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 July 23rd, 2010, 09:44 PM   #541
Koesj
Historian
 
Koesj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: 050
Posts: 429
Likes (Received): 72

I was planning to do Groningen - Uppsala in a Kangoo but you can't beat €10 tickets from Bremen to Skavsta.

How's the rush hour in Stockholm, is the Essingeleden often jammed?
Koesj no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old July 23rd, 2010, 10:00 PM   #542
rarse
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 188
Likes (Received): 1

Hi kanterberg,

thank you for the photos and comments!



Quote:
Originally Posted by kanterberg View Post
Like the US, Sweden recently started to add s, n, v and ö to road numbers when a destination city is not given on the sign
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanterberg View Post
Approaching the E4-interchange where we can go south towards Stockholm or north towards Uppsala.
So if I understood correctly, here should be E4 s for Stockholm and E4 n for Uppsala.?


Quote:
Originally Posted by kanterberg View Post
A confusing lane indicator sign:
I agree


Quote:
Originally Posted by kanterberg View Post
Is that Mercedes E?


Quote:
Originally Posted by kanterberg View Post
Entering the half-finished ring road
Looks nice. The other motorways in Sweden look pretty rural. And the color of the asphalt is different from central European motorways. It's lighter.

Off topic: Urban or Rural?


Quote:
Originally Posted by kanterberg View Post
tunnel
Looks nice, but pretty unusual tunnel to me. It reminds me on some car driving computer game. :-)
rarse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 24th, 2010, 01:12 AM   #543
Mateusz
Registered User
 
Mateusz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 6,536
Likes (Received): 235

I would say it's Mercedes S Klasse
Mateusz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 24th, 2010, 01:37 AM   #544
kanterberg
Registered User
 
kanterberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 176
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
So if I understood correctly, here should be E4 s for Stockholm and E4 n for Uppsala.?
No, not when a destination city is given. The directional V on the E18 is only given when there is no destination city and when the exit will not take you directly to that road.



Quote:

Is that Mercedes
I think it's an E-klasse but I'm not sure.

Quote:
Looks nice. The other motorways in Sweden look pretty rural. And the color of the asphalt is different from central European motorways. It's lighter.
Most of this strech is in urgent need of a new layer of asphalt, that's for sure

Quote:
Looks nice, but pretty unusual tunnel to me. It reminds me on some car driving computer game. :-)
At least this guy confused the tunnel for fun and games. He's flying a 2 meter RC-plane through the entire length of the tunnel, piloting the plane from his car. At least he's following the speed limit
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-QJL...eature=related
kanterberg no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 24th, 2010, 02:01 AM   #545
piotr71
Registered User
 
piotr71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Beskidy
Posts: 4,300

@kanterberg

I am really happy to see your pictures, mainly because they remind me one of my Scandinavian trip made 8 years ago. I drove on this road from Sundsvall and can say that entering Stockholm made me very impressed.

Another thing is that I could not believe then, how densely congested Swedish capital could be.
piotr71 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 24th, 2010, 02:30 AM   #546
lpioe
Registered User
 
lpioe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,141
Likes (Received): 18

I'm a bit surprised Stockholm is signed via the E20 instead of via Route 40 in Göteborg (Example).

According to Google Maps it's more than 40 minutes longer.

Any explanation for this?
__________________




3ds Max Script to create stadium stands for given c-values


my stadium designs (all WIP / unfinished...)

1 - 2 - 3 - 4

lpioe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 24th, 2010, 11:00 AM   #547
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,578
Likes (Received): 19366

Quote:
Originally Posted by piotr71 View Post
Another thing is that I could not believe then, how densely congested Swedish capital could be.
8 years ago, there was only the E4 and some suburban motorways. The Södra Länken didn't exist back then, and there are not many alternate routes for the E4 around Stockholm due to all the bodies of water. And lets not forget Stockholm is a metropolitan area of 2 million people.

What is needed is that full ring around the center (especially Östra länken) and the Förbifart Stockholm on the west side.

One of the reasons of the Trängelskatt in Stockholm was the overload of traffic that would have otherwise used E4, but since E4 is so congested, they just as well could drive through the city center.

Forcing people off the road by road pricing doesn't work. The best solution is to make an alternate route attractive by it's quality of service, in this case E4 and the Östra Länken. People don't drive through a city center for fun, they only do that if they have to (for example if their origin or destination is there, or when alternate routes are even less attractive).
ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old July 24th, 2010, 01:09 PM   #548
kanterberg
Registered User
 
kanterberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 176
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by lpioe View Post
I'm a bit surprised Stockholm is signed via the E20 instead of via Route 40 in Göteborg (Example).

