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 10th, 2011, 09:26 PM   #1621
Kjello0
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Trondheim
Posts: 394
Likes (Received): 70

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hansadyret View Post
As far as i understand they are planning min 22m motorway roads and 3m shoulders mostly where traffic numbers will reach >20k within 20 years. How big is the traffic on this road?
The traffic on this stretch is 13-14 000. So it would never apply for the 22 meter standard. Statens Vegvesen only plans with a annual growth of 1 %. While to reach 20 000 within 2031 a growth of 2 % is needed.


Personally I would like the EU to introduce a general standards as the Interstate standards to be signposted motorway.

The Interstate standards is these
Minimum lane width of 12 feet (3.66 m).

Minimum outside paved shoulder width of 10 feet (3.05 m) and inside shoulder width of 4 feet (1.22 m). With three or more lanes in each direction, the inside paved shoulder should be at least 10 feet (3.05 m) wide.

Minimum median width of 36 feet (11 m) in rural areas, and 10 feet (3.0 m) in urban or mountainous areas.

Adjusted to the metric system and "existing" motorway standards it should be something like this.

Lane width: 3,75 meter.
Outside shoulder: 3 meter.
Inside shoulder: 1 meter, with three or more lanes 3 meter.
Median: 1 meter.
This gives an minimum width of 24 meters to be signposted motorway.
Kjello0 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old November 10th, 2011, 10:25 PM   #1622
MattiG
Registered User
 
MattiG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Espoo FI
Posts: 1,794
Likes (Received): 613

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kjello0 View Post
Personally I would like the EU to introduce a general standards as the Interstate standards to be signposted motorway.
Believe me, you really do not want EU to standardize everything. EU tries to apply the one-size-fits-to-everyone strategy to everything, and very often manages to create silly rules.

Quote:
This gives an minimum width of 24 meters to be signposted motorway.
And what happens, if the road does not meet this criterion? Correct, the road will not be designated to a motorway but to a 2+2 lane dual carriageway non-motorway road.
MattiG no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 10th, 2011, 11:12 PM   #1623
Kjello0
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Trondheim
Posts: 394
Likes (Received): 70

That's the whole point. If the road doesn't meet certain criteria it shouldn't be signposted motorway. Just like this stretch. The problem is that atm the criteria differs from country to country.

The EU has introduced standards regarding tunnels. Why not roads in general?
Kjello0 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 11th, 2011, 06:48 AM   #1624
Hansadyret
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Bergen
Posts: 783
Likes (Received): 622

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattiG View Post
Believe me, you really do not want EU to standardize everything. EU tries to apply the one-size-fits-to-everyone strategy to everything, and very often manages to create silly rules.
One of the problems of the EU of today, puts it's nose in to much, to bureaucratic on small silly things while not being able to handle the big important issues like overspending in various states.
Hansadyret no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 11th, 2011, 11:38 AM   #1625
MattiG
Registered User
 
MattiG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Espoo FI
Posts: 1,794
Likes (Received): 613

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kjello0 View Post
That's the whole point. If the road doesn't meet certain criteria it shouldn't be signposted motorway. Just like this stretch. The problem is that atm the criteria differs from country to country.

The EU has introduced standards regarding tunnels. Why not roads in general?
Well... I can see rather a big difference between the tunnel safety regulations and road class naming rules.

Calling a road a motorway does not make it any better road. Creating international criteria on when a road is allowed to be called a motorway does not bring any value. If some country has a policy to build 18 meters wide motorways, a naming criteria has no impact on this policy. Even if there were a 24-metre rule by EU, they would build the narrow motorway anyway, and call it something else than a motorway. Simple is that. So, where is the beef?
MattiG no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 11th, 2011, 01:11 PM   #1626
Bad_Hafen
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,882
Likes (Received): 159

EU should help finance only those roads that met the criteria they prescribed.
Bad_Hafen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2011, 01:55 AM   #1627
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 are not exactly flowing any EU funds INTO Norway in any case.

