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 August 4th, 2016, 11:23 AM   #9001
rudiwien
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,017
Likes (Received): 1173

Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Clerk View Post
Both the EU and the member states decide the corridors, because both have their economic interests, and both contribute with money. For example, the EU ****ed up the RO proposed Brasov-Comarnic motorway, which is/should be a high priority for Romania, whatever the government, because of the traffic - since it was raised up before, I will still mention my mantra.

Sorry, but you seem to not fully understand the concept of TEN-T, the Trans-European Networks / Transport, from which Romania draws most of its funds for motorway construction.

These are aimed at enabling long-distance, international transport corridors from a European perspective, they are NOT aimed at solving primarily local transport issues such as Brasov-Comarnic.

For those, there are other instruments available, primarily the fund for regional development (ERDF), which primarily targets regions (not countries; as such, there are also regions in e.g. Germany that can apply for ERDF grants) that have structural deficits.

It would be possible for Romania to draw also on those funds for non core TEN-T corridors like the one you mentioned. Of course, these in general do not provide such a high funding percentage. Still, the blame for not having anything done between Cormanic and Brasov is primarily on the Romanian governments, which though that PPP is a valid approach for that road.
So, again consider what TEN-T is, why it gets such a high percentage of EU funding - and don't say the "EU ****ed up" this proposal, when Romania didn't even apply for an EU-funded project.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Clerk View Post
Now, coming back to A6, and the bridge at Vidin-Calafat. Let's leave aside feelings, and look at the numbers:

[..]

That is why I argue that if the EU decided to place a bridge where it does not generate the needed traffic for a motorway, it should also come with the money if it wants a motorway to be build. Romania and BUlgaria should ask the EU to double their financial allocations in order to have that corridor built in the next decade. Otherwise, I do not see it built in the coming decade.

I don't know where you get this "the EU decide to place a bridge" from.
AFAIK discussions for that bridge location are much older, and then came back in the mid-end of the 90s, long before either Bulgaria or Romania were members of the EU.

Of course, it was partially paid for by the EU, but as sources say (e.g. http://web.archive.org/web/201105191...dincala_en.pdf), the funding was just above 30%, and the rest was mostly paid for by Bulgaria, with the Romanian contribution rather small. And I am sure that nobody forced you to build the bridge :-)

If you really want to blame someone in the decision for the location for the bridge, please stop your populist approach by putting the blame on "the EU", but rather provide some facts.
__________________

sponge_bob, roaddor liked this post
rudiwien no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old August 4th, 2016, 11:35 AM   #9002
Le Clerk
AUTOBANN.ED
 
Le Clerk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 35,479
Likes (Received): 12044

Quote:
Originally Posted by rudiwien View Post
Sorry, but you seem to not fully understand the concept of TEN-T, the Trans-European Networks / Transport, from which Romania draws most of its funds for motorway construction.

These are aimed at enabling long-distance, international transport corridors from a European perspective, they are NOT aimed at solving primarily local transport issues such as Brasov-Comarnic.
I am sorry but Comarnic-Brasov is on TEN-T, and will benefit from EU funding when indeed Romania will ask for that from the EU, and I hope soon, because it is a priority according to the traffic, actualy even no 1 priority.

Quote:
If you really want to blame someone in the decision for the location for the bridge, please stop your populist approach by putting the blame on "the EU", but rather provide some facts.
I do not blame the EU. I only say things how they are, beyond personal and subjective approaches. The motorway costs EUR 2 billion, the EU doesn't put in the money, Romania doesn't have it, the route does not warrant a motorway. What is the way out ?! I am trying to find out a solution.
__________________
Rebuilding Bucharest's History: Lipscani Area |Victoriei Ave. | Elisabeta Bld.
Yes, it's Dracula's Castle
Best picture collection of UNESCO sites in Romania
Castles and Mansions in Romania
Le Clerk no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 4th, 2016, 12:12 PM   #9003
roaddor
Registered User
 
roaddor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Sofia, München
Posts: 5,440
Likes (Received): 5497

Quote:
Originally Posted by pasadia View Post
Man, I am upset because of your proposal about bridges between Roumania and Ukraine near or inside Danube Delta.

About bridges between Roumania and Bulgaria I could not care less. Of course I know that Roumania was wrong then, but at least they got the best of it (north branch or Corridor IV: Timisoara - Sibiu - Bucuresti - Constanta).

