection will be a 3-level interesection, with two roundabouts stacked above the main rv 706 thourough road. The car of the animation is using the roundabout at the intermediate level, coming from the east on 706. The upper roundabout is for local traffic, buses and taxis.

Here the car is starting on the city (western) side of the tunnel and drives straight through on 706 below the two roundabouts.

This road system is currently under construction. It seems like they plan to signpost it as a motortrafikkvei / express road.
__________________
Norway needs a new transport infrastructure network, let's start now!

Last edited by 54°26′S 3°24′E; June 3rd, 2011 at 02:00 AM.
54°26′S 3°24′E no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 3rd, 2011, 10:48 AM   #1410
Ingenioren
Registered User
 
Ingenioren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oslo
Posts: 5,605
Likes (Received): 584

They added a moped into the video even tough they will not be allowed
__________________
I want to see some construction!
Ingenioren no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 3rd, 2011, 12:59 PM   #1411
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 Ingenioren View Post
They added a moped into the video even tough they will not be allowed
Are you sure it is not a motorcycle?

I am not sure if this really will be a Mototrafikkroad. I cannot see any express road sign in the animation, just direction signs with the express road symbol. Mopeds will hopefully be banned in any case.

I guess there will also be center barrier in the road, in the animation there is just a green median.
__________________
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 5th, 2011, 02:44 AM   #1412
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

Fjord crossing challenges and solutions (Trondheimsfjorden)

Permanent crossing of Trondheimsfjorden and several other fjords have been discussed here from time to time. This week, some local politicians again argued for a tunnels between Frosta and Fosen, and between Frosta and Skatval (Åsenfjorden in map below) in Trondheimsfjorden. Election time, I guess.

The challenges involved in such crossings were illustrated in a report by the Norwegian research institute SINTEF from 2010 that I recently stumbled across:
http://www.sintef.no/upload/Byggfors...gg_endelig.pdf
It concerns with possible ways of making a new crossing of Trondheimsfjorden, and is written among others by one of the most well known experts on tunnel construction in Norway, Professor Amund Bruland.

As many of the Norwegian fjords where there is a desire to cross, Trondheimsfjorden is fairly deep (500 m or more where the ferry crosses). However, to add to the problem, the bottom consist of massive layers of sediments, as illustrated in this map of the fjord with the depth down to solid rock bed is shown:


I.e., at the place where the ferry runs today west of Trondheim where the width of the fjord is roughly 6 km, the depth of a bored tunnel would be in excess of 1100 m deep, which would require a very long and steep tunnel.

Hence, all the tunnel alternatives considered goes further east. For tunnels, the alternatives the report have analysed is more or less indicated by this map:


The easternmost alternative could include a side branch to Frosta. They stipulate that the traffic would be anything between 5000 and 12 000 AADT, but they have not considered traffic to Frosta or a rerouting of the E6 (main traffic arteria of the area.) Anyway, they conclude that a twin tube / four lane tunnel would be required for the distances and traffic involved.

Characteristic data for various alternatives are shown in the (Norwegian) table below:

Største dybde= largest depth
Samlet lengde= total length
Lengde i stigning > 5 %= Length w/ inclination >5 % (but <7 %)
Lengste avstand til friluft= Longest distance to fresh air.

Needless to say, all the tunnel alternatives are massively long, much longer than the fjord is wide. The third and fourth alternative in the table essentially follow the same route, except that the former includes a side branch to Frosta (hence the longer length and larger share with high inclination. I have earlier heard that this alternative would be around 26 km long, but I guess it is now a bit longer because stricter limits on max inclination.

The report concludes that only the second and third alternative, of 26.5 and 36.4 km would be worthwhile to work further on, with estimated 2010 costs of 5 and 7 billion NOK, respectively.

The last part of the report deals with alternatives to bored tunnels, specifically a floating bridge, letting ship traffic pass either by having a high bridge at one or more points or building a submerged tube. For the length involved here (6 km at least), a suspension bridge would be hugely expensive, if at all possible.

This latter part of the report is rather superficial. Needless to say, however, a floating bridge would be exposed to immense forces from wind, waves, and not at least (in the case of Trondheimsfjorden) rather strong tidal currents. The resulting large bending forces are difficult to handle for a 6 km long bridge. Hence, for traditional floating designs, anchoring would be required, which again is difficult because of the large depths involved.

One possible solution to solve the problems associated with the bending forces has been proposed in connection with the plans to cross another "difficult" fjord in Norway, Sognefjorden. Instead of having a rather stiff bridge, it is proposed to use a bridge with elements that are connected with some kind of hinge. I.e., each element can rotate freely in the horizontal plane with respect to the next link in the chain:

Each element wil then be more or less freed from the bending forces, and only tensile strain, which is much easier to handle, remains. In such a design, the center part of the bridge should be allowed to move several hundred meters, and anchoring should not be used:


Not sure where all of this ends, but it is interesting to see that there is still some innovation in the area that could lead to spectacular solutions in the future. As for the Trondheimsfjord crossing, I am not too optimistic that anything will happen soon. Perhaps the first thing to happen will be a crossing of Åsednfjorden, as it is relatively shallow. The politicians at the moment can barely handle to upgrade the current main roads to a civilized standard....
__________________
Norway needs a new transport infrastructure network, let's start now!