According to Google Maps it's more than 40 minutes longer.

Any explanation for this?
This is an ongoing debate. Not only is it shorter to take the E4 and road 40, it is a lot faster with motorway standard about 90 percent of the way. However, the Road authority has so far refused to change the signs. According to their principles, they only signpost a city if the road leads all the way to that destination.

There are currently no plans to change the signage. The last time I read an article about it the official comment from the Road authority was: "We assume people have maps and can choose for themselves".
kanterberg no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 24th, 2010, 02:17 PM   #549
kanterberg
Registered User
 
kanterberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 176
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Koesj View Post
I was planning to do Groningen - Uppsala in a Kangoo but you can't beat €10 tickets from Bremen to Skavsta.

How's the rush hour in Stockholm, is the Essingeleden often jammed?
Essingeleden is getting close to its capacity limit. The problem is that after they widened it to 2x4 lanes it doesn't have an emergency strip; you can imagine what happens when there is an accident or just a flat tire - it can get jammed for hours. At since Stockholm is built across a series of islands there really is not that many alternate routes to take.
kanterberg no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 24th, 2010, 06:44 PM   #550
kanterberg
Registered User
 
kanterberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 176
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
What is needed is that full ring around the center (especially Östra länken) and the Förbifart Stockholm on the west side.
I agree! The Förbifart Stockholm has now become an issue in the upcoming parliamentary election in two months. If the center-right government is re-elected construction begins next year. If the red-green opposition wins they have said they will hold a referendum about buildning the by-pass.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
One of the reasons of the Trängelskatt in Stockholm was the overload of traffic that would have otherwise used E4, but since E4 is so congested, they just as well could drive through the city center.

Forcing people off the road by road pricing doesn't work. The best solution is to make an alternate route attractive by it's quality of service, in this case E4 and the Östra Länken. People don't drive through a city center for fun, they only do that if they have to (for example if their origin or destination is there, or when alternate routes are even less attractive).
I think road pricing might work if it is combined with new roads. The problem seems to be that people advocating road pricing seem to think that it can be used as an alternative to buildning new roads.

I also think it is easier to justify road pricing if the money is in some way given back to motorists. In the financing proposal for the Förbifart Stockholm, a huge part of the cost will be covered by means collected as "trängselskatt". Without that money I imagine there would be no room for the Förbifart in the state budget...

...another example is the recently added fourth lane on E4 north of Stockholm. During the construction phase, they put up big signs saying something like "This project was paid for by trängselskatt (congestion tax)".

Again, this is an issue in the election since the oppostion has promised that all money collected from congestion tax will be invested in public transport rather than new roads.
kanterberg no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 24th, 2010, 07:40 PM   #551
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,578
Likes (Received): 19366

Quote:
Originally Posted by kanterberg View Post
I also think it is easier to justify road pricing if the money is in some way given back to motorists. In the financing proposal for the Förbifart Stockholm, a huge part of the cost will be covered by means collected as "trängselskatt". Without that money I imagine there would be no room for the Förbifart in the state budget...
It's kind of weird that the richest countries of Europe cannot make some larger funds available for road projects. The amount of highway spending as a proportion of GDP is very appalling in Scandinavia and the Benelux. A healthy amount is around 2 - 2.5%, but I bet Sweden barely reaches 0.5%.

Quote:
...another example is the recently added fourth lane on E4 north of Stockholm. During the construction phase, they put up big signs saying something like "This project was paid for by trängselskatt (congestion tax)".
I'm sorry, but such signs are only there to create some support for the congestion tax. The congestion tax is absolutely not necessary as a mean to create some extra funding. In most developed European countries, the revenue from automobility exceeds road-related expenditure between 2 and 5 times. It's not the motorists fault that the government don't want to create a larger highway budget. They pay more than enough for it. It's like going to the cinema, pay for 5 people and get 1 seat.

Quote:
Again, this is an issue in the election since the oppostion has promised that all money collected from congestion tax will be invested in public transport rather than new roads.
That is 100% money down the drain. Studies have shown that in European countries, with comprehensive existing public transport systems, significant investment in transit will reduce road traffic by around 1%, which is not noticeable for the daily driver. I'm sorry, but this is legalized theft.