But your choice for a bridge north of Vidin was just as wrong (at leat) - you made a big S forcing people traveling from SE to NW to cross Danube coming form NW towards SE. That bridge should have been build between Gomotartsi and Cetate. Or south of Vidin, at Lom or, better, at Oryahovo, creating thus a direct link between Craiova and Vratsa and Sofia. And if a bridge will be build here, then Vidin - Calafat will finally be seen as what it is: a big mistake.

So another bridge between Roumania and Bulgaria: sure! It seems that you want one at the easternest point posible (Calarasi - Silistra), even if Danube is bridged over just some 90 km away at Cernavoda. And meanwhile the gap between Vidin and Ruse is over 300 km. So yes, if it will be my choosing, I would prefer a direct link between Bucharest and Sofia, somewhere around Turnu Magurele / Nikopol area. And probably just that for the moment.
I was referring to a bridge (singular) at Isaccea which is close to the delta but not inside. The focus, however, is on the missing bridges along our river border.

If you couldn't care less, you just confirm what I said in my previous post.

Vidin-Calafat was chosen for several reasons:

1) It is situated in the most underdeveloped area in EU and one of the poorest in Europe.
2) The route in Bulgaria is following the existing state road I-1 and highway A2 from Vidin to Sofia. We are not going to build a separate, parallel highway there, but an expressway at most till Botevgrad, upgrading I-1. Anything wrong with that? Nobody forces you to drive on it if you don't want to. There is an alternative climbing over the Balkan mountains, which is passable but not recommended for international traffic with heavy trucks. By the way you won't save practically any time if you take the shortcut.
3) Gomotartsi-Cetate?!? I have never heard of these villages. Moreover, it is necessary to build additional infrastructure to them, completely useless.
4) South of Vidin, Lom - the biggest obstacle there was your Natura2000 areas east of Lom right up to Vidin. Besides, our bank is not flat as yours and today's place is the most appropriate in this regard.
5) Oryahovo - increases slightly the distance and increases more the travel time. The infrastructure from Oryahovo to Vratsa is definitely a smaller grade. It is a good possible bridge location serving however another direction for example from Pitesti area.

All in all, Vidin-Calafat is not a big mistake, just the opposite, it is a true success. Check out the statistics from the past couple of weeks. The number of vehicles crossed the bridge is records high since the opening and much higher than the most optimistic forecasts.
Furthermore, take a look at the map. Vidin is a perfect location with respect to Romania connection with the Adriatic Sea. Last but not least, it is also a very good link between Bucharest and Belgrade.

As for the Silistra-Calarasi comment what you have written is total nonsense. Do you make difference between a border bridge and you own bridge having different goals? I am speaking about south-north direction (Silistra-Braila), you are giving me an example for east-west direction (Constanta-Bucharest). Anything about that huge detour?

There are certain problems at Ruse and Silistra now, you evade the question providing a connection of Bucharest and Sofia through minor roads. The capitals 99.9% will be connected through Ruse and Giurgiu with a highway on Bulgarian soil, I guess Bucharest-Giurgiu will also become such. Turnu Magurele-Nikopol is indeed a possible location for a bridge but cannot happen earlier than Ruse-Giurgiu and Calarasi-Silistra.

Let's see what are the conditions:
Ruse-Giurgiu lies on the international corridor IX (unfortunately of no interest to EU so far), constant queues on the Bulgarian side which speaks for itself about the capacity of the old (from the Soviet time) and narrow bridge which needs constant repairement. To a smaller extent the population of Bucharest is above 2 milion and you are implying this bridge at Giurgiu is satisfying Romania?

At Silistra-Calarasi the traffic is already big enough for a bridge there. You don't want to use the ferry from Silistra thus making all the traffic with the heavy trucks go directly into the city and use another ferry, pay attention, only on the Romanian soil. Is this how you understand the transborder cooperation between two EU countries?
__________________

MirceaValahRO liked this post
roaddor no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 4th, 2016, 12:58 PM   #9004
Theijs
Registered User
 
Theijs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 418
Likes (Received): 133

Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Clerk View Post
The motorway costs EUR 2 billion, the EU doesn't put in the money, Romania doesn't have it, the route does not warrant a motorway. What is the way out ?! I am trying to find out a solution.
For that reason finally a feasibility study will be done. The outcome can be that an express way is sufficient for the connection A6 - Craiova - Calafat. Than it's up to Romania to apply for funding. As it is part of a European corridor the project is anyway eligible...
Theijs no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 4th, 2016, 01:07 PM   #9005
pasadia
Registered User
 
pasadia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Brasov / Kronstadt, RO
Posts: 2,241
Likes (Received): 1934

Quote:
Originally Posted by roaddor View Post
3) Gomotartsi-Cetate?!? I have never heard of these villages. Moreover, it is necessary to build additional infrastructure to them, completely useless.
Ok. Take a look on any map and then we can speak about aditional infrastructure. But I admit, than would have made a huge diference cecause of the cost of feroviar infrastructure - and that is another big fiasco about this bridge!!!

