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 November 2nd, 2007, 07:14 PM   #141
AmiDelf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 187
Likes (Received): 3

You can say what you want. But I found my sources on Wikipedia. So whatever you think and I think. We have different opinions about this. I have been in English speaking countries also.

Highway is as much as a motorway. So dont tell me any fuzz about whats right or wrong here ;p
AmiDelf no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old November 2nd, 2007, 08:10 PM   #142
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

Norwegian highway standards

I am just trying to help you out so people actually can understand what you are writing. Not that I consider wikipedia as an authority (neither should you, keep to dictionaries and real encyclopedias), but wikipedia presents these roads as examples of highways:


Now, are these motorways? Of course, all motorways are highways, but far from all highways are motorways.

Edit: Now I understand what you mean. You are thinking about the motorway sign. Well, it says that the sign is an International highway sign for motorway, just like this is an international highway sign for bumpy road and this is an international highway sign for cattle on the road. You get it?

To confuse you guys even more: Here are the official profiles as of 2007 to be applied in new projects on the main (i.e. interregional) highways in Norway:

S1: ADT< 4 000, 60 km/h

(S1: 4 000 < ADT 12 000, 60 km/h) & (S2: ADT < 4 000, 80 km/h) & (S3: ADT < 4 000, 90 km/h)

S4: 4 000 < ADT < 8 000, 80 km/h, expressway (motortrafikkvei)

S5: 8 000 < ADT < 12 000, 90 km/h, expressway (motortrafikkvei)

Passing lane for S5

Passing lanes in both directions for S5

S6: ADT > 12 000, 60 km/h

S7: ADT > 12 000, 80 km/h, motorway

S8: 12 000< ADT < 20 000, 100 km/h, motorway

S8: ADT > 20 000 , 100 km/h, motorway (there are talks about increasing the speed limit to 110 km/h for these roads)

ADT numbers are to be estimated 30 years ahead of time (i.e. 30 years life time is used), but the prognoses they are using have been notorious in the past in underestimating the traffic growth, and are more an expression of political wishful thinking than reality. For high traffic roads (i.e. in Oslo, Stavanger, Bergen and Trondheim) more than 4 lanes are of course considered. The lower classes, i.e. S1, S6 and S7 are to be used only in urban areas or other places where there may be environmental or other restrictions. There are of course also many other differences between the standards, but there is no point in going into detail here...

The problem is, that a very small percentage of the current Norwegian roads keep to this standard, and with the current funding, it will take 50 years to get there.

Last edited by 54°26′S 3°24′E; May 28th, 2011 at 04:49 PM.
54°26′S 3°24′E no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 2nd, 2007, 09:24 PM   #143
Maxx☢Power
BANNED
 
Maxx☢Power's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 387
Likes (Received): 3

54°26′S 3°24′E is right, a highway is just any road that's the main road between two destinations. It can be a normal, two-lane road or it can be a full-on motorway with restricted access and grade-separated intersections.

Not that it matters, the roads and most other transport infrastructure in Norway are still shit.
Maxx☢Power no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 3rd, 2007, 02:22 AM   #144
Verso
Islander
 
Verso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ljubljana
Posts: 22,087
Likes (Received): 4749

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
all motorways are highways
I even think it's possible to say that not ALL motorways are highways, if there's a motorway that really isn't important. Now, you probably wonder why they would build a motorway, if it's not important. Well, I don't have a clue, but it may happen (and I'm sure there's plenty of examples like this in the world) that a motorway just became unimportant after a while, or maybe because of some unusual event.
Verso no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 3rd, 2007, 02:24 AM   #145
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,572
Likes (Received): 19365

I don't think there are a lot of completely useless motorways. However i'm not sure why the hell they build the A571 and A573 near Bad Neuenahr in Germany. The roads don't even connect with it's parent number (A5 or A57).
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 3rd, 2007, 02:49 AM   #146
Verso
Islander
 