This week, Vegvesenet (Norw. road authorities) announced their conclusion on the E6 about 400 km north of the stretched opened this week, close to Trondheim.

Again we are talking about the thrifty motorway variant, and the length is about 24 km. Vegvesenet has considered multiple corridors:

Most of the alternatives follow a valley (Gauldalen), but the farmers in the area demanded that also an alternative outside the valley was investigated, which has caused some further delays in the planning. According to Vegvesenet, the price tag varies between 2.35 billion NOK (without any tunnels) to well above 4 billion NOK (with most of the tunnels). Not surprisingly, Vegvesenet wants the cheapest alternative (S4) whereas the locals wants the alternatives with the maximum number of tunnels. In any case, it is in the blue when this road will materialize, although they hope for a start in 2014.

There is also by the way a larger study (KVU) for the whole of E6 / rv 3 in this county (S-Trøndelag). From the stretch discussed above to Trondheim it is already decided that it will be motorway. South of Støren there is also not much doubt if the norm should be followed. The 44 km from Støren to the junction between E6 and Rv 3 there will probably be planned as a 1+1 / 1+2 highway with median crash barrier, everything else (80 km e6 / rv 3) most likely will be planned as a highway without crash barrier. What is a bit peculiar is that this KVU was due in May, but the website has not been updated since December last year....
__________________
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 November 13th, 2011, 04:41 AM   #1628
IceCheese
Scandi-friendly
 
IceCheese's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Canada is my city
Posts: 7,227
Likes (Received): 919

Perhaps they felt another report would be abundant considering all the work they're putting in NTP 2014-23?
E6: http://www.ntp.dep.no/2014-2023/pdf/...07_rute_6a.pdf
and Rv3: http://www.ntp.dep.no/2014-2023/pdf/...07_rute_6b.pdf
__________________
Oslo/Copenhagen - The True Capital of Scandinavia.


Take a look at my Photo Mess!
IceCheese está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old November 14th, 2011, 12:10 AM   #1629
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

Nah, they need to write the KVU by order of the ministry. A more likely explanation is that they are delayed due to the change in AADT limits for divided highways. Still, they ought to write some kind of update on the KVU page, otherwise it does not make any sense to have it at all.
__________________
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 November 16th, 2011, 05:35 PM   #1630
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 Ingenioren View Post
Some animations of E134 Kongsberg Bypass, construction period 2013-2017:


The tollboth at Fv286, Teigen is quite controversial...




















aadt 2040.


2010.

http://laagendalsposten.no/bildegall...e134-1.6320825
Quote:
Originally Posted by IceCheese View Post
I don't get why they won't build full standard motorway while at it. Seems like they're creating some true traffic knots with some of those roundabouts.
Oh my god:

http://www.bygg.no/2011/11/e134-dama...da-blir-dyrere


It seems previous traffic calculations have been wrong, and the road will be built as 4 lanes the whole strecth, not just the parts closest to Kongsberg city. This makes the price tag increase from 1,4 bio to 3,1 billion NOK!!
Crazy? Yes. Short-sighted? Yes. Surprising? Not at all...
__________________
Oslo/Copenhagen - The True Capital of Scandinavia.


Take a look at my Photo Mess!
IceCheese está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2011, 12:20 AM   #1631
devo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 221
Likes (Received): 41

And still through the center of the city with at-grade junctions? Will not surprise me...

Also, not at all surprised that the traffic calculations were wrong. They seems to underestimate almost any new road. But its not always the road authorities fault.

Sometimes this happens: Norwegian road Authority: There will be a 3% rise. We need a motorway. Ministry of Finance: No you are stupid, we know that there will be a 1% rise
so shut up and build the two lane road.

Norwegian roadbuilding: Going reverse into a short-sighted future, one not binding road plan at a time. Politicians: I thought everyone used bicycles or the bus. At least that what they do here in Oslo. What? Are there roads and people somewhere else?
Strong central management I tell you.