Quote:
4) South of Vidin, Lom - the biggest obstacle there was your Natura2000 areas east of Lom right up to Vidin. Besides, our bank is not flat as yours and today's place is the most appropriate in this regard.
Maybe west, not east. And a 40 meters bank (not even step) should have not be a problem for such a project.

Quote:
5) Oryahovo - increases slightly the distance and increases more the travel time. The infrastructure from Oryahovo to Vratsa is definitely a smaller grade. It is a good possible bridge location serving however another direction for example from Pitesti area
Increase the distance and the travel time between what and what? Sofia and Budapest? Instanbul and Viena? Or Botevgrad and Craiova?
Just a quick lesson in statistic: Craiova has 6 time more population than Vidin. Craiova is bigger than Vidin, Vratsa, Montana and Botevgrad combine. Craiova generates enough traffic (including heavy traffic) so that any roumanian investment in that area will have Craiova area in front place. So probably any distance will have to calculate will include by-passing Craiova very near (10-20km away). So maybe thus will make you understand why Oryahovo would have been a wiser decision.

Quote:
All in all, Vidin-Calafat is not a big mistake, just the opposite, it is a true success. Check out the statistics from the past couple of weeks. The number of vehicles crossed the bridge is records high since the opening and much higher than the most optimistic forecasts.
Furthermore, take a look at the map. Vidin is a perfect location with respect to Romania connection with the Adriatic Sea. Last but not least, it is also a very good link between Bucharest and Belgrade.
The forecast was really low, the curent numbers are low (especially during summer season) and the succes in non-existing (just let me remind you about non-existing trains on that route - will have to wait a long time and to invest a lot of money to make the investment in a feroviar bridge worth it).

And no, Vidin does not help conecting Roumania with Adriatic Sea. West and north Roumania goes to Adriatic either through Budapest and M7, either through Timisoara - Belgrad route. Eastern roumanians and Bucharest use the route through Iron Gate's Gorge on Danube bank, as that is a beautiful route to be used during holiday. No one would use Vidin, loosing money crossing the bridge, paying bulgarian vignette for 60 km and waisting time on one more border point that they can surpase.

As for Calarasi - Silistra: there is no need! All the traffic is roumanian goers towards your seaside. But internationally speaking, the traffic is really low. Heavy traffic? Hmm, close to zero, and mostly agricultural products that are meant for Constanta harbour. So this is why I think Roumania should improve land conectivity between Silistra and Constanta by upgrading the road between Silistra and Cernavoda on Danube banks. Doing that we can allow trafic from NE Bulgaria to use the bridge at Cernavoda if they are going north or west or to take A2 to get towards Constanta.

The bridge at Ruse is curently upgraded. Let's wait and see if we will still have quese after that (and no, no holiday traffic included). I would bet that everything will be fine.
pasadia no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 4th, 2016, 01:47 PM   #9006
Le Clerk
AUTOBANN.ED
 
Le Clerk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 35,479
Likes (Received): 12044

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theijs View Post
For that reason finally a feasibility study will be done. The outcome can be that an express way is sufficient for the connection A6 - Craiova - Calafat. Than it's up to Romania to apply for funding. As it is part of a European corridor the project is anyway eligible...
There is no significant difference in costs between a motorway and an expressway, and for that reason, and for safety and confort reasons I would rather see a motorway instead an expressway.

