SkyscraperCity Forum banner
1181 - 1200 of 3354 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
170 Posts
Status report on the E22 motorway upgrade in southernmost Sweden:



Blue: motorway
Red: motorway under construction
* Hurva-Rolsberga, finished December 2012, AADT 16600
* Rolsberga-Fogdarp, finished autumn 2013, AADT 12000
* Hörby-Linderöd, finished December 2012, AADT 9000
* Sölve-Stensnäs, finished December 2014, AADT 10000-13000
Pink: regular road (2+1 in the east), motorway planned, new alignment (OpenStreetMap), starts 2014 at the earliest, AADT 9000-14000
Orange: regular road (2+1), motorway planned, starts 2021 at the earliest, AADT 14000
Yellow: expressway (2+1), motorway not planned for now
Black: regular road
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
396 Posts
I think the long term plan is to upgrade the 2+1 stretches eventually, but naturally they have lower priority than the undivided 2 lane stretches, given that divided 2+1 (In this case, even grade separated) stretches have higher capacity and safety in comparison.
 

·
Rail & Road traveller
Joined
·
2,804 Posts
Video of the E18 motorway construction in the northern suburbs of Stockholm.
Thanks for the link, that E18-road is a slow and congested stretch. I have driven there numerous times as a taxi driver. They need a new motorway, but I also think the expansion of concrete is an eyesore which soon makes Stockholm look like L.A. People must not forget to use the metro, buses and trams in their commute.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
125 Posts
Has Sweden put up E16 signs yet along the approved new route, or are there still issues to be resolved before the new route can be implemented?
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
55,001 Posts
^^

E16 har 2011 blivit förlängd från Norge till Sverige via sträckningen Hønefoss–Gardermoen–Kongsvinger–Torsby–Malung–Vansbro–Borlänge–Falun–Gävle. Den nya sträckningen i Norge omfattar delar av riksvägarna 35, 2 och 200. I Sverige kommer E16 att följa nuvarande länsväg 239 fram till Torsby, gå gemensamt med E45 upp till Malung och därpå följa nuvarande riksväg 71 till Borlänge, riksväg 50 till Falun och riksväg 80 fram till Gävle, där den ansluts till E4.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
396 Posts
Given how bad some E-roads are in north Sweden, the bar has been set as low as it can be. Thus, nothing is stopping the authorities from signing pretty much any road as an E-road.

30km/h speed limit

At-grade rail crossing

Clearly, the objective of new E-roads today is to attract tourists, and not to improve infrastructure. In my opinion, an E-road should be minimum 8,5m wide, not go through villages and built up areas, have acceptable curvature/profile and as low number of at-grade crossings as practically possible. If these requirements aren't met, Riksväg is a better option.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
117 Posts
Me myself living in Gävle of course think it will be nice to have a second E-road leading to our city. :)

But I also think that both the traffic volume using the road and the standard of the road are far from great for an E-road, APART from the stretch from Gävle to Falun/Borlänge which is an important national road today, with quite good standard (motorway: Gävle - Sandviken, divided 3-lane road: Sandviken - Falun, and then motorway again: Falun - Borlänge)
And since there already are 3 E-roads going east - west, north of this road and in waaay less populated areas this can´t be that bad I think.

New road signs with "E16" will be put up from August to September.

But here´s a "sneak peak" of a road sign already up with the new road number on it.
It was just put up behind fences at a construction site (expansion of Hemlingby shopping center) by the southern E4 exit to Gävle.


The entire route:


 

·
Funkin' down the Track
Joined
·
706 Posts
In my opinion, an E-road should be minimum 8,5m wide, not go through villages and built up areas, have acceptable curvature/profile and as low number of at-grade crossings as practically possible. If these requirements aren't met, Riksväg is a better option.
The Geneva Convention sets the standards for E-routes, and those pretty much mirror your remarks. It even contains guidance on the exact minimum curvature and profile depending on the design speed of the road.

But all the minimum characteristics set forth in the Geneva Convention are only at "should"-level, so national road authorities have room to deviate from the minimum standards. This room for manoeuvre was intended to permit E-routes to run through difficult areas - mountains in particular. In urban areas, the minimum characteristics are disapplied completely, even though the Convention says that built-up areas are to be bypassed where they form a hinderance or danger.

I think that this system has worked pretty well over the years. In fact, the Dutch administrative courts have tested proposed projects on E-routes against the minimum requirements of the Geneva Convention and whether the DOT could lawfully deviate from these requirements under its room for manoeuvre. What you see in Scandinavia and more to the East is that E-routes are being proclaimed of which everybody knows that they are not constructed at E-route standard and will never be brought at E-route standard, while there is no obvious reason to deviate from the principles because of difficult terrain. Then I think that the system is becoming a scam to attract tourists.
 
1181 - 1200 of 3354 Posts
Top