Isn't it weird that people who are already mooching off of the taxpayer by travelling with public transport, should get even more money? Rail advocates always talk about the "subsidized roads", while in fact there is nothing more subsidized than rail and buses. If you pay a bus or train fare, the farebox recovery ratio is at best 30 - 40%. The rest is simply taxpayers money.
ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old July 24th, 2010, 08:43 PM   #552
kanterberg
Registered User
 
kanterberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 176
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
It's kind of weird that the richest countries of Europe cannot make some larger funds available for road projects. The amount of highway spending as a proportion of GDP is very appalling in Scandinavia and the Benelux. A healthy amount is around 2 - 2.5%, but I bet Sweden barely reaches 0.5%.
Something like that. The total budget for the entire transport system is about 2,5 percent of GDP, road projects receive less than half of that.

What’s even more worrying is that on April 1st this year the National Road Authority (Vägverket) ceased to exist! The public authorities for roads, railways, harbours and airports have been combined to a huge authority called The Transportation Administration (Trafikverket). It is responsible for the long-term planning of the transport system for road, rail, maritime and air traffic. I fear this will make it even harder to build new roads when funds are approved for “transport” and not for roads and railways separately.

I think – and please correct me if I’m wrong - that Sweden is the first country not to have a separate authority for road infrastructure. Unfortunately, I fear other countries will follow.


Quote:
I'm sorry, but such signs are only there to create some support for the congestion tax. The congestion tax is absolutely not necessary as a mean to create some extra funding. In most developed European countries, the revenue from automobility exceeds road-related expenditure between 2 and 5 times. It's not the motorists fault that the government don't want to create a larger highway budget. They pay more than enough for it. It's like going to the cinema, pay for 5 people and get 1 seat.
In principle you are absolutely right. However, you have to take into account what the political reality looks like. The congestion tax is not going to be abolished anytime soon. In fact, Parliament recently approved a congestion tax scheme for Göteborg so things are going to get worse before they get better. My point is that if the congestion tax is here to stay it should at least be directly linked to investment in new roads and maintenance of existing roads.

Quote:
That is 100% money down the drain. Studies have shown that in European countries, with comprehensive existing public transport systems, significant investment in transit will reduce road traffic by around 1%, which is not noticeable for the daily driver. I'm sorry, but this is legalized theft.

Isn't it weird that people who are already mooching off of the taxpayer by travelling with public transport, should get even more money? Rail advocates always talk about the "subsidized roads", while in fact there is nothing more subsidized than rail and buses. If you pay a bus or train fare, the farebox recovery ratio is at best 30 - 40%. The rest is simply taxpayers money.
Hear, hear!
kanterberg no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 24th, 2010, 10:28 PM   #553
Attus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Rheinbach
Posts: 2,765
Likes (Received): 1038

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
Studies have shown that in European countries, with comprehensive existing public transport systems, significant investment in transit will reduce road traffic by around 1%, which is not noticeable for the daily driver. I'm sorry, but this is legalized theft.
Basically it is true but in a metropolitan area where a subway or S-Bahn can transport 20-25 thousand people per hour per direction, developing the public transport can be really effective financially as well. It is a proven fact, not only studies ;-)
Attus no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 24th, 2010, 11:45 PM   #554
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,578
Likes (Received): 19366

The number of people transported by public transport says 0.0 about the profitability of a system. NYC's subway is one of the busiest in the world, yet requires massive subsidies.

While transit systems indeed have the capacity to transport massive amounts of people, in this discussion you have to see the link between road traffic and public transport. We're talking about automobility related revenue moved to public transport spending to reduce road congestion. That just doesn't work. If you want to improve public transport, start getting revenue by the people who actually use it. So increase fares. But that's a non-starter for most governments... The idea of the user paying regular price for a service!

Double standards. Apparently, it is considered reasonable to tax motorists to death, but it is not reasonable to let public transport users even pay half of the actual price...
ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old July 25th, 2010, 01:30 AM   #555
RV
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Porvoo
Posts: 726
Likes (Received): 275

Finland has also this year ceased Road Authority (Tiehallinto). The Traffic Authority has taken its place. Not good
RV no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 25th, 2010, 09:40 AM   #556
Attus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Rheinbach
Posts: 2,765
Likes (Received): 1038

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
The number of people transported by public transport says 0.0 about the profitability of a system. NYC's subway is one of the busiest in the world, yet requires massive subsidies.
Right. What I ment is that people that use the subway do not use the roads so the subway reduces the costs of building roads. If all the PT users drove a car there would be big congestions which could be solved only by extremely expensive road constructions (we all know that road construction in a densely built city center can be extremely expensive).
You wrote that PT only reduces the roads' traffic by 1% which is not true for sure. It can be true as an average but if you have a subway it will reduce the traffic of roads located somewhere else by 0.0000% and roads of the same location by 5-50%.
So it is not effective financially in a direct way but indirectly: you spare the price of a motorway in the city center. I you had not the subway, building a 2×3 lane motorway in a city center and maintaining it would be much more expensive for the government than building and maintaining the subway. And if you add parking lots, the effectivity of PT is even better.
The S-Bahn of Berlin transports more than 1 million people daily. 800 thousand cars if all of them would changed to car! Where on Earth could you build roads for that amount of cars in a city where you don't have a single quadratmeter free place?