Second, A6 is indeed eligible, but so is A7, A3 (on Comarnic-Brasov, Cluj-Tg Mures), A1 (Sibiu-Pitesti), never mind A0 Bucharest ring etc etc ... all these projects cost a combined 8-10 billion EUR, and each have currently 3-4 times more traffic than the projected A6 , and are in TEN-T, mostly core, so they are EU sanctioned. The overall cost of these priorities is about 4-5 times the EU budget allocation, and it is only about motrways. Obviously, most of these projects will be stretched at least on the coming decade, if not more. And they come before A6 in terms of traffic and in terms of priorities.
The EU allocations are just too small for the amount of works, and Romania will have to manage itself, including by funding certain motorways from the budget, that if the EU allows to increase the budget deficit for motorway investment, which it didn't so far.
__________________
Rebuilding Bucharest's History: Lipscani Area |Victoriei Ave. | Elisabeta Bld.
Yes, it's Dracula's Castle
Best picture collection of UNESCO sites in Romania
Castles and Mansions in Romania
Le Clerk no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 4th, 2016, 03:23 PM   #9007
sponge_bob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,954
Likes (Received): 2205

Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Clerk View Post
Second, A6 is indeed eligible, but so is A7, A3 (on Comarnic-Brasov, Cluj-Tg Mures), A1 (Sibiu-Pitesti), never mind A0 Bucharest ring etc etc .
The A3 is not a core route and the insane numbers of new 'plans' you posted in here over the years will not make it a core route.
sponge_bob no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 4th, 2016, 06:26 PM   #9008
Le Clerk
AUTOBANN.ED
 
Le Clerk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 35,479
Likes (Received): 12044

Way to go Mr Obvious ! Of course A3 is not core, and that's why I didn't argue that. It's TEN-T Comprehensive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Clerk View Post
Second, A6 is indeed eligible, but so is A7, A3 (on Comarnic-Brasov, Cluj-Tg Mures), A1 (Sibiu-Pitesti), never mind A0 Bucharest ring etc etc ... all these projects cost a combined 8-10 billion EUR, and each have currently 3-4 times more traffic than the projected A6 , and are in TEN-T, mostly core, so they are EU sanctioned.
BTW: route between Calafat and Lugoj appears completed on the latest Commission TEN-T documents, probably because it was upgraded under EU financing with a view to the Calafat bridge. Interestingly, the corridor on the Bulgarian side it appears as not upgraded, probably because it is planned to be so:



http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes...x_i_part21.pdf
__________________
Rebuilding Bucharest's History: Lipscani Area |Victoriei Ave. | Elisabeta Bld.
Yes, it's Dracula's Castle
Best picture collection of UNESCO sites in Romania
Castles and Mansions in Romania

Last edited by Le Clerk; August 4th, 2016 at 06:42 PM.
Le Clerk no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 4th, 2016, 07:35 PM   #9009
roaddor
Registered User
 
roaddor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Sofia, München
Posts: 5,440
Likes (Received): 5497

Quote:
Originally Posted by pasadia View Post
Ok. Take a look on any map and then we can speak about aditional infrastructure. But I admit, than would have made a huge diference cecause of the cost of feroviar infrastructure - and that is another big fiasco about this bridge!!!

Maybe west, not east. And a 40 meters bank (not even step) should have not be a problem for such a project.

Increase the distance and the travel time between what and what? Sofia and Budapest? Instanbul and Viena? Or Botevgrad and Craiova?
Just a quick lesson in statistic: Craiova has 6 time more population than Vidin. Craiova is bigger than Vidin, Vratsa, Montana and Botevgrad combine. Craiova generates enough traffic (including heavy traffic) so that any roumanian investment in that area will have Craiova area in front place. So probably any distance will have to calculate will include by-passing Craiova very near (10-20km away). So maybe thus will make you understand why Oryahovo would have been a wiser decision.
Well, well, well... there are still complaints for the already existing bridge at Calafat-Vidin, no matter that Romania is certainly benefiting from it just like Bulgaria, no matter also that Bulgaria contribution was more than that of Romania and the only thing I see for the rest of the necessary bridges are some weak comments lacking any reasonable arguments why we should not build them. Would you feel better if we disintegrate the bridge and move it to Oryahovo?

pasadia, the corridor Orient/ East Med. was supposed to connect from Central Europe the following cities: Vienna, Budapest, Timisoara, Sofia, Thessaloniki, Athens and Istanbul. It addresses also Craiova, so what is your point? If it is so important to Romania, you should have already built an expressway from Craiova to Calafat, right? Even more, the EC allowed the other corridor Rhein-Danube to connect Craiova east with Bucharest with a small stretch west to Calafat. Probably you could make use of some EU support for this tremendous section. Not to mention that the very same corridor Rhein-Danube doubles the route from Arad to Bucharest via Sibiu. So Romania has to be grateful to EU instead, because this is more than so called corridor IV with regards to TEN-T network.

