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 September 17th, 2012, 05:51 AM   #1861
MattiG
Registered User
 
MattiG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Espoo FI
Posts: 1,795
Likes (Received): 613

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
The level of traffic shown in these animations is probably a factor of 10 or so higher than can be expected at a sunny summer day decades from now, but probably 2x2 is needed in order to get sufficient stability in most of these fantacy concepts...
The construction cost would be astronomical. The estimated construction cost of the Messina bridge was 6.1 billion (6100 million) euros a few years ago. Estimating the cost being proportional to the square if the length, the Sognefjord bridge would cost 10-15 Beuros.

The crossing time with the current ferries is about 20 minutes. Thus, one ferry can make a round-trip in 60 minutes. Putting 12 ferries, there would be departures every five minutes causing a reasonable waiting time with a reasonable cost.
MattiG no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old September 17th, 2012, 04:49 PM   #1862
Kjello0
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Trondheim
Posts: 394
Likes (Received): 70

The Messina Bridge was supposed to have six lanes and a double track railway. In addition it's in a active volcano and earthquake zone. Sognefjorden is neither. And building a suspension bridge with a railway is damn expensive. Fright trains can only have a 1,5 % gradients. While cars easily do 5 % and some sub sea tunnels are even 10 %.

A suspension bridge across Sognefjorden will probalby cost somewhere between 10 and 15 billion kr. Personally I want the bridge 15 km to the west. Where the fjord can be crossed with a 3 km long suspension bridge. And not 3,7 km as in this case.
Kjello0 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2012, 08:15 PM   #1863
ElviS77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 564
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattiG View Post
The construction cost would be astronomical. The estimated construction cost of the Messina bridge was 6.1 billion (6100 million) euros a few years ago. Estimating the cost being proportional to the square if the length, the Sognefjord bridge would cost 10-15 Beuros.

The crossing time with the current ferries is about 20 minutes. Thus, one ferry can make a round-trip in 60 minutes. Putting 12 ferries, there would be departures every five minutes causing a reasonable waiting time with a reasonable cost.
It's going to cost a pretty penny, no doubt. Personally, I agree with you, there are far more important projects to spend billions on - even when it comes to fjord crossings. I don't think anyone would suffer terribly with a single ferry down the entire Norwegian west coast (the other fjord crossings are simpler and make more sense and some of them are even at a more advanced planning stage), but it will eventually come down to politics. If the west coast coalition promoting the ferry free E39 get enough support, the Sognefjord crossing might very well happen. I also expect to see a similar campaign for a ferry free E6 (just the one crossing, but not particularly busy and very expensive to replace). That's the nature of Norwegian politics...
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2012, 08:21 PM   #1864
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,572
Likes (Received): 19366

I must say I'm appealed to that floating cable-stayed bridge idea.

A 3.000+ meter suspension bridge is far beyond anything that's been done so far. Plus the pylons would have to be a staggering 450 meters tall.

A floating tunnel seems unsafe to me in case of cruise ships hitting the floating platform.
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2012, 08:27 PM   #1865
ElviS77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 564
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
I must say I'm appealed to that floating cable-stayed bridge idea.

A 3.000+ meter suspension bridge is far beyond anything that's been done so far. Plus the pylons would have to be a staggering 450 meters tall.

A floating tunnel seems unsafe to me in case of cruise ships hitting the floating platform.
A collision with a heavy ship would be an issue for either of the floating proposals. 100 000+ tons moving at 15+ knots isn't going to stop or deflect just like that, so I reckon there needs to be some form of "crash barrier" in place if such a solution were to be chosen.
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 18th, 2012, 02:42 AM   #1866
devo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 221
Likes (Received): 41

You also have the same problem with oil platforms, but i see the point. Easier to hit when there are four or five together in a row on a spot where there is a lot of cruise traffic.

I personally like the suspension bridge, then the floating cable-stayed bridge. The submerged stuff seems doable in theory, but I think it will be hard to convince people that it will be safe (which it has to be).

If the suspension bridge is built, we will have:
– The longest suspension bridge in the world (3,7 km, Sognefjord)
– The longest regular road tunnel in the world (26 km, Lærdalstunnelen)
– The longest and deepest undersea motorway tunnel (twin tube, ≈380 m below sea level, ≈25 km long, Rogfast)
– The deepest undersea regular road tunnel (287 m below sea level, Eiksundstunnelen)

I say go for it.

(Yes, Rogfast has to be approved but it seems close enough? Ryfast will steal the glory from the japanese anyway)
devo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 4th, 2012, 10:50 AM   #1867
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,572
Likes (Received): 19366

E39 Rogfast

Vegvesen put the plans for the 25.5 kilometer, 4-lane, 2-tube, -392 m below sea level tunnel to public consultation.