Sorry I will be finished with my rant now, but you’ll have to excuse me, cause this situation we have here in Norway is so silly that it almost can compete with the thorium nuclear reactor situation. Almost. Because those things could have saved the world for real and Three Mile Island, Tsjernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi wouldn’t have happened.
devo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2011, 02:00 PM   #1632
Ingenioren
Registered User
 
Ingenioren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oslo
Posts: 5,605
Likes (Received): 584

I suppose it must be an upgrade to full motorway standard when they double the price like that...
__________________
I want to see some construction!
Ingenioren no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 22nd, 2011, 01:28 PM   #1633
Ingenioren
Registered User
 
Ingenioren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oslo
Posts: 5,605
Likes (Received): 584

Recommendations for E39 Førde - Trondheim is out!


http://www.vegvesen.no/Om+Statens+ve...ts=133ca5b2210


http://www.vegvesen.no/Om+Statens+ve...ts=133ca5b7030


http://www.vegvesen.no/Om+Statens+ve...ts=133ca5bf500

Summary:
http://www.vegvesen.no/Om+Statens+ve...ts=133ca5ad008

The juicy stuff is:

-Nordfjord bridge 1,5km span suspension bridge.
-Ørstafjord crossing, 4km long 100m deep tunnel.
-Storfjord bridge 3,5km long floating bridge with 70m sailing height.
-Romsdalsfjord crossing midfjord, 11km long, 310m deep tunnel.
-Romsdalsfjord crossing Julsund, 1,5km long suspension bridge.
-Halsafjord crossing, 2km long suspension bridge.
__________________
I want to see some construction!

Last edited by Ingenioren; November 22nd, 2011 at 01:35 PM.
Ingenioren no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 22nd, 2011, 04:35 PM   #1634
devo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 221
Likes (Received): 41

I don’t understand why they threw option K5 in the trash. Those bends before and after the suspension bridge makes little sense. Also, K5 runs mostly outside the built-up areas. Nicer geometry all over. Well. No really good reason why they dropped it either, only something about K4 already covering the suspension bridge option.
devo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 22nd, 2011, 05:17 PM   #1635
Ingenioren
Registered User
 
Ingenioren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oslo
Posts: 5,605
Likes (Received): 584

Just for being shorter via K4...
__________________
I want to see some construction!
Ingenioren no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 22nd, 2011, 05:53 PM   #1636
Kjello0
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Trondheim
Posts: 394
Likes (Received): 70

There's not many of those suggestions I would support. Yet again Statens Vegvesen suggest using a lot of money on mediocre solutions. Instead of using a bit more money on very good solutions.
Kjello0 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 23rd, 2011, 09:35 PM   #1637
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,572
Likes (Received): 19366

Can you pay with credit card for toll tunnels and bridges in remote locations in Norway? Or do you need to stock up with cash?
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 23rd, 2011, 10:56 PM   #1638
Ingenioren
Registered User
 
Ingenioren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oslo
Posts: 5,605
Likes (Received): 584

Yes you can even most private mountain roads...
__________________
I want to see some construction!
Ingenioren no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 24th, 2011, 08:03 PM   #1639
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 are still some small private roads going to remote mountain areas etc. that do not accept cards , but Chris is probably not very interested in these anyway.....


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kjello0 View Post
There's not many of those suggestions I would support. Yet again Statens Vegvesen suggest using a lot of money on mediocre solutions. Instead of using a bit more money on very good solutions.
I agree, and the biggest mistake, as you say, is to insist that this road should go to Skei. I wonder if that Halsa bridge ever will be built...
__________________
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 November 24th, 2011, 09:46 PM   #1640
Ingenioren
Registered User
 
Ingenioren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oslo
Posts: 5,605
Likes (Received): 584

I wonder how they decided on how to divide differnt KVU. With Lavik-Skei and Skei-Ålesund it was effectively hindered any coastal option bypassing Skei from the start...
__________________
I want to see some construction!
Ingenioren 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