Quote:
And no, Vidin does not help conecting Roumania with Adriatic Sea. West and north Roumania goes to Adriatic either through Budapest and M7, either through Timisoara - Belgrad route. Eastern roumanians and Bucharest use the route through Iron Gate's Gorge on Danube bank, as that is a beautiful route to be used during holiday. No one would use Vidin, loosing money crossing the bridge, paying bulgarian vignette for 60 km and waisting time on one more border point that they can surpase.
For the coast SE from Omis/Makarska who knows... the Serbs are making their A2 to Bar so Walachia, Moldavia and part of Transilvania could use it.

Quote:
As for Calarasi - Silistra: there is no need! All the traffic is roumanian goers towards your seaside. But internationally speaking, the traffic is really low. Heavy traffic? Hmm, close to zero, and mostly agricultural products that are meant for Constanta harbour. So this is why I think Roumania should improve land conectivity between Silistra and Constanta by upgrading the road between Silistra and Cernavoda on Danube banks. Doing that we can allow trafic from NE Bulgaria to use the bridge at Cernavoda if they are going north or west or to take A2 to get towards Constanta.
Posting of the month

Quote:
The bridge at Ruse is curently upgraded. Let's wait and see if we will still have quese after that (and no, no holiday traffic included). I would bet that everything will be fine.
An urgent repairment was carried out ... until the next one. Upgrade is something quite different.
roaddor no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 4th, 2016, 07:42 PM   #9010
roaddor
Registered User
 
roaddor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Sofia, München
Posts: 5,440
Likes (Received): 5497

Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Clerk View Post
I've seen this argument from Bulgarians on and on, that Romania is not interested in improving the infrastructure connections with Bulgaria. This is wrong on so many levels that I find it useless to explan but I go anyway.

First, the bridge at Vidin-Calafat. Why on earth would the EU project financing for Vidin-Calafat and put it on a EU corridor, and not ensure funding for a motorway from Sofia to Vidin and from Calafat to Arad ?! (BTW: the EU reimbursed both Romania and Bulgaria in the end for the construction costs, so it's not actually correct that BUlgaria and Romania bore the brunt of costs there). At least on the Romanian side, the motorway would have to cross the mountains, which would imply a approx 2 billion EUR cost, which is what Romania gets from the EU for infrastructure during 2014-2020, and which is obviously not enough ! So, from my point of view, it is the EU who did not do a proper job all the way. If you fund EUR 300 m for that bridge, then you should pull off EUR 3 B or more for the motorway Sofia-Vidin-Calafat-Arad (or just before Lugoj now, where the 10 km A6 motorway starts).

Second, the road from Drobeta to A6-A1-Nadlac has been upgraded and is VERY GOOD. I just drove on it, but to my surprise the traffic generally is ridiculously low on Romanian standards, and even lower on trucks. I was expecting something else, driving intesively on Craiova-Pitesti, Sibiu-Brasov, Ploiesti-Brasov, Braila-A2, nevermind DN2, Bucharest-Iasi. To my mind, E70 (Drobeta-Lugoj) is overly sufficient for the traffic now (you can do by-passes really easy), and it would be honestly and objectively one of the last priorities acording to traffic in Romania. But if you add up the cost of the motorway there, which would be in the 2 billion, it would be totally mad to basicaly leave any other motorway project aside just to build a motorway that is not warranted at all. That is why I think that the EU should've put the money where its mouth is, and find EUR 2 billion to compplement the bridge at Vidin - Calafat with a motorway thorugh the mountains connecting Sofia to the bridge and further to the A1 in Romania.

Finally, we would love to build motorways on ALL corridors, but that would cost us at least 10 times what the EU has pledged so far. And we cannot increase the budget deficit either, also because of the EU deficit limitations. That sucks and we have to deal with the limited resources.
I am not talking about the infrastructure leading to the bridges but the bridges themselves. They are the common thing between us and at the same time the biggest bottleneck. How we and you will spend the available resources for one road or the other is completely our and your own business. Moreover, we would build the objects one at a time and once again both countries pay for the bridge. We could even search for EU support reagrding the one at Giurgiu-Ruse.

Why EU didn't provide more? Simply because they don't want to give such amount of money to Romania and Bulgaria. By the way, when Serbia joins EU this corridor (Arad-Calafat-Vidin-Sofia) will not be preferred. The resources are not enough but this is the reality and it is better to build whatever we can than do nothing.
The largest part of the funds for the bridge Vidin-Calafat came from EU, true. I said that the shares from the state budgets of Bulgaria and Romania, because the countries also took part in its construction, were not equal. We made actually a compromise to sooth your aspirations to build the first bridge at Turnu Magurele-Nikopol (a ludicrous idea then) and consequently paid more.