Verso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ljubljana
Posts: 22,087
Likes (Received): 4749

^ I certainly wouldn't call these two 'highways'. About that street in SF: I think I've already seen it, but probably just once, and I didn't know where to put it.
Verso no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 3rd, 2007, 06:29 AM   #147
TheCat
IsraCanadian :)
 
TheCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,358
Likes (Received): 6

I don't think any of the posters have been 100% right about the word "highway". The official definition is indeed any road. However, the common usage of the word differs significantly from place to place. In the US and Canada, the words "freeway" and "highway" are often used to refer to motorways. In Toronto, if people say they will "take the highway", it means that they will take the motorway, even though we also have a network of provincial highways, most of which are not motorways. We also have some expressways in the city that function as streets but have names such as "Highway 7". But still, if one uses the word "highway" without specifying a specific highway number, the meaning is "motorway" (in Toronto, it usually means a 400-series highway). The word "motorway" is actually not used at all in North America, and I never heard it used here, nor have I ever used it in speech, except for this forum.
__________________
Check out my driving videos on Youtube | Please visit the Highways & Autobahns forum
TheCat no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 3rd, 2007, 11:15 AM   #148
Alex Von Königsberg
Registered User
 
Alex Von Königsberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Portland
Posts: 1,053
Likes (Received): 11

Even in different US states people refer to highways/freeways differently. In California, almost everyone refers to motorways as "freeways", but I have heard that in the East, they almost exclusively use word "highway" for both ordinary highways and motorways. Even in Washington, they sometimes call I-90 a highway. In British Columbia, locals told me to take "Highway 1" when they meant Trans-Canada Highway which is in fact a motorway in Vancouver Metro area.
Alex Von Königsberg no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 3rd, 2007, 01:22 PM   #149
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,572
Likes (Received): 19365

I usually refer to "motorways" as in freeway, autopista, autobahn, expressway etc. So roads or highways with motorway-standards. In US topics, i'd rather use the word Freeway or expressway, since the word "motorway" isn't used in the United States.

I refer to other roads as "highway" or just "road".
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 3rd, 2007, 03:38 PM   #150
x-type
con los terroristas
 
x-type's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bjelovar [HR]
Posts: 13,465
Likes (Received): 3437

i use motorway (i prefer british english) for autobahn.
highway is for me more important road, something like some kind of arteria, which connects some larger distances. it is not neccesserly a motorway (autobahn).
x-type no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 3rd, 2007, 07:25 PM   #151
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 TheCat View Post
I don't think any of the posters have been 100% right about the word "highway". The official definition is indeed any road. However, the common usage of the word differs significantly from place to place. In the US and Canada, the words "freeway" and "highway" are often used to refer to motorways. In Toronto, if people say they will "take the highway", it means that they will take the motorway, even though we also have a network of provincial highways, most of which are not motorways. We also have some expressways in the city that function as streets but have names such as "Highway 7". But still, if one uses the word "highway" without specifying a specific highway number, the meaning is "motorway" (in Toronto, it usually means a 400-series highway). The word "motorway" is actually not used at all in North America, and I never heard it used here, nor have I ever used it in speech, except for this forum.
Well, it's no news that people may be a bit sloppy when they talk. It doesn't make it right though. I think the cause of much of the confusion regarding this, is that an important part of the US highway network, the interstate highways, per definition are freeways. But still the majority (federal, state and county highways) are generally not freeways. BTW, can you call a toll road a freeway? (The places I have lived in the US have had no toll roads). After all, they are not free, and these projects in the US are usually for some reason called either parkways (although they are no good neither for use as a park or parking) or the even more mysterious turnpike. Well, to avoid any confusion I will stick to motorway regarding Norway at least...
54°26′S 3°24′E no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 3rd, 2007, 08:00 PM   #152
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

A plan, an ambition, and a dreamer

This is the 30 year (!) plan of the Norwegian high way authorities regarding the motorway network:

Red roads will be at least 22 m, whereas yellow will be 19 m. However, as I said, it will take 50 years to get there with the current funding (including upgrade of the gray roads to one of those standards

Currently, the sorry state of Norwegian highways is this:

Roads indicated in red are interregional highways ("stamveger") with less than 7 m width!