If you ask me I would do it this way: no tax in fuel price (only VAT and taxes which are built in to the prices of every goods) but road fares for every road, and these fares should be calculated by the construction and maintenance costs of that special road where you pay it. Simultanously the same for PT, cancelling all public subsidies. A large part of PT would disappear within some weeks but the modal split in city centers would move to the favour of PT, I'm sure.

This dispute shall be caesed here because it is not related to the Swedish motorways which are mostly outside the metropolitan area :-)
Attus no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 25th, 2010, 09:43 AM   #557
josem_ss
Registered User
 
josem_ss's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 512
Likes (Received): 24

hey thats real good
__________________
La inteligencia me persigue pero yo soy más rápido.
josem_ss no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 25th, 2010, 10:17 AM   #558
Attus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Rheinbach
Posts: 2,765
Likes (Received): 1038

Here I have some statistics, a result of a public opinion research. In this research we asked only adult people (15+) that are living in cities (so suburban inhabintants were not asked).
For the question of "How often do you use public transport?" 76% answered in Stockholm that they use it at least once a week (39% use it daily) which is the 4th highest value in EU (Paris, London and Prague have higher values).
It's only 10% in Stockholm that uses PT lass then once a month.

The picture is a little bit different if the question is how the respondent travels to his/her workplace/school daily. In Stockholm 48% uses the public transport (about the 25th place out of 75in EU) and only 15% uses a car (the rest walks or cycles). So 3 of 4 that use a motorized vehicle choose the public transport. (Btw. 87% of PT users is satisfied with PT which is the 5th highest value in 75 European cities).

What does it mean? Knowing that a lot of "outside users" (people that are not inhabitants of the city) drive a car in Stockholm as well we can still say that if all the PT users changed to car the road traffic in Stockholm would grow by 100% or more. Knowing the geographical environment I am sure it would reduce the living quality by a lot.

Last edited by Attus; July 25th, 2010 at 10:19 AM. Reason: Some tipos.
Attus no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 25th, 2010, 10:49 AM   #559
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,578
Likes (Received): 19366

That is exactly why I was talking about situations with existing comprehensive public transport systems.

Of course, in a situation where you have zero public transport, it will reduce road traffic if you introduce it. But that's not relevant right now, as we're talking about a metropolitan area which already has an extensive public transport system.

What we're talking about, is the ability of an existing public transport system to reduce road traffic further. Once you have an extensive PT system, it reaches its maximum potential of road users that will travel by PT. That is why further investment in PT may be useful for existing PT users, but not effective to further significantly reduce road traffic. This is the case in Stockholm, and indeed most major European metropolitan areas.

That is why I think that taking road-related revenue (trängelskatt) and proceed them to PT projects to reduce road traffic is money down the drain. I think the PT users should finance further improvements themselves, and not mooching off of road users who don't want to or cannot use public transport. (that's why I was talking about legalized theft, there is nothing a motorist can do to prevent that his tax money will be spend on other fields than roads)

Last edited by ChrisZwolle; July 25th, 2010 at 10:59 AM.
ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old July 25th, 2010, 01:20 PM   #560
g.spinoza
Lord Kelvin
 
g.spinoza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Torino
Posts: 9,480
Likes (Received): 2097

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
Once you have an extensive PT system, it reaches its maximum potential of road users that will travel by PT. That is why further investment in PT may be useful for existing PT users, but not effective to further significantly reduce road traffic. This is the case in Stockholm, and indeed most major European metropolitan areas.
Why is that? As extensive a PT system may be, it cannot reach any destination in a town. If they extend further a system with new destinations and new timetables, it can attract more drivers.

Just an example. Here in my city - Bologna, IT - there's a huge park called Parco Nord, in the northern outskirts of the city. In summer, many concerts and festivals are held there, so it is a popular destination. But there is only one line of buses going there, they are not very frequent and stop at night. So I'm forced to go there by car.
If they upgrade this line, using more buses, more frequently and all night long, I would be more than happy to leave the car home and go there by PT.
g.spinoza no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

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 03:36 PM.


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