The question with the deficit is just an instrument from EU to twist hands but credits are taken for many other things regarding the state economy which certainly impact the deficit in the end.
roaddor no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 4th, 2016, 07:58 PM   #9011
sponge_bob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,954
Likes (Received): 2205

Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Clerk View Post
There is no significant difference in costs between a motorway and an expressway, and for that reason, and for safety and confort reasons I would rather see a motorway instead an expressway.
Might be true if Romanian expressways are like Polish S Roads...show me a modern Romanian expressway so.
sponge_bob no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2016, 07:57 AM   #9012
Le Clerk
AUTOBANN.ED
 
Le Clerk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 35,479
Likes (Received): 12044

Quote:
Originally Posted by sponge_bob View Post
Might be true if Romanian expressways are like Polish S Roads...show me a modern Romanian expressway so.
Romania didn't build expressways so far. There were and still are plans to build expressways, but so far they were turned into motorways. For example, A10 Sebes-Turda was initially planned as an expressway but it was later upgraded to a motorway from the project stage, and it is built as a motorway. And I hope this will be a similar approach to A7 or any other expressway planned.

However, prices for a DX are almost identical to those of a motorway, that is why it is not worth building an expressway instead of a motorway.

LE: the existing CB (Bucharest ring) south is planned to be expanded to a full expressway in the coming years, on EU funds, and I hope it will be so.
__________________
Rebuilding Bucharest's History: Lipscani Area |Victoriei Ave. | Elisabeta Bld.
Yes, it's Dracula's Castle
Best picture collection of UNESCO sites in Romania
Castles and Mansions in Romania

Last edited by Le Clerk; August 5th, 2016 at 11:05 AM.
Le Clerk no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2016, 11:24 PM   #9013
Le Clerk
AUTOBANN.ED
 
Le Clerk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 35,479
Likes (Received): 12044

Quote:
Originally Posted by roaddor View Post
I am not talking about the infrastructure leading to the bridges but the bridges themselves. They are the common thing between us and at the same time the biggest bottleneck. How we and you will spend the available resources for one road or the other is completely our and your own business. Moreover, we would build the objects one at a time and once again both countries pay for the bridge. We could even search for EU support reagrding the one at Giurgiu-Ruse.

Why EU didn't provide more? Simply because they don't want to give such amount of money to Romania and Bulgaria. By the way, when Serbia joins EU this corridor (Arad-Calafat-Vidin-Sofia) will not be preferred. The resources are not enough but this is the reality and it is better to build whatever we can than do nothing.
The largest part of the funds for the bridge Vidin-Calafat came from EU, true. I said that the shares from the state budgets of Bulgaria and Romania, because the countries also took part in its construction, were not equal. We made actually a compromise to sooth your aspirations to build the first bridge at Turnu Magurele-Nikopol (a ludicrous idea then) and consequently paid more.

The question with the deficit is just an instrument from EU to twist hands but credits are taken for many other things regarding the state economy which certainly impact the deficit in the end.
I agree Romania and Bulgaria need more bridges than the existing 2, because they are EU member and it is ridiculous to be connected only on 2 existing bridges.


BUT, and this is a key point which people miss. These connection points are not on necessarily a pan-EU corridor because Romania is not a transit country between Orient and the West. That is Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, and then Hungary. This corridor is from a long time and it will be so. Damn, even the refugees follow it. The war in FRY was an accident that made the EU build the bridge at Vidin-Calafat, and then forsook it because the war was over, and so was the the so-called alternative. Hence, the lack of serious investment from the EU in this route. Let's be serious. If the EU wanted it an alternative corridor, it'd have put the right money there, which is not even that much if you think how much money the EU put in other crises situations.

Then come the mountains. If you want to build a corridor through Romania, you need to cross the mountains no matter where you put the corridor. OK, you build the bridge at a cost of over 200 million Euro, but then you need 10 times more to build the connections for a corridor, and you do not foot the bill for that. It doesn't sound logic to me, unless it's how I argued: the bridge was an accident, and the former standard corridor through Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary stays, while the bridge will continue to be only a connection between Romania and Bulgaria mainly, and not a pan-EU corridor.