Last edited by 54°26′S 3°24′E; June 7th, 2011 at 11:49 PM. Reason: Corrected traffic projections
54°26′S 3°24′E no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 6th, 2011, 01:59 AM   #1413
Ingenioren
Registered User
 
Ingenioren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oslo
Posts: 5,605
Likes (Received): 584

Unfortunate that China will be building a floating tunnel before us. This should have been our "Moonlanding." :P

Maybe we can be the first to build a float-bridge free of anchors. It's not proposed for Sognefjorden, but Bjørnafjorden as mentioned in article of TU.
__________________
I want to see some construction!
Ingenioren no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 6th, 2011, 09:55 PM   #1414
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

Sorry, my mistake, I just read an article regarding Sognefjorden.

As far as I remember, the Chinese project is "only" 1.5 km long. Perhaps we can learn something from that project before we go full scale on a wider fjord in Norway?

In any case, I think the motorists last night in the 3.5 km + ferry queue last night at the northern shore of Trondheimsfjorden wants a permanent crossing sooner than the more likely "later":

(There has been quite a lot of problems with these ferries lately, but yesterday all three ferries were running as they should, so the problem was rather huge weekend traffic.)
__________________
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 7th, 2011, 01:39 AM   #1415
IceCheese
Scandi-friendly
 
IceCheese's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Canada is my city
Posts: 7,227
Likes (Received): 919

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
In any case, I think the motorists last night in the 3.5 km + ferry queue last night at the northern shore of Trondheimsfjorden wants a permanent crossing sooner than the more likely "later":

(There has been quite a lot of problems with these ferries lately, but yesterday all three ferries were running as they should, so the problem was rather huge weekend traffic.)
Lol, you should know it doesn't help with a new motorway if it's going to be a toll-road, though:

E6 north of Moss by the tollboth, yesterday:
__________________
Oslo/Copenhagen - The True Capital of Scandinavia.


Take a look at my Photo Mess!
IceCheese está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old June 7th, 2011, 10:36 AM   #1416
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,572
Likes (Received): 19366

Waiting times for the ferry can easily be 2+ hours, while the toll booths may cost you maybe 30 minutes additional time.
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 7th, 2011, 04:27 PM   #1417
Ingenioren
Registered User
 
Ingenioren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oslo
Posts: 5,605
Likes (Received): 584

I was at the E6-jam. Only lost 15 minutes... It was due to the coin-slots being "full" and only one autopass-lane and one manual booth...
__________________
I want to see some construction!
Ingenioren no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 7th, 2011, 05:21 PM   #1418
Kjello0
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Trondheim
Posts: 394
Likes (Received): 70

All toll roads should be automatic by now. Saves a lot of money too.

Last edited by Kjello0; June 7th, 2011 at 05:31 PM.
Kjello0 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 7th, 2011, 10:42 PM   #1419
IceCheese
Scandi-friendly
 
IceCheese's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Canada is my city
Posts: 7,227
Likes (Received): 919

Apparantly not if you can have only one person on job at all times.

And I guess we have to go someplace else in Moss to find the longest (in waiting time) lines...
__________________
Oslo/Copenhagen - The True Capital of Scandinavia.


Take a look at my Photo Mess!
IceCheese está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old June 8th, 2011, 12:44 AM   #1420
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

I have always found the design of that toll station strange, with the manual lanes in the middle. But when the guy in Vegvesenet seems to make the claim that automatic tolling was quite new in 2001 (13 years after the first system was installed in Trondheim), you get the feeling that guys designing the toll station perhaps not were among the brightest engineers. In any case, I don't see why they cannot now make it all-automatic like in the rest of the country.

I had another look at the traffic estimates discussed above regarding a Trondheimsfjord crossing. The very rough 20 year estimate was between 5000 and 12000 AADT, not including any traffic from a Frosta branch.. Usually such projects have a one-off increase between 20-40 %. In addition, an annual growth between 2 and 4 % is assumed. The starting point is the traffic of the main ferry line across the fjord today.

I think the lower estimate is rather unrealistic. Firstly, you will probably have traffic transferred from the other ferry line and the people that today drive around the fjord. This will increase the base with perhaps 50 %. Secondly, once the connection is opened, the rather undeveloped (sorry Trondheimr, at least I did not say uncivilized) sunny north shore of the fjord will all of a sudden become a very attractive place to live for people working in Trondheim. 2 % is approximately equal to the historic general traffic growth of Norway. Hence, I will assume that 4 % is a lower limit for the annual growth,and perhaps 6 % as the upper limit.

If the solution with the Frosta side branch is chosen, the traffic that forms the basis for the calculation should probably increase with another 25 % or so assuming that about 50 % of the traffic going south from Frosta on the E6 ends up in Trondheim. It the E6 is rerouted, perhaps 100 % should be added to the starting point, assuming that roughly half of the traffic on the E6 passing Frosta is destined for Trondheim, but in this case the annual growth will probably be between 3-4 % instead of between 4-6 %.

Hence, my 20 year estimate would be from around 11 000 AADT to 19 000 without the Frosta side branch, and between 14 000 and 23 000 AADT with the Frosta branch!

Of course, not everybody will necessarily agree with my assumptions...
__________________
Norway needs a new transport infrastructure network, let's start now!
54°26′S 3°24′E no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
norway

Thread Tools

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

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

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 05:52 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