This map shows points or stretches with less than 6 m width!

There are of course some people that push for a little bit more than the road authorities. A group called bilaksjonen and some people behind the site bedreveier.no are pushing for this motorway network in Norway:
.
They call it "The double Y", and is roughly 2000 km long. So far the only supportive party however is the rightwing "Fremskrittspartiet", and unfortunately the rest of their policies are shit

The problem in Norway is that investment in roads are not seen as an investment, but an expense. I think Norway should now really focus on their transport infrastructure, both roads and railway, so that we can save more lives and be less dependent on air transport. Hardly any nation flies more than Norway today.

Well that was the plan and an ambition. What about the dreamer? Well, I found this on the internet:

Clearly, this is a wet dream of any Norwegian freeway fantast! The coastal road Stavanger-Bergen-Trondheim will be very demanding to build (currently I believe there are 7 ferry crossings on this road), but would probably result in a quite spectacular road. Local politicians are by the way already pushing to remove at least three of these ferries, but I can come back to that later. Personally, I don't think I would have prioritized quite like that guy. For instance, one of the most important interregional roads in Norway today, the Rv 3 which is the road the trucks use between Oslo and Trondheim and beyond, is with all the other freeways in place still a normal two-lane road!

Last edited by 54°26′S 3°24′E; November 4th, 2007 at 02:42 AM.
54°26′S 3°24′E no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 3rd, 2007, 08:44 PM   #153
AmiDelf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 187
Likes (Received): 3



This image is saying stamveg and not motorvei. I think your out in the woods talking about whats wrong or not. People usually use the words that they feel is right. There might be grammar talks everywhere.. but almost no one uses them.

People understands each others and thats whats most important. To try to learn adults how to write or talk is just wrong. People talks in different ways. Lech Walensa in Poland is critisized for having bad Polish, but the others who dosent care about that, but rather what he have done for eastern Europe etc. It dosent matter.

Let people learn by themself.
AmiDelf no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 3rd, 2007, 09:16 PM   #154
Maxx☢Power
BANNED
 
Maxx☢Power's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 387
Likes (Received): 3

It's not criticism, it's just pointing out when someone says banana when they actually mean pumpkin. There are no doubts about the meanings of highway and motorway.

Back on topic; that 30 year plan is not very ambitious. Three of the ten most-trafficked air routes in Europe is in little Norway; I wonder why? It's not because people are so fond of flying, it's because it's the only alternative. In this regard Norway is like a little piece of America in Europe, only the motorways are even worse. Sane politicians are making a big mistake letting those populistic loons in FrP taking advantage of the situation.
Maxx☢Power no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 4th, 2007, 03:02 AM   #155
Verso
Islander
 
Verso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ljubljana
Posts: 22,087
Likes (Received): 4749

Does anyone know the AADT (annual average daily traffic) of the (only?) border crossing with Russia? Of course, an AADT map of the whole Norway would be even better.
Verso no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 4th, 2007, 05:15 AM   #156
TheCat
IsraCanadian :)
 
TheCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,358
Likes (Received): 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
Well, it's no news that people may be a bit sloppy when they talk. It doesn't make it right though. I think the cause of much of the confusion regarding this, is that an important part of the US highway network, the interstate highways, per definition are freeways. But still the majority (federal, state and county highways) are generally not freeways. BTW, can you call a toll road a freeway? (The places I have lived in the US have had no toll roads). After all, they are not free, and these projects in the US are usually for some reason called either parkways (although they are no good neither for use as a park or parking) or the even more mysterious turnpike. Well, to avoid any confusion I will stick to motorway regarding Norway at least...
It doesn't really have much to do with sloppiness. The exact definitions of the words "highway" and "road" are really only important in legal contexts, i.e. only in official documentation. It is simply a fact that at least here in Toronto, the word "highway" is most commonly used to refer to a motorway.