Romania has a real chance of a corridor which is via-Carpatica, but that only after Ukraine solves its issues with Russia and joins EU, which both are very distant.
__________________
Rebuilding Bucharest's History: Lipscani Area |Victoriei Ave. | Elisabeta Bld.
Yes, it's Dracula's Castle
Best picture collection of UNESCO sites in Romania
Castles and Mansions in Romania

MirceaValahRO liked this post
Le Clerk no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2016, 10:16 PM   #9014
roaddor
Registered User
 
roaddor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Sofia, München
Posts: 5,440
Likes (Received): 5497

Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Clerk View Post
I agree Romania and Bulgaria need more bridges than the existing 2, because they are EU member and it is ridiculous to be connected only on 2 existing bridges.

BUT, and this is a key point which people miss. These connection points are not on necessarily a pan-EU corridor because Romania is not a transit country between Orient and the West. That is Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, and then Hungary. This corridor is from a long time and it will be so. Damn, even the refugees follow it. The war in FRY was an accident that made the EU build the bridge at Vidin-Calafat, and then forsook it because the war was over, and so was the the so-called alternative. Hence, the lack of serious investment from the EU in this route. Let's be serious. If the EU wanted it an alternative corridor, it'd have put the right money there, which is not even that much if you think how much money the EU put in other crises situations.

Then come the mountains. If you want to build a corridor through Romania, you need to cross the mountains no matter where you put the corridor. OK, you build the bridge at a cost of over 200 million Euro, but then you need 10 times more to build the connections for a corridor, and you do not foot the bill for that. It doesn't sound logic to me, unless it's how I argued: the bridge was an accident, and the former standard corridor through Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary stays, while the bridge will continue to be only a connection between Romania and Bulgaria mainly, and not a pan-EU corridor.

Romania has a real chance of a corridor which is via-Carpatica, but that only after Ukraine solves its issues with Russia and joins EU, which both are very distant.
We are neighbours after all and we have to open new bridges which are of our mutual interest, both locally and internationally. Romania is a transit country may be not in the same degree as Bulgaria with regards to Orient (Istanbul)-Western Europe but it takes part in the whole chain. Moreover, Romania is definitely a transit country reagrding the direction Aegean Sea-North (Baltic Sea and Ukraine). There is unused potential in this respect, all the traffic that is generated in Bulgaria from Turkey, Greece toghether with our own, heading north, is pouring into Romania. There are two officially recognized corridors, one is the TEN-T Orient/East Med. passing through Vidin-Calafat, the other one is corridor IX Northern Greece-Romania-Ukraine-Baltic Sea-Russia, adding to it also the traffic from Istanbul. This corridor IX crosses Danube at Ruse-Giurgiu.
The above two are the corridor bridges, the other two at Silistra-Calarasi and Oryahovo-Bechet have their own meaning in the region and at the same time will serve additinal traffic either Northeast or Northwest respectively. By the way the TEN-T corridors should be built by 2030 at the latest as far as I know so there is still time for the remaining sections Lugoj-Calafat and Vidin-Botevgrad to be done.

There are no standard and non-standard corridors, everybody selects where to drive depending on the destination. I don't understand how you conclude that there should be a pan-european corridor in order to build a bridge, this is not a prerequisite at all. We build these bridges to improve and facilitate the crossings over the 470km long river border, we cannot expect that each bridge lies on a separate corridor.

I will be glad to see an expressway Warsaw-Lvov-Bucharest along your A7 but as far as Via Carpathia is concerned, what has Ukraine to do with it?

__________________

MirceaValahRO liked this post
roaddor no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 8th, 2016, 12:07 AM   #9015
Theijs
Registered User
 
Theijs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 418
Likes (Received): 133

[RO] Romania | road infrastructure • autostrăzi şi drumuri

From Bucharest to L'viv shows Google Maps these Via Carpatica options.
Is traveling via the EU faster and cheaper?
Theijs no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 8th, 2016, 01:09 PM   #9016
sponge_bob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,954
Likes (Received): 2205

Ò
Quote:
Originally Posted by roaddor View Post
. There are two officially recognized corridors, one is the TEN-T Orient/East Med. passing through Vidin-Calafat, the other one is corridor IX Northern Greece-Romania-Ukraine-Baltic Sea-Russia, adding to it also the traffic from Istanbul. This corridor IX crosses Danube at Ruse-Giurgiu.
The above two are the corridor bridges,
I thought the EU had abolished the 1990s era Roman Numeral Corridors I II III UP to X for planning purposes and have no policy whatsoever to improve them.
They are in the Ten T Comprehensive network which is every main road in the whole EU (which gets almost no money from Brussels)
sponge_bob no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 8th, 2016, 02:09 PM   #9017
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,562