Most interesting is a diamond interchange with roundabouts. Normally this would be pretty normal, until you consider this interchange is approximately 270 meters below sea level under the fjord.



ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 4th, 2012, 10:51 AM   #1868
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,572
Likes (Received): 19366

more:




ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 4th, 2012, 10:57 AM   #1869
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,572
Likes (Received): 19366

I did some checking with Google Earth, and the E39 may be the second lowest accessible road in the world.

The lowest is a side road from Israeli route 90 near Kalya that leads to a resort at the Dead Sea. This road is at approximately -404 m. At the same time, Jordan route 65, on the opposite side of the Dead Sea, runs a bit higher than the sea/lake level, and -392 m was the lowest I could find during my browse through Google Earth.
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 4th, 2012, 11:05 AM   #1870
g.spinoza
Lord Kelvin
 
g.spinoza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Torino
Posts: 9,473
Likes (Received): 2087

It seems too titanic a work for two places already connected with tunnels and such.
g.spinoza está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old October 4th, 2012, 04:23 PM   #1871
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 g.spinoza View Post
It seems too titanic a work for two places already connected with tunnels and such.
They are? You have to drive via Haukeli to keep your feet dry if you don't take any ferries.
__________________
Oslo/Copenhagen - The True Capital of Scandinavia.


Take a look at my Photo Mess!
IceCheese no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 4th, 2012, 04:36 PM   #1872
Galro
Humanity through Urbanity
 
Galro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,340
Likes (Received): 10026

Quote:
Originally Posted by g.spinoza View Post
It seems too titanic a work for two places already connected with tunnels and such.
The bigger problem is that there live more than three farmers and a dog in the vicinity which means it breaks with one of the core principle behind large-scale Norwegian infrastructure spending.
__________________

:jax: liked this post
Galro no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 4th, 2012, 04:41 PM   #1873
g.spinoza
Lord Kelvin
 
g.spinoza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Torino
Posts: 9,473
Likes (Received): 2087

Quote:
Originally Posted by IceCheese View Post
They are? You have to drive via Haukeli to keep your feet dry if you don't take any ferries.
Now I watched paying more attention, I saw the dotted stretches marked with "tunnel" and the last one was also dotted, so I assumed it was a tunnel too. I didn't read "ferge" (and if I did, I wouldn't immediately realize it means "ferry").
g.spinoza está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old October 4th, 2012, 04:54 PM   #1874
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,572
Likes (Received): 19366

The shortest alternate route that does not include a ferry is a 500-kilometer detour.

ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 4th, 2012, 07:11 PM   #1875
Ingenioren
Registered User
 
Ingenioren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oslo
Posts: 5,605
Likes (Received): 584

And even that route is closed for six months per year!
__________________
I want to see some construction!
Ingenioren no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 4th, 2012, 07:33 PM   #1876
Wover
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Tallinn, Estonia
Posts: 680
Likes (Received): 128

Quote:
Originally Posted by Galro View Post
The bigger problem is that there live more than three farmers and a dog in the vicinity which means it breaks with one of the core principle behind large-scale Norwegian infrastructure spending.
Haha this made me laugh a lot . I seriously don't get the huge spending on big ass tunnel and bridge projects that aren't actually that necessary when in other places the roads are just crumbling apart or need to be widened (and this is a tourist speaking who drove 400km on the E6 at 80kph which is just ridiculous for the road connecting Trondheim with Oslo).
Wover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 4th, 2012, 08:32 PM   #1877
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,572
Likes (Received): 19366

Well these projects offer huge time-savings for traffic. They also reduce the subsidy needed for the ferries. For symbol politics, it also reduces CO2 emissions.
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 4th, 2012, 10:31 PM   #1878
devo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 221
Likes (Received): 41

There will be 100 km/h on most of the main tunnel, except the last bit before the exit on the northbound tube which will be 90 km/h. The danes who made this video (i think?) has forgotten that every motorway get's 100 km/h even though they officially have to apply for the increase from 90 km/h.
devo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 5th, 2012, 08:26 AM   #1879
MattiG
Registered User
 
MattiG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Espoo FI
Posts: 1,795
Likes (Received): 613

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
The shortest alternate route that does not include a ferry is a 500-kilometer detour.
What is the problem of ferries?

Of course, the timetables limit the freedom to travel. Still, the ferries are often rather a cost-effective way to handle the traffic compared to fixed links.
MattiG no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 5th, 2012, 10:49 AM   #1880
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,572
Likes (Received): 19366

The problem with this ferry is that the tunnel is 40 minutes faster. Considering this is in an area with multiple fairly sizable cities, I'd say those 40 minutes are definitely worth it.
ChrisZwolle 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 09:36 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