Regarding "freeways", it is a quite common misconception, but even if you look at the strictly official definition, a freeway does not have to be free of tolls. A freeway, by definition, is a limited-access, divided road. The word "free" in this context refers to something like "free of intersections". In fact, one website (gbcnet.com) has this interesting excerpt: "The "free" in freeway instead refers to a legislative definition passed by the California Legislature in 1939 which provided for a highway that would be free of encroaching properties and which provided for control of access." In fact, this is probably why, as Alex von Konigsberg has mentioned, "freeway" is used extensively in California, but not necessarily in other states.

But nonetheless, I agree, this has nothing to do with this thread, so I am not going to continue .
__________________
Check out my driving videos on Youtube | Please visit the Highways & Autobahns forum
TheCat no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 4th, 2007, 03:11 PM   #157
wyqtor
Coexist
 
wyqtor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,129
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
This is the 30 year (!) plan of the Norwegian high way authorities regarding the motorway network:
Are they kidding? There's hardly any change! I hope this "plan" will change very soon.
wyqtor no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 4th, 2007, 05:24 PM   #158
Jeroen669
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 787
Likes (Received): 13

I can imagine there's no need for a complete network of 4-lane motorways in Norway. But improving 2-lane highways to motorroads (or something like that) with few or no grade intersections, fewer curves and a higher speed limit (like in Germany or even on some stretches in Holland where you're allowed to drive 100km/h) has to possible, I guess.
Jeroen669 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 5th, 2007, 05:05 PM   #159
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 AmiDelf View Post
This image is saying stamveg and not motorvei. I think your out in the woods talking about whats wrong or not. People usually use the words that they feel is right. There might be grammar talks everywhere.. but almost no one uses them.
You are right. The map is showing the proposed standards for the "stamveg"s in Norway. "Stamveg" is a bureaucratic term used for a road that connects one region of Norway to the other, and the map shows them all. However, if you look at the profiles above, a 4-lane stamveg shall also be a motorway according to the standards. This is the case for the roads drawn in yellow and red.

My point was not to correct the grammar, but that people who are not familiar to Norway should understand what you write, which should also be in your interest. (Please also correct me if I my message could be misunderstood). The way you put it it sounded like there was almost no roads outside the Oslo-area. I could perhaps have used the "private messages" system instead, though, and thus avoided all the fuss, but I am new, so I wasn't familiar with this system.
[/QUOTE]

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxxPower View Post
Back on topic; that 30 year plan is not very ambitious.
Especially considering:
1. Only two regions are connected with 4-lane roads, Eastern Norway and the small southern Norway (Sørlandet).
2. There was an almost identical plan in the 1960s, that was to be implented within 1980. Now, almost 50 years later the horizont for this is still 30 years ahead...
3. Actually, during the occupation, the Germans laid out a detailed plan for a real Autobahn in 1942 between Oslo and Trondheim going through Østerdalen. This road should serve the "Neu Drontheim" project I guess, where the Germans planned to establish a new city of 350 000 inhabitants right outside the old city to support their extensive navy bases in the Trondheim fjord. Luckily, "Neu Drontheim" never materialized, but it would be great to have the road, though....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Verso View Post
Does anyone know the AADT (annual average daily traffic) of the (only?) border crossing with Russia? Of course, an AADT map of the whole Norway would be even better.
Check http://svvgw.vegvesen.no/http://svvn...syn/anon/index. It's all in Norwegian, but you get the data you need by ticking off "Trafikkmengde" in the "Trafikkdata" menu at the left. The particular road you are asking about looks like it still has AADT<500 though, although I believe it has increased a lot from what it used to be (i.e. nil). Actually, Kirkenes is trying to position itself as a harbor that could service the planned offshore oil development on the Russian side. Their work would be greatly eased, however, if the Russian railway 40-50 km away could be extended to the Norwegian port.