Quote:
Originally Posted by sponge_bob View Post
I thought the EU had abolished the 1990s era Roman Numeral Corridors I II III UP to X for planning purposes and have no policy whatsoever to improve them.
The Roman numeral corridors weren't an EU thing, but a UNECE thing (or at least the UNECE took the lead in administrating the project for the signatories of the agreement). They were 10-15 year priorities in 1994, with additions made in 1997 (pushing the '10-15 years' scope to 2012?). They lapsed out.

The EU worked with the UNECE on it, especially after 2004 when much more of the network was now inside the EU, but it wasn't something that was EU-led.


In 1994, at a different conference (Essen rather than Crete), the EU made TEN-T, which (obviously) focused on the EU countries that were mostly in Western Europe, rather than the Central and Eastern Europe of the Pan-European Corridors. I can't find a map of the pre-2013 corridors, but (presumably) the EU added to them with expansion. The EU then reworked them in 2013 to make these EU's 2015-2030 TEN-T corridors

(NB: this is not the same as the core network, which has a sprinkling of other routes too (grey on this metro style map)

This is the EU's TEN-T road network, but if the EU-Ukraine relationship develops, then I can see Ukraine getting TEN-T routes drawn in like the Balkans countries and Turkey (no core when it comes to roads, merely comprehensive). There's also TEM from the UNECE that doesn't ignore Ukraine. The revised network of 2010 added Tamopol-Lviv to cut a corner off a Warsaw-Lviv-Focsani-Bucharest route (it also added Bucharest-Brasov-Cluj-Satu Mare-Ukraine)
__________________

sponge_bob, rudiwien, MichiH, EduardSA liked this post

Last edited by sotonsi; August 8th, 2016 at 02:57 PM.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 8th, 2016, 02:23 PM   #9018
sponge_bob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,954
Likes (Received): 2205

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
The Roman numeral corridors weren't an EU thing, but a UNECE thing (or at least the UNECE took the lead in administrating the project for the signatories of the agreement). They were 10-15 year priorities in 1994, with additions made in 1997 (pushing the '10-15 years' scope to 2012?). They lapsed out.


The EU then reworked them in 2013 to make these EU's 2015-2030 TEN-T corridors

(NB: this is not the same as the core network, which has a sprinkling of other routes too (grey on this metro style map)


This is the EU's TEN-T road network,

Excellent History Lesson Sotonsi. Spanking.

I spent a long time trying to get Leclerk to ignore his corridor vii places and stuff and then I gave up as they simply refused to understand Ten-T core corridors and kept ranting Roman numerals back at everyone.
sponge_bob no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 8th, 2016, 05:16 PM   #9019
roaddor
Registered User
 
roaddor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Sofia, München
Posts: 5,440
Likes (Received): 5497

Simply speaking when EU expanded, the TEN-T corridors moved into the corresponding countries. In Southeastern Europe, Orient/East Mediterranean corridor follows exactly the route of Pan-European corridor IV (with an exception of the branch towards Romania capital and Black Sea coast, covered by Rhein-Danube TEN-T corridor) because it is the only road corridor there wholy on EU territory. The other Pan-European corridors are not imporatant to EU because they cross non-EU countries. Part of them go inside the so called European core network to complement to some extent the TEN-T network and to ensure the obvious connections with the neighbouring countries. The rest is left in the comprehensive network.
When Serbia joins EU, corridor X as it is referred now will probably become part of Orient/East Med. corridor or will be given another name.
The same can be said for Bosna and Herzegovina where corridor Vc will become part of so called Mediterranean corridor which spreads from Spain to Hungary.
roaddor no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 8th, 2016, 07:30 PM   #9020
ukraroad
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 482
Likes (Received): 104

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theijs View Post
From Bucharest to L'viv shows Google Maps these Via Carpatica options.
Is traveling via the EU faster and cheaper?
From Lviv, no.
The road chosen is both the fastest and the cheapest(I mean the road in blue). From Ivano-Frankivsk follow the road via Kołomyja. Via Mukacheve it is a large detour, however, the road is more scenic
ukraroad no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
highways, infrastructure, motorways, romania

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 09:25 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