Edit: You need to zoom in quite a bit to get access to the trafic data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCat View Post
It is simply a fact that at least here in Toronto, the word "highway" is most commonly used to refer to a motorway.
That would probably not be the case though, if you lived in an area far from the closest freeway (which I have done in the US).
Quote:
Regarding "freeways", it is a quite common misconception, but even if you look at the strictly official definition, a freeway does not have to be free of tolls. A freeway, by definition, is a limited-access, divided road. The word "free" in this context refers to something like "free of intersections". In fact, one website (gbcnet.com) has this interesting excerpt: "The "free" in freeway instead refers to a legislative definition passed by the California Legislature in 1939 which provided for a highway that would be free of encroaching properties and which provided for control of access."
I suspected this was the case, so I guess it's only due to fear of ridicule that politicians never dear to name new toll roads as freeways, but rather parkways, turnpikes, distributor, and thruways etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyqtor View Post
Are they kidding? There's hardly any change! I hope this "plan" will change very soon.
I hope so too, but the plan would still probably double the length of motorways in Norway, in about 50 years.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeroen669 View Post
I can imagine there's no need for a complete network of 4-lane motorways in Norway. But improving 2-lane highways to motorroads (or something like that) with few or no grade intersections, fewer curves and a higher speed limit (like in Germany or even on some stretches in Holland where you're allowed to drive 100km/h) has to possible, I guess.
Actually, economists have calculated that a (4-lane) motorway network connecting the population centers in the southern half of Norway would save 62 billion NOK (8.2 billion Euros or 11.5 billion USD) a year, and many lives. The ballpark figure of much it would cost to build the 2000 km double-y-network that would connect 90 % of the population of southern Norway is 100 billion NOK. Even is this estimate, which is based on costs of recent Swedish motorways ++, is off by a factor of two, this would be a very good investment. To illustrate what these figures means in real terms for Norway:

*62 billion NOK is twice the Norwegian defense budget
*The cost of a recent offshore development finnished this year (Ormen Lange) was 66 billion NOK. There are many of these...
*The projected SURPLUS of the Norwegian national budget of 2007 is 375 billion NOK
*At the end of next year, the Norwegian government will have roughly 2 500 billion NOK invested in funds abroad.

New research has also shown that as new roads in the cities usually mean larger emission due to increased traffic, this is not true for interregional roads. Traveling frequency seems relatively unaffected by road standard. Thus, enhanced interregional roads will greatly reduce emissions because fuel efficiency is very low in the often clogged and almost always winding Norwegian roads.

I however also support the development of a high speed train network in Norway, which the current government seems to support, since this will greatly reduce our dependence on air-travel on point-to-point travel between the cities, as discussed by MaxxPower above. The estimated cost of such a network is 200-300 billion NOK for southern Norway. However, these trains can only make a few stops, and cannot serve the whole country, a family on their trip to their cabin, or, most importan, the truck traffic.

I realize that the biggest hurdle is not money, but getting enough hands to build the infrastructure. However, I believe this is a matter of priority, and the use of foreign construction companies would probably ease the inflationary pressure. In any case the projections are that there will be even less hands in the future, so there won't come a "better" time.

Last edited by 54°26′S 3°24′E; November 5th, 2007 at 05:20 PM.
54°26′S 3°24′E no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 6th, 2007, 02:22 PM   #160
Maxx☢Power
BANNED
 
Maxx☢Power's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 387
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
3. Actually, during the occupation, the Germans laid out a detailed plan for a real Autobahn in 1942 between Oslo and Trondheim going through Østerdalen. This road should serve the "Neu Drontheim" project I guess
Ein Neu-Drontheim für Neuropa. I guess they should've stayed on a bit longer to build some proper roads..
Maxx☢Power 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 01:35 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